creators in central and north wisconsin. >> i would probably stay away from cause and effect. we are a fact oriented place. i will lead off on discussing why i think thingare happening or why they are happening. >> are you aware of any economic studies that show a correlation between excessive deficits and large debt and long-term unemployment conditions? are there correlations between those two that you have seen in your studies? >> i am not really familiar. i do not know if there is a consensus on any of that. it is not something i have studied in the past. >> ok. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you, mr. chairman i apologize for being late. we just voted on -- anyway.

i apologize for missing your testimony. if these questions have been asked previously, please let me know and we'll back my time. i wonder if you are aware of what the unemployment regime looks like during these three recessions set forth on this board, specifically 1981-82, 1973-'75. do you recall? >> i do not. what would it be fair to say it was somewhere between 36 and 39 weeks? >> that sounds reasonable. i really do not know. >> is it fair to say that unemployment in 1981-82 did not extend for 99 wee nor did they in 1973-'75. the nine in nine weeks we are coming to now is unprecedented

in our nation's history. >> the long-term unemployed is unprecedented right now. >> correct. but also the benefits we have extended our unprecedented. you are getting my point. i recognize you are not in the business of cause and effect looking for. i am interested in the possible correlation looking back in hindsight. i am askin and the length of time that people stay unemployed. am not an expert in that area. there has been some research that correlates when people returned to work and unemployment benefits. there tends to be a pickup in reemployment at the end of benefits. >> it shows an increase in the reentrance to employment.

people do come back once benefits back to their ordinary life. thank you, mr. commissioner. i look forward to your testimony in the future. >> thank you, congressman. welcome. thank you for taking the time to be with us. commissioner, i want todd se follow-up questions on the demographic breakdown. even as we are happy about the fact that we are to ended 16 -- we are 216,000 -- there are some demographic numbers which are pretty disturbing. i was looking at the number, for example, for veterans. i am -- am i correct in saying that unemployment among veterans is 9%? i want to make sure i had the right number. >> i believe that is true. yes, it is 9%. >> just for context, 8.8%

unemployment over all, but 9% for veterans. >> yes. >> when i be correct to say that gulf war ii veterans face an unemployment rate of 10.9%? >> that is right. >> that is substantially higher than veterans over all. i think we have got to pay particular attention to those veterans coming back from overseas. that is intolerable heat to high -- 10.9%. -- intolerably too high -- 10.9%. i was also looking at african- americans. 15.5%. is that right? >> that is correct. >> that number is almost double -- more than double, i should

say, from the africanmerican unemployment rate in august of 2007 -- 7.7%. that is the no. i have. >> yes. that is not right. it was 6.5% at the beginning of the recession. >> 15.5% for african-americans. for hispanic workers at the rate is 11.3%. is that correct? >> yes. >> for workers with a disability, 15.6%. is that correct? >> you have the right so far. >> of what to make sure we get the record right. in particular, is there anything you can tell us based upon your knowledge of the labor market and trends you have been able to identify and analyze over the years, is there anything you can tell us about those predicted --

particular demographic categories, why they are that high, or whether these numbers are typical for a recession and recovery, or maybe there is no conclusion you can reach based upon the numbers only? >> sure. it is absolutely true that the unemployment rates for these groups start out higher than other groups. in recessions, they go up by more. this recession has been no exception. they have gone up quite a bit. as you mentioned, african- americans going from 6.5% to 15.5% is a very large increase. i do not have great insight as to why that happens. but it does happen. it is a similar pattern, i think, asome other groups. >> if you have any data that compares, for example, if we

just take two or three numbers -- the african american number is 15.. the hispanic worker number is 11.3%. is there any way to compare those two numbers in particular to a call for role time, say in the 99 -- in particular to a comparable time, say in the 1999? >> right. we do not have a time series for that group that goes back that far, at least with us. we can probably follow up on that. 15.5% is a very high rate. we can follow up.

>> that would be great for the committee if you could do kind of a comparison. anyone can tell that it is very high. i am just very curious about the historical data. >> we have a table i did not realize that we had. this is a higher unemployment recession or last the 1991 recession. the last time it was this high for african americans was in the early '80s. is is a very high unemployment rate. >> i am overtime. vice chairman bry? >> thank you, chairman. we talk about the unemployment rate going down, but fewer people are in the work force. we have an honest disagreement in congress about what the role of spending is in our economy and its recovery. i know that after we spent some

$800 billion, we have 2 million fewer workers today than when the stimulus began. the unemployment rate was predicted to be 6.8% this month. we are off by a mile. economists were saying do not reduce any spending in washington today. they are the se ones to predicted that by the end of 2010 we would see 4 million new jobs. we i sleep at 3.3 million fewer. he was off by 7 million jobs. someone took a look at the relationship between federal spending and job creation in the private sector. this chart identifies this. the black line is federal spending. the darker blue line is private payroll employment -- non- government jobs.

what you can see is if there is no correlation between the two. ashley, i am wrong. there is a negative correlation. jobs along mn street actually stronger. the next chart shows a different story. for the last 40 years, we tracked an indicator along with work force indicators. private investment, business investment -- companies buying new software and new equipment. as you can tell, there is a very high correlation when businesses, large and small, by buildings, like equipment, and by softwe. jobs on main street growth. as we look forward from here in looking at the date that you have, what indicators are you falling that indicate where and at what speed private business

investment is restoring, is picking up, is still fairly flat -- where is it in america today? >> i do not know -- i do not spend a lot of time looking at leading indicators. we are not try to forecast. i will say that such things like hours worked and things like that give us some idea of tu job growth and future investment levels. things like temporary help tend to come back quicker than other types of jobs. those are the sort of things that tend to be leading indicators of investment and job growth. >> are there any sectors that reflect -- obviously you buildings. we are looking at construction, new equipment -- yo'll be looking at the more durable goods, correct? new software -- within those

sectors, or other signs we need to be falling? >> i think the equipment and software investment out of the gdp numbers does track pretty well with payroll jobs. if that chance to get ahead of payroll jobs, it shows up in productivity gains. there are also signals of future job growth. we are down about 7.3 million jobs. >> how large will monthly job gains need to be over the next 18 months for employment to return to that level -- to pre recession levels? >> i think we are looking at -- i am during my math -- i guess we are looking at 400,000?

does that sound about right? >> it would need to be higher than that. >> is higher than that? >> if we continue around 200,000 or so job gains per month, how long will that take? my guess was about five years at that level. your thoughts? >> i have not done the calculations, but if you are talking something like 2.5 million a year -- i have not calculated it out. >> what monthly job gains -- we so of have an indicator -- how much job gains from what is needed to keep up with population gwth? we are often asked that question. but that seems to vary over time. -- that seems to vary over time. in the order of 130,000, one

under 40,000 just to mntain with population growth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, very much. we know what the situation is and how bad it has been. how much employment has declined and now how is it is showing indications of improving. this chart is very illustrative. it shows a deep drop in employment and then increase in unemployment as a result of the activities that took place over the course of the previous two years. i want to talk about manufacturing employment, which increased for the fourth straight month as employers added 33,000 jobs in february. the number of manufacturing jobs has increased by 186,000 sense

january -- since january 2010. can't you tell us, what is the future of the manufacturing -- can you tell us what the future of the manufacturing sector is? >> these are two areas i try to avoid. one is forecasting. [laughter] i wi say that the last recession we lost 3 million manufacturing jobs and gained none of them back. this recession we lost 2 million manufacturing jobs and we are starting to gain some of them back. we are not mere 2 million back, but we are getting them back. that has not happened for a couple of recessions. >> yes. what you anticipate will be most influential policy that will

affect the manufacring sector? what do you think that some of the things we are trying to do now will have a positive or negative effect? >> i do not think i would want to comment on that. >> ok. over 44% of the unemployed are considered long-term unemployed, meaning they have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. nearly 73% of the long-term unemployed have been unemployed for a ar or more. whato you think is the reasoning behind why so many of r unemployed had been unemployed for a year or more? do you think we are facing a skills mismatch where workers do not have the skills of a changing economy, where things are being required because of altetions in the economic circumstances, that they had not been prepared for? >> in terms of what the date it

shows, -- what the data shows, the number of long-term unemployed during the most recent expansion after the 2001 recession -- it never went down that much. the expansion after 2001 was not a strong expansion. normally the long-term unemployed goes down a lot more than it did during this expansion. the first contributor to this is that the number of long-term was alady high when this recession started. the second thing is this was a very deep and very long recession. it added to that. these two things put the numbers and an unprecedented level. they are extremely high. i do not know. i do not know what sort of issue there is with job mismatching. it is somhing that will be of great interest as this expansion goes forward as to help the long-term unemployed get reemployed and whether there is

a job -- there is an issue with job matching or not. >> based on your experience, do you come to the exclusion -- the conclusion that economic investment by the government of america has a positive effects on the economy? >> i think i will not comment on that one. >> mr. rose? any indications of anything on any of the questions we have asked? >> i think you'll be hard- pressed to find someone from the statistical community willing to comment on policy. i think it is in every one's interest that the reality and the perception is that the federal statistical community is separate from the policy issues.

i think mr. hall space for all of us -- speaks for all of us. >> i appreciate that. we have done this on a number of occasions in the past. i appreciate that you separate the logic on helpings can be approved -- improved and based on your findings of what the facts are, not how they arrive at what we might do to make them better. nevertheless, we continue to keep asking questions like that to see if there might be something you could provide the could be insightful. in any case, i appreciate the responses you gave to these questions. >> commissioner, if you're not so disciplined you could make big news today. congressman, thomas -- congressman thomas? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. hall, the government is

providing unemployment insurance for 99 weeks. what effect does long-term unemployment havel worker's future employment prospects? >> that is one of those areas where the economic research is pretty clear. the longer somebody is unemployed, the hotter it is for them to become reemployed -- the harder it is for them to become reemployed. >> the important things to what's coming out of this recession is what happens to the long-term unemployed. it is that a very high level. >> when unemployment benefits run out, what hapns to the unemployment rate? >> i am not sure that i see a big impact on the unemployment rate went those numbers work out. people are more likely to stay in the labor force when they are receiving benefi. there may be some issue where people stop looking -- start

plucking when the benefits run out. that may have an impact on the bour force. >> been arguing for stimulus, the president's economic adviser ised a repor that projected the unemployment rate woulbe about 6.8% today and about 8.2% if the stimulus was not passed. what is the unemployment rate today? >> it is 8.8%. >> president's advisers said total payroll would be about one of the $38 million with stimulus. what is the level of an employment at the end of 2010?

>> how about if i tell you january? i had that one handy. it is 130 million -- 260,000. >> that is lower than the president of the estimates? >> yes. >> massive increases in federal government spending has been aimed at increasing employment. can you reconcile the job numbers? >> i would not speculate on that. >> or other indications that private employers are wary of hiring new workers given the uncertainty surrounding the new health care entitlement and the looming fiscal crisis? >> i do not have any view as to why hiring may be slow. >> if you cannot speculate? is it possible that the huge amount of spending and the country's indebtedness has been counterproductive to job creation? >>just would not want to

comment on that. >> the recession has been characterized by a lar exit of workers from the labor force. the labor force partition -- participation rate has dropped by 2%. is the absolute numbe of workers in the labor for smaller n than before the recession and by how much? >> in terms of payroll jobs, we ardown by 7.3 million payroll jobs. why have workers left the labour force? >> i am sorry. the question with the labor force question? >> yes. >> i guess there are various regions -- reasons. this is what happens during recessions. the unemployment rate goes up. to some degree, that does not tell you everything that is going on in the labour market. what the people are dropping out of the labor force. it does not show up in the standard unemployment rate. the labor force level is about

500,000 below before the recession started. that is despite the population increase. >> what can you tell us about workers re-entering the labour force? >> we will pull up some data. ok. the levels are still low. people are coming from unemployed to employed -- as still has not picked up much. that is still at a fairly low

level. it is well below before the recession. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. congressman duffy? >> i am think a lot of people are pleased that we have a report of 260,000 jobs this month. you indicated that labor force participation rates happen in all recessions. i would agree with you. we also see a decline. we are this far into the recession and this far into job growth -- do we not see greater participation? do we not see these rights actually rise in the recovery? >> i expect we would see those stocks to rise. it happens every recovery. >> is this not a sign that this is -- that there is a great deal of weakness in the marketplace

in regards to jobs? more people are nocoming back into the marketplace to seek employment. does -- is this a leading indicator of the strength of the market? >> i would say the same people start to re-enter the labour force would be a sign of growing confidence that job growth is going to pick up. we dutifully see that during recoveries. >> we are not seeing that right now. >> not yet. >> that does all this a concern right now. is that right? quite certainly, we would like to see that. >> in regards to long-term unemployed -- there is a concern about that. if you are out of the work force for several years, you potentially lose skills. is that right? it is hard to get those who are long-term unemployed back into the workforce. >> a lot of that probably depends on what people have been unemployed for long term time

periods. some of them are people whose skills are no longer consistent with industries that have strong job growth. this number is so high, i would expect a large number of the long-term unemployed >> i think all of us would like if you lose your job, we want to help people out. i think we all agreed in an ameran safety net, but when you look at extending unemployment benefits for great length of time, would it be your position that that cannot encourage people to stay out of the job market until those benefits run out?

are we really doing a service to those who are trying to help, or are we doing a disservice wi the link the extension of unemployment benefits? >> i would not want to comment on the impact. i just don't know. >> but it is fair to say that with regard to long-term unemployment benefits, people will stay unemployed until there benefits are about running out, and then they will get back in the job market. is that a fair assumption of what happens? >> in the past, statistically that has shown up in research. there has been questions about why that is, but that has shown up in research in the past. >> the is a correlation that the longer youtay out of the marketplace, the harder it is to find a job that is equivalent to the one you had before you left the marketplace is it fair to say there is a correlation between long-term unemployment benefits, people staying unemployed for a long period of time, and the difficulty of getting back into the

marketplace? >> i am not sure i would draw that connection. >> i yield back. >> you are really staying on your job here. we talked earlier about some of the fficult numbers here for large segments of the american people. i mentioned before still high numbers for african americans, for veterans, and for hispanic workers. we want to balance the positive aspects of these numbers overall with the difficulties many people are still having. i did want to turn to another chart, the gdp chart. just to kind of walk through some of these numbers. what this chart depicts, and just so some of the source, i

wanted to read -- this was prepared by the joint economic committee staff based upon data from bureau of economic analysis. i may have a question that gets to the commissioners' work and his team, but just to review what it depicts, it is gdp growth for six consecutive quarters. percent change in real gdp, fourth quarter of 2007 to fourth quarter of 2010. obviously the end of -- or i should say on the left-hand side you have-four 0.0 in the third quarter of 2008, -6.8 in the fourth quarter of 2008. so the last two quarrs of 2008, you have negative growth. then you move to the first quarter of 2009, which is when

you get into the blue color there, the 4.9% in early 2009. i would note for the record, a lot of references by our colleagues to the recovery act and other strategies put in place by the admintration and a lot of votes by democrats, i might add, that as president bush was leaving office at the early part of 2009, president obama was coming into office. you had basically two quarters which are-at the end of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. then you see a much improved number, -0.7 in the second quarter of 2009, the third quarter 1.6 positive. so basically took all of those quarters to get into positive

territory. basically you had to go from the second quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2009 to get back into positive territory. the fourth quarter, 5.0 on the plus side, and every quarter sinc then, in 2010 was in positive territory. when people see this set of data, naysay your getting growth, positive gdp growth quarter after quarter, which is good news, but they say where or thjob numbers to reflect that? one theory, and i know you can not endorse or speculate on theories, but one theory is that onof the basic reasons you are not seeing nearly enough job growth even though you are getting positive gdp growth is because workers and businesses are becoming both more efficient -- one or the other, either more

efficient or more productive, which may go hand-in-hand. anything you can say about average hours per week now, this month or the most recent quarter, versus another time in 2008 or 2007. the nikkei average hours per week -- then you can add average hours worked per week. >> i can talk about the gdp and payroll jobs if you like a little bit more broadly. it is typically the case that gdp starts to grow out of a recession in advance of job growth. >> good point. >> that is typical. this recession it was about an eight-month lag between the end of the recession and when we started to get job growth. th is faster than the last couple of recessions. >> let me just interject for a second.

just so we have a point of reference, technically, and we know not that many people feel this, but technically the recession ended when? >> in june of 2009. we have not seen a lot of movement in the hours worked, hours weekly employed. that has been flat for quite a while. we have not seen a big pickup at all since the recession started. >> so that has been flat. typically we do see a correlation between that number, average hours worked per week going up and a further increase in jobs? >> typically, you would. typically that would give you some indication that the labor market is starting to tighten up and you will see job growth. it is a little bit ieresting that we are seeing the job growth occur without having the hours go up.

>> mr. hall, i appreciate your discipline for someone who has only been here a couple of months. is refreshing to see someone just want to answer questions as opposed to sitting up here and letting us testify. i am going to ask you questions that i do't know the answers to in advance. the you break these things down by different segments? i am particularly interested in the job growth or lack of it within small businesses. d have any information you can provide on that? >> actually, we do. it is not part of this data released, but we did have a couple of different surveys and where we do look at job growth by firm size, recogning tt you don't have it immediately available to you. what can you tl us about job growth within the realm of small

business? >> one of the ways this recession has stood out compared to other recessions is the job loss has been very broad across all sized firms. the last recession in 2001, the job loss there was focused on large firms. this recession has been much more even. in terms of the recovery so far, i think there has been a littletronger recovery in the larger firms, but we are still not seeing a lot of job growth in some of the smaller firms. >> to what would you attribute that? i am not asking for policy, just based on the previous recoveries you have seen. why would you think that small business -- let me tell you what i asked the question. historically having been involved in primarily small businesses, that small businesses are able to react a little more quickly, especially

in an upturn. they are a little bit more nimble from an organizational standpoint. am i wrong about that? why are we seeing a situation where small businesses are slower to return to job creation than larger businesses? >> i would say what i think is one of the most important characteristics of this recession compared to other recessions. i would say that we were in a mild recession until the credit market lockout, until the financial markets locked up credit markets. that coincided with a real drop- off in new firm creation, which is in large part small firms, and establishment debts, firms going out of business. that is one of the most notable thing, the credit market has been really involved in this recession. that is consistent with the idea that the smaller firms have been harder hit, and perhaps -- i am

not sure why they are slower to recover. i don't really follow the credit market. >> it actually makes sense. what i can divined from that is that small businesses rely more heavily on the overall credit markets. it is harder for them to raise credit. the credit markets remain tight, it might be possible for a larger business to get access to the credit market, but harder for small businesses. that might explain why ty are slower to create jobs in the recovery. >> we hear a lot about green jobs and the green economy. do you break it down by that as well? >> we have not in the past, but we are in the process of doing that. we have a new initiative where we have done a fair amount of research into finding green jobs and we will start collecting data on th later this year. next year we will start producg some of this same data we are seeing now, but broken down by industries that are

primarily producing green products. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it is always good to see you, and particularly good to see you when you bring good news. i want to just pick on where my -- pick up on where my colleague left off a moment ago. a lot of people seem not to fully apprecie the law of the credit market and how it does affect small business is big time. in my district, a few months ago we had small businesses of all kinds come together and talk about the reserve. what they said was, we have opportunities, but we cannot get lines of credit. they have been torn down and we don't have them. that is very, very significant. i think the more we can open up those lines of credit, the

better off folks will be. without -- i ran a small business for 15 years. without a lot of credit, and it could be only for $50,000, but it would make a big difference. the see the unemployment rate continuing to decrease in the near term? >> i would not want to speculate. we have been on a nice trend here where the unemployment rate has dropped and now that drop has held. obviously i don't know going forward. >> let me ask you this. what factors in your opinion or the biggest drivers of job creation? looking at your status, i know you look at trends and that kind of thing. >> we are getting job growth that is reasonably broad. more than half of the industries are now adding that jobs rather than losing jobs. it is fairly broad.

it just has not -- we have not had it in every industry. construction and financial and activities have been kind of flat, but everything else has essentially had job growth throughout. >> despite the positive economic indicators, other indicators present a worrisome picture. for example, our recent survey shows a 10% drop in consumer confidence last month, the 10th largest drop on record. an editorial explains that this drug is attributable to a number of factors, including rising food and fuel prices as well as expectatns of fewer jobs and lower wages in the months ahead. their radically, interconnectedness of consumer confidence and employment levels can lead to a somewhat self fulfilling prophecy if consumers are unwilling to spend money.

the economy slows, leading to fewer jobs, thereby further depressing consumer confidence. however, is consumer anxiety about fewer jobs and lower wages appropriate? and are they right to feel anxious? i know u don't like to give opinions, but help me. >> i don't know if they are right or not. >> looking at the data, if it review, would you feel anxious, based upon the data that you collect? >> i would say we are down a lot of jobs standstill since the recession started. there is plenty to worry about. >> what effect do you think the drop in consumer confidence will have on job creation in the months aad? >> the real question isill consumer confidence lead to

lower consumer spending? consumer confidence can fluctuate. the real issue would be, does that low spending, which would ow down the economy. that is the link between buying and confidence. >> to what extent is the housing market influencing job creation and the employment outlook? >> housing has not contributed for a while. construction has been fla throughout the recovery so far. >> i always ask you two questions that i like to hear your answer to. one, if you were talking to t president right now, the president called you up and said all, what is the situation? where are we right now, andhat do you see for the future? what would you say. the other one is, as people look at this on c-span and they are looking at you as the guru of

these numbers, and they say i wonder what kind of field or should go into, what training shou i do, where should i go in the country to find a job? what would you say? >> the first question, i would characterize it as i did in my statement. it is a positive thing that the unemployment rate, after having fallen for a percentage point -- will not had a big movement in the labor force. the fall has been from a reduction in the number of unemployed and an increase in the number of employed. job growth at 2,000 is job growth, and that is a bitaster than has been in prior months. on the whole, this is a positive report. we have growth in a number of industries. going forward, in terms of job growth, two things come to mind.

the one place where we do forecast is 10-year forecasts on occupations, where we try to give people an idea of exactly the answer to your question, were the jobs going to be in the next 10 years, etc. the thing that jumps out is a lot of the service sector jobs, along with health care, and jump out as likely areas where we will have growth. a lot of it will depend on the demographics. one of the things that people underestimate is that we have a certain number of jobs that are replacement jobs. as people retire, jobs will open up behind them. that is an important thing. it is not just a did a fine sectors where the number of jobs are growing, but also where you have the demographic where people are reting and you have replacements in there.

but very broadly, services and health care jump out at you, especially health care with respect to some of the demographics i am talking about. if you like, i can get you some more detail on our forecast. next time i can bring somof those numbers with me. >> one thing you left out is geography. they are sitting there in a state where things are just really bad, where were they be looking, based upon -- where my they want to look in other areas of the country? >> that is a good question. to be honest, i don't recall the regional aspect >> >> i know we are ready to wrap up, unless my colleagues have not questions. one quick one about the split by

gender, men versus women in job growth. there is some sense that women make up a greater share of state and local government jobs, but since february 2010, we have created 1.5 million jobs. i wonder if you have the number of men versus women on that. inow men were way down in his recent report. i forgot to ask that earlier. >> we had about 1.2 million jobs for men and about 200,000 jobs for women, so it was pretty male oriented in terms of job growth. >> since february 2010? >> that's right. that also reflected in job loss as well.

>> thanks very much. unless there are any other questions, i think we are adjourned. >> commissioner, thank you very much for being here. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyght national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[inaudible] >> next, president obama's remarks on energy policy. after that, john boehner talking about the government spending on negotiations. then detroit mayor david bing talks about the impact of the national economy on his city. the annual radio and television correspondents dinner was held this wednesday.

speakers included rant paul, anthony wiener, and been quayle. >> this weekend on c-span2 david brooks, on intelligence and bayh's from the social animal. white house correspondent ken walsh on the long history of african americans serving in the white house. live, your calls and tweets for ismael reed. but for the complete schedule at our web site and get it e-mail directly to you. >> earlier this week, president obama outlined a new energy policy that includes a long-term plan to reduce the nation's reliance on fossil fuels. today he outlined a partnership of private companies and the

federal government working to reduce fuel consumption in their vehicle fleets and help to create -- to reduce u.s. auto imports. he also talked about the latest gallup reports and urged legislators to read -- to reach a compromise. he spoke to the ups shipping facility in maryland. this is about 55 minutes. >> i am thrilled to be here, joined by two of our outstanding cabinet secretaries, steven chu and ray lahood. where are they? over there. we are here today for a simple reason -- ray was not home when they tried to deliver a package yesterday. [laughter]

so we thought we would just rather than be on our way. . -- grab it and be on our way. the attorney general of maryland is also here. [applause] and we've got one of the finest senators in the united states senate from maryland, in card and in the house. -- ben carden, in the house. we did that actually come here to get the package. we are actually here to announce an exciting new partnership between the federal government and some of america's leading companies. the partnership will -- they will help reduce our dependence on oil, that will protect our planet, and will spur economic growth. i gave a speech about this

earlier this week and i laid out a blueprint that will put america on a path toward a clean energy future. a lot of folks have been feeling the pinch of higher gas prices lately, whether filling up your tank car running a business like ups. usually it is times like this when everyone says we should do something about our dependence on oil. and when prices go back down, we forget about it and we move on to the next crisis hits. the point i made earlier this week is that we cannot keep on doing that. that is not how we should conduct our energy policy in this country. we cannot go from shock, rushing to propose-then when gas prices rise, and then hitting the snooze button when they go back

down. we have to have the same, steady, a smart strategy, and in that time when we addressed instability overseas, we know this is a national security issue and the huge economic one. nearly two years after one of the worst recessions in our history, certainly the worst one in our lifetime, our economy is showing signs of real strength. today we learned that we added 230,000 private-sector jobs last month. [applause] that is new news. -- that is good news. that means more packages. [laughter] [applause] right? that makes 1.8 million private sector is correct -- private- sector jobs created in the last 13 months. and the employment rate has

fallen a full point in the last four months. the last time that happened was during the recovery in 1984, where we saw such a significant drop in the unemployment rate. despite that good news, everyone here knows we have caught more of a lot more work to do. there are still millions of americans out there looking for the job that pays the bills. i know there is a lot going on in the world right now. the news has been captured by the news in the middle east, the tragedy in japan, and i am focused on those issues. but you should know that keeping the economy going and making sure that jobs are available is the first thing i think about in the morning and the last thing i think about when i go to bed at night. and i will not be satisfied until every american who wants a good job can find one, and every american gets a shot at the american dream. that is what we're focused on and fighting for.

[applause] although we have got good news today, we have to keep the momentum going. in making the transition to a clean energy economy will help us do that in two very important ways. first, it reduces the chance that our families is -- our families, our businesses, and our economy will be held hostage to the winds of the oil market, to something that happens on the other side of the world. second, investment in clean energy has the potential to create an untold number of new jobs and new industries right here in the united states. for all these reasons, i have set a new goal for america. when i was first elected to this office, america it imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. a decade from now, i want us to have cut that by a 33%.

that is achievable, necessary, good for our future, and we are going to get it done. i am confident we can get it done. [applause] to me that goal, we will need to pursue a broad range of policies, new incentives for natural gas fleets, new research on advanced biofuels, and my hope is that members of both parties, republicans and democrats, will support these kind of proposals. this should not be a partisan issue. this is an american issue, making sure that we have got energy security and energy independence. but one of the best ways to reduce our dependence on oil is by making our cars and trucks more energy efficient. transportation accounts for more than 70% of america's zero consumption. -- oil consumption.

using energy-efficient cars and trucks can make economic sense because transportation is one of the biggest costs for many businesses, and certainly for many families. energy efficient cars and trucks will not just cut our dependence on oil, it can save us money day to day. if we are serious about making this transition from gas- guzzlers' to hybrids, then we have to show automakers and truck manufacturers that there is a real market for these incentives. they are not going to build them if they do not think people will buy them. we need to show them that they manufacture fuel-efficient cars and trucks people will buy them. we need to put our money where our mouth is. i am proud to say that one group actually leading by example on this is the federal government. right now the government's fleet includes more than 600,000 vehicles, which means that we

have the largest fleet in america. that means we have got a lot of purchasing power. what we are doing is using it to boost clean energy technology. we have already doubled the number of cattle cars and trucks that are hybrids. i am directing our departments and agencies to make sure the 100% of the vehicles that they buy our fuel efficient are -- for clean energy cars and trucks by 2015. -- 2015. the government can lead by example and that creates a market, that they are manufacturing more of it, which makes it cheaper for businesses and consumers. but if we're going to upgrade all of america's fleet, then our businesses will need to step up as well. that is bayh i am very proud of what companies like ups, fax,

at&t, verizon, and pepsico are doing. along with secretary to and the hood, i just had a chance to see some of the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that they are adding to the fleet, including hybrids an all-electric vehicles manufactured right here in the united states of america by ford and gm. right here in the u.s. ave. -- of a. [applause] these companies are leading the way when it comes to building clean fleets. .

month. let's introduce you to our second and final guest this morning. joining 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 population in the last 10 years. what do those numbers mean to you? guest: it 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

deoit, the job situation here in detroit, the housing situation. we have issues, no doubt about it, but i think we are taking those issues head-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 di not fill out the applications. historically, there has always been an under-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

th713 people who are still here. host: when you are just reading all ofhese 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 their 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 pern city that weakened the. -- that we can be. making sure from a financial standpoint that we start to stabilize our cells, trying to be sure that we have the right kind of education system inner city, those are the things that

i think we can haveontrol over. i am not going to 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 their cmunities 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 $64 million. 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 allf our decision makers in the same place, making sure they are communicating appropriately, not only at headquters, 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 down 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 beginith 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 becse the states are putting pressure on makers. arthur grant gone now? guest: they are not gone. we are in line for a community block development grant. " we have to do -- when i firs came to the office last year, i had over three fungible plus recommendatis -- 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 my call. i noticed a couple of things. i believe that detroit 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 theorld, there are more bureaucrats than 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. this 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 ar 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 eds to come back to the state into the city. we have to do tngs -- 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 a bellwether. we have to change the way we look at government. there is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind. 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 private 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 bing, 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 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 bloated system 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 there 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 thawe 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 do the 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. canou hear me? good morning, mayor bing. i wish all of t best and lock and whatever else is going to take to fix detroit problems. 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 people back. i guess you know that. here is th purposef my call. the reason why this happened 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'suture." 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 ople 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 ur probms? guest: it is not one- dimensional. i think you can go back over the last 30 years or 40 years from eight leadershiptandpoin 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 to do what is necessary. host: next is a call from detroit, and independen indepen. 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. they 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 nothing to respond to. i do not thi he knows what he is talking about so i will let it alone. host: abraham, go ahead, you are 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 so 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 a 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 where there is job creation in thhealth-care sector, in the transportation, and even in the construction. we are notgrowing 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 benefits might be

collected. what the implicationsf that for you as a big city mayor? guest: i think that is a mistake. that is not something i support. we have legislation that will take down unemployment to 20 weeks. 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 city. 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 seices 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 leaves 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 isecessary, and make this a better city. once again, it is not something that will happen overnight. migratn did not happen overnight. 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 into the 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 th 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 that are 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 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. we are very supportive of that. a lot of our plans -- that particular area of our city is an area of conceration. when you look at the education piece, it is an inner-city 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 ar 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-unionize 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 were paying, so we had a different pay scales, a different benefit package, and i think we were in line with other ivate instries and the private marketplace. the unions have done a good job over the years. i think they are taking steps backt 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 t be open-minded in terms of competition and what is going to be necessary. nobodys 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. topages 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 sohan 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 a this pnt, and we know what we need to do to make the changes that are necessary. we know we have to be competitive. there are changes 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 bigtory -- here is the paragraph i pointed to because is suggest the circular challenges that you have.

mayor bing, what are you going to do for the schools and the city? guest: the schools are not under the purview of the mayor. have my hands full. i have a full plate when i came into this office with a $330 million accumulated 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 together. it has been happening over the last 30 years or 40 years, and now 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. he knows very little aut 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 are some things 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 question. i guess that is where i believe in it. host: mayor bing, we are

the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as we debate the future course of government spending, we need to be honest with the people of this country about the current fiscal state of affairs. america averages now trillion-dollar deficits. we borrow nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. given the fiscal clout that hangs over our country, it is reckless to assume we can live

pain-free forever. sooner or later something has to give. to give families and business confidence that their future won't be plagued by inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates, our majority vowed to move forcefully to cut spending. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: we madclear that only by putting federal speing on a sustainable trajectory could we create the coitions necessary for growth and job creation. during r three -- three months in the majority, we have delivered on our promise. six weeks ago after 47 hou of debate, we passed h.r. 1, to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year and save taxpayers $61 billion relative to current spending. in a more open process thanhe

house had seen in four years we allowed the other party to offer countless amendments and over the past month we passed two continuing resolutions that have cut $10 billion in spending. all along, mr. speaker, we practical particularly begged president obama and senate democratso get serious and come to the table with a legitimate proposal. but we got nothing ineturn. no legislation, no credible plan to cut spending. mr. speaker, i want to underline the fact that we do not want a government shutdown. yeas senate democrats refuse to pass a bill, that unsettling prospect now looms ever larger which is why they must act. today we are bringing a bill to the floor that makes clear that continued inaction on the part of senate democratic majority is

simply unacceptable. finally this bill also ensures that going forward, should there ever be a government shutdown, that members of congress and the president will not get paid. if we can't do our job, why should we get paid? mr. speaker, funding the government at the levels passed by house republicans might t be what senator reid wants, but surely even he would agree that it's a better alternative than shutting down the government. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, to begin this debate i yield four minutes to the distinguished democratic leader. democratic whip. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. april fool's, america. this is a joke, america.

this is not real, america. as a matter of fact, mr. woodal of georgia says it's not real, it's not going to pass the senate. he made that very clear. the majority leader just said if the senate won't take what we give them we're going to shut down the government. at's what he just said. and that's what i believe to be the case. the last time the government shut down was not when we had a republican president and a democratic congress. but when we had a democratic president and a republican congress. they shut down the government in 1995 and 1996. they shut down the government over christmas, as a matter of fact. the griverage who stole the government's operations for almost three weeks. we're about to do it again. mr. woodall who has been here now a few months was 10 years old when i came to the congress of the united states. he mentioned something about the

debt. this $14 trillion of debt. i've only been here, i tell my friend, 30 years, but during the course of those 30 years republican presidents have signed bills spending $4.8 trillion in deficit spending. during the course of the clinton administration we had a surplus, as the gentleman probably knows. now he will say presumably because we had a republican congress. but of course the republicans not only took the congress but they took the presidency. in 2001. and they ran up $2.5 trillion of deficit and increased the national debt by 150% notwithstanding the fact that they inherited a prog -- projected $5.6 trillion surplus. a now they've passed this april fool's joke on america. the gentleman, who is one of the

co-sponsors says won't pass the senate, we know it won't pass the senate. but they pretend in their language what is clearly contrary to the constitution. because they say, if it doesn't pass, the provisions of h.r. 1, the bill they've sent to the senate, passed by the house on february 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. in other words, we're going to deem it bassed. let me tell what you eric cantor said about deeming it passed. malfees ant manner. discharge -- to not discharge the duts of their office. and then speaker boehner said this about these deeming pieces of legislation which this is. he said it was a scheme and plot. that set a precedent that was, quote, one of the most outrageous things that he seen since he had been in congress and erroneously claimed that it never happened in american

history. it had happened before. this has never happened, where the house of representatives took the position if you don't pass what we want, ours goes into law anyway. i'm sure our tea party friends are shocked because they will find nowhere in the constitution, my friends, does that provide for. furthermore, mike pence said the procedure like this, he said, denounced deem and pass and, quote, trampling on the traditional rules of the house and the senate and even on the constitution of the united states of america. . michelle bachmann, apparently may be a candidate for president said this, the deem deem and pass, quote, ignored the constitution and warranted the impeachment of the house speaker. quote, there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this. this rolution -- can i have an

additional one minute? i thank te gentleman. something like this. which says contrary to the constitution, if the senate doesn't act, this bill becomes law. nobody on your side surely believes that that can happen. nobody believes that that joke that we are trying to play on the american people on april fool's day will be believed by any of them. and my friends do not tell me about your concern about the deficit because the deficit during my period of time except for the last two years tryi to deal with the deep depression in which the last administration left this economy, don't try to tell me that we are responsible for the debt, the $14 trillion of debt. surely my friend knows that's not the case. if my friend doesn't know it, i would be glad to set up a time when we can debate at issue and any -- in any form he chooses because the facts belie his representation. my friends, reject this bill,

reject this bill because it is a fraud on the american public. reject this bill because it's an attempt to shift blame from the house of representatives passing a bill that can in fact pass not to say to the senate our way or no way and we will shut down the government because that's what this bill says. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from virginia about whom i say regularly back home as a reputation -- i'm sorry, maryland. we have virginia on my mind today. pardon me, mr. hoyer. our friend from virginia. mr. hoyer: virginia's a good state. mr. woodall: i tell sfokes back home has a great reputation for fair dealings. tremendously disappointed by that characterization of the bill. i'd like to yield five minutes to the bill sponsor to set the record straight on what the bill is. mr. hoyer: i thank you for his observion and regret he

thought it was a mischaracterization because i thought it was accurate. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to the gentleman for yielding. yes, there's been a lot of conversation in washington about the prospect of a government shutdown. while i realize there are some in this congress who might prefer that option, i am not one of them. let me just add our leader is not one of them. frankly, we think it's irresponsible. our constituents did not send us to washington to shut down the government. they sent us here to make it more accountable to the people. and that's precisely what house republicans have been doing. exam the facts. when the curtain came up on this congress, we were already three months into this fiscal year.

with no budget and on a temporary spending plan through early march, this house went to work crafting legislation that would fund government for the rest of this fiscal year while delivering on our pledge to cut spending. the response from the senate, not so fast. so we kept government operational with a two week continuing resolution in hopes that the senate would realize the sense of urgency that accompanies our fiscal situation , and in that two-week span of time, the response, not interested. again, this house went to work crafting another temporary measure that funds government through next week. and my friends' -- and my friends, patience is wearing thin, not just mine and of my colleagues, but the patience of americans. in our collective opinion,

time's up. mr. speaker, we all agree that we have some bigger fish to fry. pressure on the statutory limit on debt and more importantly the 20 budget loom very large right now for this country. instead of focusing on these issues critical to our struggling economy, here we are mired in partisan gamesmanship over funding the government for the remainder of this year. did we come here to fish or did we come here to cut bait? this bill simply puts the clock in action on this process. i am hopeful my colleagues will agree that the time is now to move beyond 2011 so that we can turn our attention to the bigger challenges of transforming this institution and restoring fial sanity. that's what the people sent us here to do a every day we fail to do this work, the people lose.

we have been called extreme. h.r. 1 which passed in the early morning hours on this floor on february 19 cuts an annual -- on an annualized basis, $100 billion in federal spending. that's 1/16 of the deficit. 1/16. is that extreme? i don't think so. mr. speaker, it's unfortunate that people across america trying to find jobs, trying to pay their mortgages, and trying to have the funds to put their kids through college are victimized by this flawed political process. instead of removing the uncertainty for small business and job creators by cutting spending and shrinking the size and reach of government, we are paying games with the -- playing games with the future of our nation. if this is our best, our best falls short of the expectation

of those we represent. we can do better. we should do better. and if we can -- if all we can show for our work is a shut down of the government, we will have failed our constituency and should not be paid. the gammanship going on right now is gambling with america's future and it's hard to make progress when you're playing on house money. h.r. 1255 forcesembers to have skin in the game. and if passed by both chambers and signed by the president, we'll have the proper motivation to setaside the rhetoric and actually accomplish something thats good for america, a climate for job creation. not a government shut down. i urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can do the people's work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, i yield myself four minutes. let's do a quick review of the year. it's been 13 weeks since the republicans took over the majority. leading up to that point we heard the mantra, where are the jobs? so you might expect on day one of the 112th congress they would bring us a jobs bill to the floor. but no. when the republican majority did with great fanfare was to conduct a reading of the constitution. and as if our oath of office wasn't enough, also implemented a new house rule which required legislation to be accompanied by a statement of constitutional authority. in fact, my fellow colleague, from south carolina, joe wilson, read allowed article 1, section 7.

what does it say? every bill shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate. shall before it becomes law be presented to the president of the united states if he approved, he shall sign it. but if not, he shall return it. now, ladies and gentlemen, we all learn in grade school how a bill becomes a law. we'll get back to that in a moment. so 13 weeks ago when republicans took the majority, up to that point we heard from them, where are the jobs? so then what was the first bill we were asked to vote on? the first bill was to repeal the health care law. mocratic policies created more

jobs in the last year than the bush administration created in eight years. since health reform became law, 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created. 1/5 of those new jobs, over 200,000, have been in the health care industry. so repeal of the health care law would end jobs not create jobs. but surely at some point in the last 13 weeks the republican majority would have brought to this floor a jobs bill. three months and no jobs bill. in fact, we have passed three bills that will destroy more than one million jobs. which brings us to this moment, the so-called government shutdown prevention act of 2011,

and article 1, section 1 of the united states constitution. i've read it. but i want to repeat a certain portion of it. every billhall have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall bore it become the law be presented to the president of the united states. but the bill before us today, not a jobs bill, says that if the senate doesn't act prior to the expiration of the continuing resoluti, h.r. 1, a budget bill passed only by the house, will become the law of the land. it's very simple. that is unconstitutional. we do not have a unicameral legislative body.

then what do they cite the constitution authority that must accompany each bill? there are a lot of words, but only a parliamentarian expert could understand -- parliamentary expert could understand. but if you ask myaughter' eighth grade class that visited us here earliethis week, they could tell you -- i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize mr. clyburn: they would tell you that's not how things work under our constitution. but don't listen to me. or her eighth graders at dent middle school. listen to what some of your colleagues in the other body have to say. our colleagues in the other body made it very clear, my reaction to that is ultimately the whole body, including the executive

branch, has to sign on here or we'll julls -- we are just whistling in the wind. said alexander of tennessee, to be the law of the land a bill has to pass the senate and be signed by the president. one of our own, the appropriation subcommittee chair, representative mike simpson, after laughing out loud said, if we can do that, can't we just deem the budget balanced? madam speaker, inow it's april 1st, so maybe that's the point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i ask my colleagues on the other side to let's hit this joke and get serious. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: at is time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a very serious reform minded freshman, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is rognized for three minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me time. i rise as a co-sponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it. i have worked tirelessly with my colleagues to pass a continuing resolution that saves taxpayers money and keeps the government running. while the other body as we continue to hear has done nothing but complain. are they blind? are they deaf? do they not see, do they not hear what the rest of the people in this country see and hear in terms of this country's financial crisis? in terms of this country's debt, in terms of what we are doing our children and grandchildren by continuing to do nothing, madam speaker. we waited 41 days for them to send us a funding bill and we've got nothing.

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

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

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

record against any sort of deem and pass mechanism. a year later the story has changed. now, most of all, this is a die version from the reckless cuts the majority proposed, the slashes to head start, pell grants, meals on wheels, veterans, job training, medical research, all cuts that hurt middle class and working families. we are still waiting for the republicans to cut the special interest waste like the oil company subsidies and the tax loopholes for the richest people in the nagse. and what about those tax subsidies for those multinational corporations that takes their jobs overseas? you're not starting there to cut the deficit, but, no, it's about working families and their children that you're going after. you are taxing the patients of

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

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

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

well, the cuts that the american people want, they're not extreme. they're necessary. when we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar what our children and grandchiren's future in jeopardy, these cuts are far from extreme. it's time for the senate to act. our goal is to cut spending, not to shut down the government. back in mississippi we have a saying, lead, follow or get out of the way. mr. reid, today you're in the way. so i challenge you today to lead by passing a plan of your own, to follow by adopting the plan that we've already passed. if you can't do either of those, get out of the way and allow the senate to act. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlem is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, several students from key elementary school came to the office. they were excited to be on capitol hill. i explained this afternoon we are debating bail, it's been introduced by whawe call the freshmen, new members of the hoe, that says if the senate doesn't agree with a big bill that the house has passed that the senate doesn't agree next week then this bill would deem it passed. in fact, deem it enacted. they were shocked because that's not what they learned in civics class. they learned that a bill has to be passed by the house and then passed by the senate and then it goes into conference and then if the president agrees to sign it then it can become law. but not this bill. i was at a loss, of course, to explain how it was constitutional. they were kind of surprised thathis is what the house was

doing. they wanted to know, well, what is the bill they want to be enacted. it is a bill i d't agree with and the senate doesn't agree with. because while we have a lot of people unemployed, this would make apparently about 700,0 more people unemployed, according to even replican economists. so they were even further amazed by that. it also would eliminate a lot of regulations that have been passed by the house. it would -- through a lot of deliberation but it just says those regulations wouldn't take effect. so it's a very controversial bill. now, i was also able to tell them i did suggest to the rules committee yesterday that the majority rejected there is something we could do today and that is to say that if we put our staff out on the street without pay who get a fraction of what we get paid and we put another million federal

employees out on the street unpaid then the congress shouldn't get paid either. the senate did in fact pass that unanimously, including senator mcconnell, obviously. so if we passed that today then we could put the country on record. we're not going to -- could i have another 30 seconds? mr. clyburn: i yield0 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. mr. moran: at least today we could put ourselves on record that we're not going to put people out on the street while we continue to get paid because we get paid from a different authorization as does the president. now, this is legislation we could get passed, that the senate agrees and could go fought president right away. i know the president would sign it. that's what we should be doing today, not something that even a 10-year-old understands is unconstutional. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mad speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to a gentleman from your home state, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kissinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: madam speaker, we are in a mess. we are throwing barbs. we've been in charge for four years and had the presidency for two years and it's not our fault and we don't want to do anything to fix it. so in fact here last year when you had all of the majority, when our friends on the other side of the aisle had all the majority they failed to do the most basic thing that you ought to do when you run something, you pass a budget. no budget was passed because the november elections were coming up. you didn't want to have to make the tough choices that would hurt you in re election and you didn't want to have to go through that route so you didn't pass a budget.

you passed a continuing resolution. guess what, the american people in november spoke. they said the federal government is entirely too big and the big bloated bureaucratic government is crowding out the free market. and so what happened? we were sent here to washington, d.c., to control the size of federal government and we're doing exactly that. and we passed and so what happened? we were certainty here to washington, d.c. to control the size of federal government and we're doing exactly that. we passed a minor cut. we're not talking about the 2012 budget here this that's coming up. bower friends on the other side of the aisle don't even want to show us where they are at. they can't cut spending. they can't do it. they don't want to say no to people. the american people and their children are asking us to say yes to the future. i'm a military pilot. ho runs a k home.

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

but pro-- that sensiblely reduces spending but leads to a repeal of health care. the other side believes we should. whether or not to defund planned parenthood. we believe we shouldn't. most of thether side believes that we should. leave those discussions to another day and keep the government functioning because the taxpayers will keep ping taxes even though there's a government shutdown. they pay even if they don't get the services. so what are we doing this afternoon? what we're doing this afternoon is looking at a bill that's on its face is unconstitutional. and the reason we're looking at this bill is so that members of the majority side who probably won't vote for the budget compromise next week can say they did something. well, doing something that's unconstitutional is wrong. as mr. clyburn read article 1,

section 7, says, every bill which shall pass the house of representatives and the senate shall before it become a law become presented to the president. article 1, section 5 of the constitution says, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. what's wrong with this bill is that one house, our house, is determining the rules of the other house's, the senate's, proceedings. you can't do that. it's a pretty simple concept, and i've heard all the convoluted arguments on the other side. i've heard all the twisted rationalizations. it comes down to this. if this afternoon the senate passed a budget that our friends on the majority side doesn't like and our friend on the majority side doesn't pass

that budget in a week it becomes law they uldn't agree to that because they would know that it's unconstitutional. this is the same thing. . it is ironic tha with great fanfare on the first week of this session, after runnina campaign saying they would produce jobs,hat the majority produced was a reading of the constitution on this floor. i thought it was appropriate. i thought it was actually moving and the right thing to do. the wrong thing to do is to ignore what we read the first week. each house may determine the rules of its proceeding. we can't determine the rules of proceeding for the senate. they can't determine the rules of proceeding for us. this is a bad bill. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, my good friend, ms. jenkins.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. i thank e gentleman from georgia for yielding. you-all remember the story about an old man of great faith whose town was about to be flooded? the town was being evacuated and its water was already covering the roads. the old man sat on his porch calmly unafraid. a car pulled up to the house, the water almost too deep to drive in. the driver yelled, get in. we'll take you to safety. the old man shook his head and said go on, i have faith a god. he'll save me. the car moved on. a short time later the water had risen so high it covered the porch. so the old man simply went upstairs. a boat floated up to the house and the people yelled get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man said again, go on, i have faith in god. he'll save me. so the boat went on. hours later the water d risen so it almost covered the ep tire house. the old man wa now on his roof when a rescue helicopter came in. they called get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man refused, saying go

on i have faith in god. he'll save me. the helicopter left. the water rose so high the old man drowned. he went to heaven of course and when he arrived he asked god, i had faith in you to save me. why didn't you? god answered, i sent you a car, a boat, and a helicopter, what more do you want from me? i hope my democrat colleagues in the other chamber and this president understand that this bill is their helicopter. you had a chance to propose and pass a budget for 2011 last year when you-all hadnfettered power in washington. you had over a month now to address h.r. 1, a bill that cut a near $100 billion from our -- mere $100 billion from our budget. today we are giving you a third chance to avoid a government shut down. please grab on to this lifeline and work with us to prevent a government shut down that could have international consequences.

vote yes on h.r. 1255. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. owens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. owens: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. clyburn. when i heard that this bill was coming forward, i had an opportunity to reflect on the fact that i had been having conversations with my constituents. and in each case i posed to them how we are proceeding here in congress. and asked them if in fact they could accept a small across-the-board percentage decrease for f.y. 2011. invariably each and every one said yes. i have been on record for many months as suggesting that we can solve this problem, walk away from the ideology that's dividing us, and simply reduce spending by 2%, which i think if

one does the math gets us to the position that our friends on the other side of the aisle would like us to adopt. it is clear to me after practicing law for more than 30 years part of which was a j.a.g. officer in the united states air force that clearly this is an unconstitutional piece of legislation and is nothing more than spinning in the wind. i had the opportunity the other day when i saw the make up of this bill to write to the speaker, mr. boehner, along with 27 other co-signers and asked that s. 3le 88 -- s. 388 be separated from this legislation. this legislation is not moving forward, and if in fact we do see a government shutdown, we in congress should share the pain. we have that responsibility, that obligation, and we must

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

air force would understand that. this is a constitutional bill like the other bills that we introduce here. now, why are we here today? 41 days ago this house passed a $100 billion spending cut from the president's 2011 budget that. bill kept the government operating. we d our job here. there was another house wn on the other side of the capitol and we are here because they have refused to do their job, 41 days later, zero bills. we have heard some suggestions here today. and maybe we ought to do a across-the-board cut. i suggest that if they got any friends on the senate side that they go down there and see if they will propose a bill with some kind of cuts, because so far it's zero. zero bills from the senate on this. senator harry reithinks our plan goes, quote, too far, end

quote. we have heard a lot of people using the word extreme because that's a scary word. let me tell you, the only thing around here is the national debt. you want to see extreme, that's extreme. senator harry reid believes that shutting down the government is perfectly acceptable. in fact, we have seen with the pollsters and pundits and howard dean and others that they want to shut down the government. i don't want to shut down the government. i want to cut spending. the speaker pro tempore: the gentman's timeas expired. mr. griffin: 30 seconds? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: i don't want the government shut down. i want spending cut. i have a question of how -- what a shut down would do to our armed forces. the airmen and the soldiers in arkansas that are in my district , senator reid has failed to come up with a credible plan of

his own. they can't cut just a few billion dollars. even though we have a g.a.o. report that indicates $100 billion to $200 billion could be saved by getting rid of duplicative programs. if the senate is unwilling to make the small cuts, how in the world are we ever going to be able to make the bold decisions -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield one minute to the democratic leader of california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in this debate this afternoon. i have been listening to it very intently. i heard the debate on the rule this morning and then the debate this afternoon.

and some questions have arisen. first, i want to state a fact. the fact is is that every single one of us in this body, as our first act, raises our right hand to protect and defendhe constitution of the united states. the bill that we have on the floor before us does violence to those provisions in the constitution that describe how to pass a bill. not by one house deeming it but as our distinguished assistant leader, mr. yburn, described, his daughter's school ildren and her class could tell you that you pass one house, you pass another house, it's signed by the president. but that seems to be missed by the makers of this resolution today. again mr. cly bush talked -- clyburn talked about the constitutional authority to

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

i have heard mr. hoyer earlier today talk about how we got here in terms of this budget deficit. we all know that we must reduce the deficit, that's why during the clinton years as mr. hoyer said, we reversed the first bush deaf, came out with a trajectory of fiscal responsibility, going into surplus. the last five clinton budgets were in surplus or in balance. but because of tax cuts for the rich, two unpaid-for wars, and prescription drug bill that gave away the store to the pharmaceutical industry, we came back into deficit, the biggest swing i fiscal irresponsibility in ourountry's history, and now we have had to deal with that. and what is the answer that the bush administration gave us? tax cuts for the rich, that's how you create jobs. we didn't. that's how you reduce the

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

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

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

i support this bill because if the american people have to endure a government shutdown, which is the result of the failure of the senate democrats, then none of us, including the president, should expect thamerican people to continue our pay. until we fix this budget mess. the funding for the federal government is 182 days old. democrats on the senate have failed -- democrats have failed to pass a budget for 182 days. 182 case, that's an entire school year. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what would you think if your child's teacher did nothing for the entire school yar. our constitution authorizes coress to be the power of the purse. it is our job to set a responsible and affordable budget for the federal government each year. and if we can't do our job we should not be paid. mr. speaker,, it is time for the -- mr. speaker, it is time for the democrats in the senate to do their job.

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. i'm sorry, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hastings: i thank my good friend from south carolina. david fishburg wrote in 1975, "i'm just a bill," and this has been utilized -- i utilized it yesterday. my friend, mrwoodall from georgia, used it today. i encoura the american public to understand that my friends know how a bill becomes the law. h.r. 1, the measure that we have been talking about, really did pass the house of representatives and it went over to the united states senate and it was rejected. the president also said that he would veto h.r. 1 if it reached his desk. so what we are doing here is

symbolism. and my friends on the other side are entitled easily to message anything they wish to address their base. but don't bring it to the american public under the ages of this is something serious. it is not. it is absurd. it is a complete waste of time. and even more important, as has been said by many, and i believe everybody on the other side understands, it's unconstitutional. it also has not gone unnoticed that my friends who advocated rightly that there should be transparency in addition to being transparency that measures should be allowed to be read before they're utilized. the leadership of the house of representatives held a press conference before any member of the house of representatives saw mr. womack and mr. woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess wt must be happening here is we are wasting our time on

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

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

recognized. mr. woodall: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to one of my freshman colleagues, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognizefor two minutes. mr. schweikert: it's been funny hearing the discussion this isn't constitutional. now, let me see -- it's a piece of legislation with a trigger mechanism in it. ok, i know the other side doesn't like that trigger but it would still require the senate to pass it and the president to sign it. if i go back to a -- and it was n seeing something from my childhood of the 1970's "how a bill becomes a law." it's w it becomes a law. it's not the gamesmanship of oh, it's april fools' day, let us demagogue thipiece of legislation. what's important he is the american people know we're taking the job seriously, and givinghe senate another

chance, another chance to step up and do theirob. wee sitting here how many weeks after we passed resolution -- you know, h.r. 1? and we're still doing this dance. at sompoint the american people have to expect us to do our job. and if we don't do our job not a single one of us here, the administration and in the senate deserve a paycheck. madam chairman, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. andrewsi ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i think we need to reiterate, we just had a very principled statement of the gentleman from texas. i think we need to rise above partisanship. the gentleman from texas said he agrees with the proposition that the bill is unconstitutional. i would urge members, madam speaker, to listen to that

example of principle. we don't agree on all things but we should all rise toonor our oath of office and vote on this based on pure constitutional grounds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend and mentor, the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mrbroun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, when a patient is bleeding to death on an operating table, we as doctors do everything that we can to save that patient's life. we don't just walk away and we certainly don't call it quits. well, that's what the democrats want to do. they want to call it quits on our spending crisis, and the worst part is they are doing it for their own political games. democrats in congress are

intentionally plotting this government shutdown and they hatched their plan months ago, i believe. if they wanted to, democrats could have passed a long-term continuing resolution during the lame dug session without making any -- lame-duck session without making any spending cuts at all. but instead they passed a short-term spending bill so they could play the shutdown card right now. the democrats' political game of wedging conservatives between unexacceptable cuts and a government shutdown is an insult to the gravity of the plan. it's an insult to american families who are struggling to make ends meet. it's an insult to all of the american people who are out of work and it's an insult to us in congress, the members of congress who are serious about trying to put this country on a road to recovery, economic recovery. it's pitiful that the democrats have wasted so much time stalling over these minimal

cuts in their own self-interest. while our country is financially bleeding to death, we should be focused on trying revive our economy rather than bickering about $61 billion when we already borrow almost $60 billion per week. madam speaker, since the democrats refuse to stop their political games and get to work, those over in the senate, in particularly, i urge my colleagues to pass the government shutdown prevention act so that we can do our jobs and start frying to heal our economy and create jobs in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, there's no stronger supporter of h.r. 1 than mr. gohmert from texas, and he made a very simple, very eloquent statement of principle, about adhering to the constitution. this legislation has to be interpreted by its own words,

not by what people say is in it. and what it explicitly says, if the house has not received a message from the senate before april 6 stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriation for the departments and agencies of government for the remainder of the fiscal year, and this is the language of your legislation, the provisions of h.r. 1 as passed by law on bruary 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. that's absurd. it's a pretend bill that says that if the house acts and the senate doesn't our action becomes law. it's absurd. it says that if the house acts the senate doesn't and the president doesn't sign this piece of legislation it's law. that's the document that you presented to this body to vote on. now, mr. gohmert took the higher road here wherinstead

of taking o his frustration with the united states senate at the expense of the constitution he stood up for the constitution. and that's what each and every one of us have an opportunity to do. all of us have frustration with the other body because they sit on bills. in the eyes of the beholder it's a good or bad bill du it does not entitle us to pretend that the constitution does not apply to the legislation that we have to consider. also, if we have a political impractical problem of moving ahead on a piece of legislation in the house, ist right for us in effect to mislead the people that sent us here by suggesting that we're passing a law that has any impact when we know it has absolutely no impact? is that a fair or appropriate or honorable thing for a democrat or a republican to do? i urge us to vote no on this legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to answer my friend from vermont's question which inot the appropriate thing to mislead the american people. so i'll just read one more -- one more time the -- having passed the house, having passed the senate and be signed by the president. that's the regular order. i'll say to my friend, i'm sorry we didn't have that time to finish our discussn in the rules committee. i'm sorry we were called away by votes. i yield two minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. baetta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i came here to fight for my constituents. i didn't come here to shut down the government. my state has the highest unemployment. they look at the reckless spending in washington and they get angry. it's just this simple.

they don't spend money they don't have. so why does washington? this bill prevents members of congress and the president from getting paid if the government shuts down. i get it, the american people get it, why doesn't washington get it? it's something any business owner or logical individual anywhere in america can understand. if you don't work you don't get paid. maybe this just makes too much sense for washington. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. weiner: my friends, one of the experience we had in the opening days of experience that we read the constitution and i think one of us had the great good fortune to read article 1, section 7, every bill shall

have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall before it became law be presented to the president of the united states. he has how a bill becomes a law. now, this is how eric cantor on 3/30/11 said a bill becomes a law. the senate's gotta -- this is just the transdescription. i just assume it's the southern thing. the senate's gotta act prior to the expiration of the c.r. if it does not act, meaning, if the senate does not do something, h.r. 1 becomes the law of the land. that's not true. that's not constitutional. that's not fitting of thi 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 foow because this is why it's hard, it's a big book. 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 eugh 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 timeas 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. odall: we have no more speakers. mr. clyburn: six minutes left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia 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: tha 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 elted 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 ll, 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 evy 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 chilen'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 recmend you pick a copy up for the young people in your life. it really is a fantastic beginning step about what it is

we arell about. what it is we are all about. the preamble is in that schoolhouse rock. no more kings inhat 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 hse 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 appe. 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 99, 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 ay have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prevent the

shut down 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:r. 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 relar 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,he 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 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 thig to do if this congress after bng 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'vgot a debate happening inside their caucus. if compromise is a virtue or a

vice. they will workhat out and decide because that's what this debate today was about. where do w 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. t just macroeconomically, our seniors aren't going to get their checks. we are going to see medical care slow down to our veterans. we areoing 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,he first time you have had this chance, if you vote yesn 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 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 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 feral 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.oran: 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 constituonal 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 himotion to recommit,s patently unconstitutional both as applied to congress in violation of the 27th amendment and the president in violati 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 e floor. if anyone wants thito 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 usomething which the white house says in its language , in its email to me, is patently unconstitutional. not maybe unconstitution. 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 sding 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 theresident 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 viote 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.

>> final vote on the measure was a 221-202. democrats unanimously opposed the bill emmer joined by 15 republicans. the senate is not expected to act on the house bill. members plan to return on monday for legislated business with votes at 6:30. all the of the engine -- on the agenda next week, the sec regulation of internet and broadband practices and 2011 federal spending. current funding expires next friday. without action from both bodies of congress, a government shutdown as possible. >> next, a bipartisan discussion on the first 100 days of the one of the 12th congress. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal."

this weekend on american history tv, last wednesday marked the 30th anniversary of the knesset -- of the assassination attempt on president ronald reagan. we will talk about that afternoon. jane pauley and tom brokaw of the 1960's and the legacy of the kennedy family. pulitzer prize-winning photographer recalls his years in covering president nixon and ford. get the schedule at our website, c-span.org. >> now a panel including one democrat and one republican discuss the first 100 days of the 112th congress. they also discussed the current debate over the federal budget deficit and the influence of tea party activists.

from the american enterprise institute, this is one hour 25 minutes. >> 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. let me 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 morning. 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 for 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 comparisons where the majority has changed from one party to another. one person to my right served in the house of representatives, representing minnesota's second congressional district. he served on science and technology, transportation, and budget appropriations committees. 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. 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 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 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 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. streamlined some things. newt gingrich changed the nature of it, 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 used it. 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 were 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 genuine 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 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, but that 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 believed that without gingrich,

there would not have been a majority. they respect and like boehner. 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 and campaigns. it really was the secretion of a lot of dead wood.

some of them are my dear friends. 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 south for a generation. it took 30 years for it to play out. it became the republican cutting edge winning seats in the south. truly conservative people across the spectrum. 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. they needed him to win. democrats were a pretty easy target at that point. today, that is not the case. nancy pelosi was very effective winning the majority. -- in the minority -- winning

the majority. i think democrats lost this majority for many reasons. much of it related to events 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. [laughter] third-party candidates were essentials. even today, the people who survived this wave were kind of caught up in it knowing there was not anything they could do. they were being pulled out to sea. they cannot really swim hard enough to mitigated that. many of them knew what was coming.

it was not a surprise. they saw the trend. they probably thought they would be [unintelligible] -- they probably thought they would be in the minority. they are far tougher. they were not trying to be complacent. they were anxious to combat. -- come back. bill clinton was very effective in seguing into roles. 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 he is as into doing that as much as his advisors would like him to be. i think his personal relationships with people on the hill make it hard for them to set him 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. we are learning as we have known for years that everybody is into 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. look at the governors across the spectrum politically. every state, whether you are democrat or republican, -- even chris christi who gets great marks, he is losing his support in new jersey.

people do not understand what is involved in deficit reduction or balancing a budget. >> bill clinton came back. at the time, he was still pretty far down. at least down to where president obama is today. were you worried about your president? did you think you would have to part your own ways? >> the democrats were more dependent on the white house. they were shellshocked in 1995. there was a little bit of recriminations about the ineffectiveness of the first two years. 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 was otherwise a properly -- popular. >> it changed the gun issue forever. >> absolutely. you can see the version, even today. they failed to pass the health care bill. newt gingrich never would have let two or three committees stop the health care bill. he would appoint a task force together. a week later, there would have been a bill on the floor. 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 did like it. we really did a lot of things that were playing off the inexperience of the white house. 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. maybe i can turn back to janet and then alex. 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? it is not the 100 day mark today, technically. the expiration is coming up. >> there are all kinds of different budget dynamics. most of the focus is on the continuing resolution. 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 2008 levels. it was kind of obvious what was going to happen. democrats wanted a different level. let's split the difference. it is the conventional way. you get together in a room and had the leaders decide. the twist arms and pass it. that does not work these days. compromise is a discredited concept. 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 billion and democrats wanted none. guess where they came out?

they came out at 33 in cuts. the vice president came out and said we were working on this number in our negotiations. 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. language to cut off funding for the health care bill, the epa. there are two sets of negotiations going on. it is this alice in wonderland being. the democrats say we had a deal on the number and the republicans say we do not. 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 can usually see in advance how things are going to go. i am not sure how many twists and turns this will take. >> talk about the republican side and the provisions in it. >> i would rather be in the audience listening to norm. i will avoid attempts at humor. 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. -- from the new members. 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 that winning and compromise is somewhat of the same thing. without getting a deal, you have nothing. i worked for a number of years for someone who is known as a dealmaker. someone who could get a bill accomplished. he was chairman of the ways and means committee. 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 put together that ultimately involve compromise. some things get enacted into law that you do not like. -- has of things in it that you

do not like. that is have you know you are reaching the deal point. 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. they have not lost yet, either. there have been a couple of bills that have made it across. small spending decisions. 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. it is all about 218 in the house. i do not know if there is a policy up there now. when i was there on the staff, there was a concept of the majority when i was there. that was not a new concept at the time. it is one that is on people's mines at the moment. they do have a cushion going into this negotiation. they will be playing those margins. however they work to solve this negotiation between the house, the senate, and the white house

, they will have to depend on not only the democrat majority of the senate, but also have to rely on the house. the question is, these issues are divided. it is difficult to deal with a nonstarter under this kind of time pressure. we did not bring bills to the 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. are republicans going to depend on democratic votes? 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 answer is that this is very unpredictable. i am not sure. 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 a majority. he seems ready. there has been a lot of speculation. there is a story about the competition between john boehner and eric kanter. i tend to think that boehner will be ok if he produces that. he is a very skillful speaker. he is working very hard with freshmen members. they have been four months now. he has been meeting with them in small groups talking about keeping their eyes on the big issue which is the 2012 budget. to the extent that they have

convinced the freshmen members that the 2012 budget is the big issue, 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. we avoided the government shut down because we were focusing on the 2012 budget. that seems to be an acceptable concept for the speaker. it does not necessarily lead to a conclusion on what will happen with the 2012 budget. that is another issue. it will get us through next week. >> same question. >> i think there is in some ways, a missing of a point. this is nothing. we had a debt limit. 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. -- save your bullets for the real war, not the skirmish. 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 and minority. he is a speaker, maybe more in the tradition of some of the democratic speakers. he is a person that can reach across to the other party. he has kevin mccarthy. he is negotiating with the blue dogs. he has to win the fight and save those, by making sure they can vote no. they need to have something happen that would keep the government from shutting down. what are the democrats going to do? how cooperative will they be? i cannot fathom that they will

prevent a deal from coming together. enough of them will want to vote for one. 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 re-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 cash in your 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 ch