find nowhere in the constitution, my friends, does that provide for. furthermore, mike pence said the procedure like this, he said, denounced deem and pass and, quote, trampling on the traditional rules of the house and the senate and even on the constitution of the united states of america. . michelle bachmann, apparently may be a candidate for president said this, the deem deem and pass, quote, ignored the constitution and warranted the impeachment of the house speaker. quote, there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this. this resolution -- can i have an additional one minute? i thank the gentleman. something like this. which says contrary to the constitution, if the senate doesn't act, this bill becomes

law. nobody on your side surely believes that that can happen. nobody believes that that joke that we are trying to play on the american people on april fool's day will be believed by any of them. and my friends do not tell me about your concern about the deficit because the deficit during my period of time except for the last two years trying to deal with the deep depression in which the last administration left this economy, don't try to tell me that we are responsible for the debt, the $14 trillion of debt. surely my friend knows that's not the case. if my friend doesn't know it, i would be glad to set up a time when we can debate that issue and any -- in any form he chooses because the facts belie his representation. my friends, reject this bill, reject this bill because it is a fraud on the american public. reject this bill because it's an attempt to shift blame from the house of representatives passing a bill that can in fact pass not

to say to the senate our way or no way and we will shut down the government because that's what this bill says. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from virginia about whom i say regularly back home as a reputation -- i'm sorry, maryland. we have virginia on my mind today. pardon me, mr. hoyer. our friend from virginia. mr. hoyer: virginia's a good state. mr. woodall: i tell sfokes back home has a great reputation for fair dealings. tremendously disappointed by that characterization of the bill. i'd like to yield five minutes to the bill sponsor to set the record straight on what the bill is. mr. hoyer: i thank you for his observation and regret he thought it was a mischaracterization because i thought it was accurate. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr.

speaker. thanks to the gentleman for yielding. yes, there's been a lot of conversation in washington about the prospect of a government shutdown. while i realize there are some in this congress who might prefer that option, i am not one of them. let me just add our leader is not one of them. frankly, we think it's irresponsible. our constituents did not send us to washington to shut down the government. they sent us here to make it more accountable to the people. and that's precisely what house republicans have been doing. exam the facts. when the curtain came up on this congress, we were already three months into this fiscal year. with no budget and on a temporary spending plan through early march, this house went to work crafting legislation that would fund government for the

rest of this fiscal year while delivering on our pledge to cut spending. the response from the senate, not so fast. so we kept government operational with a two week continuing resolution in hopes that the senate would realize the sense of urgency that accompanies our fiscal situation , and in that two-week span of time, the response, not interested. again, this house went to work crafting another temporary measure that funds government through next week. and my friends' -- and my friends, patience is wearing thin, not just mine and of my colleagues, but the patience of americans. in our collective opinion, time's up. mr. speaker, we all agree that we have some bigger fish to fry. pressure on the statutory limit on debt and more importantly the 2012 budget loom very large

right now for this country. instead of focusing on these issues critical to our struggling economy, here we are mired in partisan gamesmanship over funding the government for the remainder of this year. did we come here to fish or did we come here to cut bait? this bill simply puts the clock in action on this process. i am hopeful my colleagues will agree that the time is now to move beyond 2011 so that we can turn our attention to the bigger challenges of transforming this institution and restoring fiscal sanity. that's what the people sent us here to do and every day we fail to do this work, the people lose. we have been called extreme. h.r. 1 which passed in the early morning hours on this floor on february 19 cuts an annual -- on

an annualized basis, $100 billion in federal spending. that's 1/16 of the deficit. 1/16. is that extreme? i don't think so. mr. speaker, it's unfortunate that people across america trying to find jobs, trying to pay their mortgages, and trying to have the funds to put their kids through college are victimized by this flawed political process. instead of removing the uncertainty for small business and job creators by cutting spending and shrinking the size and reach of government, we are paying games with the -- playing games with the future of our nation. if this is our best, our best falls short of the expectation of those we represent. we can do better. we should do better. and if we can -- if all we can show for our work is a shut down of the government, we will have

failed our constituency and should not be paid. the gamesmanship going on right now is gambling with america's future and it's hard to make progress when you're playing on house money. h.r. 1255 forces members to have skin in the game. and if passed by both chambers and signed by the president, we'll have the proper motivation to setaside the rhetoric and actually accomplish something that is good for america, a climate for job creation. not a government shut down. i urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can do the people's work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield myself four minutes. let's do a quick review of the year. it's been 13 weeks since the republicans took over the majority.

leading up to that point we heard the mantra, where are the jobs? so you might expect on day one of the 112th congress they would bring us a jobs bill to the floor. but no. when the republican majority did with great fanfare was to conduct a reading of the constitution. and as if our oath of office wasn't enough, also implemented a new house rule which required legislation to be accompanied by a statement of constitutional authority. in fact, my fellow colleague, from south carolina, joe wilson, read allowed article 1, section 7. what does it say? every bill shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate. shall before it becomes law be

presented to the president of the united states if he approved, he shall sign it. but if not, he shall return it. now, ladies and gentlemen, we all learn in grade school how a bill becomes a law. we'll get back to that in a moment. so 13 weeks ago when republicans took the majority, up to that point we heard from them, where are the jobs? so then what was the first bill we were asked to vote on? the first bill was to repeal the health care law. democratic policies created more jobs in the last year than the bush administration created in eight years. since health reform became law,

1.1 million private sector jobs have been created. 1/5 of those new jobs, over 200,000, have been in the health care industry. so repeal of the health care law would end jobs not create jobs. but surely at some point in the last 13 weeks the republican majority would have brought to this floor a jobs bill. three months and no jobs bill. in fact, we have passed three bills that will destroy more than one million jobs. which brings us to this moment, the so-called government shutdown prevention act of 2011, and article 1, section 1 of the united states constitution. i've read it. but i want to repeat a certain

portion of it. every bill shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall before it become the law be presented to the president of the united states. but the bill before us today, not a jobs bill, says that if the senate doesn't act prior to the expiration of the continuing resolution, h.r. 1, a budget bill passed only by the house, will become the law of the land. it's very simple. that is unconstitutional. we do not have a unicameral legislative body. then what do they cite the constitution authority that must accompany each bill? there are a lot of words, but only a parliamentarian expert

could understand -- parliamentary expert could understand. but if you ask my daughter's eighth grade class that visited us here earlier this week, they could tell you -- i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: they would tell you that's not how things work under our constitution. but don't listen to me. or her eighth graders at dent middle school. listen to what some of your colleagues in the other body have to say. our colleagues in the other body made it very clear, my reaction to that is ultimately the whole body, including the executive branch, has to sign on here or we'll julls -- we are just whistling in the wind. said alexander of tennessee, to be the law of the land a bill

has to pass the senate and be signed by the president. one of our own, the appropriation subcommittee chair, representative mike simpson, after laughing out loud said, if we can do that, can't we just deem the budget balanced? madam speaker, i know it's april 1st, so maybe that's the point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i ask my colleagues on the other side to let's hit this joke and get serious. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a very serious reform minded freshman, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me time. i rise as a co-sponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

i have worked tirelessly with my colleagues to pass a continuing resolution that saves taxpayers money and keeps the government running. while the other body as we continue to hear has done nothing but complain. are they blind? are they deaf? do they not see, do they not hear what the rest of the people in this country see and hear in terms of this country's financial crisis? in terms of this country's debt, in terms of what we are doing to our children and grandchildren by continuing to do nothing, madam speaker. we waited 41 days for them to send us a funding bill and we've got nothing. at least the members who will be voting for this bill, who will be voting in favor of this bill, are showing leadership. are showing the american people that we care about the future of

this country. and that we do care about jobs. show me one country on this globe that can grow its economy, that can grow jobs, while having the beat of government on the neck of its people, neck of its businesses all the time. and just like our -- the overregulation we do right now through the federal government, that debt burden is doing the same thing to job creation. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from kentucky, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kentucky is recognized for three minutes.

ms. delauro: the majority the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: the majority is disrespectful of the u.s. constitution. and all because of their political base and to benefit their political base. this bizarre attempt to deem and pass into law their reckless budget is not only hypocritical and blatantly unconstitutional -- unconstitutional, where is the statement of the constitutionality of this legislation? i'll ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, read the constitution. it calls into question whether the speaker and the republican leadership understand how our representative democracy works, and that includes the author of this legislation. the house cannot simply close their eyes, pretend that the senate and the president have passed and signed a bill into law. it does not work that way. when the bill actually pass the senate, the senate has actually

passed the bill. and when the president picks up a pen and puts his name on it and not a second before, that bill has been signed into law. no matter -- no amount of magical thinking can change these simple facts. even notwithstanding the gall of the republicans' unconstitutional plan, the very attempt to pass a deem and pass act flies in the face of all of the pearl clutching we heard from the majority in 2010. then when a simpler version of deem and pass came up during the health care debate, one that did not fly in the face of the constitution and attempt to speak for the senate and president, the current speaker called it one of the most dangerous, outrageous things he'd seen in the congress. cantor put the republicans on record against any sort of deem and pass mechanism. a year later the story has changed.

now, most of all, this is a die version from the reckless cuts the majority proposed, the slashes to head start, pell grants, meals on wheels, veterans, job training, medical research, all cuts that hurt middle class and working families. we are still waiting for the republicans to cut the special interest waste like the oil company subsidies and the tax loopholes for the richest people in the nagse. and what about those tax subsidies for those multinational corporations that takes their jobs overseas? you're not starting there to cut the deficit, but, no, it's about working families and their children that you're going after. you are taxing the patients of the american people and you're taxing the memories of our founding fathers who educated us and children in grade schools today on how a bill

becomes a law. the republican majority is playing a dangerous game. if they do not get what they want they will shut the government down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentlelady 130ekds. ms. delauro: you are playing with the lives of the american people. their kids, their families and with american businesses. no matter what those damaging effects are because of ideological reason and political base and electoral votes, you are willing to put the united states and its people above all working families, middle-class families and their children and our economy at risk. please, read the constitution, understand how this democracy works and take this bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: and do away with it.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to my good friend, a freshman from mississippi, mr. dunly. -- mr. dunlly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. nunnelee: it's been over 40 days and the democrats in the senate have failed to act on a spending plan. if our government shuts down our troops won't get paid. now, they'll still be serving this great nation but without pay. we need to ensure there are no political burdens while our troops are at war. as the department of defense has indicated, a funding lapse does impact their military's operational readiness. the american people cannot wait.

congress cannot wait. while while the democrats in the senate play politics. we've given them ample time to put forth a reasonable plan, yet, the majority leader in the senate is not serious about spending reform. while the democrats will be cheering for a government shutdown, republicans have passed the largest spending cut in american history. and our actions are having results. just this morning it was announced that the unemployment rate was at a two-year low. americans are going back to work because of our efforts. meanwhile, what's happened this week? the senate democrats have spent the week diverting attention, trying to figure out how to spin reporters, and today while the shutdown is imminent, they've gone home. well, the cuts that the american people want, they're not extreme. they're necessary. when we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar what our

children and grandchildren's future in jeopardy, these cuts are far from extreme. it's time for the senate to act. our goal is to cut spending, not to shut down the government. back in mississippi we have a saying, lead, follow or get out of the way. mr. reid, today you're in the way. so i challenge you today to lead by passing a plan of your own, to follow by adopting the plan that we've already passed. if you can't do either of those, get out of the way and allow the senate to act. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, several students

from key elementary school came to the office. they were excited to be on capitol hill. i explained this afternoon we are debating bail, it's been introduced by what we call the freshmen, new members of the house, that says if the senate doesn't agree with a big bill that the house has passed that the senate doesn't agree next week then this bill would deem it passed. in fact, deem it enacted. they were shocked because that's not what they learned in civics class. they learned that a bill has to be passed by the house and then passed by the senate and then it goes into conference and then if the president agrees to sign it then it can become law. but not this bill. i was at a loss, of course, to explain how it was constitutional. they were kind of surprised that this is what the house was doing. they wanted to know, well, what is the bill they want to be enacted.

it is a bill i don't agree with and the senate doesn't agree with. because while we have a lot of people unemployed, this would make apparently about 700,000 more people unemployed, according to even republican economists. so they were even further amazed by that. it also would eliminate a lot of regulations that have been passed by the house. it would -- through a lot of deliberation but it just says those regulations wouldn't take effect. so it's a very controversial bill. now, i was also able to tell them i did suggest to the rules committee yesterday that the majority rejected there is something we could do today and that is to say that if we put our staff out on the street without pay who get a fraction of what we get paid and we put another million federal employees out on the street unpaid then the congress shouldn't get paid either. the senate did in fact pass that unanimously, including

senator mcconnell, obviously. so if we passed that today then we could put the country on record. we're not going to -- could i have another 30 seconds? mr. clyburn: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. mr. moran: at least today we could put ourselves on record that we're not going to put people out on the street while we continue to get paid because we get paid from a different authorization as does the president. now, this is legislation we could get passed, that the senate agrees and could go fought president right away. i know the president would sign it. that's what we should be doing today, not something that even a 10-year-old understands is unconstitutional. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to a gentleman from your home state, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kissinger.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: madam speaker, we are in a mess. we are throwing barbs. we've been in charge for four years and had the presidency for two years and it's not our fault and we don't want to do anything to fix it. so in fact here last year when you had all of the majority, when our friends on the other side of the aisle had all the majority they failed to do the most basic thing that you ought to do when you run something, you pass a budget. no budget was passed because the november elections were coming up. you didn't want to have to make the tough choices that would hurt you in re election and you didn't want to have to go through that route so you didn't pass a budget. you passed a continuing resolution. guess what, the american people in november spoke. they said the federal government is entirely too big

and the big bloated bureaucratic government is crowding out the free market. and so what happened? we were sent here to washington, d.c., to control the size of federal government and we're doing exactly that. and we passed a minor cut, a significant but a cut to just a small part of the budget. we're not even talking about the 2012 budget year. that's coming up, but our friends on the other side of the aisle don't even want to show us what -- where they're at. they can't cut spending. they don't want to say no to people. the american people and the children are asking us to say yes to the future. i'm a military pilot. that's what i do as a reservist. i have friends wondering if we're going to get paid. i say, ask harry reid. i don't know. we try to make sure you continue to get paid through this. i have a friend, tim norton, who runs a company back home. and as he's sending kids to college and as he's building his small business he doesn't know if he can trust in the faith of what this government

is going to be in the future because our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to do anything to begin to rein in this out-of-control government. we do. pass this bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from south carolina. there was some good news today finally that 214,000 americans went to work last month. that's not nearly good enough. there's radio more work -- there's a lot more work to do. one of the ways is to come to an agreement on a responsible budget. i'm hopeful there will be such an agreement next week. that senseably reduces spending but pro-- that sensiblely reduces spending but leads to a repeal of health care.

the other side believes we should. whether or not to defund planned parenthood. we believe we shouldn't. most of the other side believes that we should. leave those discussions to another day and keep the government functioning because the taxpayers will keep paying taxes even though there's a government shutdown. they pay even if they don't get the services. so what are we doing this afternoon? what we're doing this afternoon is looking at a bill that's on its face is unconstitutional. and the reason we're looking at this bill is so that members of the majority side who probably won't vote for the budget compromise next week can say they did something. well, doing something that's unconstitutional is wrong. as mr. clyburn read article 1, section 7, says, every bill which shall pass the house of representatives and the senate

shall before it become a law become presented to the president. article 1, section 5 of the constitution says, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. what's wrong with this bill is that one house, our house, is determining the rules of the other house's, the senate's, proceedings. you can't do that. it's a pretty simple concept, and i've heard all the convoluted arguments on the other side. i've heard all the twisted rationalizations. it comes down to this. if this afternoon the senate passed a budget that our friends on the majority side doesn't like and our friend on the majority side doesn't pass that budget in a week it becomes law they wouldn't agree to that because they would know that it's unconstitutional.

this is the same thing. . it is ironic that with great fanfare on the first week of this session, after running a campaign saying they would produce jobs, what the majority produced was a reading of the constitution on this floor. i thought it was appropriate. i thought it was actually moving and the right thing to do. the wrong thing to do is to ignore what we read the first week. each house may determine the rules of its proceeding. we can't determine the rules of proceeding for the senate. they can't determine the rules of proceeding for us. this is a bad bill. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, my good friend, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding. you-all remember the story about

an old man of great faith whose town was about to be flooded? the town was being evacuated and its water was already covering the roads. the old man sat on his porch calmly unafraid. a car pulled up to the house, the water almost too deep to drive in. the driver yelled, get in. we'll take you to safety. the old man shook his head and said go on, i have faith a god. he'll save me. the car moved on. a short time later the water had risen so high it covered the porch. so the old man simply went upstairs. a boat floated up to the house and the people yelled get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man said again, go on, i have faith in god. he'll save me. so the boat went on. hours later the water had risen so it almost covered the ep tire house. the old man was now on his roof when a rescue helicopter came in. they called get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man refused, saying go on i have faith in god. he'll save me. the helicopter left. the water rose so high the old man drowned.

he went to heaven of course and when he arrived he asked god, i had faith in you to save me. why didn't you? god answered, i sent you a car, a boat, and a helicopter, what more do you want from me? i hope my democrat colleagues in the other chamber and this president understand that this bill is their helicopter. you had a chance to propose and pass a budget for 2011 last year when you-all had unfettered power in washington. you had over a month now to address h.r. 1, a bill that cut a near $100 billion from our -- mere $100 billion from our budget. today we are giving you a third chance to avoid a government shut down. please grab on to this lifeline and work with us to prevent a government shut down that could have international consequences. vote yes on h.r. 1255. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. owens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. owens: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. clyburn. when i heard that this bill was coming forward, i had an opportunity to reflect on the fact that i had been having conversations with my constituents. and in each case i posed to them how we are proceeding here in congress. and asked them if in fact they could accept a small across-the-board percentage decrease for f.y. 2011. invariably each and every one said yes. i have been on record for many months as suggesting that we can solve this problem, walk away from the ideology that's dividing us, and simply reduce spending by 2%, which i think if one does the math gets us to the position that our friends on the other side of the aisle would like us to adopt.

it is clear to me after practicing law for more than 30 years part of which was a j.a.g. officer in the united states air force that clearly this is an unconstitutional piece of legislation and is nothing more than spinning in the wind. i had the opportunity the other day when i saw the make up of this bill to write to the speaker, mr. boehner, along with 27 other co-signers and asked that s. 3le 88 -- s. 388 be separated from this legislation. this legislation is not moving forward, and if in fact we do see a government shutdown, we in congress should share the pain. we have that responsibility, that obligation, and we must lead by example. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to one of my fellow freshmen, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. griffin i thank my good friend for yielding me time. madam speaker, i commend my fellow arkansans for introducing the government shutdown prevention act and i strongly support its passage. i'd like to say real quickly what we have seen here in the last few minutes is a colossal waste of time. you had a bunch of folks saying, madam speaker, that this is unconstitutional. i just want to clarify so we can move past that and if my colleagues is -- can focus this argument where it matters. we intend for this bill like all other bills to pass the house, to pass the senate, be signed by the president. i, too, am a j.a.g. officer from the army an i think the j.a.g. officer, madam speaker, from the air force would understand that. this is a constitutional bill like the other bills that we introduce here.

now, why are we here today? 41 days ago this house passed a $100 billion spending cut from the president's 2011 budget that. bill kept the government operating. we did our job here. there was another house down on the other side of the capitol and we are here because they have refused to do their job, 41 days later, zero bills. we have heard some suggestions here today. and maybe we ought to do a across-the-board cut. i suggest that if they got any friends on the senate side that they go down there and see if they will propose a bill with some kind of cuts, because so far it's zero. zero bills from the senate on this. senator harry reid thinks our plan goes, quote, too far, end quote. we have heard a lot of people using the word extreme because that's a scary word. let me tell you, the only thing

around here is the national debt. you want to see extreme, that's extreme. senator harry reid believes that shutting down the government is perfectly acceptable. in fact, we have seen with the pollsters and pundits and howard dean and others that they want to shut down the government. i don't want to shut down the government. i want to cut spending. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: 30 seconds? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: i don't want the government shut down. i want spending cut. i have a question of how -- what a shut down would do to our armed forces. the airmen and the soldiers in arkansas that are in my district , senator reid has failed to come up with a credible plan of his own. they can't cut just a few billion dollars. even though we have a g.a.o. report that indicates $100

billion to $200 billion could be saved by getting rid of duplicative programs. if the senate is unwilling to make the small cuts, how in the world are we ever going to be able to make the bold decisions -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield one minute to the democratic leader of california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in this debate this afternoon. i have been listening to it very intently. i heard the debate on the rule this morning and then the debate this afternoon. and some questions have arisen. first, i want to state a fact. the fact is is that every single one of us in this body, as our

first act, raises our right hand to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. the bill that we have on the floor before us does violence to those provisions in the constitution that describe how to pass a bill. not by one house deeming it but as our distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn, described, his daughter's school children and her class could tell you that you pass one house, you pass another house, it's signed by the president. but that seems to be missed by the makers of this resolution today. again mr. cly bush talked -- clyburn talked about the constitutional authority to bring this bill to the floor. it's truly a mystery how you can take an oath of office to protect the -- and defend the

constitution of the united states, bring a bill to the floor in violence of that, and justify it actually. i have heard the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier, say that we had some visiting parliamentarians here who were watching this debate to see if america, congress can get its job done. please don't pay attention to this. what you see on the floor today is no example of democracy in action. it's silly. the republican leadership is asking its members to make a silly vote. and it's time for us to stop that silliness and get serious about the creation of jobs. get serious about not shutting down government. abdicating our responsibilities and shutting down government. i have heard mr. hoyer earlier today talk about how we got here in terms of this budget deficit. we all know that we must reduce

the deficit, that's why during the clinton years as mr. hoyer said, we reversed the first bush deaf, came out with a trajectory of fiscal responsibility, going into surplus. the last five clinton budgets were in surplus or in balance. but because of tax cuts for the rich, two unpaid-for wars, and prescription drug bill that gave away the store to the pharmaceutical industry, we came back into deficit, the biggest swing in fiscal irresponsibility in our country's history, and now we have had to deal with that. and what is the answer that the bush administration gave us? tax cuts for the rich, that's how you create jobs. we didn't. that's how you reduce the deficit. we grew it. i think it's important when we are talking about the deficit, which we all agree must be cut,

and we are talking about jobs, to note that in the first year of the obama administration more jobs were created in the private sector than in the eight years of the bush administration. tax cuts for the rich did not produce jobs. cuts in initiatives to educate our people and keep us healthy and safe, those cuts did not create jobs. so here we are today at the end of the week wasting the public's time on a notion, not even an idea, on a notion that does not rise to the level of a credible idea that one house can deem a bill the law of the land. i also heard on the floor of the house a call for smart reid, leader in the senate, to take up h.r. 1. he did. it failed. not even the republicans all voted for it in the united

states senate. three republican senators voted against h.r. 1 in the senate. perhaps you don't know the date, but it did happen. and it is -- it's stunning to hear this debate that talks about visiting parliamentarians seeing an example of good government in action. no. wrong. so what could be the explanation for this? mr. clyburn suggested it could be april fool's and at the end of this debate the gentleman will withdraw the amendment, apologize for wasting the public's time, and say this is only an april fool's joke. because that's the only thing that it complies with. it does not comply or conform with honoring the constitution. it does not create jobs. it does not reduce the deficit, and it does have the support of the democrats in the house of representatives. with that, i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds just to remind the gentlelady that article 1, section 7 says all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives. we failed to do that in the last congress and that's why the gentleman stands here today with this bill proudly. with that i yield two minutes to a very good freshman, my colleague, the gentleman from la, mr. landry. mr. landry: when i first elected, i declined my health care benefits because i don't believe we can fix a system we are not a part of. i declined my retirement benefits because our social security system is broke. . i support this bill because if the american people have to endure a government shutdown, which is the result of the

failure of the senate democrats, then none of us, including the president, should expect the american people to continue our pay. until we fix this budget mess. the funding for the federal government is 182 days old. democrats on the senate have failed -- democrats have failed to pass a budget for 182 days. 182 case, that's an entire school year. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what would you think if your child's teacher did nothing for the entire school year. our constitution authorizes congress to be the power of the purse. it is our job to set a responsible and affordable budget for the federal government each year. and if we can't do our job we should not be paid. mr. speaker,, it is time for the -- mr. speaker, it is time for the democrats in the senate to do their job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. i'm sorry, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hastings: i thank my good friend from south carolina. david fishburg wrote in 1975, "i'm just a bill," and this has been utilized -- i utilized it yesterday. my friend, mr. woodall from georgia, used it today. i encourage the american public to understand that my friends know how a bill becomes the law. h.r. 1, the measure that we have been talking about, really did pass the house of representatives and it went over to the united states senate and it was rejected. the president also said that he would veto h.r. 1 if it reached his desk. so what we are doing here is symbolism. and my friends on the other side are entitled easily to message anything they wish to address their base. but don't bring it to the

american public under the ages of this is something serious. it is not. it is absurd. it is a complete waste of time. and even more important, as has been said by many, and i believe everybody on the other side understands, it's unconstitutional. it also has not gone unnoticed that my friends who advocated rightly that there should be transparency in addition to being transparency that measures should be allowed to be read before they're utilized. the leadership of the house of representatives held a press conference before any member of the house of representatives saw mr. womack and mr. woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess what must be happening here is we are wasting our time on unconstitutional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hastings: we are wasting

our time on pate antley unconstitutional measures. i won't go into all of the details about the need to address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people. but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. we're here because the democratic majority last year did not do their job, did not give us a budget, did not do proper appropriations and now the senate has had the same problem. and so i applaud anybody's

efforts in trying to move the ball down the road so that we can appropriate. i just wish the senate would do their job now and take care of it. but for a bill to say provisions are passed -- that pass the house or hereby acted into law violates my conscious and the constitution. i cannot vote for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, may i inquire as to how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 11 minutes. mr. clay: may i reserve the balance of my time to let the other side catch up? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to one of my freshman colleagues, the

gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: it's been funny hearing the discussion this isn't constitutional. now, let me see -- it's a piece of legislation with a trigger mechanism in it. ok, i know the other side doesn't like that trigger but it would still require the senate to pass it and the president to sign it. if i go back to a -- and it was fun seeing something from my childhood of the 1970's "how a bill becomes a law." it's how it becomes a law. it's not the gamesmanship of oh, it's april fools' day, let us demagogue this piece of legislation. what's important here is the american people know we're taking the job seriously, and giving the senate another chance, another chance to step up and do their job. we're sitting here how many weeks after we passed

resolution -- you know, h.r. 1? and we're still doing this dance. at some point the american people have to expect us to do our job. and if we don't do our job not a single one of us here, the administration and in the senate deserve a paycheck. madam chairman, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i think we need to reiterate, we just had a very principled statement of the gentleman from texas. i think we need to rise above partisanship. the gentleman from texas said he agrees with the proposition that the bill is unconstitutional. i would urge members, madam speaker, to listen to that example of principle. we don't agree on all things but we should all rise to honor our oath of office and vote on

this based on pure constitutional grounds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend and mentor, the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, when a patient is bleeding to death on an operating table, we as doctors do everything that we can to save that patient's life. we don't just walk away and we certainly don't call it quits. well, that's what the democrats want to do. they want to call it quits on our spending crisis, and the worst part is they are doing it for their own political games. democrats in congress are intentionally plotting this government shutdown and they hatched their plan months ago, i believe. if they wanted to, democrats could have passed a long-term

continuing resolution during the lame dug session without making any -- lame-duck session without making any spending cuts at all. but instead they passed a short-term spending bill so they could play the shutdown card right now. the democrats' political game of wedging conservatives between unexacceptable cuts and a government shutdown is an insult to the gravity of the plan. it's an insult to american families who are struggling to make ends meet. it's an insult to all of the american people who are out of work and it's an insult to us in congress, the members of congress who are serious about trying to put this country on a road to recovery, economic recovery. it's pitiful that the democrats have wasted so much time stalling over these minimal cuts in their own self-interest. while our country is financially bleeding to death, we should be focused on trying to revive our economy rather than bickering about $61

billion when we already borrow almost $60 billion per week. madam speaker, since the democrats refuse to stop their political games and get to work, those over in the senate, in particularly, i urge my colleagues to pass the government shutdown prevention act so that we can do our jobs and start frying to heal our economy and create jobs in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, there's no stronger supporter of h.r. 1 than mr. gohmert from texas, and he made a very simple, very eloquent statement of principle, about adhering to the constitution. this legislation has to be interpreted by its own words, not by what people say is in it. and what it explicitly says, if the house has not received a message from the senate before april 6 stating that it has

passed a measure providing for the appropriation for the departments and agencies of government for the remainder of the fiscal year, and this is the language of your legislation, the provisions of h.r. 1 as passed by law on february 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. that's absurd. it's a pretend bill that says that if the house acts and the senate doesn't our action becomes law. it's absurd. it says that if the house acts the senate doesn't and the president doesn't sign this piece of legislation it's law. that's the document that you presented to this body to vote on. now, mr. gohmert took the higher road here where instead of taking out his frustration with the united states senate at the expense of the constitution he stood up for

the constitution. and that's what each and every one of us have an opportunity to do. all of us have frustration with the other body because they sit on bills. in the eyes of the beholder it's a good or bad bill du it does not entitle us to pretend that the constitution does not apply to the legislation that we have to consider. also, if we have a political impractical problem of moving ahead on a piece of legislation in the house, is it right for us in effect to mislead the people that sent us here by suggesting that we're passing a law that has any impact when we know it has absolutely no impact? is that a fair or appropriate or honorable thing for a democrat or a republican to do? i urge us to vote no on this legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to answer my friend from vermont's question which is not the appropriate thing to mislead the american people. so i'll just read one more --

one more time the -- having passed the house, having passed the senate and be signed by the president. that's the regular order. i'll say to my friend, i'm sorry we didn't have that time to finish our discussion in the rules committee. i'm sorry we were called away by votes. i yield two minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i came here to fight for my constituents. i didn't come here to shut down the government. my state has the highest unemployment. they look at the reckless spending in washington and they get angry. it's just this simple. they don't spend money they don't have. so why does washington? this bill prevents members of congress and the president from getting paid if the government

shuts down. i get it, the american people get it, why doesn't washington get it? it's something any business owner or logical individual anywhere in america can understand. if you don't work you don't get paid. maybe this just makes too much sense for washington. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. weiner: my friends, one of the experience we had in the opening days of experience that we read the constitution and i think one of us had the great good fortune to read article 1, section 7, every bill shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall before it became law be presented to the president of the united states. he has how a bill becomes a

law. now, this is how eric cantor on 3/30/11 said a bill becomes a law. the senate's gotta -- this is just the transdescription. i just assume it's the southern thing. the senate's gotta act prior to the expiration of the c.r. if it does not act, meaning, if the senate does not do something, h.r. 1 becomes the law of the land. that's not true. that's not constitutional. that's not fitting of this body. now, it is, however, consistent with the -- how the majority party has been governing around here. they passed rules that they've ignored. for example, on january 5 they had members of their caucus take the oath in front of a television set. on february 9 they failed to provide constitutional authority for a bill despite that it was one of their rules. on march 13 they failed to get a 3/5 majority for passage of a bill that raise tax rates despite the fact that it was part of the rules. on march 17 they failed to make

a bill available within 72 hours despite the fact that it was part of the rules. and just march 30 they failed to include an offset for new government program. the rules are not a big thing for them to follow because this is why it's hard, it's a big book. i brought you this, house mouse and senate mouse which is sold in the gift shop to teach children how to understand the constitution. it's the floor of each chamber the senate and house where each senator and evening congress mouse gets to vote on a bill and if enough do, if enough do, this president signs it if he likes to. well, the senate mouse -- mice, the senate mices haven't passed this yet. perhaps if this were the rules that the republicans had to follow, it's a much thinner book and it rhymes, maybe you'd get it right. but this is not the constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. woodall: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: members in the gallery are reminded they are not to participate. mr. woodall: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia -- from georgia has 6 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from south carolina has two minutes. mr. clyburn: who has the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has the right to close. mr. clyburn: how many speakers do you have left? mr. woodall: we have no more speakers. mr. clyburn: six minutes left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia 6 1/2 minutes. you have 2 minutes remaining. mr. clyburn: i'd like to reserve. mr. woodall: if the gentleman is prepared to close. we have no more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i have often

referred to this palatial hall as our nation's classroom. it is the reason i feel that we should not just stand here to enunciate precepts but as elected leaders we ought to lead by example. therefore, madam speaker, i think it's important for us to bring legislation to this floor that we demonstrate to those young children in classrooms all across america that we will not fly in the face of that constitution that all of us are sworn to uphold. i believe that it's a good thing to want to move a measure, but

we ought not do so while violating the constitution of the united states. and i think it's a good reason that the senate rejected h.r. 1. because all of the economists who evaluated that piece of legislation made it very clear that to them it would destroy 700,000 jobs. that bill, h.r. 1, is a job killer. it also, that bill, h.r. 1, will say to little preschool children in head start, we are terminating your educational experience by at least 200,000 of you. will no longer have an educational experience. madam speaker, i think it's laudatory for us to put our

hands on the constitution, swear to uphold it, but i think that what is most important is for each and every one of us to lead by example. enunciating precepts for empty gestures. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. we have had a lot of talk about children on the floor today. we have been reading children's stories and being shown children's books. i have been harkened back to my own childhood in the 1970's and schoolhouse rock and for folks who have not seen the schoolhouse rock entire d.v.d. now, i recommend you pick a copy up for the young people in your life. it really is a fantastic beginning step about what it is we are all about. what it is we are all about. the preamble is in that schoolhouse rock.

no more kings in that schoolhouse rock category. what they talk about is what does it mean for us to be americans? and what it means is folks elect their representatives and they send them to washington, d.c., and say get your business done. get your business done. that's what we are trying to do with this resolution here today. get our business done. i just want to read from the bill. i'm so thrilled that so many americans watch what we do here on the house floor to hold us accountable, and i'm so saddened by all the misinformation that's circulated. i read directly from the bill. if the house has not received a message from the senate before april 6, 2011, stating it has passed a measure providing for the appropriation for the departments and agencies of the government for remainder of the fiscal year 2011, the provisions of h.r. 1 as passed by the house are hereby enacted into law. this bill we sent to the senate for the senate to pass, the president to sign, those provisions are hereby enacted

into law. i want to study that closer. if the house has not received a message from the senate stating that the senate has passed a measure providing for the appropriations of the united states government. folks may be wondering, madam speaker, why is it that we are doing that now? wasn't that supposed to be done last september? yes, it was. it didn't get done. should that have gotten done last december? yes, it should have, but it didn't get done. so we are here today to get it done, 41 days ago we passed a bill to fund the government. this entire body worked its will on a process that was as opened as this house as seen. democrats and republicans working together. republicans winning amendments. democrats winning amendments. democrats losing amendments. republicans losing appeds. it made me proud to be a -- amendments. it made me proud to be a representative and serve in this body much it was the best work product this house put together. we sent it to the senate 41 days ago. they defeated it. they have to act. they defeated our bill, h.r. 1,

they defeated a democrat bill, and they have done nothing. i got a call earlier today, i held up a board just like this, talking about what the senate had done. well, there's nothing on this sheet of paper. you hold up the wrong sign. no, it's the right sign. nothing, nothing have we received from the united states senate. it's the same on both sides. blank. how in the world are we supposed to fund this government with nothing from the united states senate? this bill does two things and two things only, madam speaker. it says, senate act. you don't have to act like us. act like democrats. just act. act. do something. send us something. begin the process. make it available. act. and number two, -- madam speaker, tell me how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. woodall: i would be delighted to yield to my friend from florida.

mr. hastings: do you believe what you're doing here is constitutional? mr. woodall: absolutely. having had my motives impugned throughout the day, i know the collegial relationship you and i have in the rules committee, you know for a fact i wouldn't be here otherwise. i wouldn't be here otherwise. now, i'm no scholar of house activities. i know we have passed bills in this house that have incorporated things by reference before and i'm sure we'll do it again. not in an outside the process. to suggest, to suggest, you appreciate this, i say to my friend from florida, to receive constitutional instruction from the team that brought us obamacare is troubling at the most basic levels. mr. hastings: would the gentleman yield again for another question? do you have any precedent for the constitutionality of this particular measure? i urge you based on what you just said, there have been measures that were deemed but that was when they were agreed upon, but there is no authority

anywherefore us to pass a law frirg -- anywhere for us to pass a law. and i appreciate my colleague yielding. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. i'll say that this is a unique procedure and these are unique times. i will just say to you that in 1999, republican congress, democratic president, enacted the foreign relations bill by reference, the foreign relations authorization bill by reference in appropriations bill. that's what we are doing today. folks, if you don't like it. call your senate colleagues and get them to act. this is where we need to be. we need action from the senate. call your senate, colleagues. i have called them. i need you to call them, too. we need to move this ball forward. if the government shuts down, our military men and women don't get paid, madam speaker. if the government shuts down our usda inspectors go home and beef and chicken leave our shelves in the grocery stores. this isn't play time going back to our children references this is serious business. folks sent us here to do serious

things. i could not be happyier, madam speaker, for the second provision to say if you don't work, you don't get paid. it's a basic premise in this republic no pay for no work. i'm very proud of the work that we have done. and i implore, i implore my colleagues to contact their senators and get them to do something. something. this is what we have from the senate so far, madam speaker. we deserve better. the american people deserver. and the senate can do better. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 194 the bill is considered as read and the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prevent the shut down of the government of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the -- >> i have a the motion to reconsider to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota rise? is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. walz: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will read the motion. the clerk: mr. walls of minnesota moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1255 to the committee on house administration with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following, section 1, prohibition of -- on pay during government shutdown, a, in general, members of congress and the president shall not receive basic pay for any period in which, one, there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations for any federal agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution. or two, the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 3101 of title 31 united states code has been reached.

b, retroactive pay prohibited. no pay forfeited in accordance with subsection a may be paid retroactively. amend the title to read a bill to prohibit members of congress and the president from receiving pay during government shutdowns. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes in support of the motion. mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker. to stand here in this haloed place as a -- hallowed place as a representative, the incredible privilege and honor to represent the hardworking americans across this country, in southern minnesota the chance to see genuine folks out working hard, doing the things that built this country, and made us the greatest nation on earth. one of those things is a very basic premise. the american work ethic. the idea that you should work hard and do your best and be compensated at the end of the day and feel good and sense of accomplishment in what you did. we had the opportunity, the american people did send us

here, as you heard, on both sides of the aisle, to do a very simple thing. get the work done, move this country forward. the debate is, there's differences in how to do that. that's the strength of this land. it's democracy. but there is one very strong principle that we can reinforce. that work ethic that if you do not get your job done, you certainly should not be paid. no middle of the night, no if it passes and goes this way, very simply, the easiest you thing to do if this congress after being here four months, i don't care where you put the blame, can't get this done by next week, and the government shuts down, there will be no chance of a single paycheck going and no retroactive pay. that's the least we owe those hardworking folks. that's the least we can do here. i want to be very clear. i understand the majority is having a problem. they've got a debate happening inside their caucus. if compromise is a virtue or a vice. they will work that out and decide because that's what this debate today was about. where do we compromise in the --

for the good of the american public? i come out on the side of compromise. with that being said, if we don't get our work done, and i will do everything in my power to ensure we do not shut this government down, the repercussions are catastrophic for americans. not just macroeconomically, our seniors aren't going to get their checks. we are going to see medical care slow down to our veterans. we are going to hear from and we have heard from our military commanders that it stresses the readiness of this nation. our federal workers and even the hardworking staff here will not receive a paycheck. how do you go home to georgia, to alabama, to minnesota, look somebody in the eye an say, we failed because we bickered again, but, dang, i'm going to take home that check. i tell my colleagues, especially the new members, if you're a freshman in here, you came with an optimism that should not be able to be beaten out of you. regardless if you disagree with us, with every fiber ever your being, the very simple principle that we can't get this done

let's put skin in the game. no, if it goes to the senate and get passed, no if it's not constitutional. i offer you the rarest of opportunities today. the rarest, the first time you have had this chance, if you vote yes on this motion to recommit, it goes to the president today and becomes law of the land and no one here will be paid. you can look your constituents in the eye and whoever you blame for it, you can say, i'm not getting a paycheck until we fix this. i want to be very clear, this is an opportunity, a rare opportunity. you can vote however you want and decide however you want to balance the budget, but do not allow to play games. it is the bright lights of day, the board is going to come up, and you are going to have the opportunity, not what's in the underlying bill, that doesn't stop from retroactive pay, and that has to pass the senate. . every republican already voted for my motion to recommit. so you have the chance to say, all right, i disagree with the democrats on everything in this bill but i'm not going to go

back to georgia and tell someone i'm picking a paycheck and then trying to explain, but i voted for it really, but it was a motion to recommit think a didn't agree with. nothing, simple, 75 words. half page. don't do your job, don't get paid. no work, no pay. it is very, very simple. at this point i want to yield a little bit of time to my colleague from virginia. >> i thank the gentleman. so the point is, the law as it stands today is, we shut the government down, a million federal employees don't get paid, our staff doesn't get paid, but we get paid. all the gentleman wants to say it -- is, treat ourselves like we'd pay ours. if other staff is out on the street we ought to be out there with them. mr. moran: and the other point the gentleman makes is if he vote for this recommital, the senate has already approved it, it goes right to the senate. it gets signed into law. we've done something constructive. the alternative is to send something over to the senate and the senate's going to laugh at

us. you know this 1255 isn't going to get passed. this would be passed, this becomes law, it's the right thing to do. thank you. mr. walz: here's your rare opportunity. if you don't do this and say you're going to vote for the underlying bill, the gentleman said himself, mr. woodall, that it would probably not pass the senate. this is done. there's no more going anywhere, it's going to be done. i know optimism abounds on april 1. i believe today the twins are going to win the world series. i believe that in all my heart. but i wouldn't take the bat or the chance on it. if you want to go back to each of your congressional districts and say, i stand with you to do what's right on the american work ethic, if we don't get done next week, we don't get paid. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair reminds members that they should address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: i rise in opposition, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. woodall: i don't know where to begin. i don't know where to begin. the misrepresentation after misrepresentation after misrepresentation. i don't impugn anyone's motives. i admire the passion. but if you really believe with no work, no pay, i wish we had the board up there, if you believe it, all the time we've been spending talking about the constitution, don't you think we ought to do in a in a constitutional way? don't you think we ought to do it in a constitutional way? i do. because if we say it we ought to mean it and stand by our convictions and, madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to speak to these constitutional issues, my chairman, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i heard the eloquent plea of our friends from the other side of the aisle. let me just read to you a message i received from the white house about this bill. with the words that the gentleman has presented on the floor. unfortunately s.b. 388 which are

the words the gentleman puts in his motion to recommit, is patently unconstitutional both as applied to congress in violation of the 27th amendment and the president in violation of -- >> would the gentleman yield? mr. lungren: no, i will not yield. of the compensation clause of article 2. so if one wants to by this bill have some pressure exerted on the house, the senate and the president, it would be in the language closer to that that's contained in the underlying bill on which you can -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia controls the time. mr. lungren: upon which you can make an argument is constitutional because it does not vare the pay given to these -- vary the pay either given to the president -- >> will the gentleman from georgia yield time? mr. woodall: i'd like to let my

chairman finish. mr. lungren: i believe the regular order is to not interrupt at the time they're making the argument. maybe because it's difficult to hear the words of the white house about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. if anyone wants this to act in vein it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is under any view, any view, unconstitutional. it violates the very terms of the constitution with respect to the president and with respect to members of congress. so if you want to exert any influence on members, if you believe this is the way to do it, would you accept the language that's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the constitution. i find it not funny, i find it tragic that on this floor we just heard the great arguments on the other side of the aisle about observing the constitution and then they come to the floor and give us something which the

white house says in its language , in its email to me, is patently unconstitutional. not maybe unconstitutional. not perhaps unconstitutional. not arguably unconstitutional. but patently unconstitutional. so the gentleman has presented us the kind of i guess shell game we talk about where it looks good when it's presented to you but by sleight of hand it makes sure that it has no impact whatsoever. the gentleman says, well, it will go right to the president. that is not true. this is not the bill sent over to us, it's the same language. so it doesn't go right to the president, number one. number two, unless the president is sending me misinformation via his messager, the president's position is it's patently unconstitutional. d.o.j.'s position, department of justice, patently unconstitutional. so i guess the gentleman is arguing to us, send it to the president so that he may commit a patently unconstitutional act.

now, i may have disagreements with the president but i have no wheafssoffer that the president is waiting with baited breath over at the white house for us to send something to him so that he can do an unconstitutional act. perhaps the gentleman believes that's the position he wants to put the president in and even though i have great disagreement with this president, frankly i don't think that's appropriate thing to do. so i would argue to my colleagues, reject this unanimously because it really is something which doesn't pass the truth in labeling act and more than that, it violates the constitution on its very words, it's almost an attempt to directly violate the constitution. you couldn't have written it better to violate the constitution. but somehow the gentleman has achieved that high honor. i thank the gentleman. >> madam speaker, i know it cannot be said any better than that so i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. lungren: madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. walz: yeas and nays, yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

he had done all he could do and it was time for him to spend more time with his grandchildren. when he announced his retirement we had a lot of folks put their name in the ring. no shortage of good

conservatives and the great state of georgia. but they're not focused on issues passionate to me -- the fair tax and constituent service. about a year ago i announced i was going to toss my hat in the ring. i had a fantastic campaign. had a great debate ong the eight of us, republicans, and the primary, and onto the general. and lo and behold, the folks picked me to serve them and i have been grateful and enjoyed every day since. host: mr. woodall is a member of the budget committee, and the budget committee is set to bring out th budget blueprint next week. maybe we will squeak out a few details. before we leave the buyer fee -- let me ask y, yet such a long time to serve what it is like to be a member. is it any different? guest: it is easier to give free advice than to as sunlight free advice. something folks cannot always appreciate. more importantly, it is an

obligation now to observe. staff has an important job to serve, but i really feel the weight of succeeding for folks at home. a lot of people put their trust in me. they did not have to, but they did. and the wonderf burden to succeed for them is felt every day. host: tell us aboutour dirict. how many people and what is the unemployment rate? guest: one of the largest in the country, 920,000 people -- the district will have to lose about 250,000 in the next redistricting. our economy is doing better than most. though two of the counties in georgia with the largest foreclosure rates are in my district. the northern suburbs of a glance at heading off and outoward athens. -- northern suburbs of atlanta heading off toward athens. what we get to hear during the discussions is how tough it i to grow a job in america these days. i was sitting down with a ceo

last week saying i trying to move my company out of the country because it just does not pay to hire americans any longer. that is unfortate. host: we will get to call in a few minutes. we will continue this discussion about priorities for federal spending and what but budget will look like coming out of these big debate on capitol hill. let's start with the current negotiations over the continuing resolution. the funding for this year. seeds of a compromise. when you are reading behind the headlines, where are you on what number you are comfortable with? guest: for me it is not about numbers, but commitments i made back home. i made a commitment to cut as much as possibly can. 100 billion was my number. not because i chose it but because the leadership chose it for us in the pledged to america. i want to come through for folks. but i understand we control one- half of one third of the government. it is not just about dollars.

there are important policy riders. we talk about creating jobs, certainly. cutting federal spending and getting us out of the borrowing business will free up capital to create jobs. so, too, is revealing some of the regulatory burden that is out there. that is an important part of h.r. 1 for me. what is so frustrating, susan, i am in newcomer -- sitting in this chair, i was so proud to be part be parth.r. 1 experience for the truly congress at work in the way i believe the founding fathers wanted to work. democrat amendments were winning and losing, republican amendments will winning and losing. we were on the floor around the clock talking with each other on where to go next. you talk about seeds of negotiation. i still have not seen a senate proposal, and i have not seen a senate proposal because there is no senate proposal. i do not know a lot about negotiating in this town, but i do know if i knewhere other

folks were, i know exactly where we are, it would be easier for me to make decisions on how we come together. host: a couple of fridays ago we were here talking about a resolution on public radio. i am wondering -- you ended up breaking ranks and decided not to support the leadership plan to be funded public radio. twohings i wanted to show you. first of all, this morning in the newspaper, bill moyers may come back from retirement for a new show on pbs. the timing on that given this debate is not settled. and explain your vote. guest: to everything is going on -- whether talk about and be our and corporation for public broadcasting but these are not decisions about whether they are important or even good programs, but the question is we are boowing every dollar to pay for the programs from our children and grandchildren, so is it so important we need to burden our children with those expenses?

in my opinion, it is not. h.r. 1 defunded all -- i was proud to cast a vote. it was a little dierent last week. the burden of responsibility, when you control the house, is a big one. and john boehner has done a wonderful job letting the housework as well. on the rules committee as well. we have had more of an open process in the first 90 days of this congress than we had in the previous four years combined. that is an amazing thing to think about. john vana has the power to shut the whole process down -- john boehner has the power to shut the whole process down and forced the conservative agenda through, but he does not use it. he lets the house work its will, under the sincere belief that he has we would get a better product if we all participate. that and be our vote last week was an exception -- npr vote was an exception. it came and moved to the floor very quickly and i think that we

can do better. it just because we can move something quickly does not mean we should move something quickly. and that the vote against it was certainly not a vote in favor of funding national public radio, it was a vote in favor of allowing the house to work its will and have an open process. and i think that is one of our jobs as freshmen is to say, you know what, all of these wonderful aspirations that this new congress has about how to lead, we want to make sure we stick to those even when it is easy to move away. host: i would like to have any comments you have about the idea of bill moyers coming back. one thing from elizabeth jensen's article --

guest: you make exactly my point as someone who would defund the corporation for public broadcasting, susan. bill has a wonderful product to bring to the table. and there are folks who want to fina the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 237. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the

gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 221 and the nays are 200. and one -- 201.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 221, the nays are 202 with one answering present. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday the next when it shall convene at noon more morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection with without objection. -- without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. gerlach of pennsylvania for thursday, march 31 after 5:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

the speaker pro tempore: the if the members will -- if the members would please clear the well.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will ber -- entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? will the house please come to order. without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, i rise today to commend the king street patriots, the houston political watchdog group, for being given the esteemed ronald reagan award at the february meeting of the conservative political action conference. the king street patriots started the true the vote initiative in an attempt to uncover voter fraud in the greater houston area. mr. solson: in their investigation they discovered unimaginable levels of voter fraud from breaking laws with resident voters to election judges helping voters with their ballots. mr. olson: this movement made up of ordinary citizens who realized that voter fraud is one of the most egregious offenses under our constitution. the king street patriots are now lobbying the texas legislature to strengthen election laws and prevent future abuses. free and fair elections are essential to our democracy and the king street patriots have shown an impressive commitment to civic duty and i applaud

their efforts. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada rise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. berkley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to reject republican calls for an investigation into the decision to end yucca mountain. let me save this republican congress a lot of time and a lot of money. president obama put a stop to yucca mountain because it is too dangerous a site to store radioactive nuclear waste at. this is a political stunt with one goal, turning my home state of nevada into a nuclear garbage dump. those pushing this review are lying about the dump safety. they know yucca mountain is smack in the middle of an earthquake zone. there's volcanic activity, there's groundwater issues. have we learned nothing but about what's happening now in japan? we ought to be demanding that

the nuclear power plants act now to secure nuclear waste in dry cast storage. dry cast storage will increase public safety now, investigating yucca mountain will only increase the danger and waste money. shame on the nuclear industry and its allies for being more interested in protecting their profits than in protecting public safety. and that is why even in the face of one of the world's worst nuclear disasters unfolding now in japan, the nuclear industry in its nuked-up buddys in the united states congress -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. berkley: are playing partisan games with nuclear waste. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, delay, delay, delay is the administration's energy plan. the keystone xl pipeline

project would bring several hundred thousand barrels of oil a day from alberta, canada, to refineries in southeast texas. this would provide more energy for america but the president has had it for over two years and can't make up his mind whether to approve the project or not. the state department, e.p.a. and a bunch of out of towners have stone walled the project on alleged environmental grounds. pipelines are the most cost effective and environmentally sound way to transport oil and natural gas. oil must reach the refinery some way. we can either import oil through a safe and reliable pipeline from our friends and neighbors, the canadians or rely on risky tankers coming from unstable middle eastern countries and dictators. even the e.p.a. should be able to figure this out after two years of delay. gasoline is nearly $4 a gallon. the administration needs to be rerealistic and approve this pipeline immediately. it's about time we start laying

pipe. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: it's time to cease fire and sit down and negotiate. one would believe i'm speaking about the conflict in the middle east and libya. but i'm really speaking about the governor of the state of texas and the challenge that we have of ensuring that $830 million comes back to the state of texas for our children. for our schoolchildren. earlier today, i had the privilege of speaking to a group of students from spellman college, a historically black college, and i told them their greatest contribution can be to go into the elementary and secondary schools and talk to them about the value of education. we can't see america lose its excellence in education to see

children in 60-person classes, teachers thrown out in the streets. we need $830 million in the state of texas. let's resolve our differences and give a commitment to the secretary of education that you'll use these $s for education only. parents and teachers and students and those who are committed to educating our children, the best and the brightest, deserve that commitment. what is america great for? it's great because we've given the opportunity of education to all people. texas, it's time to cease fire, sit down, negotiate, and receive the $830 million federal dollars on behalf of the children of texas. i yield back. the chair: are there any other requests for one-minutes? for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i just finished a hearing as chairman of the oversight and

investigation committee and we had the administration up to talk about some of the programs they're handing out money on and one of them is giving out money to large corporations and to unions for early retirement of the employees of for-profit corporations. mr. stearns: think about this. the united states government is giving millions of dollars, in fact, they gave yinalted auto workers $206 million toward their plan for early retirement for their workers. now when you think about it, these are corporations and unions and entities around this country who have actually settled in with a contract with their employees. yet the government is stepping in and giving them money to help them so they can get to 2014. and they're running out of money. obviously, they will run out of money if they give free money to these corporations that are going to accept it and in the end, taxpayers are going to foot the bill. in light of the fact that we're losing $4 billion a day, why should taxpayers be giving out

almost $5 billion to corporations that are very profitable to help their employees retire? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor dr. beth dupri, an oncologist and breast cancer surgeon from bucks downy. her care and compassion for her patients extends far beyond the operating room. i'm honored this evening to attend a ceremony in honor of dr. dupri. mr. fitzpatrick: beth founded a group called the healing consciousness foundation that provides support services to anyone battling breast cancer and in need of support. psychiatric programs, exercise,

and diet coaching are all available. these are programs insurance and government programs do not provide but which can be just as critical to recovery. through her dedication and hard work as well as the sense of social responsibility she instills in others, to hear the calling to serve, beth has made the mission of healing consciousness foundation turning survivors into thrivers, truly a reality. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you are there any more requests for one-minutes? under the speaker's announced spoil of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. buerkle is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. buerkle: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. buerkle: today i rise to speak about two of the most significant issues facing our

society today. the twin surges of domestic violence and sexual abuse. our society has a moral obligation to stand up against those who exploit their powers to commit violence against women, men and children and i join other members here today in taking the opportunity to discuss these issues and participate in the white ribbon campaign. on tuesday of this past week, march 22, in the district, in syracuse, new york, president of suny upstate medical university chaired a breakfast and it was the kickoff to the white ribbon campaign a campaign that is to draw attention to and focus on, raise awareness of, domestic violence and sexual abuse. the white ribbon campaign is an international campaign participating probably across 55 countries.

later in the week, on friday, again, dr. smith led a group of men in a march raising awareness for domestic violence. and they marched in women's shoes, down the main street in syracuse, new york, again, walk a mile in their shoes. raising awareness, raising the consciousness of domestic violence and sexual abuse. these issues that face our society today. the international campaign has probably 55 countries and involves a general public education focused on preventing domestic violence. many of my fellow member this is past week have been wearing white ribbons to demonstrate our commitment to putting the spotlight on domestic violence. wearing the white ribbon speaks to our personal pledge to never commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women and children. the white ribbons were

sponsored by vera house. vera house was formed in 1977 in syracuse, new york, by sister mary vera because she recognized the need for emergency shelters for women. she developed, she expanded her services and now today vera house has merged with the rape crisis center and they serve the needs of so many women, men, and children who have been abused. again, the whole white ribbon campaign is to raise public awareness of domestic violence. at this time, i yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina, representative ellmers. mrs. ellmers: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise today to thank my colleague and friend from new york and to point out the fact that over the years

she has just been a tireless, dedicated supporter of women's issues, family issues, and giving her voluntary support of legal services to facilities that provide domestic violence havens in new york. she is a strong advocate for the white ribbon campaign and i'm proud to stand with her today in support of ending violence against women. we show our support today by wearing these white ribbons that represent the pledge to never commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women and girls. so let's start this discussion by defining the different forms of violence against women. domestic violence occurs when one person in an intimate relationship uses a pattern of controlling, assaultive behavior to abuse, threaten, harass, and intimidate the other partner. this violence comes in many

forms. in its simplest terms, emotional abuse, name calling, playing mind games, put downs, threats, they can be physical or emotional, intimidation, using looks, smashing things, loud voices or actions, to put you in fear of what might happen. isolation. controlling where you go what you do, what you see. driving away friends and family and of course sexual abuse. and the use of children making you feel guilty about the children, using custody or visitation to harass you. none of these forms of abuse are accessible and part of the white ribbon campaign is to bring these issues to light. the bottom line is that there are men in this country that want to protect the women they love and through the white

ribbon campaign, they are speaking out against these atrocities that take place. they are educating and calling on their fellow man to stop the violence. while we are taking a moment today to bring this important issue to light, i want to take a moment to commend the many facilities in my congressional district that are helping to provide a safe place for women, but also working toward bringing families back together by working through the violence issues. safe of harnett county is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide safety and provide advocates for domestic violence victims, survivors, and their families. in chatham county, north carolina, the family violence, rape, and crisis services has helped numerous people through effective programming.

one victim said the price of the -- the pieces of the puzzle are coming together. the family rape and crisis service has given me the strength to be who i was supposed to be on my own. in johnston county, safe harbor is another private, nonprofit agency that was created in 1984 with $500 and a donated phoneline. this agency served around 3,000 victims in 2009. there are numerous other facilities in my congressional district that are also doing good work toward stemming the tide of domestic violence. i want to commend them for their hard work and dedication to the downtrodden. as i close today, i also want to commend the men who support the white ribbon campaign and i applaud them for rising up and reaching out to other -- to educate. it takes a strong man to take

this kind of action. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. ms. buerkle: thank you to the gentlewoman from north carolina for your kind comments and for putting attention on the rape crisis centers, all these centers who have dealt with, because today while we rise and we stand to call and bring to consciousness domestic violence, this is also a wonderful opportunity to thank the hundreds and thousands of people who volunteer in these shelters, who work for these agencies, who provide a safe haven for the women, the men, and the children who are abused, for the victims of domestic violence. my colleague talked about what these centers do. the agency that i stand today to represent is to talk about -- represent, has expanded their

services these days to outreach, advocacy, education, children's counseling, -- counseling, children, as you heard from my colleague, are often the victims of domestic violence between spouses. they are the ones that suffer. most importantly it provides violence education for the perpetrators. if we are going to change behaviors we've got to educate and to retrain the way the perpetrators think. at this time i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of domestic violence and sexual assault. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. buerkle: thank you, mr. chairman. i've worked as as a pro bono legal volunteer. the women's bar association in syracuse, new york, put together

a program where all attorneys, male and female, went through training to begin to address the needs of the victims of domestic violence. through those 14 years i began to get an up-close, clear understanding of the issue of domestic violence. the fact that domestic violence transcends socioeconomic, transcends race. domestic violence is an issue that everyone faces. it crosses racial lines, it crosses economic lines, it crosses social lines. i recall one of my meetings with a woman whose husband was well-known in the media in our town. would you never suspect, you would never think that she would be a victim of domestic violence, educated, financial means and yet she was a victim. this is the pervasiveness of sexual assault and domestic

violence. at this time i believe my esteemed colleague, judge poe, would -- i yield to him. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time and i appreciate the work she's done with this issue and bringing it to the house attention today during this special order. domestic violence, as you said, affects the entire country, all races, all economic groups. no one is exempt from this dastardly deed. it's my honor to serve as chairman of the victims rights committee, or caucus, a bipartisan caucus, congressman jim costa is the co-chair and we hope to help promote the concept that victims are people too and they have rights and the same constitution that protects

defendants protects rights of victims as well. i appreciate the gentlelady for being a member of that caucus. in my other life, before i came to congress, i spent most of my time at the court news to houston, 30 years as a prosecutor and as a criminal court judge hearing criminal cases and i saw a lot of people come down there and a lot of people were down there because they had committed a crime against their family. and we need to understand that when you hurt someone in your family it is not a family problem only. it is a criminal problem. and society must get to the point where we believe that it is socially unacceptable to commit crimes in the family. and probably the most important person in my life growing up was my grandmother. she never for gave me for being a republican, she always considered herself a democrat. god bless her. but one thing she said that was true was that you never hurt

somebody you claim you love. and that's an absolute truth. people who claim they love somebody and then physically or emotionally or verbally abuse them are wrong and should be treated accordingly and held accountable for that conduct. it is very important that we recognize that domestic violence is a true issue. and we also need to understand as a culture and as a community that when a person is the victim of domestic violence that it's not their fault. they are the victim. the offender in, in most cases the husband, they are not the victim, the spouse is the victim. the wife. and defendants and husbands who commit those crimes can't use excuse to try to portray themselves as the ones being the victim. the offender should be held accountable and victims need to understand society and the law is on their side. many victims of spousal abuse

and domestic violence, they don't report it them. don't want the neighbors to know, they don't want the community to know, they feel like they're beaten down physically and emotionally and sometimes they think it is their fault. it's not their fault. it's always the offender's fault. and so we as a culture, as a community in this country, whether we're from new york or from texas, we need to let people know that if they are a victim of crime, if there is a lady that is abused by her husband, that society comes to her rescue and helps them any way we can. and to make sure benefit a safe haven for them to go to -- and to make sure they have a safe haven to go to if necessary and we make sure that it's financed so that the wife does not feel like, i have no place to go because i can't afford anyplace. and so she stays in that abusive relationship and sometimes it ends in worse tragedy. lastly i'd like to talk about a very favorite person of mine who

lives not far from here. evette cade is just a regular person who lives in maryland. and a few years ago she was trying to separate and divorce from her husband. and a judge refused to grant her a restraining order, refused to grant a restraining order that she requested, to keep her spouse away from her. until all of the divorce had been worked out. and because the restraining order wasn't extended, her spouse went into a video store where she was working, carrying a jar of gasoline and poured it over evette cade's head and set that woman, that wonderful lady, on fire. now because of a person in the store who helped put out that fire that this spouse had committed against her, she survived. and it's things like that that we as a culture need to hold

these culprits accountable for these crimes against people in their family and we need to take wonderful ladies like evette cade and make sure we treat them with tender care and make sure we have compassion on them to prevent any further damage to them physically, emotionally and also prevent the consequences that other people may choose to commit against spouses in their own family. so i thank the gentlelady for the time and it is important that we continue to preach this word throughout the country, that spousal abuse is something we're going to deal with as a nation and i yield back the balance of my time. ms. buerkle: thank you to my esteemed colleague from texas. thank you for your kind comments. and i think all of the gentlemen who have the courage to stand up and call awareness to the issue of domestic violence, who stand against the violence against women, men and children. domestic violence is known by

many names. domestic abuse, spousal abuse, family violence, intimate partner violence. it also takes many forms. from physical violence in solving small things such as hitting or kicking, biting, shosksing, or restraining. it can be emotional or it can be verbal. which manifests in many types of behavior. controlling, dam nearing, threatening or humiliating. if we as a society have an obligation to raise the awareness of domestic violence so that women know, just as my esteemed colleague was talking about, it's not their fault. it is the fault of the perpetrator, whether that perpetrator is male or female. and that is the person who should be held accountable, not the victim. it can also be economic abuse. in which the abuser controls the victim's money. in this abuse we often see with the elderly.

another issue that needs to be -- we need to raise society's consciousness about the issues of elder abuse. tragically domestic violence is not a rare phenomenon, mr. chairman. the centers for disease control estimate that domestic violence is a public health problem affecting over 32 million americans or 10% of the population. this is a tragedy of national proportion that society again, we must raise up the consciousness of this horrific issue. the affects of domestic violence are staggering. physical abuse can be bruises, broken bones, head injure, -- injury, lacerations. but those are just the external physical wounds. internal bleeding, chronic health conditions such as arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, ulcers, migraines, miscarnles, can also be linked to the physical abuses that

victims sustain. but there are other effects as well. many victims experience anxiety, stress, fear, guilt, depression. guilt that what is happening to them is their fault. again, we have to raise the awareness and raise the consciousness of society that it is the perpetrator's fault, not the victim's. abuse victims also frequently manifest a condition we think of relative to our veterans. post traumatic stress disorder. victims of conditions have flashbacks, nightmares or exaggerated responses. the effect of abuse can also be financial. many victims courageously leave their abusers but often lack the education, the skills and the resources to find gainful employment to care for themselves and any children they might have. mr. chairman, i can recall sitting with women who are

helpless, they sit across the table from you and they are helpless because they don't know what to do. they don't know how to get out of this situation. they don't understand that there is help. and that society is willing to step up and provide safe haven for them and for their children. i spoke to a prosecutor who had a program that would go after dead beat dads and go after the support so that women would be able to leave, be safe, and get support in order to support their children. i think that our society is coming around, that we have wonderful organizations like vera house, but we in this house must work hard, we must continue to raise awareness about these issues. the other societal scourge i referenced in my opening remarks is sexual assault. sexual assault is simply put any unwanted contact of sexual nature.

it does not matter if the victim is on a date or drinking when it occurs. it's never ok to force sexual contact on you against your will. again, it's raising the awareness, it's letting society know the vulnerable -- know, the vulnerable know that it's not your fault and you don't have to with stand these abuses. like domestic abuse, sexual assault know noes privileged class immune to its ravages. men, women, children all ages, all races, all religions and ethnicities are victims. the effects are often similar to the victims of domestic abuse and the effects can be especially troubling for children and men. i serve on the veterans affairs committee and i am passionate about veterans' issues. it is a committee that is bipartisan, it's a committee that works together because we all understand, we all understand the service and the sacrifice of our men and women

in the military. i am the daughter and sister of veterans and believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to our men and women in uniform. but part of that debt extends to making sure that we don't turn a blind eye to sexual assaults of women and men in our armed services. we have much to do but i applaud the u.s. air force's recognition that sexual assault against both male and female airmen is a serious problem that needs a systemic solution. and while the air force has emphasized sexual assault prevention and responses for several years they acknowledge that sexual assault is still a problem in the air force as it is for our military services. in the air force's own words, sexual assault continues to burden our airmen and degrade our mission effectiveness. sexual assault is a crime and there is no place for this or this behavior in our air force. we must demand better of ourselves and of society.

consequently they contracted with gallop to conduct an unanimous poll about with sexual assaults in the air force. the findings were, to put it mildly, disturbing. the results of the survey in the 12 months prior were that 2,143 women and 1,355 men reported that they had been sexual assaulted with a majority of female victims reporting that their assailant was a fellow airman. even one victim is one too many. sadly it is unrealistic to think that our armed forces would be immune to the problems endemic in our society. we must commit to our communitiesing our moms, dads, airmen, churches, synagogues, mosques, sports teams, schools,

colleges, the list goes on. it will take all aspects of society to change a culture that increasingly devalues human life. i believe, mr. speaker, that we are created in the image of god. and that for each of us, he has a purpose in our life. no woman should ever, ever have to fear for the safety of her unborn child because of an apucive husband. no child should ever dread going to bed because of a parent who is molesting her. and no man should be raped because blind justice turned a blind eye to prison rape. i have six children and 11 grandchildren, mr. speaker. and as a parent and a grandparent, i think about the lessons i have tried to teach to each of them. some of those lessons were very successful. some less. so but i taught my kids to help others. helping others includes living

up to the pledge i mentioned earlier, they am making by wearing this white ribbon. i will not commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women, men, or children and i commend the other members of this body for the white rib bonns that they courageously wore to again raise the awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault. we have a serious problem in front of us, mr. speaker. in every community in america. but i have hope. america is an amazing country and i am so privileged to be an american, to be free. i believe that the greatness of this country is a reflection of both the greatness of our founding and the greatness of our people. we are up to and equal to the task of fighting domestic violence and sexual assault if we put our american minds and our american spirits to it.

so today, as i stand before you, mr. speaker, again to call attention to the scourge of domestic violence and sexual abuse, but at the same time celebrating the wonderful agencies and shelters and volunteers and people who have stepped forth who are willing to take this issue on, who are willing to address it, who are willing to help the victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. we are blessed by their service, by their commitment to society, by their appreciation of the value of human life and the need to help those who help -- who need that help. so at this time, mr. speaker, i thank the house for the ability to be able to call attention to these issues, i want to at this time let vera house know, in syracuse, and all the shelters and all the agencies throughout this country, thank you for

your service, thank you for what you do for the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and at this time, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the chair is prepared to recognize a democratic member at this time.

the speaker pro tempore: urn the speaker's announced spoifl january 5, 2011, the chair recognized the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: it's a privilege to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and to once again bring a case before you that i believe will be overheard in an effective way by the american people and responded to you by of course your good judicial and prudential judgment. i came here to the floor to talk about a number of things and yet should always bring up the number one thing that's on my mind first and i know that it's impossible for me to

exhaust the subject but i have given it a significant endeavor other the last year and a half and now as things move towards a head with the continuing resolution negotiation and debate taking place and the major decisions that will be formed over the weekend by the leadership in the house and in the senate with consultation, presumably, with the white house, we expect to see some kind of proposal come before one or both chambers next week before the clock ticks down on the continuing resolution that is temporarily funding this government in a piece of shell appropriations that should never have happened. but that's perhaps outside of what i should bring up today and we should focus on the issue at hand. they were this. there was a strong pledge made that if the republicans win the majority we would cut $100 billion out of this fiscal year's budget. and i will submit that

recognizing that we were five months into this fiscal year before we had an opportunity to begin that process, that calculates out to be about $61.5 billion if youage usize the $100 billion. so even though the initially proposed continuing resolution did not include those kind of cuts, there was an intense debate here in the congress driven by the 87 freshman republicans to get that number up to a number that was either $100 billion or $100 billion if you calculated it on an annualized basis. we did come together on that number and the house did pass h.r. 1 which included in it $61.5 billion worth of cuts out of the fiscal year 2011. even though the house didn't act in a -- let me say the function of the house was not functional during the last two or three years at least of the -- of speaker pelosi's time and there was no appropriations process that one could bring

forward and there was no budget that was brought forward and therefore government was being run on stopgap measures of continuing resolutions. so during the lame duck session, the lame duck session being the period of time when congress comes together to meet after an election so i have said that lame duck sessions should only be to take care of the urgent issues that need to be handled before the new members of congress can be sworn. in the old congress, at least in theory, has delegitimized by the elections that take place, last year on november 2, they no longer represent the will of the american people, that's been reflected in the election results all across the land and this house was designed to be a quick reaction strike force to be responsive to the american people. and so our founding fathers put it within the constitution never amended out, that house members are up for election every two years. and every 10 years there'll be a census and that census is

designed then to be used to redistrict the districts, and we have now agreed that 435 is the maximum number of house members, and as the population moves and as the population grows, every 10 years we reset the congressional districts to as accurately as possible reflect the new population distribution in america. that goes on along with every two years there's an election. the elections have two purposes, every 10 years to reflect the population change and every two years, including that 10-year census year election which comes up in 2012, it's the quick reaction response to the will of the american people. because our founding fathers understood that if you put people in this office and let them have tenure for life like we're hearing about in states like wisconsin or ohio where what tenure does do a person's due diligence, there would be people who would sit here forever and never be

responsible to the american people. they realized if they would set the senate up in six-year election cycles, the senate wouldn't be accountable within a short period of time, not within two years or four year, but in six years. that was intentionally so the senators would be more inclined to make long-term, visionary decisions and house members could come in as the shock troops, so to speak to bring the quick reaction if the congress got out of sync with the people. it'sity clear, mr. speaker, that the congress got out of sink with the people last year. actually, they began to get out of sync with the people well before that, more than four years ago, but when president obama came in he had huge majorities to work with in the house under nancy pelosi as speaker and in the senate with harry reid as leader. even to the extent that they had a filibuster proof majority in the senate system of they felt their oats, so to speak.

their ideology drove them, i think, to maybe they didn't know it. i think some of them knew it. i believe the blue dogs in this house of representatives that lost their elections last november knew it. they knew they were walking the plank. they knew they were going down into political davy jones' lockerser if they voted for obamacare. but they did because of leverage, because of legislative shenanigans, because -- and i'll tell you, mr. speaker, that to understand this, that obamacare for a long time here in the house of representatives was h.r. 3200. a bill that came through the energy and commerce committee in a fashion that was at least envisioned to be a functional fashion through our constitution and by our founding fathers, but it came through and there were long, long debates in committee, but h.r. 3200, the product of the house, didn't make it to the floor for a vote. what came to the floor for a vote under obamacare was the bill that was written in

speaker pe low' cease -- pelosi's office, 2,600 or so pages, plus or minus 100, depends on the font type but 2,600 pages of a bill that not one person had an opportunity to read it all. and before i came to the floor -- before it came to the floor for a vote. as much as it was stud bied -- studied by many, and there are quite a few americans that read it all, but it has so many convoluted contraptions within it within it, there isn't a single person on the planet, no matter how intellectual they might be, there's not one person that has the capability of reading the obamacare bill an understanding all the activities of that bill where it references other sections of the code and you have to read it and switch back and forth, zigzag in and out of existing code and look at the obamacare piece of legislation and at the same time understand the

implications to americans. it's one thing to understand what a bill does technically and it's another to understand how people have to live underneath that legislation. so, h.r. 3200 kicked off to the side. the product of the actual committee didn't come to the floor, the product of the speaker's office, her staff, many of them young, junior people, writing up a bill they thought was right for america, dumped down on us here to be in a sport period of debate and a vote to be passed by the house and could not and would not have passed the house the day it was brought to the floor for a vote except for a couple of little promises. one of those promises was that the senate would pass a reconciliation package which put other pieces into it in order to avoid the filibuster rule in the senate system of in order to get that done they had to bring some things that couldn't get passed under the filibuster rule in the senate, write them up in a separate bill, well somehow that bill couldn't have been amended to

the one on the floor because that wouldn't have passed. furthermore, the obamacare bill written in nancy pelosi's office couldn't have passed here on the flew because bart stupak had a dozen democrats that locked up with the republicans and said we aren't going to vote for a bill that funds abortion. nancy pelosi wrote a bill that funds abortion. harry reid wrote a reconciliation package that they sent to the house that had the things that his senators needed to have happen and the house members needed to have happen and the piece of obamacare was going to satisfy the stupak dozen if the president signed an executive order to amend the vote of the house. i wouldn't understand every american to understand this convoluted process. i expect most of them to be confused about this. this was designed to be a confusing process.

the very idea that the president of the united states would take an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states that everybody in this chamber would do the same thing and everybody in the senate would do the same thing, and then believe somehow, all you have to do is read article 1 of the constitution and one can easily conclude that the president can can not amend a piece of legislation by signing an exec tiff order. he does not have the authority to do so. that is a constitutional violation and i have, in a very similar if not exactly identical language in the iowa constitution gone to court to prove exactly that when former governor vilsack thought he could write re-write the code of iowa by executive order and the case of king vs. vilsack is in the books and the court vacated the executive order of the governor of the state of iowa because he thought he could legislate by executive order, i thought he couldn't and the judge said he couldn't. it's resolved in that issue and

the point is conceded by former governor, now secretary of agriculture tom vilsack. that same tactic was used by the president of the united states, barack obama, when he signed an executive order that was designed to amend the bill that was about to pass, actually he signed it after the bill passed, the bill that passed on the condition that the president would sign an executive order to take care of the funding for abortion and that the senate would pass a reconciliation package that fit the other needs. why couldn't we do this under what we call here in regular order? why couldn't we have a committee process that would work a bill through? well, they did. but nancy pelosi drops that one in the trash. why couldn't they allow the reconciliation package if it had any merit to be amended onto the obamacare legislation even if it's the legislation that was written in speaker pelosi's office and rejected that out of committee? why couldn't that have been an

amendment that could have been voted on up or down here in the house of representatives attached to the same piece of legislation? why couldn't they have put the language of barack obama's executive order that supposedly says the federal government's not going to fund abortion, why couldn't they have put that into the bill too and had an honest debate on an honest piece of legislation? why not? well, because it wasn't. because they could not pass it under an honest process. it had to be a legislative shenanigan process. that's what we got. and as that bill went to final passage that night, i got a little bit of sleep that night, not much, i drafted legislation to repeal obamacare. probably at the same time, me not knowing that, congresswoman michele bachmann of minnesota drafted legislation to repeal obamacare. we each got our legislation drafts down and they came to us shortly after 9:00 that morning,

exactly the same 40 words, within three minutes of each other, that said we're going to -- now, i'm going to do this in summary, but only 40 words. that we will repeal this congress would repeal the act of obamacare and it references the two sections that components, by bill number, and the last words that have repeal bill is, as if it had never been enacted. so we introduced that legislation actually separately. i joined on hers and she on mine and we went to work to get signatures to move the repeal bill. that turned into a discharge petition with 173 signatures on it. and that would be throughout the summer and into the fall of last year that we were getting signatures on the discharge petition. and, mr. speaker, you will know that if there's 218 signatures, a majority of the house of representatives, on a discharge petition that represents a bill that bill bypasses committee and the speaker can't block it and it comes to the floor to be voted up or down without

amendment. that's what a discharge petition does. well, it took us a long ways down the line of a commitment to repeal obamacare and it was a tool that was used by several and i'll say many candidates for congress who now some of them elected to this congress, part of the 87 freshmen republicans awful whom ran on the repeal of obamacare, and i believe and don't know this, i've heard no exceptions, but i believe it's also likely that awful them ran on defunding obamacare. cutting the funding off because we knew that a republican majority here in the house could pass the repeal of obamacare which we did in the second week here under h.r. 2, the second highest priority for speaker boehner was the repeal of obamacare, h.r. 1 was funding the government, h.r. 2 was repealing obamacare. that legislation passed the house with a resounding solid bipartisan vote and went over to the senate where every republican in the senate voted to repeal obamacare.

we committed to cutting off the funding to obamacare and that's the next step and i sense since last july at least to shut off all the funding to obamacare and every appropriations bill that comes out of the house of representatives. well h.r. 1 was the single piece of legislation where we had the maximum amount of leverage, that's the funding for the duration of the year, for all of the functions of government. we learned sometime last year that there were automatic appropriations and deceptively i believe writ noon obamacare that are designed to create this perpetual money machine that funds the implementation of obamacare. some call it mandatory spending, i do not. i call it automatic spending. there's automatic spending in obamacare written into it and the number's still on my hand in sarah palin fashion, $105.5 billion automatically appropriated, spent, in an authorization bill completely

outside of regular order of this congress with a few handful of exceptions in short-term and few dollars. but in scope and in magnitude no one's ever tried, no one's ever had the audacity to try to impose an automatic appropriation on this congress that would be $105 billion. some that have money goes beyond. that that's just 10 years. some of it is appropriated, mr. speaker, in perpetuity, $1 billion a year here, $1 billion there that goes on every year, that can't be stopped unless congress goes in and shuts it off. and that's what we need to do, mr. speaker. we needed to this -- to do in every bill. this continuing resolution that's before us now must include within it the language that cuts off the funding to obamacare, the current and the previous, the language that cuts off the automatic spending in obamacare. there are $18.6 billion for fiscal year 2010, most of it not spent yet, that implements obamacare.

$18.6 billion. of the $105.5 billion. and there's another $4.95 billion in 2011 that automatically appropriates to obamacare. that's $23.6 billion, mr. speaker, that goes on to kick obamacare in. it's been found unconstitutional by two federal courts and it's been rejected by the american people who say -- sent 87 freshmen republicans here to repeal obamacare and we're sitting here looking at 23.-- $23.6 billion in automatic spending. we're struggling to cut the budget by $61.5 billion. well let's do that. but other here -- but over here is $23.6 billion in automatic spending that goes on. and if, as i believe harry reid is committed to shutting our government down, and by the way, the majority leader in the united states senate speaks, i think, as a proxy for the president, what does the president want here? he wants the delay or he'll be telling harry reid, pass this thing. and i believe harry reid wants to delay and then shut down.

they have convinced me that their intention all along was to shut down this government. that's why they agreed to a short-term continuing resolution until march 4. so they could posture themselves to be in a position to force a shutdown of the government and they think that they can blame it on republicans and then the public will punish republicans at the polls. well, mr. speaker, i will submit that's not the way it is and not the way it will be. because now john boehner and eric cantor's leadership have demonstrated clearly that this majority in this congress, the speaker's office, the majority leader's office, down the line, have three times h.r. 1, two-week c.r. demonstrated there is the dollars for the legitimate functions of government, there's the dollars for it, we provided it three times here and three times the senate hasn't moved on anything of their own initiative. so they've convinced me that

their goal all along was to shut down the government. if i didn't believe that all i'd have to do is listen to senator schumer or howard dean or some of the language coming out of the majority leader reid. i'm convinced that they are committed to shutting this government down. if they do that we need to say to them, here's all the resources again and no money to implement obamacare. if there's no money to implement obamacare but all the money that's necessary for the physically responsible legitimate functions of government and they go in and shut this government down and point their fingers at us, the american people will know differently. they'll understand that it always was a strategy to shut the government down by the democrats in the senate and the white house. and that we're committed to keeping it open but we cannot be allowing the funding to go forward to an unconstitutional taking of american liberty which is obamacare on its face. it's unconstitutional in four

different ways, it's irresponsible, it's unsustainable, it can't be funded and we can't find the funds to fund it all. it's $2.6 trillion in outlays in the first 10 years. we must, mr. speaker, cut off the automatic funding to obamacare and any funding going forward to obamacare. let the courts decide and we decide here in the house of representatives to draw a line, draw a bright line, and stand firm. that all needs to happen in that way. and history, history tells us this, mr. speaker. that when there was a government shutdown, the argument last time was, oh, we're spending, we're spending most of it within medicaid or medicare. if my memory serves me correctly, it was over $300 billion in cuts, where it would be a plus-up or a plus-down from that, you can't take a stand on a money figure. you can't say, i'm going to stand and fight on $300 billion,

but if they lower my cuts down to $299 billion, then i'm not, you know, then if they lower the cuts down to $299 billion i'm going to be a no or if they take it up to $301 billion, i'll be happier yet. you cannot stand on a principle that is a dollar figure because whatever you pick, it's always going to be on a sliding scale. can always be -- it's not a principle. we're standing on $61.5 billion right now. if they lower those cuts down to $61 billion do we say no? i think that the democrats on the other side understand that. that's why they floated this number of $33 billion in cuts. they haven't said weather weather they're willing to accept it or not. they got to cuts this way. they took $61.5 billion, divided it by two and rounded it up to $33 billion. that's how they arrived at the number. there isn't any question in my mind about that. and they want to be able to say, well, we met you halfway and a

little more. so you should be happy that we're willing to compromise. to them compromise is take the number, cut it in half and then if you can't get agreement, cut in half again and they call that compromise. well, i've said, money itself is not a principle. you can't stand on something strongly unless you're standing on a principle. well a principle is an unconstitutional 2,600 page takings of american liberty, the nationalization of our skin and everything inside it, obamacare. that's a principle. it's completely unsuitable for an american people that live with the liberty and freedom that god gave us, that our founding fathers so well articulated in the declaration and in the constitution, it's part of our that dirks part of our history and part of the inspiration for the entire globe to be knocking on the door wanting to come to the united states of america because of what? liberty, mr. speaker. lists it out in the bill of rights, freedom of speech,

religion and the press, freedom to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. second amendment, to keep and bear arms, a right to own property, protection from double jeopardy, be tried by a jury of your peers, the philosophy of federalism that devolves the powers down to the states so that people respectively all of this and going on, equal protection under the law in the 14th amendment. on and on and on. these are the inspirations for a vigorous people, a people that have a belief and a common cause and a common culture, a culture of continuity, of belief in our liberty and they would impose us what? socialized medicine? a federal takings of our right to manage our own health care? and part that have management woog to buy a health insurance policy -- would be to buy a health insurance policy that's driven by the marketplace that people demand and want, that would have any of the bills and -- bells and whistles that the market demands, it would have every bell and wliftle the market demands and would not have mandates imposed on it by

the federal government that's imposed within the states. and people should be able to buy their own health insurance policy across state lines. the protection for the monopolies of state health insurance companies is antimarket. it's antifree market, it's antifreedom. and john shadegg's bill that he pushed so hard while he was here needs to be something that goes to the president's desk and allows people to buy insurance across state lines. so that a young man 23 years old paying $6,000 a year for a typical policy in new jersey laid within mandates could instead go buy that typical policy and kentucky for not $6,000 but $1,000. doesn't that help our cost? doesn't that give mother people insured? doesn't that do the right thing and protect people? that's just one i could take you down through aly the of -- -- i could take you down a list of ideas which come to this floor as stand-alone pieces of legislation, be sent over to the senate where harry reid would

push them into the trash can. why? because they're liberty-oriented, they're free-market-oriented, they're constitutional and they're principled and it gives people back their liberty. but this country, the united states of america, this vigorous people that we are, we have a vitality that's unique. we have all of the vitality that comes from the rights that i've talked about. we have the vitality of the free enterprise system which is the foundation of our economic system and i point out that there are flashcards that newly arriving immigrants or those i should say that are studying for their citizenship test, mostly that's five years in, studying for their citizenship test, flashcards. on one side it will say, who's the father of our country? you snap it over and it will say george washington. the next card, who emancipated the slaves? slap that card over, abraham lincoln. next card, what is the economic system of the united states of

america? free enterprise capitalism. . we are free to spend our money as we choose. obamacare takes over our pay check and they say you must buy this health insurance policy that is approved or produced by the federal government and if you don't do that, we are going to send in the i.r.s. to punish you. it's a punishment if you don't buy it. if they require you to buy a product that is produced or approved by the federal government, if they can take over 5% or 10% or 25%, 50% of your payroll to pay for a health insurance premium, if they can take over any part of your earnings and force you to buy something, the next step is, they can take over your money to buy a general motors car because their investment might not be doing so well, or chrysler or

shares in freddie mac or fannie mae or invest in the student loan program. they took that over, too, didn't they? they could force you to buy a certain washing machine or a shoe or force you at that point, you have to buy diet pop or carrots versus candy bars. if they can take over 1% of your pay check and force you to buy a product, they can force you to buy all products to the point where you are enslaved by the federal government. how can that be constitutional for a free people? mr. speaker, i will submit, it is not and cannot be and that's why this house voted resoundingly to repeal obamacare. every republican here and in the senate voted to repeal and cut off all funding to implement or enforce obamacare in every appropriations bill and that's why they deceptively plugged in

the automatic appropriation of $105.5 billion frontloaded with 18.6 billion in the 2010 budget to implement obamacare and there is another 4.95 billion, $23.6 billion sitting in the pot. and if they are successful in forcing a shut down in this government and they are trying to point at us to those of us trying to keep it open, we would still see $23.6 billion hard at work implementing obamacare. the lights could go off in federal offices all across america where you can drive down and look at where the lights are on, guess what? that's the $23.6 billion still there, still implementing obamacare like santa's little elves. that's what we are faced with

and we must draw a line. the fight is inest tabble. choose the ground where the army is the strongest and that is this, provide the resources for legitimate functions of this government, not for the illegitimate functions of this government and if the president of the united states working through his mouth piece brings about a shutdown, it will be about a bright line between legitimate functions of government versus perhaps a legislative tantrum, an act of audacity that a signature piece of legislation called obamacare means more to the president of the united states than all of the functions of the government put together. for all those reasons, i say this is the week to draw the line. this is the week to do the fight. this is the week to do the battle. we have to have it and can't avoid it and let's get it over with so we can get on with the legitimate functions of the united states government.

thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel from new york, for 30 minutes. mr. engel: i rise to pay tribute to a good friend and a former colleague who passed away this past week, a true trailblazer, former congresswoman engineer aled even ferraro. first woman to be nominated on a major ticket and italian american to achieve that honor. she was a doted public servant and beloved family member and i'm honored most of all to call her a friend. the history that has unfolded after she stood on the stage in san francisco in 1984 to accept

her party's nomination for vice president has happened thanks to her taking those first steps. i remember being there at the convention in san francisco national park 1984 and how proud we were that one of our own, a new yorker, congresswoman ferraro was being nominated as vice president. at the time, our governor at the time, mario cuomo gave the key note address at that convention. since that time, of course, another woman has appeared on the ballot, major party for vice president and another came with a handful of delegates of becoming the first presidential nominee. strong women in politics and business are not the exception any longer, but main delem stream. as she claimed in san francisco, i stand before you to quote, where dreams can come true for

all of us. she grew up in new york city and went into teaching before going to law school and grew up in the south bronx, as i did as well. she headed the victims' bureau and queens county prosecutor before being elected to the house of representatives in 1978. while serving in the house, she created a flex time program for public employees, which has become the basis of such programs in the private sector. she also successfully sponsored the women's economic equality act which ended pension discrimination for women and provideded jobs for displaced homemaimers and allowed them to open i.r.a.'s. when i think of her, typical representative of new york's outer burroughs. she has street smart and book smarts and moxy and how to get

ahead and what to say. we are all better off, no question. america is a better place because of the accomplishment of gerry ferraro. all americans, women or not, are better off because of what she did. she took those first steps in 1984 when she was nominated 64 years after women won the right to vote, a woman had removed the men-only sign from the white house door. i thought it would be good at this point to read some of the things that the "new york times" had mentioned about the highlights of gerry ferraro. she was considered ideal for television, down to earth, street blond, mother, whose personal story resonated powerfully. brought up by a single mother sent her daughter to good

schools and she waited until her own children were school-aged before going to work in the queens district attorney's office. in the 1984 race, many americans found her style refreshing. what are you crazy was one of her familiar expressions. she might break into a little dance behind the speaker's platform when she liked the introductory music. gerry ferraro was born on august 26, 1935 in the hudson river city of new burg, new york, fourth child and only daughter of domenic ferraro, an italian immigrant who owned a restaurant and five and dime store. one brother died shortly after birth and another died in an automobile accident when he was three, two years before she was born. she was born at home. her mother who had been holding gerard at the time of the crash

and washed and pressed his clothes for months after his death, would not go to the hospital for the delivery and leave the third brother at home. she was named for her brother but in her book, ms. ferraro said her mother emphasized that she was not taking his place. gerry is special because she is a girl. her mother soon sold the store and the family's house and moved to the south bronx with the proceeds of the sale of the italy, she sent her to a catholic school. and sent her to tarrytown. her grades earned a scholarship to college from which she transferred to the school's manhattan branch and commuted to queens where her mother had moved by then. ms. ferraro was editor of the

school newspaper and athlete a won honors before graduated in 1956. the lights and the unexpected, the year book said about her. after graduating, she got a job teaching in the public grade school in queens. she later applied to forwardham law school and was warned she might be taking a man's place. one of two women in the clays of 279 and received her law degree in 1960. she was married on july 16, 1960, two days after she passed the bar exam and admitted to the new york state bar in 1961 and decided to keep her maiden name to honor her mother and admitted to the united states supreme court bar in 1978. for the first 13 years of her marriage, she devoted herself to her growing family. donna was born in 1962, john in

1964 and laura in 1966. ms. ferraro did legal work for her husband's business and worked for women in family court and dabbed in local politics. in 1970, she was elected president of the queens county women's bar association. in 1973, after her cousin, nicholas ferraro was elected queens district attorney, she applied for and got a job as assistant district attorney in charge of a special victims bureau investigating rape, and child and wife abuse. the cases were so harrowing that they caused her to develop an ulcer and the conditions she saw, she said, planted the seeds of her liberalism. when she was elected to the house, she came -- became very good friends with tip o'nil who was the speaker. she decided to run in congress when james delaney when a

congressman announced his retirement. in the house, ms. ferraro was on the public works and transportation committee and in doing that, she successfully pushed for improved mass transit around la guardia airport. the speaker took an immediate liking to her and in her three terms, she voted mostly with the party's leadership. her friendship with mr. o'neill, she was elected secretary of the democratic caucus giving influence on committee assignments and awarded a seat on the house budget committee. it was ms. ferraro's appointment as chairwoman of the democratic platform committee that gave her the most prominence. in her book "my story," she said in becoming the first woman to hold that post, she owed much to democratic women, congressional staffers, rights activists and

others who called themselves team a and lobbied for her appointment. there were a lot of slights being the first woman. people were adjusting or not adjusting to a woman on the national ticket. mississippi's agriculture secretary called her young lady and asked if she could bake muffins to which she said yes, i can, can you? ms. ferraro always had a smile and always had a kind word and never said no to someone needing her help. even though i came to the house four years after she left, i got to know her very well and truly feel a loss in having her pass away. near the end of 1998, she learned she had bone marrow cancer that suppresses the

immune system. before then she was later ambassador to the united states human rights commission during the clinton administration and co-host of the cnn program "crossfire" from 1996 and 1998. she addressed her place in history in a long letter to "the times" saying women had wrote to her to inspire them to take on challenges. i decided if you can do it, i can, too. school girls told her they hoped to be president some day and needed advice. she said, i'm the first to admit were i not a woman, i would not have been the vice presidential nominee but insisted her presence on the ticket had translated into votes that the ticket might not have otherwise received. .

it made it possible for the democrats to win that year no matter the candidates or their gender. quote, throwing ronald reagan out of office at the height of his popularity with inflation and interest rates down, the economy moving and the country at peace would have required god on the ticket, ms. ferraro wrote, and she was not available. geraldine ferraro is survived by her husband, three children and eight grandchildren. i must say that i was disappointed that in the house we didn't have a plane to take all the members to the funeral yesterday. i'm sorry about that because frankly i think it was a bit disrespectful. but we all remember gerry ferraro. we remember her as a true new yorker. we remember her as a true american. and we remember her as someone who each of us, she inspired to push on with whatever goal we want to achieve no matter how

daunting or impossible it looked. that's how i'll remember gerry ferraro. i'll remember her at the 1984 convention standing on the stage with walter mondale, both putting their arms around them and there was a question they would interact because it was the first time a woman was on the ticket. i'll miss my friend, gerry. we will all miss her but we are all better people because of her. rest in peace, gerry. we will always remember you and so will the history books. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, for 30 minutes. mr. burton: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for 30 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: thank you. mr. speaker, you know a while ago one of my colleagues was down here talking about the obamacare and what a problem it was going to cause for this country from a financial standpoint as well as causing rationing of health care and a whole host of other things. but what i want to do right now is bring to the attention of my colleagues and anybody else that's paying attention a decision that was just made by u.s. district judge rosemary collier that affects everybody on social security who wants to have a health care plan besides medicare. and i'm going to read you an

op-ed that was in "the washington examiner" and also "the wall street journal" that i think every single american ought to be aware of because it has wide-ranging -- a wide-ranging impact on everybody in this country. and here's what it says. a recent court ruling has helped president obama push ahead with a mandate that all citizens be required to have government health care. now, get this, this court ruling would mandate that every citizen in this country has government health care, socialized medicine. in a march 16 decision, u.s. district judge rosemary collier, who previously served as general counsel of the national labor relations board, she ruled that seniors who elect to opt out of medicare coverage must forfeit their social security benefits as well and repay all past social security benefits prior to opting out. now, i hope everybody's getting

that in their offices. if you don't take medicare coverage and you're a senior and you opt out of medicare coverage because you want another form of health care, maybe a better form of health care, then you got to lose your social security payments and pay back all the social security payments that you received in the past. now, anybody that's paying attention is going to say, no, that didn't really happen, but i'm telling you that decision was made on march 16 by judge rosemary collier, u.s. district judge, here in this area. now, the ruling relates to a lawful -- the ruling relates to a lawsuit that was filed in 2008 when in -- and this was the name of the case -- hall vs. sbeelias -- several senior citizens challenged a clinton

program rule and sued the federal government to opt out of medicare without losing their social security benefits. the plaintiffs all paid their medicare taxes throughout their employment histories and did not request reimbursement of the money. so they paid into medicare for the entire time that they'd been working. these individuals simply wished to engage other health insurance plans. they wanted to get some other health insurance plan besides medicare. they paid into medicare, they paid into social security but they wanted to get other health insurance besides medicare. and it goes on to say that they believed they would provide -- that would provide better coverage than that of the government medicare program. in addition these seniors contributed to social security while they were working and accepted these benefits upon retirement. now, here's what the seniors' lawsuit argued. both the social security and medicare acts state that the application for social security

benefits and medicare are voluntary and that applications for each program are not dependent upon each other. forced participation in medicare violates an individual's constitutional right to privacy. the clinton-era rules were promulgated without undergoing the required notice and comment rulemaking requirements which is a violation of the federal administrative procedure act. the judge stated that in its arguments the obama administration, quote, extolls the benefits of medicare and suggests that plaintiffs would agree that they are not truly injured if they were to learn more about medicare perhaps through discovery. note, the familiar condescending obama administration tone, take the medicare and then find out what's in it. you'll like it when you do. we had that problem before on legislation. you remember the previous speaker of the house when was

asked about the obamacare she said, well, we got to pass the bill, then we'll find out what's in it. that really made a lot of sense. but pretty much that's the attitude of the administration. now, here's what the judge went on to say. the parties use a lot of ink disputing whether plaintiffs desire not to get medicare part a is sensible. translation, if americans don't want government-run health care, well, they don't have much sense. after all, the government knows what's best for them and they don't. most astounding about this case is that as of late 2009 this same judge, judge collier, supported the plaintiffs' claim and even refused the obama administration's request to dismiss the suit and her ruling then was that neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that plaintiffs must withdraw from social security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from

medicare which means simply that if they decide not to take medicare they can continue to get the social security that they paid into, as they should, and they wouldn't have to pay back social security benefits they received in the past. that makes sense. in her stunning reversal she changed her mind. now, this judge made this ruling in 2009 and now she changes her mind. and she says in her stunning reversal, she argues that requiring a mechanism for plaintiffs and others in their situation to disenroll would be contrary to congressional intent which was to provide mandatory benefits under medicare part a and for those receiving social security retirement plans. quote, plaintiffs are trapped in a government program intended for their benefit. they disagree and wish to escape, collier wrote, the court can find no loophole or requirement that the secretary

provides such a pathway. according to collier, an entitlement is mandatory. you have to take it. now, here's the government saying you have to take medicare. and her opinion will undoubtedly be relied upon by the obama administration as support for claims of mandatory entitlements such as that which is the crux of obamacare which could be medicare for everyone. everyone would have to be covered not by their own individual health care plans that they have or by their employer's health care plan or a group plan they are on, but everyone would have to be on medicare which is a government-run approach which would ration health care and cost a great deal more. obamacare, when you run it out to its -- for 10 years you find it's going to cost literally trillions of dollars at a time when we have a $14 trillion national debt, and this year alone we're exceeding our revenues by $1.4 trillion.

"the wall street journal" reported that kent masterson brown, the lead attorney for the seniors commented that if americans wonder how they'll right obamacare rules they need only to look to this ruling. quote, when they do, he said, they will realize nothing will be optional. this is an alarming decision that came about in a disturbing manner. collier's ruling is a danger to freedom-loving americans. let's look to the plaintiff's appealing -- they're appealing -- to the d.c. circuit court of appeals for more favorable results. now, that's where we are today. if she is not reversed, that means that anybody who gets social security who may have another health care plan, may not want to be on medicare, they either take medicare or they got to pay -- they have to pay all their social security benefits back plus they don't get social security in the future. now, think about that.

you don't want to take medicare for whatever reason, and you've been paying into social security all of your life, you're getting social security benefits, and because you won't take medicare they say, uh-oh, you got to pay all your social security benefits back to when you received them and you can't get any more in the future. that is just absolutely crazy. now, i want to read to you some information that i have from the actual wording of the statute. and this is very, very important because it can only be interpreted one way and yet this judge and the obama administration is changing it so that it will fit their desired objective. let me read this to you. be patient with me while i read

it and get all the information. now, here's what -- the medicare statute says. now see if -- colleagues in your offices, see if you can get this people will have to pay their payments back. here's what the medicare statute says. the medicare statute provides that only individuals who are entitled -- entitled to social security are entitled to medicare. if you're entitled to social security you have to be entitled to social security in order to be entitled to medicare. but it does not say if you're entitled to social security that you have to take medicare. it only says if you're entitled to social security you're entitled if you want to to take medicare. now, this judge is changing the

words that are in the statute to mean that if you take social security you have to take medicare. but the law does not say that. so she is making law on the federal bench, and that's not what our founders contemplated when they wrote the declaration of independence and the constitution. so listen to this again. the medicare statute says that only individuals who are entitled to social security are entitled to medicare, therefore, the judge's arguing the only way to avoid entitlement to medicare part a at age 65 is to forgo the source of that entitlement, i.e., social security retirement benefits. so she's standing the law of the country, the medicare law and the social security law on their heads. and this will mean to every single citizen of this country

if the government says here's something we want you to do and if you don't do it we'll take away another benefit that you have or another government program you will have to do it because that's what this judge's ruling means simply. if the government is giving you a benefit like social security and they decide that there's another benefit that you're entitled to, so you have to take it, you don't take it, they'll be able to withdraw your social security and say you have to pay back all your benefits of the past. this is absolutely insane. it is government run amuck, government run out of control, and this judge, if i had the ability, would be fired. one time in 19 -- in 1997 or 1998, i said before, i can't remember the exact date, her ruling was -- let me get the exact date on it. in 2008 she ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying if you got social security and you don't want medicare because you

got another health care plan you don't have to take it, and now she's reversed herself and said, if you get social security you have to take medicare. . i see my good friend is here, this is what the law says. the law says that only individuals who are entitled to social security are entitled to medicare. but that does not say if you're entitled to social security, you have to take medicare. and she's saying and i hope everybody is getting this, she's saying if you get social security, you have to take medicare. if you have another health plan, your employer has another health plan, doesn't matter, you have to get rid of those and you have to join medicare or you lose your benefits. now this case is on appeal and i hope it goes to the supreme

court and the supreme court reverses, because if it does not repeal this decision by judge collier, what's going to happen is that everything the government says, will have to be done. if they can say, you get social security, you got to take medicare and if you have a separate health care plan, to heck with it. and if they can go far enough to say that, they can say anything they want to to make you jump through a hoop. and it's dead wrong and flies in the face of everything we believe as far as the free people and free government is concerned. i can't believe some of the things that are happening around here. and the thing that bothers me, mr. speaker, is the american people who are involved in so many things that they can't pay attention to all the things that are going on, they rely upon their elected representatives because we have a democratic republic to study these bills and make decisions that are best

for the entire country. and we have 300 million people here and they can't read every bill or watch every court decision. but the fact of the matter is, these courts, a separate part of our government, our forefathers said we have a judicial branch, a legislative branch and an executive branch and supposed to be co-equal. but here you have a federal judge making a law that will transsend laws that we have on the books and change the way of life for every single american. remember what this does. the law says if you are getting social security, you may take medicare. and what the judge is saying, if you get social security, you have to take medicare, no matter what other health care plan you have. and if you don't do what the government tells you, then you are going to lose your social security benefits. and not only, you have to pay back probably with interest

probably on every social security check you received. i would like to yield to my colleague from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: i appreciate my good friend for yielding. we hear so often from this administration they are concerned about the little guy, but we know that wall street executives gave contributions four times more for the president than they did for his republican opponent. so it kind of tells you where you see the contributions come from for a particular candidate, who they really care about. we're told they really care about the working poor. and yet, the very thing you're talking about under the obamacare bill is almost inconceivable except that it was pushed through by this president and two democratic majorities

that there is a provision that if you are just above the poverty line and you can't afford the health insurance that this administration dictates, as i understand will be including pregnancy and young person, no plans of getting pregnant, no ability to get pregnant, other things that won't affect you at all but mandated by the administration, instead of being able to buy a cheaper insurance policy you can afford, this administration will have made it so expensive that people just above the poverty line won't be able to afford it. and how the bill deals with those working poor just above the poverty line, it requires a 2% additional income tax if you

cannot afford the insurance that they mandate. mr. burton: can i say one thing? my colleague, good friend of mine, representative gohmert points out the problems with the obamacare bill. and that is bad, very bad. and it should not be in law. and that's why we moved h.r. 1 to repeal it. but this decision that was talking about even goes further than that. it says if you are getting social security, you have to take medicare and what they're doing is saying everybody in this country is ultimately going to have to be under a government-run program, medicare or obamacare, which means socialized medicine in an entirely different approach to medicine, which will be controlled by government bureaucrats. mr. gohmert: i understood where my friend was going and i had not heard of that opinion and i'm so glad the smart gentleman

had brought that to our attention, because that is just incredible except that it is exactly what the democratic proponents of obamacare and the president himself had said before, they wanted to get to. the goal was to use this to get to a complete government-run, single-payer system where everybody is required to be under it. and so, this decision speeds that process up dramatically, but it is ultimately where -- they said they wanted to get any way. now, having seen socialized medicine firsthand in the soviet union as an exchange student back in 1973 and having seen another form of socialized medicine for four years in the united states army, i don't want to go there. i don't want the government in charge of my health care.

i saw that in the army. we have some incredible medics. we have some folks that shouldn't be practicing medicine that were working there and hopeful that i was helpful in getting rid of some of those, but that's not where we need to be going. people deserve better. but i thought the fact that in the bill itself, there is retribution for the working poor who can't even afford to do what the administration has dictated. so between a judge saying if you've got social security, you are going to be crammed into this and this administration and the former speaker pelosi and harry reid saying that we're going to penalize you because you are working poor and can't afford the luxuries of the policies we are mandate --

mandating, the working man does president have a chance unless we turn those things around. and the working poor is what i often saw at fort beening and people not getting paid. but now the military is paid better and i wanted to bring up the situation that exists that there is an attempt to use the military as pawns, even while they're out there fighting to protect us in combat theaters. the last thing those people should have to worry about is whether or not their money arrives in their account so their family can be taken care of. yet we're hearing from military people they understand that if

there's a shutdown, sure, they'll get their pay eventually when the shutdown is over and maybe they'll be lucky and harry reid and the democrats in the senate won't force a shutdown for very long. we know they want to force it because they keep saying they do. and of course, we heard from senator schumer himself that this is a political game to them. they're going to force a shutdown and basically blame the tea party. the military are the ones who are going to get hurt there, this from the democratic party that said all they care about are those working to protect us. and yet, when you see what they are really doing behind the scenes. no such thing. we have a report from c.r.s. here that says and i'm quoting, even though uniformed personnel

have been excepted from furloughs because of a lapse in funding, no nothing will provide pay. uniformed personnel are treated no differently than excepted civilian employees who are similarly expected to continue working during a shutdown, but whose pay will be delayed until appropriations enacted. well, i know my friend from indiana feels as i do and we've got -- around 50 other people just in a matter of an hour or so that have signed on to this bill, that says -- and we just got the number h.r. 1297, and i'll go right to the meat of this thing. it says, doing a funding gap

impacting the armed forces, the secretary of the treasury shall make available to the secretary of defense and the secretary of homeland security in the case of the coast guard, out of any amounts in the general fund of the treasury not otherwise appropriated such amounts as the secretary of defense and the secretary of homeland security in the case of the coast guard determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances without interruption to members of the army, navy, air force, marine corps and coast guard, including reserve components thereof who perform active service during the funding gap. and so, we hope that the majority leader in the senate, harry reid and senator schumer and those who have been saying privately that got exposed, like the bible says, what's done in

the dark will be exposed, and it has been, they're out to shut down the government and try to blame the tea party. and they have expected that one of the things that i'm sure will be able to do is have the mainstream media to do anything they can to support that party go try to find spouses of military in harm's way who are scared to death because now the government has been shut down and there's no check coming in the -- for the next pay period. and this will address that. and we can take our military off the table as pawns and let them be about concentrating on protecting us and saving their own lives. i yield back. mr. burton: i'm sorry to interrupt you. but one thing that i think my colleagues and anybody who is paying attention, first of all,

i have heard the republicans don't have an alternative health care plan. we have had one for two years and the media is saying we haven't provided an alternative, we do, one that will work and won't cost future taxpayers everything they will expect to earn. that's number one. and the other thing that concerns me is the administration. and now there are complicit persons in the court and media trying to do everything they can to move this country in a direction that nobody has anticipated, and that is complete government control over our lives. and i know that you and all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle are very committed to making sure that doesn't happen. the last thing i would like to say, we need to cut government spending. you know this. and we are sending legislation over there to try to cut $16 --

100 million or 61 billion. 6 -- $61 billion is a drop in the ocean and yet they don't want to cut any programs. and if we don't cut spending, this country will not only be bankrupt, we will be giving a legacy to our kids and grandkids they will never forgive us for. i hope my colleagues are aware of that. we don't want to shut the government down. we are committed to to cutting spending. they won't let the bill pass and we are cutting in a responsible way. so they are the ones who are causing the problem. we don't want to have the government shut down. . mr. gohmert: what about the children? those of us standing so firmly trying to cut this runaway

spending are the ones who are standing for the children and the children's grandchildren because what has been done in truth, we were running some -- i remember getting beat up in 2005 and 2006 for $160 billion in deficit spending. it was wrong. we shouldn't have been there. but now for the last three years -- 2 1/2, to be over $1 trillion each year is just reprehensible. it is wrapping such a heavyweight and chains around the necks of the children, some not even born yet, that it is unthinkable that somebody would invoke for the children to keep spending going that's going to come out of the children and

the grandchildren's pockets. we have some that say, it's all going to work out. don't worry about it. just let the spending go. don't rock the boat. and i saw this prayer from peter marshall back when he was chaplain of the senate. and just for historical purposes, one of his prayers in the senate he said, o father, give us the faith to believe that it is possible for us to live victoriously even in the midst of dangerous opportunity that we call crisis. help us to see that there is something better than patient endurance or keeping a stiff upper lip and that whistling in the dark is not really bravery. i yield back. mr. burton: i thank my colleague for coming down to the floor and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: mr. speaker, i move

that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. according according -- has until next wednesday, april 6, to approve a spending bill.

if it does not, the previously approved budget outlined in hr one would go into effect. house resolution 1255 now goes to the senate, though it is not likely they will take it up. the economy got good news today with the release of the latest unemployment figures. house speaker john boehner commented on that and other issues during his briefing today. this is just under 10 minutes. >> i think you probably all think we're going to have the press conference. april fools'. [laughter] i could never be that mean to all of you. [laughter] today's jobs report is welcome

news. but washington needs to do a lot more to end the uncertainty and get our economy moving again. it is clear that we need to cut spending, and we need to stop unnecessary regulations and end the threat of tax hike is and pass the trade bills that are out there. these are the pillars of the republican plan that will actually create jobs in america. listen, it has been 41 days since the senate has acted. we also know that this excessive spending creates uncertainty and leads to employers sitting on their hands. in 41 days, they have done nothing. they have not pass the plan. they have not put the plan forward in terms of what they are going to do to cut spending. i think it is time for them to get serious about it. republicans are listening to the american people and listening to their top two priorities.

they want jobs in america, and they want to stop the spending that continues to go on here in washington. as i said yesterday, there is no number. there's no agreement on a number. we're going to fight for the largest spending cuts that we can get. i am hopeful that we will get it as soon as possible. >> is there a little bit of wiggle room there? you say there is no number but we're going to fight for the biggest spending cuts we would get, and that could imply $61 billion is the biggest you can get. >> the house acted. we passed a bill. we put our plan out there. it has been out there for 41 days. it is pretty clear to us what our plan is. but what is not clear is what the senate plan is that they did not have a plan. what they have not acted, only one can surmise. >> -- there are talks going on right now. are you optimistic?

time is running out. i guess you would have to have something put together this weekend to pass it in time. what is the status? >> we're continuing to talk. >> [inaudible] we're continuing to talk, but it is time for the senate to get serious. senate democrats need to get serious about cutting spending, because that will lead to a better environment for job creators to create jobs in america. >> they are pushing for a large majority of these cuts to keep the mandatory spending. are you ok with that? >> we want real spending cuts. we're dealing with a discretionary part of the budget. that is what our plan was, to reduce the spending for the balance of this fiscal year, so that we can get on with the big job ahead of us and dealing with next year's budget and dealing with the debt limit. >> [inaudible] -- begun negotiations? >> i will not be in washington, d.c., for the negotiations this

weekend. the appropriators are doing their job. others are involved in other conversations. and i think we want to see how this weekend goes. >> [inaudible] >> i will not speculate about what happens next friday. i am trying to figure out what is going to happen this afternoon, for goodness sakes. >> might consider a michelle bodman nursing to shut it down. doesn't that complicate things? >> as you all know, i have never believe that shutting the government down as the gold. the goal is to cut spending, because cutting spending would reduce uncertainty. it will help our economy. frankly, let's be honest, if you shut the government down, it will end up costing more than you see. because you enter contracts. there are a lot of problems with the idea of shutting the government down. it is not the goal. the goal is to cut spending. >> [inaudible]

will you consider cuts in spending -- [inaudible] >> there were already reductions in the president's request in the defense bill that was basically agreed to by house and senate negotiators last december. so those numbers are down from what the request was. they are a bit higher than 2010 numbers. >> is there a plan to introduce a voucher system into the medicare program? >> listen, the budget will be introduced very soon. there will be a rigorous debate over that budget. but it is clear that washington has to act on the big challenges that face our country. i have been added for 20 years. for 20 years, i have watched leaders from out here look at

the size of the problem of growing entitlement spending, and they see how steep the mountain is and to decide to kick the can down the road another year. is the time to quit kicking the can down the road. you cannot continue to whistle past the graveyard. we are imprisoning the future for our kids and our grandkids if we do not act, and to is the time to act. >> how are you preparing your office for a government shutdown? >> i am not preparing for a government shutdown. >> [inaudible] >> our goal is to negotiate this and get it finished as soon as possible. thank you. >> speaker boehner at the capital earlier today. we will give you another chance to see his comments tonight in our prime-time schedule. we will eat up the schedule at 8:00 p.m. eastern, bringing it the joint economic committee that held their monthly meeting to discuss the u.s. unemployment rate, which fell in march to

8.8%. then remarks from today with president obama on jobs and energy policy and a long-term plan to reduce u.s. reliance on fossil fuels bill that is coming up this evening at 9:25 p.m. and more about temporary spending as house members debate legislation, aiming to make a previously passed spending bill law. that is all coming up tonight beginning at 8:00. >> this weekend on "book tv" on c-span2, 8 "new york times" colorado this on how our unconscious mind ships are character, intelligence, and then ken walsh on the long history of african-american serving in the white house residence. and then your calls and tweets for poet, playwright, and author. look for the complete schedule @ codey "booktv" website. signup for our alerts.

>> the difference between a deputy mayor and and there is like it's a pretty much what i wanted as mayor and the only person that that is in trouble is me. >> current new york city deputy mayor spent eight years as mayor of indianapolis today he has a boss, michael bloomberg, and a different job description. >> i am trying to make the streets a little bit cleaner and a little bit safer and tax dollars go a little bit farther and prove that large cities, for to clearly great large cities, have a vibrant future. there are some things that will detract from that agenda. >> so tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c- span. -- sunday night at 8:00 p.m. >> it has been three weeks since a massive earthquake in the tsunami hitting japan. earlier today, prime minister kan answered several questions from reporters on radiation leaks from a nuclear power plant, rebuilding efforts, and the financial future of tokyo electric power.

this is 45 minutes. >> you're seeing the japanese prime minister. he is just about to speak to the public. he is just having his photograph taken. he is starting the press conference now, and i will do simultaneous translation. >> today is the third week after the great earthquake. and during the cabinet meeting in a minute ago we decided the official name, the great east japan earthquake i would like to

offer my heartfelt condolences to the people who fell victim of this calamity as well as their families. and also for those people who are helping the affected people, the self-defense forces, firefighters, policemen. they are literally risking their lives sometimes to help the people affected. and i would like to dedicate my gratitude and also that i am very proud to have these people as head of the government. furthermore, there are a lot of assistance offered from all over the world. i am taking this opportunity to state my heartfelt gratitude to all of you. this is for -- this is april 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year. and in the fiscal budget. part has been already established with related bills.

having said so, however, after the proposal of this budget, this great east japan earthquake hit us. and in order to deal with it, the top priority is for this disaster and support. the disaster-stricken people and towards thewe have to give top o be policy for this so that the budget is established. in order to shipped this portion -- shift this support to the disaster stricken area, we would like to get into be sublet -- into the supplementary budget. there are several stages of the budget. one is dealing with the debris.

second is temporary housing buildings. also the security of employment and then be cooperation of the nation. -- then the cooperation of the nation. we would like to have the contents of the first stage of the complementary budget to be established in a couple of days. the next stage is the preparation for the recovery. not only to get to the formal state -- we would like to create a wonderful japan. we would like to compile a restoration plan. it is time for the municipal government and the mayors and the cities -- that we ask

their opinion of the disaster stricken area. we excavated parts of the mountain. they committed to the coastal area and the fishery businesses. central heating of the committee should be established. the social welfare oriented city will be encouraged so that we can be the model of the entire world. i believe we have to work hard toward such visions. creation of employment is important in part of the restoration. there are many in this area.

the fishery industry has been important. we would like to encourage the primary industry in this particular area. we would like to create -- we would like to ask the opinions of the state courter -- quarters. we would like to have a restoration conference by the 11th of this month. this is the first month anniversary of this disaster. in this meeting, there will be many proposals and suggestions that will, about. the government will ready itself to execute those recommendations. we will be ready for execution of those proposals by the end of april.

for the recovery and restoration effort, i understand that the opposition party has proactively offered their help. we will be taking a bipartisan approach to help in the recovery effort. that is my job is desired. on the fukushima daiichi power plant, we have been working on three basic principles in the past and we will continue to focus on these three basic principles. the first principle is the health and safety of the residents and the japanese public. it is the top priority. the second principle is that we will have strong risk management measures in place.

in some cases, even if they are considered too extreme. we will put together every possible scenario to counter against various possibilities so that we have measures in place against every possible scenario. we are currently working on addressing the principles in order to bring the fukushima daiichi power plant back to a stable state. we are consolidating daiichi major forces. one --we are considering consolidating dtwo major forces. we are bringing together the various forces of this

community to address the situation. the other area is support from the international community. we have already been given to strong assistance from the united states since the accident. in a recent conference call with president obama, he promised me strong support and assistance. yesterday, french president nicolas sarkozy was in japan. france is an advanced nuclear power. in addition to his own country's assistance, he offered his assistance through his position as leader of the g-8. the iaea has also been dispatched experts and provided

various kinds of assistance. with regard to the nuclear power plant issue, we are prepared to deal with this in the long run. we are committed to resolving the situation. i recognize the inconveniences and the words to the japanese public. i promise you we will overcome this issue. that is my commitment to you. three weeks have passed since the earthquake. the earthquake has been a terrible catastrophe. i have seen many heartbreaking scenes.

because of that, i think there is now a great movement rising within japan and throughout the world to collaborate, to help each other. it has been said that personal ties are waning in japan. but now, i believe local government companies and individual citizens have made a personal and comte his effort to assist in the recovery effort -- have made a personnel and committed effort to assist in the recovery effort. these bonds are becoming stronger and this gives me great hope for a bright and promising future for japan. i believe japan has a bright future ahead of it.

there has been much written about the disaster. what makes the japanese japanese? is it the education against the disaster that has been is still in the minds since the early days? we are in the process of tiding over this hardship. i believe the japanese will be able to create a wonderful japan again. i am convinced of that. and the cabinet members will -- i and the cabinet members will do our best to work hard with this commitment. i would like to conclude my

speech. thank you. >> the prime minister is going to entertain questions. >> please identify yourself and pose a question to the prime minister. >> i am from japan television. my question is about the nuclear crisis. three weeks have passed. the national people are fearful about the nuclear crisis at the nuclear plant and the accident. you have mentioned this is an unpredictable situation. what is your assessment and how are you going to bring an end to this accident? what are the options and what time do you think the nuclear plant will be in a stable status?

>> first of all, many people are facing hardship and challenges, including evacuations. i would like to offer my apologies. sometimes their livelihoods are jeopardized, including eating contaminated vegetables. we are consolidating the expertise in order to bring the plant back into stable status. at this particular stage, the plant has not yet achieved the status of stability get. under any kind of situation, we are prepared for any possible, conceivable situation.

i am convinced that at some time we will bring the plant into stable status. particularly when, i cannot say. we will do our best. that is the situation. next question. >> prime minister, can you give us some more specific ideas about the reconstruction effort? you said you would be establishing a reconstruction coordination meeting with experts and local government. will you set up a meeting with a cabinet minister leader? are you already thinking of making an assignment? as for the ministry in charge, you asked the ldp leader to join

your cabinet. i know that he refused. do you plan on asking him again? there will need to be a long- term recovery plan. when do you plan on developing that plan? as for the recovery budget, there is finding that will need to be massive. are you thinking of a hike in consumption taxes or income taxes? >> as i was saying earlier, we need to clear away the debris, for one. in order to assist the livelihood of the victims, we need to establish a supplementary budget, which is preparation for more sustained recovery work. on april 11, which will mark one month from the earthquake, i

will launch a reconstruction concept development meeting. we will work closely with local government leaders and local experts. as we develop proposals, we will also, during this time, discussed ways to execute those recommendations. examples will probably be useful. we may learn lessons from the great earthquake in which a task force was set up. i have personally heard of many examples that we can learn from. i would like for us to be capable in addressing the

situation. we will be looking at many ways for what the most appropriate response structure will be. we may or may not have a ministry or agency responsible for reconstruction. that is one of the things we will be thinking about during this time. as for the necessary funding, as i said earlier, for this fiscal year, we will be freezing out lays for some items in the fiscal year 11 budget. it is already clear that that money alone will not be enough. the reconstruction concept development meeting will be when we identify ideas we can agree upon. next question please. >> when you asked mr. -- to join

the cabinet, are you going to offer again? the grand alliance will be a big challenge. what cooperation will you have for the ground alliance? >> as for the contents of our telephone call, i have no intention of repealing it to you about the contents of the telephone call from me. in any case, as i have mentioned earlier, according to the national press, ldp and the

opposition party members all gave us a commitment to a certain level of contributions. we are willing to ask for their assistance to make the reconstruction plan. this is a platform i am expecting. >> i would like to ask you about funding for the reconstruction effort. prime minister, you just said that readjusting the budget will not be enough. are you thinking of an increase in taxes or issuing more national debt bonds? >> as i was explaining, we already have a budget in place for fiscal 2011.

we decided to defer spending on several of these outlace. that will not be enough to fund -- several of these outlays. that will not be enough to fund the reconstruction effort. what kind of funding will we be able to realize in our reconstruction scheme. ? in the development meeting, we will be thinking about that. there needs to be an agreement between the ruling and opposition parties in order for that kind of budget to be passed. i would like to have a discussion within that framework. at this point in time, i am still working on starting and launching this reconstruction conference. i have yet to began in-depth

discussions with the opposition party. i have no ideas at this time. i want to listen to many ideas. >> we now present the foreign press. >> i believe there has been a huge cost for this accident. are you going to need insurance or guarantees from the national government to support the efforts our recovery? >> there will be a lot of compensation. it is easy to predict. at the same time -- if the costs are beyond the means that are responsible for the composition,

the government will take part. we have to support the private companies. as a private institute, i think they have to do their best. next question. >> my question is about the nuclear power plant. fire departments have been called in. it seems you were trying to address the issue just from within japan. earlier in your speech, he said the international community is working on addressing the issue. does that mean the situation has become so serious that you need assistance from the

international community? secondly, i would like to ask about a specific option at the cushy met. -- at fukushima. radiated water needs to be removed and fresh water needs to be applied. things have been going up and down for a while. are those the only options available at this point in time or are there other ideas that can be brought into play? >> first, about the international community being involved. the united states has been involved from an early stage, giving us many ideas. for anything necessary, we have been ready to have them and balls.

we are working with -- to have them involved. we are working with our nuclear safety commission as well as the nuclear industrial safety agency. we have daily communication with the u.s. side to discuss issues , to proceed with preparations. from the outset, the united states has offered us a great deal of support. in addition to that, france, the iaea, and many other countries have offered help and assistance on this nuclear power plant crisis. we have also been asking them for much assistance. as for your question about what options are billable to us, --

are available to us, we have experts discussing the situation, putting together and schedules for daily efforts. my understanding is that the cooling effort is extremely important. it must be sustained. in conjunction with that, several other things have occurred, including the contamination of standing water. we will need to address that situation as well. in terms of the cooling efforts, one day in the future, we hope to have the cooling

systems back in place and functioning so that is definitely one of the goals we have. >> next. the gentleman on this side. >> about the reconstruction of the livelihood of the affected people. that is my question. there is a limitation of the recovery assistance. there is a little amount of compensation. do you think the efforts will be revised to give them disaster help? what is your idea about the employment creation foundation in the affected area? the fukushima prefecture is

devastated. i know that many people are suffering from heavy damage. >> i would like to offer my apologies and to encourage them the best i can. getting back to their feet in --theof the livelihood question is what to do and what they can do to support them to get back on their feet. with this, i would like to do my best to provide the best kind of assistance and support for them. as to the creation of employment, first of all, there are many needs in the

committee's for removing debris. removing the debris is a kind of creation of employment. the former employment -- >> the new employment, please elaborate. >> my question has to do with the evacuation zone. the evacuation is still considered problematic for local residents. in your meeting with president sarkozy, i believe there was a proposal to talk about nuclear safety at the g-8 forum.

a global safety standards for nuclear power plant accidents. do you think that will something -- that will be something that will be decided to help reassure the japanese public and avoid this -- avoid misinformation? >> i had various exchanges with president sarkozy. we talked about international safety standards pertaining to nuclear power plants. there is no such global standard today. in our discussions, we talked about having a forum, an international forum, to discuss such safety standards. as for the evacuations zone, with the -- the evacuation zone, what do standards would be

inclusive of an evacuation zone, we did not touch on. in japan, the nuclear and industrial safety agency offers advice to the government. the advice is based on various monitored data and operational expertise or the nuclear power plant. it is collective wisdom from experts that is the basis for their recommendations to us. we respect their recommendations in deciding on the evacuation zonehe japanese government's perspective. we would like to say to the public that as long as bt evacuation -- as long as these

the evacuation zone are upheld, there should be no danger to the public. >> you refer to the freezing of part of the current fiscal budget. are you going to abolish parts of the fiscal budget, the child rearing allowance, for example. not only freezing, but abolishing. >> there have been discussions between the ruling party and the opposition party. at this time, child rearing -- including for -

the child allowance, we have to consider whether to continue considering it or consider what form or possibly a new form the budget structure will take. we have to continue discussing and continue processing and a bridge to budget. we have to have further discussions with the ruling and opposition parties. >> on the nuclear power plant strategy, i would like to ask a question. president sarkozy talked about some strict international safety standards to be developed. in france, the nuclear power strategy will continue to be advanced.

mr. prime minister, i know you have said you will think about this, including the re- evaluation of the accident. in a previous you mentioned that japan's nuclear power strategy would go back to scratch. will you start to draw up an alternative to nuclear power, or will you continue to events japan's nuclear strategy? -- to advance japan's nuclear strategy? this accident is the most serious in japan's nuclear strategy, even on a global scale. of course, there has been a more

serious accident before. this is basically the most serious on a global scale. the first and foremost priority is to ensure that we can stabilize the situation and then do a complete and thorough examination of the accident. i am sure everybody will agree to that. from that sense, as soon as the issue stabilizes, we will begin a thorough examination. as a part of that assessment, we will identify what safety measures need to be guaranteed in order to offer reassurance to the japanese public. the post-accidental examination

will offer that kind of information. i am not going to set a course before we have had a chance to do the examination. examination will point us in the right direction. as for theour nuclear strategy - examination of our nuclear strategy, we already have a nuclear plan and scheme in light of this accident. is the plan at the lycee? that is one of the reasons -- is the plan adequately sakes? that is one of the reasons i said we have to evaluate the plan. that is why we have not scrap ped the plan. >> my question is about the recommendation to take shelter indoors. iaea or the aid of the united

states and the european union -- they can not alleviate the impact of the nuclear substances. 48 hours is the limitation of taking shelter inside the buildings. after that, the evacuation is ordered. and there are more than 20 people tried to take shelter. they are within the evacuation area. they have insufficient supplies. that the impactt ba is the unexpected.

why are they instructed to take shelter inside the building? we have to listen to the advice of the nuclear safety commission. >> there are many experts. basically, we would like to let the experts decide. the evacuation zone is 20 kilometers in radius. it should be saved. the residents are encouraged to stay indoors. as long as they stay indoors, they are safe. that is the basis of the instructions or the guidelines. as i have mentioned, how comfortable they can live, their livelihood, between the 20

kilometers and 30 kilometers -- they have difficulty getting access to daily supplies. we understand this is the case for people who live between 30 kilometers. many of the local communities are trying to deal with such hardships. what are the additional measures we have to encourage? together with the nuclear safety commission, we would like to discuss it and the social benefits. i would like to exchange frequent opinions and information between us, national governments and local governments. that is the current condition. >> i would like to ask about the construction in the affected areas. you said you wanted one city to become a new model for reconstruction.

for the heavily devastated areas, especially the coastal areas, will the central government be buying real estate in some of those areas? as for the areas surrounding fukushima daiichi power plant, you said you will overcome this challenge in the long run. if you say that it is in the long run, i am expecting that you foresee this being a long- term issue. perhaps for several decades, are you planning on designating this area as off limits? >> this was certainly a major natural disaster. there is a concept for transforming major urban areas. it is a well known concept.

some of those ideas have been brought into realization. but not all of those ideas were implemented. i personally have read about the history. i have heard about it. in the coastline in the past, they also have suffered from major tsunamis. in this recent earthquake, there ere high tsunami is in the straighter coastline. i am sure many government leaders have different opinions. that is widely reconstruction planning meeting is necessary.

we would like to invite real estate developers to give us specific ideas. we must reach an agreement with local communities and local stakeholders. i believe this is a major task we need to look at. >> how are you going to decide on this? >> i am really repeating myself. the situation is still -- how shall i say -- fluid. it is too early for us to refer to anything in the future. this is going to be the last question. >> my question is about the nuclear power plant.

hiroshima and nagasaki were horrible examples of the risks of nuclear radiation. the nuclear power plant myth is no longer in tact. -- intact. do you have any plans to reduce the number of nuclear power plants? >> going back to my earlier response, at this point in time, we are in the midst of a major nuclear power plant accident. when the situation is more stabilized, we have to examine the accident thoroughly. going a little beyond that in terms of energy usage, we have

tried to look at biomass and wind power generation, sources of power that do not generate co2. nuclear power has enjoyed a resurgence because it does not emit co2. based on all those factors, here in japan, what is thehehe of power? obviously, there has been a lot of thought going into this before. we need to continue thinking about this moving forward. a thorough examination and an analysis is where it all starts. >> the japanese prime minister's

comments will air again to not -- again tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the house has gaveled out. on the agenda next week, a bill about broadband industry practices and 2011 federal spending. the budget expires next friday. without action, a government shutdown could happen. earlier today, president obama urged lawmakers to reach a compromise in the budget debate. he also commented on today's jobs report, which saw on a plan to drop to 8.8% for the month. at a shipping facility in landover, maryland. this is 25 minutes.

>> we are here today for a simple reason. ray was not home when they tried to deliver a package yesterday. [laughter] we thought we would just grab it and be on our way. i have been working him too heart. in addition to steve and ray, we

have the attorney general of maryland. [applause] and we have got one of the finest senators in the united states senate, ben cardin is in the house. [applause] we actually did not come here to grab a package. we are actually here to announce an exciting new partnership between the federal government and some of america's leading companies. a partnership that will help reduce our dependence on oil, will protect our planet, and will start economic growth. i gave a speech about this earlier this week. i laid out a blueprint that will put america on a path toward a

clean energy future. i know a lot of people have been feeling the pinch of higher gas prices lately, whether you are feeling -- filling up your tank or running a business like ups. people say we should do something about our dependence on foreign oil. when prices go down, we move on until the next crisis hits. the point i made earlier this week is that we cannot keep on doing that. that is not how we should conduct our energy policy in this country. we cannot go from schock to trance -- shock to trance and then hit the snooze button when prices go back down. when we are addressing instability overseas, we know this is a national security issue.

it is also a huge economic issue. two years after the worst recession in our history, our economy is showing signs of real strength. today, we learned that we added 230,000 private-sector jobs last month. that is good news. [applause] that means more packages. [laughter] [applause] right? that makes 1.8 million private- sector jobs created in the last 13 months. and the unemployment rate has fallen a full point in the last four months. the last time that happened was during the recovery in 1984 where we saw a significant drop

in the unemployment rate. despite that good news, everybody here knows we have a lot more work to do. there are still millions of americans out there who are looking for a job to pay the bills. i know there is a lot going on in the world right now. the news has been captured by images of the middle east and the tragedy to our friends in japan. i am focused on those issues. you should know that keeping the economy going and making sure jobs are available is the first thing i think about when i wake up in the morning and the last thing i think about when i go to bed each night. i will not be satisfied until every american who wants a good job and find one and every american gets a shot at the american dream. that is what we are focused on and what we are fighting for. [applause] although we got good news today, we have to keep the momentum going. making the transition to a clean

energy economy will help us do that in two important ways. first, it reduces the chance that our families, our businesses, and our economy will be held hostage to the whim of the oil market, held hostage to something that happens on the other side of the world. second, investment in clean energy has the potential to create an untold number of new jobs and new industries here in the united states. for all these reasons, i set a new goal for america. when i was first elected, america imported 11 million barrels of oil per day. one decade from now, i want us to have cut that by 1/3. that is achievable. it is necessary and it is good for our future. we are going to get it done. i am confident we can get it

done. [applause] to meet that goal, we are going to need to pursue a broad range of policies. for gasentives leaks, new incentives for biofuels. i hope republicans and democrats will support these kind of proposals. this should not be a bipartisan issue. this is an american issue, making sure we have energy independence. one of the best ways to reduce our dependence on oil is by making our cars and trucks more energy efficient. transportation accounts for more than 70% of america's oil consumption. using energy efficient cars and trucks can make economic sense because transportation is one of the biggest costs for many businesses and many families.

energy efficient cars and trucks will not just cut our dependence on oil. it can save us money day to day. if we are serious about making the transition from gas- guzzlers' to hybrids, we have to,-- gas-guzzlers to hybrid, we have to show automaker's that there is a market for these cars. we need to put our money where our mouth is. . one group that is leading by example on this is the federal government. the government postal fleet includes 600,000 vehicles, which means -- the government postal fleet includes 600,000 vehicles, which means the government has he biggest -- government's

fleet includes 600,000 vehicles, which means the government has the biggest fleet in america. we want to make sure government's fleet is comprised of fuel efficient cars. that creates a market. that means they are manufacturing more of it and costs will go down, which makes it cheaper for businesses and consumers. if we are going to upgrade all of america's fleets, our businesses are going to need to step up as well. that is why i am proud of what companies like ups, federal express, at&t, verizon and pepsi are doing. i just had a chance to see some of these newly efficient cars

and trucks they are adding to their fleets, including hybrids and all electric vehicles manufactured right here in the united states of america by ford and gm. [applause] as owners of some of our nation's largest private fleets, these countries -- these companies are leading the way when it comes to building cleaned fleets. we need to make sure all of our businesses are following their example. that is why we are launching a national clean lead partnership. if you are a business that needs to transport -- launching a national clean leach -- clean fleet partnership. if you accept this challenge, you join our clean fleet

partnership. we are going to make cutting edge research and development possible to help you make the transition to a clean energy fleet. secretary lahood will also come and watch your car or truck. [laughter] wasn't that part of the deal? a little armor-all. it is going to look good. just to give you a look at what this partnership is going to do, millions of vehicles travel the highways running nearly 4 billion gallons of fuel along the way. we will make sure those vehicles are energy efficient. we can cut the amount of pollution they pump into the air and cut the amount of gasoline they pumped into the tank and cut the amount of oil we import

from abroad. this is part of a broader effort to build a clean in the economy. last year, after going 30 years without raising yuli efficiency standards, we put in place a national fuel -- without raising fuel efficiency standards, would put in place a national fuel efficiency standard. our consumers will save money from the work trips to the pump. our automakers will build more efficient cars and trucks. we will announce the next round of fuel standards that builds on what we have done. beyond raising fuel standards for our cars and trucks, we are also working to build the next generation of vehicles. it was wonderful seeing some of

these cars and trucks back here. i was getting input from folks about how we can advance the technology. soon after i took office, we set a goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on our roads by 2015. that would make the united states the first country in the world to me that now stone -- to meet that milestone. we should launch a new program to reward communities that make it easy as possible our families and businesses to use electric vehicles. something that i heard repeatedly fumbled striping these cars is -- repeatedly from folks driving these cars is backed we need to make sure-- is that we need to make sure we have charging stations.

that is critical. we do not have the distribution platform and that is something we need to work on. meanwhile, we are investing in the advanced batteries that can polities electric vehicles. investments that are already making a difference. a couple of years ago, america produced less than 2% of the world's advanced batteries. these are the batteries that go into these hybrid and electric cars. or the last two years, we made investments in a home grown american advanced battery industry. because of the advancement we have made, we are going to be able to produce 40% of the world's advanced batteries. we have job started a new industry in the united states of america. [applause] that is the kind of partnership between business and government

that has always made our economy strong. i think there is a lesson in that. it is not the role of government to be the engine of innovation and prosperity in america. that is the job of entrepreneurs and executives, the outstanding workers at the companies represented here. you are the ones making innovation happen. government does have the ability to spark inflation, to support the research, the scientific discovery that has always led to breakthroughs in new products. it is in our national interest to make these investments. we were just talking about some of these trucks. there is still work to be done. to make the fuelling faster, to bring down the price. all of those things require innovation and new technology so that, in the end, it is not only

as cheap to purchase a truck like this, but it is cheaper than a traditional engine. there will be more work to do on this. historically, individual companies may not be able to make all of those investments on their own. government has to make those investments. this is tougher to do in light of the deficit that i inherited when i took office. we are all concerned about our debt and our deficit. that is why i propose to deep cuts in spending so we can live in our means. there are investments in education, investment in our infrastructure and research in the research and development and clean energy technologies of the kind i talked about today. we have to make these investments otherwise we will

fall behind other countries. china, south korea are making these investments. we cannot afford to fall behind. the key issue here is how do we pay for all of this at a time where we have to shrink the deficit? we have to make tough choices. we have got to stop spending on things we do not need to spend on things we do need. there is a debate going on about this in washington as congress puts together a budget for this year. we will have to put together a budget for next year. after a few weeks of negotiations between democrats and republicans and my team at the white house, it appears we are getting close to an agreement between leaders of both parties about how much spending we should cut. there are still details and differences to work out. what i said is that neither the democrats or republicans should be about 100% of what they want. we are going to have to

compromise and figure this out. both sides are close. we know the compromise is within reach. we also know we cannot afford not to have congress work out these budgets and make sure we are investing in the right things. if these budget negotiations break down, we could end up having to shut down the government just at a time when the economy is >> you don't need to shut down right now. every business here could be impacted. we cannot allow that to happen. given the encouraging news we received today it would be irresponsible to stop our momentum because of the same old washington politics. [applause] that is not what we need.

the american people don't want us to go to our respective corners and have the same battles we have been having four decades. they want their leaders to come together. right now we have an opportunity to do just that in the same way we did in september when we cut taxes in a bipartisan way. it is time to agree on a budget that makes us live within our means while investing in our future. that is why these businesses are successful. businesses have had to make cutbacks. it made companies stronger. that is how we are going to keep our economy rolling. that is how we will keep the american dream alive for the next generation. thank you for the extraordinary

work you have done. we have to get busy. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> president obama from earlier today in maryland. next up, the state department briefing. we will hear about an attack in a afghanistan compound that killed several demonstrators. other topics include political unrest in north africa and the release of americans detained in syria. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. happy friday. no one among you is happier the fact it is friday than i've. we are in utter agreement for

once. >> it is just that the policies sometimes -- >> welcome to the state department. just a few things. i just wanted to let you know we can confirm the two american citizens detained and syria at been released. we never did receive access to them but we are satisfied they have been released. we are in contact with them. i really cannot because of privacy considerations. we will work closely with them. >> is everyone in the federal government affected by these

privacy considerations? >> i am not sure what you mean. >> senator leahy said there was a problem. >> i am not certain it is a different branch of the federal government. i will refer you to a congressional historian. provide't want to information other than what i have already said. >> people being held and is this a pattern? >> it is a travel warning. it is a pattern. this is one we have raised with the syrian government. i don't want to attempt to articulate what their views on

this are, but they understand clearly our position. >> do you have anything else? >> you are all aware of a tax on -- the attack on a compound today. we are saddened by these reports that un personnel were killed in an attack in afghanistan. we condemn this attack on un staff, both international and afghan. we convey our condolences to the families of the victims. there is no justification for the murder of innocent people. we stand firmly with the special representatives of the secretary general at this difficult moment. we are in close contact with our view and colleagues about the

situation on the ground. we recognize the vital role to you and place in afghanistan supporting the afghan people as they build a more prosperous future. >> do you have anything to say about the incident that led to them? >> it is premature for us to speculate what because as more of today's demonstrations and killings. to speak about the burning of the koran, this was an isolated act done by a small group of people. it does not reflect the respect of the people of the u.s. have towards islam. we reject this religious intolerance.

>> do people understand that better? >> i believe our missions and afghanistan arkin dana. we are still trying to confirm all the identities. all official americans have been accounted for. >> but what about any of the un personnel? >> it does not reflect the respect -- >> we respect that the u.s. people have for islam. >> how do you quantify that? >> quote clearly america is a country marked by religious tolerance. it is part of our constitution. this kind of action we don't

think reflects the best traditions of this nation. >> it would not be likely in many countries. it is a terrible act and we reject it as anti-american. >> what is your take on events today in syria? as ambassador ford had any discussions? >> i don't have a lot new for you. the ambassador remains in close

contact with the government. we are concerned about the situation. we condemned today's violence against peaceful protesting and have been clear for their support for their rights to express their views. >> why did the president of syria not suggest he was lifting the emergency law in place? a member of the council came out on television saying one person does not have the right to repeal the law. has that been discussed in any way? >> we have made clear we believe listing the emergency law would be a necessary step in the right direction.

as to how that would take place legally within the framework, that is a question for the syrians. >> they did not say there is a mechanism you can follow. >> not that i am aware of. that is for them to set that in motion and explain it to their people. >> this is outside agitators. what is the view of the u.s.? >> that is an easy answer to what is going on there? this is a manifestation of what is taking place across the arab world in many countries. that is the people of syria expressing their aspirations. we believe they should do so peacefully.

>> he said it is an incorrect answer. >> thank you. >> i was going to ask that -- [unintelligible] >> we continue to monitor the situation and condemn any violence that continues to take place and called on authorities to allow peaceful demonstrations to take place. >> [unintelligible] >> i have not seen a statement. >> he attended the ceremony in iran. >> i'm sorry, i don't have an

answer. >> what is your understanding of what happens today? are you concerned the violence might come from forces [unintelligible] >> all good questions. let me answer them one by one. we are very concerned about the violence taking place. we would urge forces on the ground to take all possible measures to protect civilians. obviously the situation is very fluid. it is unclear where he is at the present time. we are concerned about the ongoing violence and we call on him to step down immediately.

now i have remembered your other question. do we expect him to go soon? that is impossible for us to predict the it appears his time is drawing. we would just urge him to read the writing on the wall and step down now to prevent any further bloodshed. >> is it possible to predict? >> that was a news report. >> local reports from their suggesting then they have taken control of the southern province. can you corroborate any think? >> i cannot.

obviously we remain very concerned about the presence and yemen and elsewhere. >> if this is true it is related to the explosion we saw. >> several days ago -- i have not seen any corroboration but as we get more details we will share them. >> aside from these developments it would seem the president and government had more pressing issues on their minds. what distractions -- >> it is a concern but our terrorism corp. -- counter- terrorism cooperation continues in yemen.

it is ongoing cooperation with the government. we want to see a resolution to the unrest in yemen. we believe the president made some movement on his side. clearly the counter-terrorism efforts in yemen are foremost on our minds. our cooperation continues. >> i want to go to libya. how goes the fierce debate about whether it is rebels were not? >> we have not ruled it out. >> in terms of contacts with the opposition? >> i don't have any updates.

>> what efforts are you taking today to encourage this to follow suit? >> i cannot speak to that other than we believe the departure is yet another sign of fracturing within the regime. we would urge others to follow his example. >> whether the u.s. is taking any steps. >> i don't know if we have had further conversations with the government. >> is there anything else -- any other offers? >> we have been explicit in saying they should read the writing on the wall.

time is not on their side. we could probably come up with a couple more metaphors. it is quite clear they need to step aside and gaddafi needs to step down. >> you just said -- the secretary of defense yesterday it was clear we are not aiding them. >> i am aware of his remarks. we are looking at libya and focused on the situation there. there is more to this than just arming the rebels. we are working to get a better understanding of the operation. we are making every effort to

assist them in nonlethal ways. also, the other side of this coin is to keep the pressure on the gaddafi regime through the arms embargo and the set restrictions. we believe there are other ways to skin this cat. >> go ahead. >> you don't see eye to eye with the department of defense on this issue? >> i don't know how to say it. it is not ruled out. all options remain on the table but there are other ways to approach this issue. one of those is looking at non-

lethal ways to help the opposition provide them with humanitarian assistance. >> do we see any concrete stands from the u.s. over the weekend? ruling it out is confusing -- the diplomats in brussels said they're not getting a clear signal from the u.s. have your reply to the italians about their proceeding to give libyan leader a way out. >> are you talking about the italian proposal? >> yes. >> all options should be considered.

we would welcome gaddafi stepping aside. >> have you replied to the italians? >> i know a lot of things have been discussed both when we were in london this past week. there are obviously questions about accountability and justice. those need to be addressed but what we want to see is him as a roller step aside >> representatives -- i don't have any details on that. if i get more information i

will get to that. we just don't have any more details. it has been a few weeks that we keep hearing it is hard to get to know the opposition. in the beginning it was understandable. why is this so difficult? >> the opposition is emerging and the evil thing. its leadership is evolving. that has been something that was well covered risking their lives and providing that coverage. we are in close contact with them we are advising them where we can. they are beginning to provide public statements about their goals and aspirations. i were to encourage all of you

to read them. this is an evolution taking place. >> at this point do you feel more comfortable with where they are headed? >> sure, we are seeing positive signs. >> have you determine the identity? to use any methodology? do you [inaudible] what is their affiliation? >> all those things are in plant. we are obviously speaking to a broad array of people that just -- trying to get a better sense of who they are. >> who are you hoping will inform you if they are infiltrated by extremists? >> these are professional

diplomats conducting these. they are used to assessing political opposition groups. >> was the state department already on the ground? >> not yet. thanks. >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule. the joint economic committee holds its monthly meeting to discuss the unemployment rate which fell to 8.8%. then remarks from president obama on the jobs and a plan to reduce u.s. reliance on fossil fuels. john boehner briefs reporters on negotiations over a possible government shutdown. >> let's meet another top winner

in this week's studentcam competition. produced a video about something that help them understand a role tell us why you chose the environmental protection agency to focus on. >> we did not really choose the epa specifically. the contest was how the community is affecting us in our daily lives. the epa kind of went with that because they drove the whole process. >> how many people were directly affected by the spill? >> on december 22 [unintelligible] which went into three rivers and

consumed 12 homes. we know the total amount of people in a city affected was 750 families. it reached out to the whole u.s. because bp had regulatory hearings. >> you showed some of those in your documentary. what was the outcome? >> just to hear the opinion of the people. whether they will take subtitle c or d, they have not chosen them. >> subtitle c means it will be treated as a hazardous waste and the government will regulate it. d is it will be treated as non hazardous. >> what progress has been made? >> since it happened at midnight on december 22 about 2 million

cubic yards have been taken away. every day they are working on it. >> he showed video from hearings on the bp oil spill. how would you compare them? >> the oil spill was a bigger representation of the coal ash spill. they both caused damage and ruined homes but the government did treat them the same. it came in to help them. >> how would you grade the government on the role that they play in environmental issues. >> i think the government does a good job. regarding the coal ash, they held immediately. >> what is next for your community? >> to keep cleaning it up.

they have not chosen whether they will do subtitle c or d, but the main goal is to help the people. >> what did you learn in the process of making your documentary? >> i learned about these statistics and how to work on a team for the documentary. i learned the government does help us every single day. i could not have worked as hard as i did without my teammates. >> thanks a lot and congratulations. here is a portion of her documentary. >> coal ash contains arsenic. right now it has no regulations so it can be thrown out with your household trash. >> i promise to propose

regulations by the end of the calendar year. >> the federal government is nothing without its citizens. naturally, the epa listened to the opinions of the people. one of our senators even requested the epa to extend the period, which was the reason we river to participate in a national hearing. we saw passion in people. they argue because they knew they were taking a part in the federal government. >> you can see this entire video at studentcam.org. we will continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> if i could say what i wanted as mayor -- >> stephen goldsmith spent eight

years as mayor of indianapolis. today he has a boss, michael bloomberg. >> i am here to make the streets cleaner and safer and prove that large cities have a vibrant future. i steer away from things that will detract from that agenda. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. friday was a pretty busy day in the house. they passed a full-year extension of the faa reauthorization bill. they also passed a government shutdown prevention act. the fiscal year 2011 spending bill passed by the house in february would become law if the senate does not pass the bill by next wednesday today'