. 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.

without action from both sides, a governor shut down as possible. you can fall alive when members return on monday. that will be here on c-span. >> next a bipartisan discussion on the first 100 days of congress. after that, the joint economic committee will look at the march unemployment numbers. the annual radio and tv correspondents association dinner was held wednesday here in washington. the speakers include senator gramm paul. larry wilmore of the daily show was also there. we will show it to you tomorrow at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

>> one difference between a deputy in the mayor, is that i could say pretty much whatever i wanted to as a mirror, and the only person they got in trouble was me. >> today he has a boss, michael bloomberg, and a different job description. >> i want to make the streets safer. i want to prove that the large cities have a vibrant future. and would like to steer away from things that would detract from that. >> 8:00 p.m. eastern c-span sunday. >> on book tv, this weekend, c- span2, howard our unconscious mind shapes ever character. on "afterwards", a correspondent on the history of african- americans serving.

and after that, ishmael reed. signup for our book tv alert. >> now a panel including one democrat and one republican discuss the first 100 days of the 100 will congress. they are joined by a wall street journal congress reporter janet cooke. the discuss current debate over the federal budget deficit in the influence of tea party activists. this is one hour and 20 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] 1] >> good morning. i'd like to welcome all of you and our c-span viewers to this session of the program entitled the first 100 days, an early look at the new congress. this morning, and i promise you, this is no april fool's joke,

the research center released the results of one of their periodic quizzes. they reported that 38% of americans are with the republicans to build the house and not the senate, others could correctly identify the speaker while others thought nancy pelosi still had the job. some said current politics in washington is a mystery to many. i hope our panel this morning will solve some of the mystery about the state of washington politics. that may provide a few program notes. and our colleague was planning on being here this morning, but something came up last night, and he is unable to join us. i have an announcement about our treasured colleague, who is moderating the panel this morni.

he has worked tirelessly to help people work on certain issues. he will become director of the democracy project. it is a bipartisan initiative that analyzes and advocates where improvement in democratic institutions. its main current project is civil discourse. we wish john well in his new assignment, and we will miss him greatly. now i will turn it over to you. >> thanks for that. i will not be a stranger, just a few blocks away.

i expect to be back. we have a great panel today. i will do some introductions. donald trump has declared for president. his birth certificate was not correct. turns out he was born in another place. it is april fool's, so i got that out of the way. now to turn to more serious matters. we will run this panel more informally. our panelists are among the country's leading experts on congress from the inside and outside. we will talk about what is going on today, but also comparison's where the majority has changed from one party to another.

one person to write served in the house of representatives, representing minnesota's second congressional district. he served on science and technology, transportation, and budget appropriations committee. also conference secretary in the leadership for the republicans. his former partner and senior adviser, who also served in congress from 1979-1999, representing the third district of california, he was on an appropriations committee, armed services budget, ethics, and other committees. he was chair of democratic caucus. janet hook, a political reporter for the "washington journal" has been covering congress since the

1980's, when she was in elementary school. for a long time, she was with the "los angeles times." she is a winner of several important awards of journalism. in one guest is not able to join us today. we are happy to have alex here with us. he is a research fellow here at

the american enterprise institute. he would is on staff on the council of economic advisers for the president. we will start with a round of questions. one obvious comparison for today. they faced the democratic president and had a budget showdown, which we face a potential one today. let her set the stage and paint a picture and look at how we got to the end of 1995, when the big budget showdown came through. give us a big picture of where we were. >> in 1995, -- the 1994 elections were not just any old

hand over of power. we have seen a lot of those. that was the first time in 40 years since the house and had gone out of their hands. it was a really big deal. not only was it the entire congress, it was the house for the very first time. it was not of a political change that changed the agenda, but a huge institution experience. when republicans took control of the house, they did not just change the agenda. they tried to change the way congress works. they abolished some committees. a streamlined some things. newt gingrich change the nature of its common turning it into a much more centralized type of leadership. he was the center of all things.

he was a larger-than-life figure. he had a lot of power and use it. when i think about -- he brought to power, an agenda with the contract of america and systematically tried to go through it within the first several days. from there proceeded some of the longer-term confrontations with the clinton white house. if i could just say, i do not want to talk at great length on this point. i was struck by the differences in 1995 compared to today. these republicans came to power, not with a big 10 point agenda,

but they have not accomplished a lot legislatively. they have transformed in terms of debate. it does feel different. there is the problem of the senate not being under republican control. it gave gingrich a different set. sometimes his enemy was bill clinton and sometimes republicans. >> tell us about the republican mood, and to the end of the year, when we reach the final budget showdown. what republicans thinking? if i am not wrong, they were confident enough that it may turn in their direction. talk about this from the republican perspective and with the mind of leaders going into

the end of 1995. >> i think the most important similarity between this election and the one in 1994 is the republicans came to washington with a jew and sense of shock and magnitude of their own victory. republicans, most did not take control of congress. most did not expect it. when they came into power, there was a genuine sense of all, similar to this election. -- awe, similar to this election. the magnitude of their victory surprised everybody. in both cases, it convinced republicans, not so much that they had a huge mandate, the the the but the that that they were

-- they would lose the majority if they did not act on the margin of change that they had experienced. there is a concern that they will not keep up with the expectations from the public that put them in power. that is what happened back in 1995. one of the major differences, the republicans in 1995 believes that without a new king ridge, there would not have been a majority. boehner.pect and like jim vade the republicans are almost willing to follow him in every direction.

when he led towards the shutdown of the government, there was a great deal of confidence that at the end of the day, the guy that delivered the majority to the republicans for the first time in 40 years was going to win politically in this confrontation. newt gingrich still thinks he won politically in that confrontation. that was pretty much the attitude. you cannot really overstate the difference between the new gingrich's left congress and this one. >> i would like to hear a point of view from the democrat side, but maybe you could talk about the role of president clinton at the time and make some comparisons with the president today. the senate is in different hands. that is different. talk about the democratic view of losing after having been in

power for 40 years. >> they were in shell shock. those that were running the campaign committee in my case saw what was happening and tried to alert the troops without screaming the sky has fallen. it only would have fallen faster. many members were not only in disbelief, but unable to do anything about it, even in their own districts in campaigns. it really was the secretion of a lot of dead wood. people who had been here a long time and had not campaigned effectively, it was the culmination of what lbj said when he signed the civil rights bill in the 1960's. we have lost the cell for a generation. it's it 30 years for it to play out. it became the republican cutting edge winning seats in the south.

they were part of the new gingrich coalition. many of my friends think of him as pershing. when he could not become eisenhower, he went. democrats were a pretty easy target at that point. today, that is not the case. in the policy was very effective winning the majority. i think democrats lost this majority for many reasons. much of it related to defense that they believe were beyond their control. maybe you could say they were off message by emphasizing health care in the face of all of the joblessness. there is no question that they are far more prepared to being a minority now than the democrats who came back here in 1995.

many of us had barely one. 48.4% to get reelected. i never appreciated libertarianism. third-party candidates were essentials. even today, the people who survive to this wave were kind of caught up in its knowing there was not anything they could do. they cannot really swim hard enough to mitigated that. many of them knew what was coming. they saw the trend. they probably thought it they would be nithey are far tougher. they were not trying to be complacent. bill clinton was very effective roles.uing into wall

he played off of the house and the senate to his own advantage. a dick morris moment. this time, i think we have a different kind of president. i do not think his into doing that -- he is not as into doing that as much as his and visors would like him to be. some make it hard for him to set them up as the target. i think so much of his presidency has gone up in the issue of the moment, the joblessness issue, the little bit of progress this morning will go a long way. he feels his presidency is pretty much on the line in relation to the job market and the economy and public perception thereof. i think the democrats will pick up some seats in the house.

many, i do not know. deficit reduction until you get into the details. i think democrats would be better off if some of the cuts were implemented, because they are great in theory. they do not pan out very well. let's get to the governors across the spectrum politically. every state, whether you are democrat or republican, -- even chris christi that it's great marks, he is losing his support in new jersey -- who gets great marks, he is losing his support in new jersey. >> bill clinton came back. at the time, he was still pretty far down.

did that figure into with you in -- on the hill -- did you think he would have to part your own ways? >> the democrats were more dependent on the white house. they looked at the b.t.u-ing of the house. they looked at guns and trying to put that in the crimes bill. >> it changed the gun issue forever. >> absolutely. newt gingrich never would have

let two or three committees stop the health care bill. he would appoint a task force together. it would have passed. whether or not it would have been inactive -- we offended everyone who did not like the health-care bill and did not pass it for those that didn't like it. i do not think anybody is blaming obama for the policies. they may be unhappy about his communication and his inability to make his case. they are not at odds with him as to what the case is. >> i have some comparative questions that i'd like to bring forward. janet has a piece in today's journal about the status of the

budget negotiations. where are we now, and what are we likely to see for the next few days? the expiration is coming up. >> there are all kinds of different budget dynamics. the continuing resolution expires next week. it has been a very interesting week. it shows me how different things are now than they were before this election. i thought that when this emerged, the republicans wanted to spend at two dozen aid levels. democrats wanted -- 2008 levels,

. democrats wanted a different level. let's split the difference. what has happened is behind the scenes, some kind of agreement or not quite a deal, because there has been no handshake on a different number. republicans wanted to cut 61 million and democrats wanted none. they came out at 33 in cuts. boehner has denied that there has been any agreement on the number. there is a funny dance going on. there are private negotiations going on among the appropriations staff to put together some compromise in place.

they also have these unrelated policy matters that are even more controversial. there are two sets of negotiations going on. it is this alice in wonderland being. this will go on, public and private money. hopefully there will not be a shutdown at the end of the week. i have covered congress for long. i am not sure how many twists and turns this will take. >> talk about the republican side in the provisions in it.

>> i would rather be in the audience listening to norma. i am his substitute this morning. one of the challenges in the next several days as they try to put together a bill has to do with a fact that there is a new dynamic with new numbers. as janet was alluding to, many of the freshmen members in the house did not come here to compromise. they came here to win. they believe there is a difference between compromise and winning. many members have been here for a long time and certain members understand it winning and compromise is somewhat of the same thing. i worked for a number of years

for someone who is known as a dealmaker. one of the things i learned from my experiences is that if you lose, no matter how great your principles are, you are not moving the ball ahead. a lot of deals it put together that ultimately involve compromise. some things get enacted into law that you do not like. that is a new concept for some in the house. it needs to be worked through in the next week. the house has not lost yet. they have not done anything yet. there have been a couple of bills that have made it across.

to some extent, it may be under appreciated as to how bipartisan those bills may have been. they have been bipartisan within the house as well. the last temporary one we had, house republicans had killed off the bill. 83 democrats came on. as they work through negotiations over the next week, they will think about the fact that during the last time, they had extra votes. it is about finding the compromise where you have enough votes. i do not know if there is a policy of there now. there was a concept of the majority when i was there. we did not bring bills to the floor unless they were going to

pass. that was not a new concept at the time. they do have a cushion coming into this negotiation, and they will be playing those margins. however they work to to resolve the negotiations between the house and the senate and the white house, they will need to depend not only on the democratic majority, but will need to rely on democrats in the house. they have them. some of these issues have become non-starters. it is difficult to deal with that under this time pressure. i am not surprised that a deal

has not been made today. i do not think i ever saw a deal that did not get made in the afternoon before everybody went on a plane to go home. they will keep negotiating until there is no more time to negotiate. then they will negotiate a little bit more. i think they will get somewhere at the end of the day. >> do you think this deal is going to happen? maybe we get down to the end and we have a shut down. it does seem like we are zeroing in on this number. i have a couple of questions. how many democrats will they lose? if boehner puts a deal through, will it hurt them politically? is it a sign of his strength? >> i was up on the hill

yesterday, and i spoke with two members of the republican leadership separately about this. i asked them if we would have a shut down. one said yes, and one said no. that tells you the basic answers is that this is very unpredictable. i think they will avoid a shutdown. republicans do not want to see it happen. i do not think democrats want to see it. i am not sure the democrats are sure that it benefits them politically. i think they will manage to avoid it. it is a close call. the politics of the majority, which is very interesting in this one, boehner is moving if it will preserve -- preserve a

majority. i tend to think that boehner will be ok if he produces that. he is working very hard with freshmen members. he has been meeting with them with -- in small groups talking about keeping their eyes on the big issue which is the 2012 budget. the leadership will get a pass on the way that they avoid a shutdown of a government and allow members to go home and say they stood up for their principles. that seems to be an acceptable concept for the speaker. it is not necessarily lead to a

conclusion on what will happen with the 2012 budget. >> same question. >> i think there is in some ways, a missing of a point. this is nothing. the budget is of the next fiscal year. we have a drawn-out political, potent fight, over a small share of a small part of the federal budget. you have to save your moments for the real war. this is a test for boehner, but he has several more coming. i think he is the right person for this. he has experience. he has been in the majority into minority -- the majority

and minority. he is a person that can reach across to the other party. he has to win the fight and save those, by making sure they can vote no. what are the democrats going to do? how cooperative will they be? i cannot fathom that they will prevent a deal from coming together. some will want to be tempted to vote no, but may feel they need to be part of the solution, not just present a target as a problem. when you get to a debt limit, it gets harder for democrats to put a vote up. that will be a much harder vote. many of these new members, if

they fear the election, or they do not care, they are not going to vote for what happened in the past. they are making sure there is enough money in the checking account to make sure you can capture checks with. the democrats will say, you are in charge. it is your call. i am not sure that there may be some part of the solution. many may feel that this is the challenge a bo javaend job of boehner. >> it is entirely right. and republicans may say, we did not write the checks. here is an excuse on both sides.

>> one way of looking at it is in terms of discretionary spending, if they do $30 billion, -- if i declare victory and go home as a republican, the democrats are paul ryan proposed as a national starting point, and not enough for the tea party people, a monumental armageddon you cannot cut that much. and the terms of debate helps move so far, that is not a democrat's position. -- that is now all the democrats' position. talking about $30 billion or $60

billion, it is a lot of money. if we are going to have a shut down, we should have a shot down over something they'd like entitlement reform or the debt ceiling, not over $30 billion. i thought that was good. >> i think republicans are depriving themselves by the way they are operating. >> in that look like a big capitulation. >> unlike the c.r. when we have a certain date, the debt ceiling we know is coming but we do not know when. there is a lot of play in when we hit it and when it is. i think it is not a good metric of our obligations and knees to be fixed. -- and needs to be fixed. this is a classic tissue on a partisan vote. this is the majority's

responsibility, always has been. and it dealt with splits, of but that no one wants to take, and that tax on to something else. it is an issue that the tape party has grabbed on to win in an incredible way. -- that the tea party has grab onto in an incredible way. it is about entitlement reform. those of the kinds of things that people are saying that they want. in exchange for a debt limit vote, when we have not even begin that debate him we do not know when we are going to hit that limit, it makes negotiating the dollar levels and a particular a heckuva lot easier to talk about some of the longer-term things. i think that is going to be an issue that plays out over the summer in a very complicated way with a lot of disappointed people all around as we move to

a debt limit issue. >> it is often said john boehner is in a difficult position. sometimes it is not as difficult all of you mentioning that this is one fight and that there are others to come. we want to find lots of opportunities to cut spending, said the republicans. ,e have a short-term c.r. the c.r. at the end of the year, it will be a continuing thing. john boehner can go to his tea party members and say we thought for you as hard as we could. but we have opportunities coming up. does it help to get done quicker, and laying out the budget next week, can they tell the party members, we need to get this done and we will move on to the next?

and what about the next battles? where do democrats especially feel we have done enough? we've been through this round where we have given and we're not giving any more. what is the dynamic of the coming battle and how it affects the current showdown? >> that is a big topic and everyone will have a lot to say about it. it is important for republicans to get their budget out there, partially because it is aboard the find out what the democratic response will be on the entitlement question. then we will have a better idea what the real playing field will be in this congress, it seems to me. paul has made it very clear that it will say something about entitlements. we're not sure how specific it will be. but that will put that into play. it seemed very clear to me and to every republican on the house side that i have talked to, if that nancy pelosi in the democratic caucus are going to come down on them like a ton of

bricks on the entitlement issue. they are expecting that. all will the senate democratic leaders say, and does entitlement reform become as it has been in the past simply a straight cut partisan issue? as someone who is really concerned about the long-term debt, i think that would be a tragic thing, not just for the republicans or democrats, but for the country. it would eliminate the chance of entitlement reform until we had a fiscal meltdown in this country. i am not prone to overstating things, but i really believe that. i am not saying the white house and senate democrats have to embrace what the republicans to come up but if they have any opening to talk about the right way to reform health care spending or to see about retirement policy, making sure that revenue is on the table because democrats will not do anything without it, then they could make something happen that would be big in the course of this congress.

but until someone bleeds and says that we want to deal with entitlements and forces the other, we do not know what the playing field is. >> it seems to me that where we have to focus right now is the senate, where we have 64 members saying they want a big comprehensive approach. you have crapo, german, coburn, and chambliss, all of them colliding to find out what needs to be done with a broader mix. hopefully everyone is learning about the importance of the relatively small portion of the budget called discretionary spending. and they will think in terms of doing something far broader. whether you take social security off and put it in a different category are not, it is really all about the burgeoning cost of medicare and medicaid. neither party is prepared to step up to that any fundamental

way. i think republicans are most effective in attacking obama as health care proposals by saying they are cutting your medicare. which of course is what democrats said about republican budgets during the night -- during the 1990's. this is becoming if the third rail even more than social security. and we do not have an answer to it. and that i hope will flow out of something announced yesterday about accountable care organizations and capitation in ways of reducing the cost of health care. but we're a long way of saying that fully implemented and effective. i hope that that can come together in the senate. and then see whether there is a center in the house that would support something like that. the conventional wisdom is that this cannot be done before the presidential election. but the president would get

involved if he felt that we were all getting in the vote at this energy into the boat at the same time. so will not tip over -- that we were all getting into the boat at the same time. so it would not tip over. or we could react to the meltdown in a bond market that would give everyone the imperative. >> listening to them and thinking ahead, it makes realize that we're doing the easy stuff right now. the c.r. is totally straight forward, cutting spending, and i think it was centered their friend who said that the c.r. is like algebra, and entitlement form it is advanced calculus. i do not think there are a lot of people up there who's integration and differentiation skills are up to the task right now. it's interesting observing

someone -- as someone who was observed a lot of budget debates, i do not see a seriousness and the way people are talking about in time, reform and debt and deficit reduction. that does not mean that anything will happen soon. but people are laying the groundwork for a serious effort to change longer-term policies. there are many obstacles in the way. when i was talking to paul ryan a couple of weeks ago, he said something that sounded resigned. maybe we need another election before this can happen. i do not know -- it is clear that paul ryan is serious about putting something out on entitlement reform, and the budget resolution itself does not make any specific policy changes, just days an intention to do something. -- just states and intention to do something.

once that is out there, then in tangent terms into the game of six in the senate, and there discussion is in the direction of the substantive changes and some mechanism for setting targets and the targets become the action for the in forcing event. that sounds like all of these process changes that have been enacted in the past that have had mixed success. there are a lot of questions and if i had to bet right now, i am not going to bed in public. anyway. [laughter] when i said i was not sure how they would get a april 8, on this one, who knows what is around the corner? >> i really agree with it vic's

comment that the outlook is serious, fiscal perspective. there is no question that there are serious issues and members are saying what happens in other developed countries, reading the papers, and they are truly concerned about the fiscally on stable outlook. and it is really about the health care segment. that is the issue. social security becomes a small problem relative to the rate of growth of health care spending, in excess of the rate of growth of anything else. it will eat us all if we cannot change that path. what that might mean -- given all that, i do not think that there is a strength in congress to make health care changes necessary in the near term. people have lived through this once and do not want to live

through it again. there's too much focus on repeal and not enough preparation for the replacement. and the issues are difficult. what that might mean, if there is an opportunity to make progress, there is an opportunity to take a bite out of the smaller problems, the social security issue. a couple of things on that. for the first time, in the social security debate, i think there is an opportunity for people to look toward making improvements to the social security problem that we face, rather than sticking it all together. so if you look good various proposals on social security reform, all of the proposal solve the problem. but congress never solves a problem. on a good day, they'll make the problem less bad.

when we get serious about social security, we will talk about incremental changes instead of wholesale changes. raising the retirement age, and there is an opportunity for social security to come into forefront, because people do not want to tackle the health care issue, and the president's fiscal commission reported out last december and had the opportunity -- and i had the opportunity to serve on the tax size, but they put together a full proposal on solving the problem by their metric. and a number of the members mentioned on the senate side were members of the fiscal commission. so there has been some work of recent on social security and those gang of six were members of that. there may be an opportunity to

come back. what would be unfortunate is a as jan was talking about, process issues. it would be linking process with the debt limit of the tea. -- the debt limit vote. to take away their role or raise that limit, that avoids the process and instead imposes another process. it seems to me like you're not making progress. >> to you think we are about to roll grover norquist? >> i think that in order to make -- to get the deal that needs to be done, that will have to be part of it. >> there goes your invitation to the wednesday meeting. [laughter] >> i want to come back to what

jan brought up tangentially, something you hear a lot in different panels and studies, this notion that we cannot really deal with this debt and spending problem until after the next election. people have put that forward coming from many different standpoints. one is that only our real president free of the burdens of re-election can get this done. and only a newly overacted -- newly elected republican president with a fresh mandate can get this done. and then we need to have another election its wish there is an even stronger mandate for spending reduction than the last one. i do not buy any of that. we have had the election. the best we are going to have in terms of a mandate for spending reduction. tell me if i'm right. i do not remember any election in which deficit, debt, and spending were as predominant as

in the last election. no election. we're not going to get another one of those. we did not talk about social security and raising taxes, but spending, deficit, that debt, they were the central issues. if we cannot deal with this issue now, my view is that it will be much harder after the next election. if not impossible. >> with the two parties to be responsible and in charge of every element of the government and to implement this, it will put you in the political wilderness for a period of time. why not do it when we have divided government, when the blame will be assessed across the spectrum? publicly, both parties are better off in this environment than that -- them what they hope the next one is. >> i do have one last question i want to get an. i will throw that out all the microphones are moving around. more about how the housework.

speakerboehner iand pelosi, they wanted to open up the house a bit. there was an open rule quite entertaining and probably get people there wrote late during nights as they went to the budget in great detail. what you make of the way the house is working? and related to that, talk about speaker boehner. they of party compared him to earlier democratic speakers. but let me ask, boehner versus gingrich and painter versus boehner. he was a committee chairman.

that is important training, and different than others to move up the leadership ladder and not to the committee process. he really accomplish something. then he did what many to get knocked off the leadership ladder to, he went into the committee and become a serious legislator. he then came back into the leadership process, having been the effective chairman of the education and labor committee. it is not a choice assignment for a republican. he did a very good job. that affects the way that he performs as speaker in a fairly significant way. we will see that as we go forward. the other thing i would say about speaker boehner, new gingrich thought of himself as

the leader of the republican party. no question in his mind that he was the leader of the republican party. other people might question that. john boehner does not think of himself that way. he gets a lot of jokes made about at his emotionalism. i think there is a genuine humility about the position he is in. he does not view his role in politics anywhere near the way that speaker gingrich did back in the '90s. >> he fell out of leadership. so he has been in the room when he is imposing. one and never really serve for very long in any leadership role before he was in charge. >> let's open it up to the audience. we will start with michael barone in the first row. >> we know who you are.

>> speaker boehner, then the minority leader, he was in this room in september saying that he was going to let committee chairman have the lead and encouraged and development of bipartisan legislation such as the no child left behind at in which he worked with george miller. we have now really thought of it as a bipartisan thing. he would in effect abandoned the majority of the majority rule and bring things forward. he did so on the ge engine question, of some concern to his district. ge has a big plant in the cincinnati area. build a jensen's -- to jet engines, and it's hard for me to imagine other speakers to

allow something that with the fund all large projects that they wanted to see funded in their local district. tinny times -- denny hastert would not allow being defunding of o'hare airport. are there rules where he would say, we have to get the majority and they will set the rules so that they cannot lose? >> he allowed that on the big c.r. and a lot of other roles have been opened. strictly speaking, he has piloted the problem that everything has to be wide open. but i do not think anyone thought he would do that on everything. you do have to run the house. i don't think he has done it on any politically sensitive question, and that is something to watch for. on the continuing resolution,

hundreds of amendments, and i do not see a live by a partisan bills coming out of committees, but the votes were bipartisan. when you have a house rules committee decides there will only be three amendments, and the majority controls it, they will go up and down on party lines. when you say that anyone can offer any amendment that they want, there were a few that you can watch and coalition on different issues. some republicans that do not want to do that. you come up with a proposal to abolish the ge said it engine for the joint strike fighter, the anti-year mark people and the people going after that for years, and it comes to a vote, and whether the speaker of the house has a local interest on land, i thought i was really remarkable.

where the signs that john boehner is twisting arms on this? i did not find them. it does not seem like he has yet. >> he will have to have some point. but people of not focused on this -- allowing the kind of debate and argument and amendment process that we saw, it is an effective management tool for john boehner. he does indeed have a practice caucus. -- a fractious caucus. they were influenced by grass- roots movements called the tea party, and do not cave in to your leadership. managing this practice -- fractious caucus has been a

process. i think it has been good to allow the open process and not be of assayed that the speaker in a heavy-handed way did what those tea party activists warned his he would do in shut us down. at some point, they will come to an issue that requires the discipline and then we will find out whether or not he can impose that. up to now, it has been a fairly effective tactic in allowing him to coalesce the republican congress. >> i would say that he is getting benefit and will continue to for the next two years of having won open rule. now he can close the rules process as he has done subsequently, and they said, we had one on the whole budget. he defended the argument. but specifically on the second engine, you saw where the votes

were, and it was a very smart move to build his support among the tea party members, the new members of congress, who are now saying, he gave us a vote. he did not try to use his power. down the road about the challenges ahead. >> favorable ratings have gone down to about 32%, up to 21% on favorable. i am wondering whether you and the others said that most of the unfavorable ratings came from people earning under $50,000. could you speculate as to why

there was more negative attitudes, the way that the press and the democrats frame did, or something that may factor in the 2012 elections? >> i have a really hard time both as a reporter and a citizen figuring out to the tea party is. i actually feel guilty any time i use it in my stories when i do not know who they are. it's an interesting concept that has captured about polls. -- the spirit of the whole vote in 2012. an interesting challenge as a reporter, to figure out, you want the tea party. duke, who do you talk to? there are national t party groups, but you cannot claim that they are representative of the tea party.

they have to be people -- who have it in their name. i was reporting a few months ago on the tea party in maine. i was interested at all on whether olympia snowe would get 80 party challenge. she has not. i call one person who has tea party on his blood. i ask about one person and they said that that is not really a tea party person. if they identify themselves as a sympathizer to the tea party movement, i say, what kind of a politician is this? and this is getting too metaphysical about politics. i will leave it at that. i do not know about polls. >> janet makes an important instructional point.

there are literally hundreds of organizations -- i am not making that up. someone told me about thousand more they call themselves tea party organizations. t party patriots, the guys around the corner, one event coming around and minnesota, that hundred tea party. -- the tundra tea party. some may have a direct connection to a tea party organization in their districts. the other 60 are certainly influence, but they have no connection to it. everything on pleasant happening around the country is blamed on the tea party. -- nets \

>> their tea party members that are not freshmen. >> if anyone is trying to personify it, it is michelle kaufman. she is trying to be this amorphous group possible leader going forward. -- michele bachmann. she is trying to be this amorphous group's leader going forward. this is going to the legitimacy of the president. there is a group of people in the party who are mad as and not taking it anymore. that impacts how issues are dealt with here in washington, and that the state level, and it is one of the things that gives the democrats hope, and they had very little for months ago. >> it is not a third party.

they are operating within the republican party. it is an important dynamic over the last election. returned, but these are republican candidates. i do not know if that will sustain itself in the future, but at the moment, we're talking about a division within the caucus. that affects the dynamic significantly. >> i am going to turn this way right here for questions. >> i like to know whether janitor anyone else on the panel could give us ideas -- janet or anyone else on the panel could give us ideas, since you do not know who we are, do you know what we stand for? >> i have a very cleansed --

clear sense of the issues that people who identify themselves as tea party activists, the concerns about the size of government and they level of federal spending. no confusion about what people who identify themselves, what they believe themselves -- it is the political entity. >> let's go in the back here. please identify yourself. >> virginia, tea party people believe in limited government. it is really simple. last year 5.5 -- $5.1 trillion of federal and local spending, and indirect loss of about $2.5 trillion, so you have $eight

trillion in may $14.5 trillion economy. that is what he party people are concerned about. my question is, 2000-2006, the charge was that republicans had complete control, but in the senate, on average, they had 53 seats. so is that complete control? and why didn't the republicans respond to that? >> the senate being controlled by anyone is foreign to me. it is an institution that parties have a hard time controlling even when they have a majority. and even when democrats had a magic number of 60, they had a hard time controlling outcomes. that assumes that everyone in

the party votes the same way and there are no filibusters. in the senate, the majority party has the responsibility rather than the minority party. i think the democrats had come to appreciate themselves, especially now with the republicans controlling the house, adding a majority in the senate is far from controlling things. >> let's go right here. >> as we speak this morning, there is a hearing on the aarp and its nonprofit status. you add that to a list of planned parent, npr, funding the epa -- congressman weber, if you're concerned that the new republican majority has been branded as an id theological

majority and more interested in defunding the left rather than balancing the budget? >> i am concerned about that. i want to clarify. the democrats want to say we should start spending bills of all riders and just deliver clean spending bills. i did not go that far. if you think about republicans from a policy standpoint, the only policy leverage. that they have -- that will not get it to the senate and get it signed by the president. you have identified the most emotive issues. but whether it is health care, financial services reform, higher education reform, epa regulation, things that they're really care about, serious policy issues, their own money

ability to impact that is to put a dent rider or amendment on a must-pass spending bill. at the end of the day, they can probably get some of what they want. i do not go so far as to said that the republicans should can see to the democrats that we will only pass clean spending bills. but to allow big symbolic issues to drown out this message that some people mentioned earlier, we have not made our case for our own success. we have cut spending for the first time maybe ever. but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the big budget, but it is the first time we have done it. and that is getting lost in the argument about these high- profile and emotional issues. >> it certainly has been helpful to the democrats by making the defunding of the left, as you could become the centerpiece.

that has given that counter reaction on the democratic side. their base is not been energized. but the bottom line is that republicans would have been better off to do across the board cuts. they are always required to pinpoint where the impact will be. everyone thinks that the government is too big so we can reduce in size. but when you get into talking about the small amounts of money just to make the point politically, democrats are elated. >> their rhetoric would be almost undeniable of an across- the-board cut in this environment. you mean we cannot cut 0.1% of the federal budget? but when you zero out this program, then the program becomes the issue rather than the amount cut. >> we will go back here.

>> there has been some talk in the senate about raising revenue as well. the millionaires' tax, or with reducing reductions people can make on their taxes. what will happen if that makes it to the house? >> i am encouraged by the focus on tax expenditures that came out of the bowles-simpson commission. i think we need a total reform and we need to do a lot about tax expenditures. and then i think there is bipartisan support growing for reducing rates. but on in the day jewels and corporations, but it will not be -- both on individuals and corporations, but it will not be all give-and-take.

>> i think they could afford the only conceptual framework in which you can have a revenue increase. it has considerable heartburn for both parties. if you are a republican, it is a net tax increase and there is no reason is that democrats would not supported. someone mentioned grover norquist earlier. that is major heartburn for republicans. but if you are a progressive democrat, you're not imposing a millionaire's tax, you are bringing down marginal rates on individuals and corporations. that is the only way that republicans will support a net tax increase. you have a really difficult sell on both sides of the aisle for that. but i think it is possible. ryan in the house republicans

who voted against the commission, they made it clear that they did not do it -- do so because of the revenue perception. it was the failure to address health care spending. you have the opening to do a revenue raise, pro-growth, but the millionaire surtax will not happen. that basic -- that is contrary to basic republican economic philosophy. >> i want to go back to that question about the increase in the on favorability of the tea party. remark about michele bachmann identifying with the two-party, and seeing herself as the leader.

was there a link between some of the high-profile politicians light michele bachmann and the increase in the unfavorable side of the tea party? >> i do not think it is individuals. i think there are fights going on that are unpopular in the country. even gov. christie, they have had to deal with issues in their own states. inevitably democrats to a good job of labeling everything unpopular as tea party. but it is not willing to these individuals trying to run to the head of the parade, if you will. it is not clear to me that there is any leader of the tea party, but many would like to make themselves the leader.

>> i think there is a natural factor behind some of these polls, in that it is difficult to sustain an eagerness and happiness and support and any movement or any party. i was in arizona a couple of months ago with the tea party patriots at a conference they had organized. a number of people remarked that from the tea parties perspective, the ability to keep things going, it is just -- people whoever they are, these tea party years, they are working hard. to some extent, it can get tiring after a while. the momentum can be lost. i think a lot of what happens in washington and the political process has to do with momentum. when my biggest concerns is with bowles-simpson is that we lost

the momentum. we did not grab hold of that set of recommendations and run with it. instead there was a pause taken up by the president's budget. the excitement around them can dissipate, and that is important for all of the issues. >> we might have time for one more question. we have a question right here. the microphone is coming. >> the night of the 2010 election, there -- one of the republican said that this was the last chance to make good on the promises. to you feel that with this 100- day period, the house republicans lost the urgency?

or do you feel it is still a race against time? >> i do not think the republicans have lost any sense of urgency, quite the opposite. they feel a sense of urgency on every single bill coming up as opposed to looking at the broader picture of a big budget. i don't think there is any loss of urgency. the question -- and i think it is a question that can be answered -- can they come to grips with the realities of the budget as opposed to the campaign rhetoric about the budget? and i believe we have never had an election in which we focus more on deficit in spending. nonetheless, the rhetoric of politicians in both parties about it was not particularly helpful in terms of getting us toward the solution we want. the democrats would have you believe it can all be solved by raising taxes on upper-income

people. republicans would have you believe did you can find that line in the budget entitled waste, fraud, and abuse. not true. we have to talk about social security, medicare, revenues, and defense. all of those are much more difficult than taxing someone else or finding ways, fraud, and abuse. >> the sense of urgency takes me back to the difference between now and 1995. since 1995, both parties of had the experience of gaining power, working on their mandate, and then being thrown out either because they misread their mandate or not delivering on their promises. that is why they have a sense of urgency. they know that the electorate is volatile. there is a big chunk of independent voters part of the tea party movement. if they do not deliver, it is

not clear that a lot of the tea party voters will go democratic. they might just send them home. >> one last chance for panelist to do it wrapup of anything they did not say about 112th congress or where we might be going. let me start with alex. >> i think i have made all my points. i will yield of my time. >> yes. i guess i have, too. [laughter] >> i like to point out something vin said in response to the last question. we have been dancing around budget issues for so many years. tax the rich, waste, fraud, and abuse, that was ronald reagan's favorite. and we have never really dealt with the problem. it is gone bigger and bigger and more and more difficult.

whether it is this an commission or another, or any of the others out there, we have come to some bipartisan agreement that we cannot kick the can down the road that much longer. it is causing everyone to come in from their ideological perch, so comfortable that they had become wedded to it. our resolve this is yet to be determined. at least we have people out there pushing us in that direction. i really believe that the politicians, and i am certainly one of them, have contributed to this attitude to the public has that we can do it all by cutting your pay, welfare, and foreign aid. the things that really matter in the federal budget -- the public

is nowhere near adequately informed about the reality. they just do not know that. it has been easier to keep them in the dark, because it would have meant everyone having to give up some of that ideology. that is the encouraging news. i think it is no longer a partisan agenda. it is definitely bipartisan. or we will not get any further than we have gone in the last 30 years. >> it might happen in this budget. is this the time? one is the time that you are hopeful? >> i think now was the only time. if it does not happen now, i am deeply pessimistic. i am not going to sum up what we set to raise totally new issues that we have not talked about. i think there is an indication that we will have a national

security debate in this country that we have not seen for a long, long time. the reason i say that is because i am looking what i have seen from republicans that would be surprising, even shocking. you have centers on the commission talking about reductions in the defense budget, which secretary gates promptly called "catastrophic." to see conservative republicans talking about that is something you have not seen people -- you have not seen before. haley barbour coming out against libya and our right opposing what we're doing in afghanistan and calling for reductions in the defense budget. bachmann coming up flatly what we're doing in libya. no pun intended, but i think we're going that have a debate about national security that we have not had for a long time in

this country. it will have to do with intervention, heavily influenced by the cost of our military budget, and it will be a good thing but something we have not seen for a long time in this country. >> join me in thanking the panelists for a great panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, detroit mayor dave bing talking about the economic impact on his city. then an examination of the march employment numbers. then president obama's remarks. >> tomorrow, gregory ip, editor for the "economist," former assistant defense a. terry lawrence korb, and john hofmeister talking about rising gas prices and a plan to reduce oil imports. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the difference between the deputy mayor and a mayor, i could say what i wanted to say as a mayor and only got in trouble with the media.

>> stephen goldsmith was mayor of indianapolis. today he has a boss, michael bloomberg, and a different job description. >> i am there to make the streets cleaner, safer, and that tax dollars go farther, improving large cities, to see a vibrant future. i stay away things that would detract from that agenda. >> sunday night. >> now discussion on how cities like detroit are impacted by the national economy. from "washington journal," this is 35 minutes. ining us from his home -- from his home city of detroit, mayor dave bing. we saw you when you first came into office about 10 months ago with your plans to revitalize and restructured detroit's government and the city as a

whole. how are you doing 10 months into it? guest: it is a journey, no doubt about it, but i think we are making progress. we are trying to get the citizens understanding, number one, that change is imminent. we cannot keep doing the things we have done for the last 30 years and think we can get a different result. we are working hard to communicate our situation. host: detroit was in the national news about some revealing numbers from the senses that the city has lost 25% of the populationn the last 10 years. what do those numbers mean to you? guest: it is a major negative impact from a funding standpoint. i think it is an indication that people are not satisfied with the services that they are getting in detroit, with the education that is provided in

detroit, the job situation here in detroit, the housing situation. we have issues, no doubt about it, but i think we are taking those issues hd-on. we are admitting that we do have problems, and we are coming up with solutions. host: on those numbers, you are taking some heat for your suggestion that there need to be a recount. would you explain your reasoning? guest: quite frankly, there were a lot of people with a lot of apathy that thought it was not important and did not fill out the applications. historically, there has always been an uer-count. i have to focus on the number that was reported, 713,000. we have to make sure that if that is the right number, we have to do what is right for

the 713 people who are still here. host: when you are just reading all of these numbers about your city, it looks as though there is a huge debate going on about the right size of the city. some are urging you to do eir recount and build a bigger detroit, and others are vocalizing detroit to be a mid- sized city. what is your path forward? guest: right now, my path is to be the best 713,000 person city that weakened the. -- that we can be. making sure from a financial standpoint that we start to stabilize our cells, trying to be surthat we have the right kind of education system inner city, those are the things that

i think we can have control over. i am not going t get overly concerned. i am focused about doing what is necessary for the people who are here. host: your challenges are cleared and interconnected. what is the most important thing to do first? guest: i think like most urban cities where crime is high, i think people want to feel safe. they want to feel safe in their houses and tir communities without going around and having to look over their shoulders. public safety is on the top of the list for me. we are making improvements. host: one of those is a new police facility downtown. where are you finding the funds for that? guest: we had that funded already with about $64illion. we did a bond request, and it

was approved. we will start construction in the summer of this year. host: how will that change the crime situation? guest: what it does is it it puts all of our decision makers in one location. communication, i think, is very important. from a technology standpoint, we are way behind the eightball in my mind. getting all of our decision makers in th same place, making sure they are communicating propriately, not only at headquarters, but throughout the rest of the city, i think, will help us to make the decisions to improve response time and things of that nature. host: the last question, the job front. clearly, there is a need to bring jobs back to the city which would increase the tax base. what is your message to

employers, potential employers, for detroit? what can you tell them at this point to entice them to come to the city? guest: i think, number one, we are now a business-friendly city. we are doing things now, like knocking dow barriers from a traditional standpoint that did not make sense. also, people probably do not realize but we already have 8000 new jobs in downtown detroit. those are some of our larger businesses. what we have to concentrate on is looking at the small and mid- sized businesses that want to invest money, the one to grow, that want to expand here. so we are working with a lot of people. i think things are moving in the right direction from a job creation standpoint. host: let's get to some calls for you.

let's begin with daytona beach, florida. lauren, you are on. caller: i had the chance to look at the mayors' conferences on tv a little bit back. it is hard now because the states are putting pressure on makers. arthur grant gone now? guest: they are n gone. we are in line for a community block development grant. " we have to do -- when i first came to the office last year, i had over three fungible plus recommendations -- 300 plus recommendations. we were giving people small amounts of money that really did not do anything for those organizations. i think my position is to roll back how many applications that we are going to support and make

sure they get the maximum money that we can give them so they can make a difference in the communities where they are. host: the next call is from houston, chris on our independent line. caller: mayor bing and c-span, thank you for taking m call. i noticed a couple of things. i believe that troit is somewhat of a microcosm of the overall problems in the united states. first of all, the government employs 2.5 million people, while manufacturing employed 11.5 million. the same in michigan -- or detroit, which used to be the although capital of the world, there are more bureaucratshan people actually making things. my point is what exactly -- what are the symptoms of this problem? you are stating that you wanted

to increase or at least get a recount to prove their is more than 750,000 people currently still in detroit so you can receive more federal and state funding. i believe that is part of the problem, that there is too much federal and state funding. detroit is repelling people out of the state, out of your city. another example, when hurricane katrina hit new orleans, there was 140,000 people that left. detroit, rather, has lost 238,000 people. is is not a natural dister. it is a man-made disaster. guest: your question is what? caller: my question is how are you going to structure the government and increase

manufacturing and increase employment if you are going to continue to make the same mistakes? guest: the mistake in your mind is what? host: accepting more federal money. guest: i think anybody would be crazy to not accept federal money, number one. money needs to come back to the state into the city. we have to do things -- we are no longer the manufacturing hub of michigan. i think we have accepted that, so we are looking at other industries and making investments, and we are trying to educate people outside of manufacturing. manufacturing will still be a staple in our community. but it will not be aellwether. we have to change the way we look at government. there is absolutely no doubt about that in my min the coming from the private sector with a business

background, i would agree that you do not create jobs in the government. we have to look at the pvate sector and the small and medium- sized businesses where the entrepreneurs have great ideas and just need help. host: there is a lot about detroit in the national media. entrepreneurs find silver lining -- we are talking to detroit's morning.ave bg, this it is the public saying to you? -- what is the public saying to you? how are you building consensus? guest: we have been out in our community for the last six months getting feedback relative to what is our citizens think we ought to do, and i think that

will help us put our plan together. which are coming out sometime in late april, early may, -- we are coming out sometime in late april, early may, with a plan of what we will be doing in the city. it has been 50 years of a drain of people leaving the city and going out into the suburbs or even mich. altogether. we have not made any changes. we still have a bloatedystem here and we have to make the changes that are necessary. we have an infrastructure that supported 1.8 million people. now we have the same infrastructure with a 700,000 people, so ere are some things that we can no longer afford to do. we think we know what those things are. we have people all over our city that we cannot afford to give them the kinds of services that we are supposed to, so there are

things that we have done in the past that we can no longer afford to do. host: i understand you have won some concessions from the unions. what is your overall reaction to the unions representing the city workers and their cooperative miss? guest: i think is very difficult any time you are trying to take something away from someone that has earned and negotiated over a period of time, but times of change. they negotiated a lot of those things over the years. people have to come to the table if in fact they want this city to come back. everybody is going to have to share in the paint in the short term. i think we are starting to get that message out. who would've thought that general motors and chrysler

would have failed and went to bankruptcy? but they came out of bankruptcy. i think our public unions have to dthe same thing. i think they are more receptive today than they have been in the past. host: jim is a republican. it could morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? good morning, mayor bing. i wish all of the best and lock and whatever else is going to take to fix detroit problems. as you said earlier, it has been a long time coming. it is not take place last week. the people who had means, the people who had money fled the city to the suburbs. you need to get those pple back. i guess you know that. here is the purpose of my call. the reason why this hpened is

outlined, not politically correctly, in a piece that someone broke back in 2009. i will tell you the title of it. it is called "detroit socialist nightmare is america's future." what it says is if you look at what happened to detroit, it is happening to other cities. if you can turn it around, you could probably show other people how to do it. it is all about government- backed corruption, etc., etc., and model cities. i wish you the best of luck, mayor. guest: thank you so very much. host: do you have an analysis of the root causes of your problems? gut: it is not one- dimensional. i think you can go back over the last 30 years or 40 years from eight leadership standpoint, and

i do not think leadership at the intermission to make the changes that were necessary. we have no choice at this point. we do not have the financial capability to do things we have done traditionally. some of the things we have done we can no longer do. we have to look at the core services that our residents have to have. those are the things that we have to prove that we can do effectively and efficiently and within a cost structure that makes sense. once again, i would suggest to you that the police department is doing their job. our fire department is doing their job. we have to make corrections over on the ems side. we know what has to be done over there. we are way behind the curve on technology. i think we know what the problems are. you have to have the guts and

the heart do what is necessary. host: next is a call from detroit, and independenndepende. called a " good morning. i have a comment -- caller: good morning. i have a comment. this corruption, all of them. recently, we had elections in detroit. they have been shaky. the mayor is being sued by his former opponent. guest: that is done. color " -- he claimed that he had 500 employees -- caller: -- he claimed that he had 500 employees.

he still owes millions of dollars. let me finish my comment. if you google his business, you will see that it has been in bankruptcy for a long time. this man was a fraud. he was told to run by the white business community in the state. black detroit has been under attack. th are the tools to make that happen. host: we are going to let you go so the mayor can respond to those charges. guest: there is noing to respond to. i do not think he knows what he is talking about so i will let it alone. host: abraham, go ahead, you a on the air. i pushed the wrong button. caller: good morning, mr. bing. my concerns are in detroit as

well as in the rest of this country. child support. it puts some much strain on fathers. garnishment of wages and stuff like that. how do you think this man is going to get a job as far as child-support is concerned? it all goes to people in the white house, congress, and washington, d.c. isn't child support on constitutional and illegal? -- unconstitutional and illegal? host: i am going to jump in at that point because you clearly have a specific issue. does the child support affect the citizens of detroit? guest: there is a responsibility

for any demand that fathers a child. they are supposed to support that child. i do not think you can leave it up to the woman. in a lot of cases, men walk away from their responsibilities. there is no guarantee you'll get a job. you have to make sure you prepare yourself academically, educationally, and take on the responsibility. host: speaking of jobs, the new national unemployment numbers are out. the unemployment rate fell to a two-year low in march.

what could you tell us about the job numbers in your city? guest: the unemployment is still way too high. we are trying to figure out what we need to do once again because we were so dependent upon manufacturing and the automotive industry. even though i have come back strong, they are much, much smaller part of our industry at this point. we are looking at other industries whe there is job creation in the health-care sector, in the transportation, and even in the construction. we are not growing as fast as we would like to. unemployment is not going north anymore. host: it looks like your state of michigan is set to become one of several, including florida, that will put a limit on the number of weeks that unemployment benefs might be

collected. what the implications of that for you as a big city mayor? guest: i think that is a mistak that is not something i support. we have legislation that will take down unemployment to 20 wes. i am hoping that will change and we will go back to 26 weeks like most of the rest of the country. caller: thank you for taking my call. mayor bing, you were talking earlier about the citizens who have left the city and have moved out to the suburbs. what do you think has caused that? your city has a certain amount of people. the state built the infrastructure to build those suburban areas around the ty. they took away those

higher earners. that is a big problem with the city. do you not think? guest: part of that i think is true but i think we have not done what we have had to do in the city. if you are not getting the services that you need, if the job opportunities are not in your city, if the taxes are too high, will people leave? will they go to a better situation? that is what has happened here. we have lost not only a huge part of our population, but we lost a big part of our middleclass. the tax benefits that we were receiving from those families have gone, you know, out into the suburbs, and it lves us with a population that is under- educated and poor. we have to figure out once again how we can do a better job of

providing services, job opportunities, the security that is necessary, and make this a better city. once again, it is not something that will happen overnight. migration did not happen overnight. we have to make sure that we do the things that are necessary to keep the people who are still here here and make things better so we can get the folks to come back intthe city. host: it is reported on the front page of usa today --

what do these numbers mean to you? guest: i think that is a ray of hope, quite frankly, and something that we have tried to market. as an urban center in the state of michigan, we have a lot of cultural institutions downtown. we have a lot of sporting activities thatre downtown. our restaurants are downtown. you people want to be in an urban environment -- young people want to be in an urban environment. historically, we were using -- we were losing a lot of our educated young people. now with real-estate being where it is, i think it is at the lowest rate we have seen in the last 30 years or 40 years. young people can start to afford to live downtown. we will continue that marketing

impact. host: the 15 by 15 campaign, which is formed by three anchor institutions in detroit. campaigning to bring 15,000 young educated people to downtown by 2020. there are tax incentives for real estate. can you tell us about that? disco those institutions are already in the downtown area and the city -- guest: those institutions are already in the downtown area of the city of detroit. were very supportive of that. a lot of our plans -- that particular area of our city is an area of concentration. when you look at the education piece, it is an inner-ci school with over 40,000 students.

a lot of those students, historically, have gotten an education here and then have gone somewhere else. we want to let them know there are opportunities and other businesses downtown there really need the kind of job applicants to make us what we want to be and grow our economy back. host: cold water, mich., dave is a republican. caller: good morning. my question is -- i have looked at michigan as a younger person, i left, and then i came back to the state. i think the problem is that unions and uaw and that kind of thing, they would make the wages -- i have some relatives of there. they are making $80 an hour.

companies that i had worked for because of this kind of thing, they have moved to china where they pay no tax. i want to ask the mayor if he is thinking about maybe we ought to change our laws and de-unioze michigan and the united states and get these wages back where they should be. the young people who are making money, that is not coming from the unions. it is coming from their skills, not their ability to join a union and pull the rest of their population -- host: we get your question. mayor bing guest: i am not anti-union. we were unionized. but there was a relationship with them that i think was

positive. as a supplier to the industry, we could not pay the same wage rate that the big guys re paying, so we had a different pay scales, a different benefit package, and i think we were in line with other private industries and the private marketple. the unions have done a good job over the years. i think they are taking steps back at this point to make sure in order to stay competitive and maintain the jobs that they have in this country, they have to do some different things. i think that is happening. if you look at chrysler and general motors, the unions came to the table and gave a major concessions. that helped gm and chrysler come out of bankruptcy. i just think that we have to be open-minded in terms of competition and what is going to be necessary. nobody is going to give us

anything. we have to compete on a global basis. host: dawn is an independent. caller: good morning, mayor bing. i really want to say something about some of the distortions that we are hearing from these right-wing types. nobody ever made $80 an hour. top wages much the been around $25 an hour plus benefits. our government spends a huge amount of money on the military, and that money goes to the south. the south thinks they are some great entrepreneurs, but they are at the government trough much more so than detroit ever was. guest: it is hard for me to comment on that quite frankly, but i think there are a lot of distortions in terms of the information that comes out about how people feel.

it marked -- it might not be the right data or information, and people just run with it. we are not in a great shape. we understand where we are at this point, and we know what we need to do to make the changes that are necessary. we know we have to be competitive. there arehanges that absolutely have to happen. we have a process. i think we will surprise people over the next two years. host: a new york times big story -- here is the paragraph i pointed to because is suggest the circular challenges that you have.

mayor bing, what are you going too for the schools and the city? guest: the schools are not under the purview of the mayor. i have my hands full. i have a full plate when i came into this office with a $330 million acmulated deficit over time. robert bobb cannot cut his way out of this problem. as you continue to lose kids out of the school system for whatever the reason, he cannot cut quick enough. i think he is doing the best job that he can at this point, but i think it is a combination of all

of us coming back togethe it has been happening over the last 30 years or 40 years, and w we have come to a point where there is no return. there are some things that, once again, whether it is robert or whoever is going to take his place, our school system will continue to lose students over the next year or two until things start to turn around. we have to educate our kids. to many people are looking to protect their jobs. host: the last call from you is tyrone, a republican. caller: how are you today? in my estimation -- my comment is about the federal reserve. i called my congressman and asked him about it. knows very little about it.

you think we should educate the congress exactly what the federal reserve is, and then have them reassert their authority to print and regulate our currency so we can be better represented about how the money is issued. guest: i think that is a far reaching question for me to answer right now. there areome ings that i think we have to change in our entire system. if you have people making decisions on what is going to happen in the state, in the city, yes, they make bad decisions. it is hard for me to answer the estion. i guess that is where i believe in it. host: mayor bing, we are

>> tomorrow on "washington journal," the editor for "the economist," has the latest on the state of the economy. then, we will discuss the rising energy prices and the obama planned to decrease oil usage over the next decade. >> next, the joint economic committee discusses the march employment numbers. then the president obama's remarks on the economy and his energy policy. after that, house speaker john p. enter talks about the spending negotiations. -- john boehner talks about the

spending negotiations. saturday, a supreme court case of wal-mart obverses dukes. the issue before the court is whether women should be allowed to band together to sue wal- mart. the class-action lawsuit could potentially cost the company billions and if allowed to proceed, be the largest class- action suit in history. listen to an audio replay of the argument tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, last wednesday it marked the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on ronald reagan. we commemorate the 50th anniversary of jfk's inauguration.

also, 8 pulitzer prize-winning photographer discusses his time documenting the presidencies of nixon and ford. >> the labor department reports that the nation's unemployment rate fell in march and the u.s. added 216,000 jobs overall. this is the fourth straight decrease in the unemployment rate. the private-sector accounted for the new numbers in march. the bureau of labor statistics commissioner testifies on the march employment report. he also said the unemployment rate for african americans rose to 15.5%, the highest since the 1980's.

>> i appreciate this opportunity to review the unemployment situation across the country. we have some good news to report. i would like to thank the members for preparing for this hearing and also for our witness, dr. hall. also the opportunity we will have on this committee to examine not just the employment data but ways that we can focus on to create jobs and also important sectors like manufacturing and other indicators of our economic strength as we are recovering. i would like to thank vice

chairmen brady, the congressman from the state of texas, who was working with us today and every day to make sure that we focus on critically important issues that affect jobs. we have some good news to report and i know that commissioner paul will highlight these but the report today shows that the economy added 230,000 private sector jobs last month making march the 13th straight month that we have gotten employment gains in the private-sector. also, 216,000 jobs overall despite the loss of many government jobs. i wanted to point to one chart on my left. the chart shows the upper trend implement over the past 13 months. during the last 13 months, the

economy has added 1.8 million private sector jobs. that is good news but this is not good enough. we have to continue to focus on ways to create jobs at a faster pace every month, not just one month or two months in a row. we need to continue to move in the right direction. the overall unemployment rate dropped to 8.8%. it has come down. that is down from the peak of october 2009 of 10.1%. as i said before, the unemployment rate is too high and we need to focus intensively. especially, on particular demographic groups whether it is veterans that have lost their jobs. very high numbers for african- americans, four hispanic americans, and workers with a disability.

we want to focus on those as well. i also know that when members appeared today, some might not have a chance to do an opening statement but i want to make sure that vice chairman brady has an opportunity when he arrives. i think we will get right to our witness. i want to introduce someone who has appeared before this committee a number of times. he does not necessarily need an introduction but i want to make sure that those who might not remember his background and are not familiar with his biography to give you just a brief sketch. dr. keith hall is the commissioner of labor statistics for the u.s. department of labour. blf is an agency that collects, process, analyzes and disseminates data to the american public, to the u.s.

congress, and to other federal agencies, state and local governments, business, labor. dr. hall has served as chief economist for the white house council of economic advisers for two years under president george w. bush. part of that, he was chief economist for the department of commerce and he spent 10 years at the u.s. international trade commission. he received his bachelor's degree from the university of virginia. before turning to dr. hall, just one brief interlude. some will have the opportunity to give opening is depending on when they get here. if you have any opening comments, we want to give you the opportunity. >> i am anxious to hear what is about to be said.

it is an issue that is criticallymportant for the future of this country and for the political operations in both the house and the senate. i appreciate the opportunity to be here with you. thank you for setting up this very important procedure. i appreciate your being here. im anxious to hear everything. thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman. dr. hall? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data we released this morning. in march, non-farm payrolls rose by 216,000. the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.8%. the rate has declined by one rcentage point since november of 2010. since the recent low point, non- farm payll employment has risen by 1.5 million.

private sector employment rose by 1.8 million over the same time, an average of 138,000 of month. in march, job growth occurred in professional and business services, health care, leisure and hospitality, and mining. manufacturing employment trended up over the month. business services employment rose by 78,000 in march. this industry added 692,000 jobs since september of 2009. in march, employment in temporary help services rose by 29,000. did the very health services have added half a million jobs since august 2009. employment in health care continue to rise in march. the increase was spread among several components including ambulatory health care services, hospitals, and residential care facilities. since september 2007, health

care employment has risen by 902,000 while unemployment has declined by 7.2 million. the leisure and hospitality entry added 37,000 jobs in march. within goods producing industry, mining employment rose by 14,000 in march due to support activities in mining. since the recent low in october 2009, mining employment has risen by 96,000. employment in mufacturing continue to trend up in march. factory jobs continue to be concentrated in durable goods with over the month increases in fabricated metal products and machinery. construction employment changed little over the month. employment in local government continued to trend down over the month. this sector has lost 416,000 jobs since september 2008. measures in surveys of household

-- the unemployment rate was little changed. the jobless rate has declined since one percentage point since november 2010. over that time, unemployment declined by nearly 1.59% and employment rose by 1.4 million leaving the labor force nearly unchanged. in march, the labor force participation rate held at 4.2%. the employment to population ratio to 58.5% was little changed. the number of long-term unemployed remain high at 6.1 million or 45.5% of unemployment. over the month, the number of individuals working part time was 8.4 million, down from 9 million a year earlier. in summary, non-farm payroll employment rose by 216,000 in march and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.8%.

my colleagues and i would be glad to answer your questions. >> thank you very much. i wanted to ask you, first of all, the sectors of our economy that we should be most positive about based upon the data. i wanted to get your perspective. first of all, on manufactung, which is so essential to the strength of our economy. how do you compare this month's numbs not just with last month, but what you have seen over the last six months. >> this month, manufacturing grew by about 17,000 jobs, which has continued a recent trend. we have had job growth in manufacturing. we have added about 205,000 jobs in manufacturing since february 2010, which is the employment trough. >> do you have a -- i guess it

is not in the nature of an opinion, but when you compare how we are doing over all with job growth does not -- about 216,000 -- the private sector job growth it about 222,000 last month. are there any trends or any insights that you can provide as it relates to the significance of those private sector in numbers, at least of the last two months? >> sure. for more than two months, we have had steady job growth. it has been around 140,000 a month. late in the last two months, it looks like we may get an acceleration in job growth, which would be a good thing. >> would you tell us, based upon

your experience, how many months when you see a number of months consecutive with paul the did job numbers, especially- consecutive with the job numbers, how many months like that in a row would you like to see as evidence that we are growing and recovering at a pace in which we can fully recovered? do you understand my question? do we need three months of positive job growth at number or six months -- had the allies that? >> even one month or two months of that job growth as positive. i tend to look at the data about three months.

i think steady growth of three months puts you into -- tissue a real picture of where you are -- gives you a real picture of where you are. we continue to have job growth. three months is a good rule of thumb that i used. >> how about the total number? when you look at 200,000 in each of the months, that is a good number. i am trying to get a sense of a historical comparison between this two or three months period versus another period when we had recovery. we would prefer to run and 50,000 a month. is there any way to analogize or

compare where we are now compared to a another three months. that you can recall or have data for? >> the last expansion after the 2001 recession was not a strong expansion. at its peak, that was somewhere over 200,000. that is growth that was not as strong as it had been. in the 1990 expansion, we frequently had job growth over 300,000, 400,000 at times. 200,000 plus isolid growth. we could see more. >> my time is up, but i will come back to you about some of the demographic groups. >> thank you for everything you are doing.

thank you very much for everything you were saying. we are very delighted to see the economic circumstances changing because of the fact that we had been experiencing an economic situation which was very similar to the economic depression in many ways. in the context of that, we sell a loss of more than 2 million jobs -- something in the neighborhood of 2.3 million jobs. now the situation is improving and that changing. i know tt you are analyzing the situation, but do you have any inclination to see what the main objectives have been, or, rather, what the main purposes have been to establish this change from a recession to economic growth? >> one of the things we did over the course of the previous two

years was the passage of a major stimulus bill, which had the injection of significant amounts of funding and give the economy. the economy had not seen that kind of injection in a long time. i would be interested in hearing what you think are the main elements of the promotion of this economic aivity now and the growing of these jobs. >> with -- this recession has been remarkable in how broad the job loss was. just about every industry with ybe the exception of healthcare lost a significant number of jobs during the recession. the job growth now has also been pretty broad. industries like professional business services, education and health, leisure and hoppers -- major and hospitalityif even manufacturing has been growing since the trough. financial activities are still

struggling. they are not doing very much. government is really the only sector that is losing jobs right now. it is primarily in local government. >> ok. anything else? >> that is about it. the job growth has been relatively broad. the biggest driver of the job market has been construction and manufacturin it has been nice to see manufacturing job growth start up, but construction remains pretty flat. >> what you said i in your opening remarks was that there were significant improvements in the economy in the context of heal care, education, and things of that nature. what would you say about the prospects of cutting the funding for operations like healthare and education by this government? >> i would not want to comment on policy things like that.

i want to stay away from that. >> i understand that. i will try to see if there might be something you might say about that. in any case, this is something we need to be deeply concerned about. it would be a mistake to reduce the funding for those important elements like education, health care, things of that nature, as well as activity that stimulates the deep necessities internally within this economy like transportation issues, things of that nature. in any case, thank you so much. let me ask you one or two other things at this time. the recessionurt certain demographics more than others, as we know. for instance, as of february individuals without a high- school diploma have an unemployment rate of3.9% while those with a college degree have an unemployment rate of 4.3%. which sectors of our economy

hire individuals without a high- school diploma? what has happened to those sectors during this recession? >> first, let me confirm your picture of job loss by education. for those with less than a high- school diploma, the unemployment remains at 13.7% this month. those with a bachelor's degree or higher are at 4.4%. this is been a typical recession in the sense that the group with lower education have been hit with high unemployment rates and they have gone up by more than those with higher education. as far as the industry breakout, i am probably will have to get back with you on that. -- i probably will have to get back with you on that. i do not have the data handy. i can give you some idea of where the folks without a high-

school diploma are employed in. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman. as i mentioned before, the house was voting. vice-chairman brady is here now. i do not know how he could have voted and run that fast, but he is here. all like to offer him an opening statement if he would like and questions as well. >> first, i would like to congratulate chairman j.c.. 3 -- chairman casey. i look forward to insightful hearings as we move forward in the new congress. i would also like to welcome dr. hall and his staff that. you have dogged this committee for many unemployment reports in the past. we appreciate the day that you provide. we are seeing some positive signs. everyone wants the economy to move, particularly in the labour market. we are glad for the increases in jobs we are seeing. looking at it cloly, while there are job gains, the rate

has not accelerated in not to keep up with the population growth and to encourage all the people who lost their jobs to find work again. it has been 21 months since the recession ended. we are still down non-farm payroll jobs from when it rk. and employment rate of 8.8% remains unacceptably high, but is als not telling the whole story. there has been fundamental disagreements about the proper role of government in facilitating an economic recovery between republicans and democrats. that disagreement continues even now. democrats in congress, unfortunately, do not want to change course. the federal spending spree has not been stopped. the debt is so large the focus of business managers, international institutions, and the public at large help the administration can meet its

financial obligation. how hi will taxes rise? is there a chae we will default on our obligations? these questions, incredible as it may seem, are being asked of the united states government. it is a big reason why a private investment has not resurfaced after similarly severe recessions. i want to show you a chart of payroll jobs. as you can say, we have not moved far from the bottom since the recession officially ended. the trajectory of job growth is weakerhan in past recoveries. i want to show you a chart of the u.s. labor force participation rate. this chart shows the percentage of the population of labor force -- of labor force. the percentage has struck. businesses fear the cost of and interested government and are

reluctant to expand to create enough job openings. many people have simply left the labour for. the labor force is smaller than 39 months ago despite the fact that the working age population has been increasing. this is happening in what used to be called the land of opportunity. republicans want to cut federal spending to relieve the pressure on the private economy. we must reassure the nation that the united states will bring its deficit and its debt under control and will not burden the economy. increasing taxes to find the vernment depresses the growth prospects for the longer term. that has a chilling effect on businesses and consumers right now. increased government spending, this aggregate demand, and spending reductions hurt the economy falls apart completely when investors, businesses, and consumers focus on the increased

future size of government, the part of a larger share of resources it will claim, and the myriad ways in which it will hamper economic growth. this should convince everyone that high levels of federal spending is not what the economy needs. we must cut federal spending, not tryo lock it in or raise taxes. expected after-tax rate of return dves business investment and hiring decisions. if we want businesses to offer hundreds of thoands of additional jobs month after month for years to come, this is what it will take to return the unemployment rate to normal levels. we must not burdened with expected returns of higher taxes, inflation, interest rates, a regulation. as the private economy goes, there will be more -- grows, there will be more money for the government to stand for -- more money for the gnment to spend. i yield back. >> we can proceed with

questions. vice chairman brady, the what to do questio about were moved to congress by beckett? >> can we talk about the partition -- participation rate quickly? >> it is go to see the unemployment rate go down, at least in general appearances. there is more to that story. there is no reason to celrate a lower unemployment rate caused by americans leading the labor force. a smaller work force means millions of discouraged workers, or output, and a weak recovery. those are not healthy signs. what can you tell us about the number of discouraged workers? when can we expect to see labor participation rates begin to get back up? -- to go back up? >> the number of discouraged

workers is just a little under 1 million right now. workers or marginally attached, which includes discouraged workers, is about 2.5 million people. those numbers are still fairly high. our broadest measure of labor underutilization, that includes both marginally attached and people working part-time, remains high at 16.7%, although it did go down to test the% this month. labor force participation remains at a low level. it is still 64.2%. we have not seen big movement in the labor force. it has been fairly flat. what i would expect is that if we start to get strong job growth and a little more confidence, we probably should start to see the labor force

participation rate go up. >> is the labor force perdition rate critical -- labor force participation rat critical f the recovery? >> yes. >> internally, had you done any work of what we might see when people start to re-enter the work force? >> we are looking for signs that they are rather than projecting. we really do not think that way so much. >> i understand. construction -- we loss ojobs last month. we have about 30,000 additional in manufacturing and construction. manufacturing did update -- 17,000 new jobs. any reasons for that in the data? >> construction has remained pretty flat. just historic plea, what you probably -- just historic ly,

we need to see new housing sales picked up before we see a significant change in construction employment. >> which mufacturing what do you see? >> we are seeing growt. 17,000 is not a lot, but there as a -- there has been a trend of growth in manufacturing. it does not really strong, but it is positive growth. we did not see any growth in manufacturing out of the last recession at all. that is why this recovery is different than the last recession. >> i understand. we are pleased to be joined by one of our new members from wisconsin, congressman duffy. >> thank you very much. and weome. >> i appreciate it.

i have to figure out where the top button is. commissioner paul, good morning. i just have a few questions. as i am looking at historical data in regards to downturns and then recoveries, usually there is symmetry or a correlation between the depth of the decline an the strength of the recory, whether it is a v- shaped recline or a v-shaped recovery. if you look at what has happened in this recession, we have seen a pretty significant decline, but then a flat line i get regards of recovery which is not consistent with prior recoveries. do you have any idea what that is taking place? >> i really do not. i can say that there have been two schools of thought going into this recovery.

one is that folks have -- folks have observed that deeper recessions have had a stronger recovery -- more of the v-shape. those people are optimistic that we will get a strong recovery. there are those who pointed out that the last two recessions have very mild recovery is. the last two ressions were mild recessions as well. it is one of the essences where nobody knows whether we have now recoveries from recession. that is the way the labor markets change, or whether we go back to the v-shape. >> maybe i can throw some ideas out there. i am from a district in central and northe wisconsin. as i talk to job creators in our area, i hear them talk about uncertainty in the marketplace. if you look at what's happened in washington in recent years,

we have done things we have traditionally not done. if you are an employer, the new health care bill creates uncertainty in the marketplace. if you have a $14 trillion debt and are expected to borrow $1.60 trillion -- if you look at the president's budget budget, we are expected to borrow $1 trillion a year on average. if you are a small businessman and are looking at growing a business, what i keep seeing is that this leads to much higher taxes, much less growth, and unwillingness to invest. as a resort, if you are eight larger business, you can look anywhere in the world to invest. if you look at these masses that charts in america, these have serious economic consequens in america. this is what i am hearing from

ou