221-202 with 15 republicans opposing the bill. the house spending bill failed to pass the senate in march. the senate is not expected to act on today's bill. here is the house debate. mr. speaker, as we debate the future course of government spending, we need to be honest with the people of this country about the currenfiscal 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 corre. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: we made clear that only by putting federal spending on a sustainable trajectory could we create the conditions necessary for growth and job creation. during our three -- three months in the majority, we have delivered on our promise. six weeks ago after 47 hours 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 than the house had seen in four years we allowed the other party to offer countless amendments and ove 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 democrats to get serious and come to the table with a legitimate proposal. but we got nothing in return. no legislation, no credible plan to cut spending. mr. speaker, i want to underline the fact that we do not want a government shutdown. yet as senate democrats refuse to pass a bill, that unsettling prospect now looms everarger 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 not 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 he 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.

that'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 democrac 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. wooda who has been here now a few months was 10 years old when i cameo 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. and 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 duties 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 outraous 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 othe 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 ieachment off of something like this. this resolution -- can i have an additional one minute? i thank the gentleman. something like this. which says contrary to the constitution, if the senate doesn't act, this bill becomes law. nobody on your side surely believes that that can happen. nobody believes that that joke

that we are trying to play on the american people on april fool's day will be believed by any of them. and my friends do not tell me about your concern about the deficit because the deficit during my period of time except for the last two years trying to deal with the deep depression in which the last administration left this economy, don't try to tell me that we are responsible for the debt, the $14 trillion of debt. surely my friend knows that's not the case. if my friend doesn't know it, i would be glad to set up a time when we can debate that issue and any -- in any form he chooses because the facts belie his representation. my friends, reject this bill, reject this bill because it is a fraud on the american public. reject this bill because it's an attempt shift blame from the house of representatives passing a bill that can in fact pass not to say to the senate our way or

no way and we will shut down the government because that's what this bill says. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from virginia about whom i say regularly back home as a reputation -- i'm sorry, maryland. we have virginia on my mind today. pardon me, mr. hoyer. our friend from virginia. mr. hoyer: virginia's a good state. mr. woodall: i tell sfokes back home has a great reputation for fair dealings. tremendously disappointed by that characterization of the bill. i'd like to yield five minutes to the bill sponsor to set the record straight on what the bill is. mr. hoyer: i thank you for his observation and regret he thought it was a mischaracterization because i thought it was accurate. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to the gentleman for yielding. yes, there's been a lot of conversaon 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 twoeek continuing resolution in hopes that the senate would realize the sense of urgey that accompanies our fiscal situation , and in that two-week span of time, thresponse, not interested. again, this house went to work crafting another temporary measure that funds government through next week. and my friends' -- and my friends, patience is wearing thin, not just mine and of my colleagues, but the patience of americans. in our collective opinion, time's up. mr. speaker, we all agree that we have some bigger fish to fry. pressure on the statutory limit on debt and more importantly the 2012 budget loom very large right now for this country. instead of focusing on these

issues critical to our struggling economy, here we are mired in partisan gamesmanship over funding the government for the remainder of this year. did we come here to fish or did we come here to cut bait? this bill simply puts the clock in action on this process. i am hopeful my colleagues will agree that the time is now to move beyond 2011 so that we can tu our attention to the bigger challenges of transforming this institution and restoring fiscal sanity. that's what the people sent us here to do and every day we fail to do this work, the people lose. we have been called extreme. h.r. 1 which passed in the early morning hours on this floor on february 19 cuts an annual -- on an annualized basis, $100 billion in federal spending. that's 1/16 of the deficit.

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

now is gambling with america's future and it's hard to make progress when you're playing on house money. h.r. 1255 forces members to have skin in the game. and if passed by both chambers and signed by the president, we'll have the prop motivation to setaside the rhetoric and actually accomplish something that is good for america, a climate for job creation. not a government shut down. i urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can do the people's work. i yield back. the speakepro 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 publicans 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 astatement 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 representives 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 jo? so then what was the first bill we were asked to voten? 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 desty more than one million jobs. which brings us to this moment, the so-called goverent shutdown prevention act of 2011, and article 1, section 1of the united states constitution. i've read it. but i want to repeat a certain portion of it. every bill shall have passed the house of representatives and the

senate shall before it become the law be presented to the president of the united states. but the bill before us today, not a jobs bill, says that if the senate doesn't act prior to the expiration of the continuing relution, 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 derstand -- parliamentary expert could understand. but if you ask my daughter's

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

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

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

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

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

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

the majority proposed, the slashes to head start, pell grants, meals on wheels, veterans, job training, medical research, all cuts that hurt middle class and working families. we are still waiting for the republicans to cut the special interest waste like the oil company subsidies and the tax loopholes for the richest people in the nagse. and what about those tax subsidies for those multinational corporations that taketheir 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. matter what those damaging effects are because of ideological reason and political base and electoral votes, you are willing to put the united states and its people above all working families, middle-class families and their children and our economy at risk. please, read the constitution, understand how this democracy works and take this bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: and do away with it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to my good

friend, a freshman from mississippi, mr. dunly. -- mr. dunlly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. nunnelee: it's been over 40 days and the democrats in the senate have failed to act on a spending plan. if our government shuts down our troops won't get paid. now, they'll sti 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 marity 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 t work because of our efforts. meanwhile, what's happened this week? the senate democrats have spent the week diverting attention, trying to figure out how to spin reporters, and today while the shutdown is imminent, they've gone home. well, the cuts that the american people want, they're not extreme. they're necessary. when we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar what our children and grandchildren's future in jeopardy, these cuts re far from extreme. it's time for the senate to

act. our goal is to cut spending, not to shut do the government. back in mississippi we hava 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, dam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, several students from key elementary school came to the office. they were excited to be on capitol hill.

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

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

record. we're not going to -- could i have another 30 seconds? mr. clyburn: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker o 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 g paid from a different authorization as does the president. now, this is legislation we could get passed, that the senate agrees and could go fought president right away. i know the president would sign it. that's what we should be doing today, not something that even a 10-year-old understands is unconstitutional. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to a gentleman from your home state, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kissinger. the speaker pro temre: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

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

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

government. we do. pass this bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman elds back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and exnd my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from south carolina. there was some good news today finally that 214,000 americans went to work last month. that's not nearly good enough. there's radio more work -- there's a lot more work to do. one of the ways is to come to an agreement on a responsible budget. i'm hopeful there will be such an agreement next week. that senseably reduces spending but pro-- that sensiblely reduces spending but leads to a repeal of health care. the other side believes we should. whether or not to defund planned parenthood. we believe we shouldn't.

most of the other side believes that we should. leave those discussions to another day and keep the government functioning because the taxpayers will keep paying taxes even though there's a government shutdown. they pay even if they don't get the services. so what are we doing this afternoon? what we're doing this afternoon is looking at a bill that's on its face is unconstitutional. and the reason we're looking at this bill is so that members of the majority side who probably won't vote for the budget compromise next week can say they did something. well, doing something that's unconstitutional is wrong. as mr. clyburn read article 1, section 7,ays, 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 de doesn't like and our friend on the majority side doesn't pass that budget in a week it becomes law they wouldn't agree to that because they would know that it's unconstitutional. this is the same thing. . it is ironic that with great

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

its water was already coveng the roads. the old man sat on his porch calmly unafraid. a car pulled up to the house, the water almost too deep to drive in. the driver yelled, get in. we'll take you to safety. the old man shook his head and said go on, i have faith a god. he'll save me. the car moved on. a short time later the water had risen so high it covered the porch. so the old man simply went upstairs. a boat floated up to the house and the people yelled get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man said again, go on, i have faith in god. he'll save me. so the boat went on. hours later the water had risen so it almost covered the ep tire house. the old man was now on his roof when a rescue helicopter came in. they called get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man refused, saying go on i have faith in god. he'll save me. the helicopter left. the water rose so high the old man drowned. he went to heaven of course and when he arrived he asked god, i had faith in you to save me. why didn't you?

god answered, i sent you a car, a boat, and a helicopter, what more do you want from me? i hope my democrat colleagues in the other chamber and this president understand that this bill is their helicopter. you had a chance to propose and pass a budget for 2011 last year when you-all had unfettered power in washington. you had over a month now to address h.r. 1, a bill at 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 rk with us to prevent a government shut down that could have international consequences. vote yes on h.r.1255. i yield back. thspeaker 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 te 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 thisegislation. this legislation is not moving forward, and if in fact we do see a government shutdown, we in congress should share the pain. we have that responsibility, that obligation, and we must lead by example. thank you,madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to one of my fellow freshmen, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. griffin i thank my good friend for yielding me time. mam speaker, i commend my fellow arkansans for introducing the government shutdown prevention act and i strongly support its passage. i'd like to say real quickly what we have seen here in the last few minutes is a colossal waste of time. you had a bunch of folks saying, madam speaker, that this is unconstitutional. i just want to clarify so we can move past that and if my colleagues is -- can focus this argument where it matters. we intend for this bill like all other bills to pass the house, to pass the senate, b signed by the president. i, too, am a j.a.g. officer from the my an i thk 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' 2011 budget that. bill kept the government opering. we did our job here. there was another house down on the other side of the capil and we are here because they have refused to do their job, 41 days later, zero bills. we have heard some suggestions here today. and maybe we ought to do a across-the-board cut. i suggest that if they got any friends on the senate side that they go down there and see if they will propose a bill with some kind of cuts, because so far it's zero. zero bills from the senate on this. senator harry reid thinks our plan goes, quote, too far, end quote. we have heard a lot of people using the word extreme because that's a scary word. let me tell you, the only thing around here is the national debt. you want to see ereme, 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 gornment. i want to cut spending. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: 30 seconds? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: i don't want the government shut down. i want spending cut. i have a question of how -- what a shut down would do to our armed forces. the airmen and the soldiers in arkansas that are in my district , senator reid has failed to come up with a credible plan of his own. they can't cut just a few billion dollars. even though we have a g.a.o. report that indicates $100 billion to $200 billion could be saved by gtting 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. . clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield one minute to the democratic leader of california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadershipn 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 onof us in this body, as our first act, raises our right hand

to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. the bill that we have on the floor before usoes violence to those provisions in the constitution that describe how to pass a bill. not by one house deeming it but as our distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn, described, his daughter's school children and her class could tell you that you pass one house, you pass another house, it's signed by the president. but that seems to be missed by the makers of this resolution today. again mr. cly bush talked -- clyburn tked about the constitutional authority to bring this bill to the floor. it's truly a mysty 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 do government. abdicating our responsibilities and shutting down government. i have heard mr. hoyer earlier today talk about how we got here in tms of this budget deficit. we all know that we must reduce the deficit, that's why during the clinton years as mr. hoyer said, we reversed the first bush

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

of the obama administration more jobs were created in the private sector than in the eight years of the bush administration. tax cuts for the rich did not produce jobs. cuts in initiatives to educate our people and keep us healthy and safe, those cuts did not create jobs. so here we are today at the en 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 othe 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 th senate. perhaps you don't know the date,

but it did happen. and it is -- it's stunning to hear this debate that talks about visiting parliamentarians seeing an example of good government in action. no. wrong. so what could be the explanation for this? mr. clyburn suggested it could be april fool'and at the end of this debate the gentleman will withdraw the amendment, apologize for wasting the public's time, and say this is only an april fool's joke. because that's the only thing that it complies with. it does not comply or conform with honoring the constitution. it does not create jobs. it does not reduce the deficit, and it does have the support of the democrats in the house of representatives. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the spker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i

yield myself 30 seconds just to remind the gentlelady that article 1, section 7 says all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives. we failed to do that in the last congress and that's why the gentleman stands here today with this bill proudly. with that i yield two minutes to a very good freshman, my coeague, the gentleman from la, mr. landry. mr. landry: when i firs elected, i declined my health care benefits because i don't believe we can fixa system we are not a part of. i declined my retirement benefits because our social security sysm is broke. . i support this bill because if the american people have to endure a government shutdown, which is the result of the failure of the senate democrats, then none of us, including the president, should expect the american people to continue our pay.

until we fix this budget mess. the funding for the federal government is 182 days old. democrats on the senate have failed -- democrats have failed to pass a budget for 182 days. 182 case, that's an entire school year. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what would you think if your child's teacher did nothing for the entire school year. our constitution authorizes congress to be the power of the purse. it is our job to set a responsible and affordable budget for the federal government eachear. 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 theirob. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. i'm sorry, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the

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

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

address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people. but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from texas is recognized for 30 secon. 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. d so i applaud anybody's efforts in trying to move the ball down the road so that we can appropriate. i just wish the senate would do

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

schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: it's been funny hearing the discussion this isn't constitutional. ow, let me see -- it's a piece of legislation with a trigger mechanism in it. ok, i know the other side doesn't like that trigger but it would still require the senate to pass it and the president to sign it. if i go back to a -- and it was fun seeing something from my childhood of the 1970's "ho 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 this piece of legislation. what's important here is the american people know we're taking the job seriously, and giving the senate another chance, another chance to step up and do their job. we're sitting here how many weeks after we passed resolution -- you know, r. 1? and we're still doing this dance. at some point the american

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

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from gegia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yie two minutes to my good friend and mentor, the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, when a patient is bleeding to death on an operating table, we as doctors do everything that we can to save that patient's life. we don't just walk away and we certainly don't call it quits. well, that's what the democrats want to do. they want to call it quits on our spending crisis, and the worst part is they are doing it for their own political games. democrats in congress are intentionally plotting this government shutdown and they hatched their plan months ago, i believe. if they wanted to, democrats could have passed a long-term continuing resolution during the lame dug session without making any -- lame-duck session

thout 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 insu 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 mbers of congress who are serious about trying to put this country on a road to recovery, economic recovery. it's pitiful that the democrats have wasted so much time stalling over these minimal cuts in their own self-interest. while our country is financially bleeding to death, we should be focused on trying to revive our economy rather than bickering about $6 billion when we already borrow almost $60 billion per week.

madam speaker, since the democrats fuse 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,here's no stronger supporter of h.r. 1 than mr. gohmert from texas, and he made a very simple, very eloquent statement of principle, about adhering to the constitution. this legislation has to be interpreted by its own words, not by what people say is in it. and what it explicitly says, if the house has not received a message from the senate before april 6 stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriation for the departments and agencies of government for the remainder of

the fiscal year, and this is the language of your legislation, the provisions of h.r. 1 as passed by law on february 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. that's absurd. it's a pretend bill that says that if the house acts and the senate doesn't our action becomes law. it's absurd. it says that if the house acts the senate doesn't and the presidt doesn't sign this piece of legislation it's lw. that's the cument that you presented to this body to vote on. now, mr. gohmert took the higher road here where instead oftaking out his frustration with the united states senate at the expense of the constitution he stood up for the constitution. and that's what each and every one of us have an opportunity

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

passed t house, having passed the senate and be signed by the president. that's the regular order. i'll say to my friend, i'm sorry we didn't have that time to finish our discussion in the rules committee. i'm sorry we were called away by votes. i yield two minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta. the speaker pro mpore: 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 unrstand. 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 theonstitution 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 ju 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 sate does not do something, h.r. 1 becomethe law of the land. that's not true. that's not constitutional. that's not fitting of this body. now, it is, however, consistent with the -- how the marity party s been governing around here. they passed rules that they've ignored. for example, on january 5 they had members of their caucus take the oath in front of a television set. on february 9 they failed to provide constitutional authority for a bill despite that it was one of their rules. on march 13 they failed to get a 3/5 majority for passage of a bill that raise tax rates despite the fact that it was part of the rules. on march 17 they failed to make a bill available within 72 hours despite the fact that it was part of the rules.

and just march 30 they failed to include an offset for new government program. the rules are not a big thing for them to follow because this s why it's hard, it's a big book. i brought you this, house mouse and senate mouse which is sold in the gift shop to teach children how to understand the constitution. it's the floor of each chamber the senate and house where each senator and evening congress mouse gets to vote on a bill and if enough do, if enough do, this esident 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 theepublicans had to follow, it's a much thinner book and it rhymes, maybe you'd get it right. but this is not the constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: members in the gallery are reminded they

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

as our nation's classroom. it is the reason i feel that we should not just stand here t enunciate precepts but as elected leaders we ought to lead byxample. 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 thatll of us are sworn to uphold. i believe that it's a good thing to want to move a measure, but we ought not do so while violating the constitution of the united states.

and i think it's a good reason that the senate rejected h.r. 1. because all of the economists who evaluated that piece of legislation made it very clear that to them it would destroy 700,000 jobs. that bill, h.r. 1, is a job killer. it also, that bill, h.r. 1, will say to little preschool children in head sta, 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 andevery one of us to lead by example. enunciating precepts f 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 storieand being shown children's books. i have been harkened back to my own childhood in the 1970's and schoolhouse rock and for folks who have not seen the schoolhouse rock entire d.v.d. now, i recommend you pick a copy up for the young people in your life. it really is a fantastic beginning step about what it is were all about. what it is we are all about. the preamble is in that schoolhouse rock. no more kings in that schoolhouse rock category. what they talk about is what does it mean for us to be

americans? and what imeans 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 thiresolution 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 saened by all the misinformation that's circulated. i read directly from the bill. if the house has not received a message from the senate before april 6, 2011, stating it has passed a measure providing for the appropriation for the departments and agencies of the government for remainder of the fiscal year 2011, the provisions of h.r. 1 as passed by the house are hereby enacted into law. this bill we sent to the senate for the senate to pass, the president to sign, those provisions are hereby enacted into law. i want to study that closer. if the house has not received a message from the senate stating

that the senate has passed a measure providing for e appropriations of the united states government. folks may be wondering, madam speaker, why is it that we are doing that now? wasn't that supposed to be done last september? yes, it was. it didn't get done. should that have gotten done last december? yes, it should have, but it didn't get done. so we are here today to get it done, 41 days ago we passed a bill to fund the government. this entire body worked its will on a process that was as opened as this house as seen. democrats and republicans working together. republicans winning amendments. democrats winning amendments. democrats losing amendments. republicans losing appeds. it made me proud to be a -- amendments. it made me proud to be a representative and serve in this body much it was the best work product this house put together. we sent it to the senate 41 days ago. they defeated it. they have to act. they defeated our bill, h.r. 1, they defeated a democrat bill, and they have done nothing. i got a call earlier today, i

held up a board just like this, talking about what the senate had done well, there's nothing on this sheet of paper. you hold up the wrong sign. no, it's the right sign. nothing, nothing have we received from the united states senate. it's the same on both sides. blank. how in the wld 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 li us. act like democrats. just act. act. do something. sends 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 y 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 schar of house activities. i know we have passed bills in this house thahave 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 ofhis 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 anywrefore us to pass a law frirg -- anywhere r us to pass

a law. and i appreciate my colleague yielding. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. i'll say that this is a unique procedure and these are unique times. i will just say to you that in 1999, republican congress, democratic president, enacted the foreign relations bill by reference, the foreign relations authorizion 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 sond 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 wk. i'm very proud of the work that we have done. and i implore, i implore my colleagues to contact their senators and get them to do something. something. this is what we have from the senate so far, madam speaker. we deserve better. the american people deserver. and the senate can do better. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 194 the bill is considered as read and the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the cler a bill to prevent the shut down of the government of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the -- >> i have a the motion to reconsider to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota rise?

is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. walz: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will read the motion. the clerk: mr. walls of minnesota moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1255 to the committee on house administration with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following, section 1, prohibition of -- on pay during government shutdown, a, in general, members of congress and the president shall not receive basic pay for any period in which, one, there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations for any federal agency or department as a result of a failureo enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution. or two, the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 3101 of title 31 united states code has been reached. b, retroactive pay prohibited. no pay forfeited in accordance

with subsection a may be paid retroactively. amend the title to read a bill to prohibit members of congress and the president from receiving pay during government shutdowns. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes in support of the motion. mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker. to stand here in this haloed place as a -- hallowed place as a representative, the incredible privilege and honor to represent the hardworking americans across this country, in southern minnesota the chance to see genuine folks out working hard, doing the things that built this country, and made us the greatest nation on earth. one of those things is a very basic premise. the american work ethic. the idea that you should work hard and do your best and be compensated at the end of the day and feel good and sense of accomplishment in what you did. we had the opportunity, the american people did send us here, as you heard, on both sides of the aisle, to do a very simple thing. get the work done, move this country forward. the debate is, there's

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

don't get our work done, and i will do everything in my power to ensure we do not shut this government down, the repercussions are catastrophic for americans. not just macroeconomically, our seniors aren't going to get their checks. we are going to see medical care slow down to our veterans. we are going to hear from and we have heard from our military commanders that it stresses the readiness of this nation. our federal workers and even the hardworking staff here will not receive a paycheck. how do you go home to georgia, to alabama, to minnesota, look somebody in the eye an say, we failed because we bickered again, but, dang, i'm going to take home that check. i tell my colleagues, especially the new members, if you're a freshman in here, you came with optimism that should not be able to be beaten ou of you. regardless if you disagree with us, with every fiber ever your being, the very simple princie that we can't get this done let's put skin in the game. no, if it goes to the senate and get passed, no if it's not constitutional.

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

for it really, but it was a motion to recommit think a didn't agree with. nothing, simple, 75 words. half page. don't do your job, don't get paid. no work, no pay. it is very, very simple. at this point i want to yield a little bit of time to my colleague from virginia. >> i thank the gentleman. so the point is, the law as it stands today is, we shut the government down, a million federal employees don't get paid, our staff doesn't get paid, but we get paid. all the gentman wants to say it -- is, treat ourselves like we'd pay ours. if other staff is out on the street we ought to be out there with them. mr. moran: and the other point the gentleman makes is if he vote for this recommital, the senate has already approved it, it goes right to the senate. it gets signed into law. we've done something constructive. the alternative is to send something over to the senate and the senate's going to laugh at us. you know this 1255 isn't going to get passed. this would be passed, this becomes law, it's the right thing to do.

thank you. mr. walz: here's your rare opportunity. if you don't do this and say you're going to vote forhe 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 gentlean'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 constitutionalay? don't you think we ought to do it in a constitutional way? i do. because if we say it we ought to mean it and stand by our convictions and, madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to speak to these constitutional issues, my chairman, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i heard the eloquent plea of our friends from the other side of the aisle. let me just read to you a message i received from the white house about this bill. with the words that the gentleman has presented on the floor. unfortunately s.b. 388 which are the words the gentleman puts in his motion to recommit, is

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

interrupt at the time they're making the argument. maybe because it's difficult to hear the words of the white house about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. if anyone wants this to act in vein it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is under any view, any view, unconstitutional. it violates the very terms of the constitution with respect to the president and with respect to members of congress. so if you want to exert any influence on member if u believe this is the way to do it, would you accept the language tt'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 greatrguments on the other side of the aisle about observing the constitution and then they come to the floor and give us something which the white house says in its language , in its email to me, is

patently unconstitutional. not maybe unconstitutional. not perhaps unconstitutional. not arguably unconstitutional. but patently unconstitutional. so the gentleman has presented us the kind of i guess shell game we talk about where it looks good when it's presented to you but by sleight of hand it makes sure that it has no impact whatsoever. the gentleman says, well, it will go right to the president. that is not true. this is not the bill sent over to us, it's the same language. so it doesn't go right to the president, number one. number two, unless the president is sending meisinformation via his messager, the president's position is it's patently unconstitutional. d.o.j.'s position, depament 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 eath

over at the white house for us to send something to him so that he can do an unconstitutional act. perhaps the gentleman believes that's the position he wants to put the president in and even though i have great disagreement with this president, frankly i don't think that's appropriate thing to do. so i would argue to my colleagues, reject this unanimously because it really is something which doesn't pass the truth in labeling act and more than that, it violates the constitution on its very words, it's almost an attempt to directly violate the constitution. you couldn't have written it better to violate the constitution. but somehow the gentleman has achieved that high honor. i thank the gentleman. >> that wrap up general debate on the so-called gender -- government shutdown prevention act. the bill stated that the 2011 spending bill passed by the

house in february will become law at the senate does not pass a 2007 spending bill by wednesday. the vote was 2 under 21-212 with 15 republicans opposing today's bill. the senate is not expected to act on today's bill. >> next, the joint economic committee discusses the march employment numbers. then president obama talks about his energy policy and the economy. after that, john boehner on government spending talks. the labor department reports that the nation but the unemployment rate fell to 8.8% in march. the u.s. added to the 16,000 jobs over all. this is the fourth straight decrease in the unemployment rate. private-sector added 230,000 positions. keith hall testifies before the joint economic committee on the

march unemployment report. mr. hall also said the unemployment rate for african americans rose to 15.5% -- the highest since the 1980's. this is just over one hour 20 minutes. >> i want to thank the members of the committee for their work in preparing for this hearing and our witnesses. also, the opportunity we will have on this committee to examine, not just the employment

data, but ways that we can focus on to create jobs -- strategies to create jobs, and also to focus on important sectors in our economy light manufacturing and other indicators of our economic strength as we are recovering. i want to thank vice-chairman brady, the congressman from the state of texas who is working with us today and on every day to make sure we focus on critically important issues that affect jobs. we have some good news to report. i know that commissioner hall will highlight these 230,000 -- making march the 13th straight month that we've got an employment gains in the private sector.

216,000 jobs over all despite the loss of many government jobs. i will point to one chart on my left -- thank you. the chart on light lepchas the upward trend in employment of the last 13 months. during the last 13 months, the economy has added 1.8 million private sector jobs. that is good news, but it does not good enough. we have to continue to focus on ways to create jobs at a faster pace every month, not just one month and two months in a row. we need to continue to move in the right direction. the overall employment rate dropped to 8.8%. it has come down. that is down from a peak in october 2009 of 10.1%.

as i said before, the unemployment rate is too high. we have to focus intensively, especially on particular demographic groups whether it is veterans who lost their jobs. a very high number, still, for african americans, for hispanic americans, and workers with disabilities. we want to focus on those as well. i also know that when members appeared today, some may not have a chance to do an opening statement, but i want to make short vice-chairman brady has an opportunity when he comes back after visiting. we will get bought -- write to our witness. i want to introduce someone who has been here before the committee a number of times. he does not necessarily need an introduction. i want to make sure that those who do not remember his background or are unfamiliar

with this biography will give you a brief sketch. keith hall worse for the department of labour. -- works for the department of labor -- a statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates statistical data to the american public, the united states congress, and other federal agencies, state and local governments, business, and labor. dr. hall also served as chief economist for the white house council of economic advisers for two years under president george w. bush. prior to that, he was chief economist to the united states department of commerce. he spent 10 years at the united states international trade commission. dr. hall received his bachelor's degree from the university of virginia, his m.s. and ph.d. degrees in economics from purdue university.

before turning to dr. hall, just one brief interlude. the congressman just arrived. he was just saying that someone had an opportunity to get an opening when they get here. i want to offer you that -- offer you that opportunity. >> i am anxious to hear what is about to be said. it is an issue that is critically important for the future of this country and for the political operations in both the house and the senate. i appreciate the opportunity to be here with you. thank you for setting up this very important procedure. i appreciate your being here. i am anxious to hear everything. thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman. dr. hall? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data we released this morning. in march, non-farm payrolls rose

by 216,000. the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.8%. the rate has declined by one percentage point since november of 2010. since the recent low point, non- farm payroll employment has risen by 1.5 million. private sector employment rose by 1.8 million over the same time, an average of 138,000 of month. in march, job growth occurred in professional and business services, health care, leisure and hospitality, and mining. manufacturing employment trended up over the month. business services employment rose by 78,000 in march. this industry added 692,000 jobs since september of 2009. in march, employment in temporary help services rose by 29,000. did the very health services

have added half a million jobs since august 2009. employment in health care continue to rise in march. the increase was spread among several components including ambulatory health care services, hospitals, and residential care facilities. since september 2007, health care employment has risen by 902,000 while unemployment has declined by 7.2 million. the leisure and hospitality entry added 37,000 jobs in march. within goods producing industry, mining employment rose by 14,000 in march due to support activities in mining. since the recent low in october 2009, mining employment has risen by 96,000. employment in manufacturing continue to trend up in march. factory jobs continue to be concentrated in durable goods with over the month increases in

fabricated metal products and machinery. construction employment changed little over the month. employment in local government continued to trend down over the month. this sector has lost 416,000 jobs since september 2008. measures in surveys of household -- the unemployment rate was little changed. the jobless rate has declined since one percentage point since november 2010. over that time, unemployment declined by nearly 1.59% and employment rose by 1.4 million leaving the labor force nearly unchanged. in march, the labor force participation rate held at 4.2%. the employment to population ratio to 58.5% was little changed. the number of long-term unemployed remain high at 6.1 million or 45.5% of

unemployment. over the month, the number of individuals working part time was 8.4 million, down from 9 million a year earlier. in summary, non-farm payroll employment rose by 216,000 in march and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.8%. my colleagues and i would be glad to answer your questions. >> thank you very much. i wanted to ask you, first of all, the sectors of our economy that we should be most positive about based upon the data. i wanted to get your perspective. first of all, on manufacturing, which is so essential to the strength of our economy. how do you compare this month's numbers not just with last month, but what you have seen over the last six months. >> this month, manufacturing

grew by about 17,000 jobs, which has continued a recent trend. we have had job growth in manufacturing. we have added about 205,000 jobs in manufacturing since february 2010, which is the employment trough. >> do you have a -- i guess it is not in the nature of an opinion, but when you compare how we are doing over all with job growth does not -- about 216,000 -- the private sector job growth it about 222,000 last month. are there any trends or any insights that you can provide as it relates to the significance of those private sector in numbers, at least of the last

two months? >> sure. for more than two months, we have had steady job growth. it has been around 140,000 a month. late in the last two months, it looks like we may get an acceleration in job growth, which would be a good thing. >> would you tell us, based upon your experience, how many months when you see a number of months consecutive with paul the did job numbers, especially -- consecutive with the job numbers, how many months like that in a row would you like to see as evidence that we are growing and recovering at a pace in which we can fully recovered?

do you understand my question? do we need three months of positive job growth at number or six months -- had the allies that? >> even one month or two months of that job growth as positive. i tend to look at the data about three months. i think steady growth of three months puts you into -- tissue a real picture of where you are -- gives you a real picture of where you are. we continue to have job growth. three months is a good rule of thumb that i used. >> how about the total number? when you look at 200,000 in each of these months, that is a good number. i am trying to get a sense of a

historical comparison between this two or three months period versus another period when we had recovery. we would prefer to run and 50,000 a month. is there any way to analogize or compare where we are now compared to a another three months. that you can recall or have data for? >> the last expansion after the 2001 recession was not a strong expansion. at its peak, that was somewhere over 200,000. that is growth that was not as strong as it had been. in the 1990 expansion, we frequently had job growth over 300,000, 400,000 at times. 200,000 plus is solid growth.

we could see more. >> my time is up, but i will come back to you about some of the demographic groups. >> thank you for everything you are doing. thank you very much for everything you were saying. we are very delighted to see the economic circumstances changing because of the fact that we had been experiencing an economic situation which was very similar to the economic depression in many ways. in the context of that, we sell a loss of more than 2 million jobs -- something in the neighborhood of 2.3 million jobs. now the situation is improving and that changing. i know that you are analyzing the situation, but do you have

any inclination to see what the main objectives have been, or, rather, what the main purposes have been to establish this change from a recession to economic growth? >> one of the things we did over the course of the previous two years was the passage of a major stimulus bill, which had the injection of significant amounts of funding and give the economy. the economy had not seen that kind of injection in a long time. i would be interested in hearing what you think are the main elements of the promotion of this economic activity now and the growing of these jobs. >> with -- this recession has been remarkable in how broad the job loss was. just about every industry with maybe the exception of

healthcare lost a significant number of jobs during the recession. the job growth now has also been pretty broad. industries like professional business services, education and health, leisure and hoppers -- major and hospitality, if even manufacturing has been growing since the trough. financial activities are still struggling. they are not doing very much. government is really the only sector that is losing jobs right now. it is primarily in local government. >> ok. anything else? >> that is about it. the job growth has been relatively broad. the biggest driver of the job market has been construction and manufacturing. it has been nice to see manufacturing job growth start up, but construction remains pretty flat. >> what you said i in your opening remarks was that there

were significant improvements in the economy in the context of health care, education, and things of that nature. what would you say about the prospects of cutting the funding for operations like health care and education by this government? >> i would not want to comment on policy things like that. i want to stay away from that. >> i understand that. i will try to see if there might be something you might say about that. in any case, this is something we need to be deeply concerned about. it would be a mistake to reduce the funding for those important elements like education, health care, things of that nature, as well as activity that stimulates the deep necessities internally within this economy like transportation issues, things of that nature. in any case, thank you so much. let me ask you one or two other

things at this time. the recession hurt certain demographics more than others, as we know. for instance, as of february individuals without a high- school diploma have an unemployment rate of 13.9% while those with a college degree have an unemployment rate of 4.3%. which sectors of our economy hire individuals without a high- school diploma? what has happened to those sectors during this recession? >> first, let me confirm your picture of job loss by education. for those with less than a high- school diploma, the unemployment remains at 13.7% this month. those with a bachelor's degree or higher are at 4.4%. this is been a typical recession in the sense that the group with lower education have been hit with high unemployment rates and

they have gone up by more than those with higher education. as far as the industry breakout, i am probably will have to get back with you on that. -- i probably will have to get back with you on that. i do not have the data handy. i can give you some idea of where the folks without a high- school diploma are employed in. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman. as i mentioned before, the house was voting. vice-chairman brady is here now. i do not know how he could have voted and run that fast, but he is here. all like to offer him an opening statement if he would like and questions as well. >> first, i would like to congratulate chairman j.c.. 3 -- chairman casey. i look forward to insightful hearings as we move forward in the new congress. i would also like to welcome dr. hall and his staff that. you have dogged this committee

for many unemployment reports in the past. we appreciate the day that you provide. we are seeing some positive signs. everyone wants the economy to move, particularly in the labour market. we are glad for the increases in jobs we are seeing. looking at it closely, while there are job gains, the rate has not accelerated in not to keep up with the population growth and to encourage all the people who lost their jobs to find work again. it has been 21 months since the recession ended. we are still down non-farm payroll jobs from when it work. and employment rate of 8.8% remains unacceptably high, but is also not telling the whole story. there has been fundamental disagreements about the proper role of government in facilitating an economic recovery between republicans and democrats. that disagreement continues even now.

democrats in congress, unfortunately, do not want to change course. the federal spending spree has not been stopped. the debt is so large the focus of business managers, international institutions, and the public at large is help the administration can meet its financial obligation. how high will taxes rise? is there a chance we will default on our obligations? these questions, incredible as it may seem, are being asked of the united states government. it is a big reason why a private investment has not resurfaced after similarly severe recessions. i want to show you a chart of payroll jobs. as you can say, we have not moved far from the bottom since the recession officially ended. the trajectory of job growth is weaker than in past recoveries.

i want to show you a chart of the u.s. labor force participation rate. this chart shows the percentage of the population of labor force -- of labor force. the percentage has struck. businesses fear the cost of and interested government and are reluctant to expand to create enough job openings. many people have simply left the labour force. the labor force is smaller than 39 months ago despite the fact that the working age population has been increasing. this is happening in what used to be called the land of opportunity. republicans want to cut federal spending to relieve the pressure on the private economy. we must reassure the nation that the united states will bring its deficit and its debt under control and will not burden the economy. increasing taxes to find the

government depresses the growth prospects for the longer term. that has a chilling effect on businesses and consumers right now. increased government spending, this aggregate demand, and spending reductions hurt the economy falls apart completely when investors, businesses, and consumers focus on the increased future size of government, the part of a larger share of resources it will claim, and the myriad ways in which it will hamper economic growth. this should convince everyone that high levels of federal spending is not what the economy needs. we must cut federal spending, not try to lock it in or raise taxes. expected after-tax rate of return drives business investment and hiring decisions. if we want businesses to offer hundreds of thousands of additional jobs month after month for years to come, this is what it will take to return the

unemployment rate to normal levels. we must not burdened with expected returns of higher taxes, inflation, interest rates, a regulation. as the private economy goes, there will be more -- grows, there will be more money for the government to stand for -- more money for the government to spend. i yield back. >> we can proceed with questions. vice chairman brady, the what to do questions about were moved to congress by beckett? >> can we talk about the partition -- participation rate quickly? >> it is good to see the unemployment rate go down, at least in general appearances. there is more to that story. there is no reason to celebrate a lower unemployment rate caused by americans leading the labor force. a smaller work force means millions of discouraged workers, or output, and a weak recovery. those are not healthy signs.

what can you tell us about the number of discouraged workers? when can we expect to see labor participation rates begin to get back up? -- to go back up? >> the number of discouraged workers is just a little under 1 million right now. workers or marginally attached, which includes discouraged workers, is about 2.5 million people. those numbers are still fairly high. our broadest measure of labor underutilization, that includes both marginally attached and people working part-time, remains high at 16.7%, although it did go down to test the% this month. labor force participation remains at a low level.

it is still 64.2%. we have not seen big movement in the labor force. it has been fairly flat. what i would expect is that if we start to get strong job growth and a little more confidence, we probably should start to see the labor force participation rate go up. >> is the labor force perdition rate critical -- labor force participation rate critical for the recovery? >> yes. >> internally, had you done any work of what we might see when people start to re-enter the work force? >> we are looking for signs that they are rather than projecting. we really do not think that way so much. >> i understand. construction -- we loss of jobs last month. we have about 30,000 additional

in manufacturing and construction. manufacturing did update -- 17,000 new jobs. any reasons for that in the data? >> construction has remained pretty flat. just historic plea, what you probably -- just historical ly, we need to see new housing sales picked up before we see a significant change in construction employment. >> which manufacturing what do you see? >> we are seeing growth. 17,000 is not a lot, but there as a -- there has been a trend of growth in manufacturing. it does not really strong, but it is positive growth. we did not see any growth in manufacturing out of the last recession at all. that is why this recovery is

different than the last recession. >> i understand. we are pleased to be joined by one of our new members from wisconsin, congressman duffy. >> thank you very much. and welcome. >> i appreciate it. i have to figure out where the top button is. commissioner paul, good morning. i just have a few questions. as i am looking at historical data in regards to downturns and then recoveries, usually there is symmetry or a correlation between the depth of the decline and the strength of the recovery, whether it is a v- shaped recline or a v-shaped recovery. if you look at what has happened in this recession, we have seen

a pretty significant decline, but then a flat line i get regards of recovery which is not consistent with prior recoveries. do you have any idea what that is taking place? >> i really do not. i can say that there have been two schools of thought going into this recovery. one is that folks have -- folks have observed that deeper recessions have had a stronger recovery -- more of the v-shape. those people are optimistic that we will get a strong recovery. there are those who pointed out that the last two recessions have very mild recovery is. the last two recessions were mild recessions as well. it is one of the essences where nobody knows whether we have now recoveries from recession. that is the way the labor

markets change, or whether we go back to the v-shape. >> maybe i can throw some ideas out there. i am from a district in central and northern wisconsin. as i talk to job creators in our area, i hear them talk about uncertainty in the marketplace. if you look at what's happened in washington in recent years, we have done things we have traditionally not done. if you are an employer, the new health care bill creates uncertainty in the marketplace. if you have a $14 trillion debt and are expected to borrow $1.60 trillion -- if you look at the president's budget budget, we are expected to borrow $1 trillion a year on average. if you are a small businessman and are looking at growing a business, what i keep seeing is that this leads to much higher taxes, much less growth, and

unwillingness to invest. as a resort, if you are eight larger business, you can look anywhere in the world to invest. if you look at these masses that charts in america, these have serious economic consequences in america. this is what i am hearing from our job 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 things are 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 weeks 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 asking if you see any correlation between the link the benefits that we offer and the length of time that people actually stay unemployed. >> i 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 to add some 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 african american 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, as some other groups. >> if you have any data that compares, for example, if we just take two or three numbers -- the african american number is 15.5%. 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. this is a very high unemployment rate. >> i am overtime.

vice chairman brady? >> 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 same 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 main 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 software. 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 future 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 -- you'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

sort of have an indicator -- how much job gains from what is needed to keep up with population growth? 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 maintain 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 will 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 manufacturing 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 year or more. what do you think is the reasoning behind why so many of our 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 alterations 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 already 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 something 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 happens 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 benefits. there may be some issue where people stop looking -- start plucking when the benefits run out. that may have an impact on the labour force. >> been arguing for stimulus, the president's economic adviser issued a report that projected the unemployment rate would be 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? >> i just would not want to comment on that. >> the recession has been characterized by a large exit of workers from the labor force. the labor force partition -- participation rate has dropped by 2%. is the absolute number of workers in the labor force smaller now than before the recession and by how much? >> in terms of payroll jobs, we are down 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 not coming 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 american 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 with 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. >> there is a correlation that the longer you stay 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 difficult 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 at 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 quarters 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 administration 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 since 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 the job numbers to reflect that?

one theory, and i know you can not endorse or speculate on theories, but one theory is that one of 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. that 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 interesting 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 don'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, recognizing that you don't have it immediately available to you. what can you tell 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 little stronger 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 they 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 that later this year. next year we will start producing 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 appreciate 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 expectations 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 you 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 ahead? >> the real question is will consumer confidence lead to lower consumer spending? consumer confidence can fluctuate. the real issue would be, does that lower spending, which would slow 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 flat 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 the president right now, the

president called you up and said all, what is the situation? where are we right now, and what 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 should 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 any 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 216,000 is job growth, and that is a bit faster 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 retiring 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 some of 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. i know 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 copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[no audio] x next, president obama talks about the economy and his energy policy. after that, house speaker john

painter on government spending. then, house for debate on the so-called government shut down prevention bill. beck's tomorrow on "washington journal," the editor for the economist has the latest on the u.s. economy. the discussion on the situation in libya and the so-called obama doctrine, and a former shell oil co. president talks about rising gas prices and president obama as energy plan to reduce oil imports by one-third in the next decade. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i could say what i wanted as mayor, and the only person who got in trouble was me. >> stephen goldsmith spent eight years as mayor of indianapolis. today he has a boss, michael bloomberg, and a different job description. >> i am here to try to make the streets a little bit cleaner and

a little bit safer and the tax dollars go little bit further, and prove that large cities have really vibrant futures. i try to steer away from things that detract from that agenda. >> 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 and increase the use of renewable resources. today he outlined a partnership of private companies and the federal government working to reduce fuel consumption in their vehicle fleets and help increase u.s. oil imports. he also talked about the latest jobs report and urge lawmakers to reach a compromise in the budget debate. he spoke at a ups shipping facility in maryland. this is about 25 minutes.

>> thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. i am thrilled to be here. proud to be joined here today by two of our outstanding cabinet secretaries, steven chu and ray lahood. there they are over there. >> we are here today for a simple reason. ray was not home when they tried to deliver a package yesterday. [laughter] we thought we would just grab it and be on our way. i have been working him too heart. in addition to steve and ray, we have the attorney general of maryland. [applause] and we have got one of the finest senators in the united states senate, ben cardin is in

the house. [applause] we actually did not come here to grab a package. we are actually here to announce an exciting new partnership between the federal government and some of america's leading companies. a partnership that will help reduce our dependence on oil, will protect our planet, and will start economic growth. i gave a speech about this earlier this week. i laid out a blueprint that will put america on a path toward a clean energy future. i know a lot of people have been feeling the pinch of higher gas prices lately, whether you are filling up your tank or running a business like ups. people say we should do something about our dependence on foreign oil.

when prices go down, we move on until the next crisis hits. the point i made earlier this week is that we cannot keep on doing that. that is not how we should conduct our energy policy in this country. we cannot go from shock to trance and then hit the snooze button when prices go back down. when we are addressing instability overseas, we know this is a national security issue. it is also a huge economic issue. two years after the worst recession in our history, our economy is showing signs of real strength. today, we learned that we added 230,000 private-sector jobs last month.

that is good news. [applause] that means more packages. [laughter] [applause] right? that makes 1.8 million private- sector jobs created in the last 13 months. and the unemployment rate has fallen a full point in the last four months. the last time that happened was during the recovery in 1984 where we saw a significant drop in the unemployment rate. despite that good news, everybody here knows we have a lot more work to do. there are still millions of americans out there who are looking for a job to pay the bills. i know there is a lot going on in the world right now.

the news has been captured by images of the middle east and the tragedy to our friends in japan. i am focused on those issues. you should know that keeping the economy going and making sure jobs are available is the first thing i think about when i wake up in the morning and the last thing i think about when i go to bed each night. i will not be satisfied until every american who wants a good job and find one and every american gets a shot at the american dream. that is what we are focused on and what we are fighting for. [applause] although we got good news today, we have to keep the momentum going. making the transition to a clean energy economy will help us do that in two important ways. first, it reduces the chance that our families, our businesses, and our economy will be held hostage to the whim of the oil market, held hostage

to something that happens on the other side of the world. second, investment in clean energy has the potential to create an untold number of new jobs and new industries here in the united states. for all these reasons, i set a new goal for america. when i was first elected, america imported 11 million barrels of oil per day. one decade from now, i want us to have cut that by 1/3. that is achievable. it is necessary and it is good for our future. we are going to get it done. i am confident we can get it done. [applause] to meet that goal, we are going to need to pursue a broad range of policies. you incentives for gas leaks, new incentives for biofuels.

i hope republicans and democrats will support these kind of proposals. this should not be a bipartisan issue. this is an american issue, making sure we have energy independence. one of the best ways to reduce our dependence on oil is by making our cars and trucks more energy efficient. transportation accounts for more than 70% of america's oil consumption. using energy efficient cars and trucks can make economic sense because transportation is one of the biggest costs for many businesses and many families. energy efficient cars and trucks will not just cut our dependence on oil. it can save us money day to day. if we are serious about making the transition from gas- guzzlers to hybrid, we have to show automaker's that there is

a market for these cars. we need to put our money where our mouth is. one group that is leading by example on this is the federal government. the government's fleet includes 600,000 vehicles, which means the government has the biggest fleet in america. we want to make sure government's fleet is comprised of fuel efficient cars. that creates a market.

that means they are manufacturing more of it and costs will go down, which makes it cheaper for businesses and consumers. if we are going to upgrade all of america's fleets, our businesses are going to need to step up as well. that is why i am proud of what companies like ups, federal express, at&t, verizon and pepsi are doing. i just had a chance to see some of these newly efficient cars and trucks they are adding to their fleets, including hybrids and all electric vehicles manufactured right here in the united states of america by ford and gm. [applause]

as owners of some of our nation's largest private fleets, these companies are leading the way when it comes to building cleaned fleets. we need to make sure all of our businesses are following their example. that is why we are launching a national clean lead partnership. if you are a business that needs to transport -- launching a national clean fleet partnership. if you accept this challenge, you join our clean fleet partnership. we are going to make cutting edge research and development possible to help you make the transition to a clean energy fleet. secretary lahood will also come and watch your car or truck. [laughter] wasn't that part of the deal?

a little armor-all. it is going to look good. just to give you a look at what this partnership is going to do, millions of vehicles travel the highways running nearly 4 billion gallons of fuel along the way. we will make sure those vehicles are energy efficient. we can cut the amount of pollution they pump into the air and cut the amount of gasoline they pumped into the tank and cut the amount of oil we import from abroad. this is part of a broader effort to build a clean in the economy. last year, after going 30 years without raising fuel efficiency standards, would put in place a

national fuel efficiency standard. our consumers will save money from the work trips to the pump. our automakers will build more efficient cars and trucks. we will announce the next round of fuel standards that builds on what we have done. beyond raising fuel standards for our cars and trucks, we are also working to build the next generation of vehicles. it was wonderful seeing some of these cars and trucks back here. i was getting input from folks about how we can advance the technology. soon after i took office, we set a goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on our roads

by 2015. that would make the united states the first country in the world to meet that milestone. we should launch a new program to reward communities that make it easy as possible our families and businesses to use electric vehicles. something that i heard repeatedly from folks driving these cars is that we need to make sure we have charging stations. that is critical. we do not have the distribution platform and that is something we need to work on. meanwhile, we are investing in the advanced batteries that can polities electric vehicles. investments that are already making a difference.

a couple of years ago, america produced less than 2% of the world's advanced batteries. these are the batteries that go into these hybrid and electric cars. or the last two years, we made investments in a home grown american advanced battery industry. because of the advancement we have made, we are going to be able to produce 40% of the world's advanced batteries. we have job started a new industry in the united states of america. [applause] that is the kind of partnership between business and government that has always made our economy strong. i think there is a lesson in that. it is not the role of government to be the engine of innovation and prosperity in america. that is the job of entrepreneurs and executives, the outstanding workers at the

companies represented here. you are the ones making innovation happen. government does have the ability to spark inflation, to support the research, the scientific discovery that has always led to breakthroughs in new products. it is in our national interest to make these investments. we were just talking about some of these trucks. there is still work to be done to make the fuelling faster, to bring down the price. all of those things require innovation and new technology so that, in the end, it is not only as cheap to purchase a truck like this, but it is cheaper than a traditional engine.

there will be more work to do on this. historically, individual companies may not be able to make all of those investments on their own. government has to make those investments. this is tougher to do in light of the deficit that i inherited when i took office. we are all concerned about our debt and our deficit. that is why i propose to deep cuts in spending so we can live in our means. there are investments in education, investment in our infrastructure and research in the research and development and clean energy technologies of the kind i talked about today. we have to make these investments otherwise we will fall behind other countries. china, south korea are making these investments. we cannot afford to fall behind. the key issue here is how do we pay for all of this at a time where we have to shrink the deficit?

we have to make tough choices. we have got to stop spending on things we do not need to spend on things we do need. there is a debate going on about this in washington as congress puts together a budget for this year. we will have to put together a budget for next year. after a few weeks of negotiations between democrats and republicans and my team at the white house, it appears we are getting close to an agreement between leaders of both parties about how much spending we should cut. there are still details and differences to work out. what i said is that neither the democrats or republicans should be about 100% of what they want. we are going to have to compromise and figure this out. both sides are close. we know the compromise is within reach. we also know we cannot afford not to have congress work out these budgets and make sure we are investing in the right things. if these budget negotiations

break down, we could end up having to shut down the government just at a time when the economy is starting to recover. that could jeopardize the economic recovery. every business here could be impacted. we cannot allow that to happen. given the encouraging news we received today, it would be the height of irresponsibility to halt our economic momentum because the of the same old washington politics. that is not what we need. [applause] the american people do not want us to go to our respective corners and then just have the same battles we have been having for decades now. it cannot be my way or the highway. they want the leaders to come

together, and right now believe we have a real opportunity to do just that, in the same way that we did back in december when we cut taxes for the american people in a bipartisan way. it is time to agree on a budget that makes us live within our means while still investing in our future. that is how these businesses operate in that is why they are successful. businesses have gone through tough times and had to make cutbacks on things that were not needed, but that made those companies stronger. the same can be true for america as a whole. that is how we will keep our economy growing and put our people back to work and keep the american dream alive for the next generation. i just want to say to all of you, thank you for the extraordinary work you have done. thank you for your help. we have got to get busy. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. thank you.

>> now, house speaker john boehner tells reporters that negotiations continue over 2011 federal spending and that they have not yet reached an agreement with democrats about the size of the total cuts the spending bill may contain. he held this briefing just outside his office in the u.s. capitol. this is just under 10 minutes. >> i think you probably all think we are going to have a press conference. april fools'. [laughter] i could never be that mean to all of you. today's jobs report is welcome news, but washington needs to do a lot more to end the uncertainty and get our economy moving again. it is clear that we need to cut spending, we need to stop unnecessary regulations, in the threat of tax hikes, and pass the trade bills that are out there. these are the pillars of the

republican plan that actually will create jobs in america. it has been 41 days since the senate was active. we also know that this excessive spending creates uncertainty and leads to employers sitting on their hands. for 41 days, they have done nothing. the have not passed the plan. they have not put a plan forward in terms of what they are going to do to cut spending. i think it is time for them to get serious about it. republicans are listening to the american people and listening to their top priorities. they want jobs in america and they want to stop the excessive spending that continues here in washington. there is no #, no agreement on a number. we are born to fight for the largest spending cut that we can

get. i am hopeful we will get it as soon as possible. >> is there a little bit of wiggle room? useppa we are going to fight for the biggest spending cuts -- you say we are going to fight for the biggest spending cuts you can get. but the house acted. passed a bill. we put our plan out there. it has been out there for 41 days. it is pretty clear to us what our plan is. what is unclear is what the senate plan is. they don't have a plan. why they have not acted, one can only surmise. >> there are talks going on right now. i guess you have to have something put together by this weekend to pass it in time for both chambers. what is the status? >> we are continuing talks. it is time for the senate to get serious. senate democrats need to get serious about cutting spending,

because cutting spending will lead to a better environment for job creators to create jobs in america. >> they are pushing for a large majority of these cuts for mandatory spending. >> we want real spending cuts. we are dealing with the discretionary part of the budget. that is what our plan was, to reduce spending for the balance of this fiscal year so that we can get on with the big job ahead of us of dealing with next year's budget and dealing with the death level. -- the debt level. >> i will not be end washington, d.c for the negotiations. others are involved in other conversations, and i think we'll see how this weekend goes. >> [unintelligible] >> i am not going to speculate about what happens on friday.

i am trying to figure out what happens this afternoon, for goodness sake. >> michele bachmann as saying shut it down. doesn't that complicate matters for you? >> as you all know, i have never believe that shutting the government down was the goal. the goal is to cut spending because cutting spending reduces uncertainty. it will help our economy. frankly, if you shut the government down, it will end up costing more than you save, because you enter of contracts. there are a lot of problems with the idea of shutting the government down. that is not the goal. the goal is to cut spending. [unintelligible] >> mr. speaker, would you consider any cuts in [unintelligible] >> there were already reductions in the president's request in the defense bill that was

basically agreed to by house and senate negotiators last december. so those numbers are down from what the request was. they are a bit higher than 2010 numbers. >> were you part of the plant to introduce about your taught system into at medicare? >> there will be a rigorous debate over that budget. it is clear that washington has to act on the big challenges that face our country. i have been here for 20 years. for 20 years, i have watched leaders around here look up at the size of the problem of growing entitlement spending. it is like looking at the mountain and they see how steep it is and they decide to kick the can down the road another year. it is time to quit kicking the can down the road. you cannot continue to whistle past the graveyard. we are imprisoning the future

for our kids and grandkids if we do not act. >> are you preparing your office for a government shutdown? >> i am not preparing for a government shutdown. our goal is to negotiate this and get it finished as soon as possible. thank you. >> next, the house for debate on the so-called government shutdown prevention bill. after that, a bipartisan discussion on the first 100 days of congress. ingn detroit mayor dave bein talks about the impact on his

city. on tuesday, the supreme court heard oral argument in walmart vs. dilks, a gender discrimination case against walmart over pay and promotion for as many as 1.5 million current and former female employees. the issue is whether the women should be allowed to band together to sue walmart. the class-action lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer could potentially cost the company billions and will be the largest class-action suit in history if allowed to proceed. listen to an audio replay of the oral argument tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on c-span3, last wednesday marked the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on president reagan by john hinckley jr.. jane pauley and tom brokaw on the 1960's and the legacy of the kennedy family as we commemorate

the 50th anniversary of jfk this inauguration. it's the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/his tory. this weekend on "book tv," david rooks on how are unconscious mind shapes our character, intelligence, and by insists. -- and biases. ken walsh on a long history of african-american serving in the white house residence. your calls and tweeds for poet, playwright, and arthur is mel reed. if your schedules emailed directly to you. >> i could save pretty much what i wanted as mayor and the only person who got in trouble was me. >> stephen goldsmith spent eight

years as mayor of indianapolis. today he has a boss, michael bloomberg, and a different job description. >> i am here to try to make the streets a little bit cleaner and safer and make the tax scholars go a little bit further and prove that large cities have a vibrant future. i steered away from things that will detract from that agenda. >> "q&a", sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. by a vote of 221 to 202, the house passed h.r. 1255, the so- called government shutdown prevention act. the bill states that the 2011 spending bill h.r.-one would become a lot of the senate does not pass the 2011 spending bill by next wednesday. hr-1 fell to pass the senate in march. the senate is not expected to act on today's house bill. here is the house floor debate

on that. it is about nine minutes. 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 made clear that only by putting federal spending on a sustainable trajectory could we create the conditions necessary for growth and job creation. during our three -- three months in the majority, we have delivered on our promise. six weeks ago after 47 hours 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 than the 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 democrats to get serious and come to the table with a legitimate proposal. but we got nothing in return. no legislation, no credible plan

to cut spending. mr. speaker, i want to underline the fact that we do not want a government shutdown. yet as 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 not 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. that'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. and 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 duties 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 resolution -- can i have an additional one minute? i thank the gentleman. something like this. which says contrary to the constitution, if the senate doesn't act, this bill becomes law. nobody on your side surely believes that that can happen. nobody believes that that joke that we are trying to play on the american people on april fool's day will be believed by any of them. and my friends do not tell me about your concern about the deficit because the deficit

during my period of time except for the last two years trying to deal with the deep depression in which the last administration left this economy, don't try to tell me that we are responsible for the debt, the $14 trillion of debt. surely my friend knows that's not the case. if my friend doesn't know it, i would be glad to set up a time when we can debate that issue and any -- in any form he chooses because the facts belie his representation. my friends, reject this bill, reject this bill because it is a fraud on the american public. reject this bill because it's an attempt to shift blame from the house of representatives passing a bill that can in fact pass not to say to the senate our way or no way and we will shut down the government because that's what this bill says. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from

virginia about whom i say regularly back home as a reputation -- i'm sorry, maryland. we have virginia on my mind today. pardon me, mr. hoyer. our friend from virginia. mr. hoyer: virginia's a good state. mr. woodall: i tell sfokes back home has a great reputation for fair dealings. tremendously disappointed by that characterization of the bill. i'd like to yield five minutes to the bill sponsor to set the record straight on what the bill is. mr. hoyer: i thank you for his observation and regret he thought it was a mischaracterization because i thought it was accurate. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to the gentleman for yielding. yes, there's been a lot of conversation in washington about the prospect of a government shutdown. while i realize there are some in this congress who might prefer that option, i am not one of them. let me just add our leader is

not one of them. frankly, we think it's irresponsible. our constituents did not send us to washington to shut down the government. they sent us here to make it more accountable to the people. and that's precisely what house republicans have been doing. exam the facts. when the curtain came up on this congress, we were already three months into this fiscal year. with no budget and on a temporary spending plan through early march, this house went to work crafting legislation that would fund government for the rest of this fiscal year while delivering on our pledge to cut spending. the response from the senate, not so fast. so we kept government operational with a two week continuing resolution in hopes that the senate would realize the sense of urgency that

accompanies our fiscal situation , and in that two-week span of time, the response, not interested. again, this house went to work crafting another temporary measure that funds government through next week. and my friends' -- and my friends, patience is wearing thin, not just mine and of my colleagues, but the patience of americans. in our collective opinion, time's up. mr. speaker, we all agree that we have some bigger fish to fry. pressure on the statutory limit on debt and more importantly the 2012 budget loom very large right now for this country. instead of focusing on these issues critical to our struggling economy, here we are mired in partisan gamesmanship over funding the government for the remainder of this year. did we come here to fish or did

we come here to cut bait? this bill simply puts the clock in action on this process. i am hopeful my colleagues will agree that the time is now to move beyond 2011 so that we can turn our attention to the bigger challenges of transforming this institution and restoring fiscal sanity. that's what the people sent us here to do and every day we fail to do this work, the people lose. we have been called extreme. h.r. 1 which passed in the early morning hours on this floor on february 19 cuts an annual -- on an annualized basis, $100 billion in federal spending. that's 1/16 of the deficit. 1/16. is that extreme? i don't think so. mr. speaker, it's unfortunate that people across america trying to find jobs, trying to

pay their mortgages, and trying to have the funds to put their kids through college are victimized by this flawed political process. instead of removing the uncertainty for small business and job creators by cutting spending and shrinking the size and reach of government, we are paying games with the -- playing games with the future of our nation. if this is our best, our best falls short of the expectation of those we represent. we can do better. we should do better. and if we can -- if all we can show for our work is a shut down of the government, we will have failed our constituency and should not be paid. the gamesmanship going on right now is gambling with america's future and it's hard to make progress when you're playing on house money. h.r. 1255 forces members to have skin in the game.

and if passed by both chambers and signed by the president, we'll have the proper motivation to setaside the rhetoric and actually accomplish something that is good for america, a climate for job creation. not a government shut down. i urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can do the people's work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield myself four minutes. let's do a quick review of the year. it's been 13 weeks since the republicans took over the majority. leading up to that point we heard the mantra, where are the jobs? so you might expect on day one of the 112th congress they would bring us a jobs bill to the floor. but no. when the republican majority did with great fanfare was to

conduct a reading of the constitution. and as if our oath of office wasn't enough, also implemented a new house rule which required legislation to be accompanied by a statement of constitutional authority. in fact, my fellow colleague, from south carolina, joe wilson, read allowed article 1, section 7. what does it say? every bill shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate. shall before it becomes law be presented to the president of the united states if he approved, he shall sign it. but if not, he shall return it. now, ladies and gentlemen, we all learn in grade school how a

bill becomes a law. we'll get back to that in a moment. so 13 weeks ago when republicans took the majority, up to that point we heard from them, where are the jobs? so then what was the first bill we were asked to vote on? the first bill was to repeal the health care law. democratic policies created more jobs in the last year than the bush administration created in eight years. since health reform became law, 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created. 1/5 of those new jobs, over 200,000, have been in the health care industry. so repeal of the health care law would end jobs not create jobs.

but surely at some point in the last 13 weeks the republican majority would have brought to this floor a jobs bill. three months and no jobs bill. in fact, we have passed three bills that will destroy more than one million jobs. which brings us to this moment, the so-called government shutdown prevention act of 2011, and article 1, section 1 of the united states constitution. i've read it. but i want to repeat a certain portion of it. every bill shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall before it become the law be presented to the president of the united states. but the bill before us today, not a jobs bill, says that if the senate doesn't act prior to

the expiration of the continuing resolution, h.r. 1, a budget bill passed only by the house, will become the law of the land. it's very simple. that is unconstitutional. we do not have a unicameral legislative body. then what do they cite the constitution authority that must accompany each bill? there are a lot of words, but only a parliamentarian expert could understand -- parliamentary expert could understand. but if you ask my daughter's eighth grade class that visited us here earlier this week, they could tell you -- i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: they would tell you that's not how things work under our constitution. but don't listen to me.

or her eighth graders at dent middle school. listen to what some of your colleagues in the other body have to say. our colleagues in the other body made it very clear, my reaction to that is ultimately the whole body, including the executive branch, has to sign on here or we'll julls -- we are just whistling in the wind. said alexander of tennessee, to be the law of the land a bill has to pass the senate and be signed by the president. one of our own, the appropriation subcommittee chair, representative mike simpson, after laughing out loud said, if we can do that, can't

we just deem the budget balanced? madam speaker, i know it's april 1st, so maybe that's the point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i ask my colleagues on the other side to let's hit this joke and get serious. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a very serious reform minded freshman, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me time. i rise as a co-sponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it. i have worked tirelessly with my colleagues to pass a continuing resolution that saves taxpayers money and keeps the government running. while the other body as we continue to hear has done nothing but complain. are they blind? are they deaf? do they not see, do they not

hear what the rest of the people in this country see and hear in terms of this country's financial crisis? in terms of this country's debt, in terms of what we are doing to our children and grandchildren by continuing to do nothing, madam speaker. we waited 41 days for them to send us a funding bill and we've got nothing. at least the members who will be voting for this bill, who will be voting in favor of this bill, are showing leadership. are showing the american people that we care about the future of this country. and that we do care about jobs. show me one country on this globe that can grow its economy, that can grow jobs, while having the beat of government on the neck of its people, neck of its

businesses all the time. and just like our -- the overregulation we do right now through the federal government, that debt burden is doing the same thing to job creation. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from kentucky, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: the majority the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: the majority is disrespectful of the u.s. constitution. and all because of their political base and to benefit their political base. this bizarre attempt to deem and pass into law their reckless budget is not only

hypocritical and blatantly unconstitutional -- unconstitutional, where is the statement of the constitutionality of this legislation? i'll ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, read the constitution. it calls into question whether the speaker and the republican leadership understand how our representative democracy works, and that includes the author of this legislation. the house cannot simply close their eyes, pretend that the senate and the president have passed and signed a bill into law. it does not work that way. when the bill actually pass the senate, the senate has actually passed the bill. and when the president picks up a pen and puts his name on it and not a second before, that bill has been signed into law. no matter -- no amount of magical thinking can change these simple facts. even notwithstanding the gall of the republicans'

unconstitutional plan, the very attempt to pass a deem and pass act flies in the face of all of the pearl clutching we heard from the majority in 2010. then when a simpler version of deem and pass came up during the health care debate, one that did not fly in the face of the constitution and attempt to speak for the senate and president, the current speaker called it one of the most dangerous, outrageous things he'd seen in the congress. cantor put the republicans on record against any sort of deem and pass mechanism. a year later the story has changed. now, most of all, this is a die version from the reckless cuts the majority proposed, the slashes to head start, pell grants, meals on wheels, veterans, job training, medical research, all cuts that hurt middle class and working families.

we are still waiting for the republicans to cut the special interest waste like the oil company subsidies and the tax loopholes for the richest people in the nagse. and what about those tax subsidies for those multinational corporations that takes their jobs overseas? you're not starting there to cut the deficit, but, no, it's about working families and their children that you're going after. you are taxing the patients of the american people and you're taxing the memories of our founding fathers who educated us and children in grade schools today on how a bill becomes a law. the republican majority is playing a dangerous game. if they do not get what they want they will shut the government down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentlelady 130ekds. ms. delauro: you are playing

with the lives of the american people. their kids, their families and with american businesses. no matter what those damaging effects are because of ideological reason and political base and electoral votes, you are willing to put the united states and its people above all working families, middle-class families and their children and our economy at risk. please, read the constitution, understand how this democracy works and take this bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: and do away with it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to my good friend, a freshman from mississippi, mr. dunly. -- mr. dunlly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.

mr. nunnelee: it's been over 40 days and the democrats in the senate have failed to act on a spending plan. if our government shuts down our troops won't get paid. now, they'll still be serving this great nation but without pay. we need to ensure there are no political burdens while our troops are at war. as the department of defense has indicated, a funding lapse does impact their military's operational readiness. the american people cannot wait. congress cannot wait. while while the democrats in the senate play politics. we've given them ample time to put forth a reasonable plan, yet, the majority leader in the senate is not serious about spending reform. while the democrats will be cheering for a government shutdown, republicans have passed the largest spending cut

in american history. and our actions are having results. just this morning it was announced that the unemployment rate was at a two-year low. americans are going back to work because of our efforts. meanwhile, what's happened this week? the senate democrats have spent the week diverting attention, trying to figure out how to spin reporters, and today while the shutdown is imminent, they've gone home. well, the cuts that the american people want, they're not extreme. they're necessary. when we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar what our children and grandchildren's future in jeopardy, these cuts are far from extreme. it's time for the senate to act. our goal is to cut spending, not to shut down the government. back in mississippi we have a saying, lead, follow or get out of the way.

mr. reid, today you're in the way. so i challenge you today to lead by passing a plan of your own, to follow by adopting the plan that we've already passed. if you can't do either of those, get out of the way and allow the senate to act. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, several students from key elementary school came to the office. they were excited to be on capitol hill. i explained this afternoon we are debating bail, it's been introduced by what we call the freshmen, new members of the house, that says if the senate doesn't agree with a big bill

that the house has passed that the senate doesn't agree next week then this bill would deem it passed. in fact, deem it enacted. they were shocked because that's not what they learned in civics class. they learned that a bill has to be passed by the house and then passed by the senate and then it goes into conference and then if the president agrees to sign it then it can become law. but not this bill. i was at a loss, of course, to explain how it was constitutional. they were kind of surprised that this is what the house was doing. they wanted to know, well, what is the bill they want to be enacted. it is a bill i don't agree with and the senate doesn't agree with. because while we have a lot of people unemployed, this would make apparently about 700,000 more people unemployed, according to even republican economists. so they were even further amazed by that. it also would eliminate a lot of regulations that have been

passed by the house. it would -- through a lot of deliberation but it just says those regulations wouldn't take effect. so it's a very controversial bill. now, i was also able to tell them i did suggest to the rules committee yesterday that the majority rejected there is something we could do today and that is to say that if we put our staff out on the street without pay who get a fraction of what we get paid and we put another million federal employees out on the street unpaid then the congress shouldn't get paid either. the senate did in fact pass that unanimously, including senator mcconnell, obviously. so if we passed that today then we could put the country on record. we're not going to -- could i have another 30 seconds? mr. clyburn: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. mr. moran: at least today we could put ourselves on record that we're not going to put

people out on the street while we continue to get paid because we get paid from a different authorization as does the president. now, this is legislation we could get passed, that the senate agrees and could go fought president right away. i know the president would sign it. that's what we should be doing today, not something that even a 10-year-old understands is unconstitutional. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to a gentleman from your home state, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kissinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: madam speaker, we are in a mess. we are throwing barbs.

we've been in charge for four years and had the presidency for two years and it's not our fault and we don't want to do anything to fix it. so in fact here last year when you had all of the majority, when our friends on the other side of the aisle had all the majority they failed to do the most basic thing that you ought to do when you run something, you pass a budget. no budget was passed because the november elections were coming up. you didn't want to have to make the tough choices that would hurt you in re election and you didn't want to have to go through that route so you didn't pass a budget. you passed a continuing resolution. guess what, the american people in november spoke. they said the federal government is entirely too big and the big bloated bureaucratic government is crowding out the free market. and so what happened? we were sent here to washington, d.c., to control the size of federal government and we're doing exactly that. and we passed a minor cut, a significant but a cut to just a

small part of the budget. we're not even talking about the 2012 budget year. that's coming up, but our friends on the other side of the aisle don't even want to show us what -- where they're at. they can't cut spending. they don't want to say no to people. the american people and the children are asking us to say yes to the future. i'm a military pilot. that's what i do as a reservist. i have friends wondering if we're going to get paid. i say, ask harry reid. i don't know. we try to make sure you continue to get paid through this. i have a friend, tim norton, who runs a company back home. and as he's sending kids to college and as he's building his small business he doesn't know if he can trust in the faith of what this government is going to be in the future because our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to do anything to begin to rein in this out-of-control government. we do. pass this bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from

new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from south carolina. there was some good news today finally that 214,000 americans went to work last month. that's not nearly good enough. there's radio more work -- there's a lot more work to do. one of the ways is to come to an agreement on a responsible budget. i'm hopeful there will be such an agreement next week. that senseably reduces spending but pro-- that sensiblely reduces spending but leads to a repeal of health care. the other side believes we should. whether or not to defund planned parenthood. we believe we shouldn't. most of the other side believes that we should. leave those discussions to another day and keep the government functioning because the taxpayers will keep paying taxes even though there's a government shutdown.

they pay even if they don't get the services. so what are we doing this afternoon? what we're doing this afternoon is looking at a bill that's on its face is unconstitutional. and the reason we're looking at this bill is so that members of the majority side who probably won't vote for the budget compromise next week can say they did something. well, doing something that's unconstitutional is wrong. as mr. clyburn read article 1, section 7, says, every bill which shall pass the house of representatives and the senate shall before it become a law become presented to the president. article 1, section 5 of the constitution says, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. what's wrong with this bill is

that one house, our house, is determining the rules of the other house's, the senate's, proceedings. you can't do that. it's a pretty simple concept, and i've heard all the convoluted arguments on the other side. i've heard all the twisted rationalizations. it comes down to this. if this afternoon the senate passed a budget that our friends on the majority side doesn't like and our friend on the majority side doesn't pass that budget in a week it becomes law they wouldn't agree to that because they would know that it's unconstitutional. this is the same thing. . it is ironic that with great fanfare on the first week of this session, after running a campaign saying they would produce jobs, what the majority produced was a reading of the constitution on this floor. i thought it was appropriate. i thought it was actually moving

and the right thing to do. the wrong thing to do is to ignore what we read the first week. each house may determine the rules of its proceeding. we can't determine the rules of proceeding for the senate. they can't determine the rules of proceeding for us. this is a bad bill. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, my good friend, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding. you-all remember the story about an old man of great faith whose town was about to be flooded? the town was being evacuated and its water was already covering the roads. the old man sat on his porch calmly unafraid. a car pulled up to the house, the water almost too deep to drive in. the driver yelled, get in. we'll take you to safety. the old man shook his head and

said go on, i have faith a god. he'll save me. the car moved on. a short time later the water had risen so high it covered the porch. so the old man simply went upstairs. a boat floated up to the house and the people yelled get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man said again, go on, i have faith in god. he'll save me. so the boat went on. hours later the water had risen so it almost covered the ep tire house. the old man was now on his roof when a rescue helicopter came in. they called get in, we'll take you to safety. the old man refused, saying go on i have faith in god. he'll save me. the helicopter left. the water rose so high the old man drowned. he went to heaven of course and when he arrived he asked god, i had faith in you to save me. why didn't you? god answered, i sent you a car, a boat, and a helicopter, what more do you want from me? i hope my democrat colleagues in the other chamber and this president understand that this bill is their helicopter.

you had a chance to propose and pass a budget for 2011 last year when you-all had unfettered power in washington. you had over a month now to address h.r. 1, a bill that cut a near $100 billion from our -- mere $100 billion from our budget. today we are giving you a third chance to avoid a government shut down. please grab on to this lifeline and work with us to prevent a government shut down that could have international consequences. vote yes on h.r. 1255. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. owens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. owens: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. clyburn. when i heard that this bill was coming forward, i had an opportunity to reflect on the fact that i had been having conversations with my

constituents. and in each case i posed to them how we are proceeding here in congress. and asked them if in fact they could accept a small across-the-board percentage decrease for f.y. 2011. invariably each and every one said yes. i have been on record for many months as suggesting that we can solve this problem, walk away from the ideology that's dividing us, and simply reduce spending by 2%, which i think if one does the math gets us to the position that our friends on the other side of the aisle would like us to adopt. it is clear to me after practicing law for more than 30 years part of which was a j.a.g. officer in the united states air force that clearly this is an unconstitutional piece of legislation and is nothing more than spinning in the wind.

i had the opportunity the other day when i saw the make up of this bill to write to the speaker, mr. boehner, along with 27 other co-signers and asked that s. 3le 88 -- s. 388 be separated from this legislation. this legislation is not moving forward, and if in fact we do see a government shutdown, we in congress should share the pain. we have that responsibility, that obligation, and we must lead by example. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to one of my fellow freshmen, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. griffin i thank my good friend for yielding me time. madam speaker, i commend my fellow arkansans for introducing the government shutdown prevention act and i strongly support its passage.

i'd like to say real quickly what we have seen here in the last few minutes is a colossal waste of time. you had a bunch of folks saying, madam speaker, that this is unconstitutional. i just want to clarify so we can move past that and if my colleagues is -- can focus this argument where it matters. we intend for this bill like all other bills to pass the house, to pass the senate, be signed by the president. i, too, am a j.a.g. officer from the army an i think the j.a.g. officer, madam speaker, from the air force would understand that. this is a constitutional bill like the other bills that we introduce here. now, why are we here today? 41 days ago this house passed a $100 billion spending cut from the president's 2011 budget that. bill kept the government operating. we did our job here. there was another house down on

the other side of the capitol and we are here because they have refused to do their job, 41 days later, zero bills. we have heard some suggestions here today. and maybe we ought to do a across-the-board cut. i suggest that if they got any friends on the senate side that they go down there and see if they will propose a bill with some kind of cuts, because so far it's zero. zero bills from the senate on this. senator harry reid thinks our plan goes, quote, too far, end quote. we have heard a lot of people using the word extreme because that's a scary word. let me tell you, the only thing around here is the national debt. you want to see extreme, that's extreme. senator harry reid believes that shutting down the government is perfectly acceptable. in fact, we have seen with the pollsters and pundits and howard dean and others that they want to shut down the government. i don't want to shut down the

government. i want to cut spending. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: 30 seconds? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: i don't want the government shut down. i want spending cut. i have a question of how -- what a shut down would do to our armed forces. the airmen and the soldiers in arkansas that are in my district , senator reid has failed to come up with a credible plan of his own. they can't cut just a few billion dollars. even though we have a g.a.o. report that indicates $100 billion to $200 billion could be saved by getting rid of duplicative programs. if the senate is unwilling to make the small cuts, how in the world are we ever going to be able to make the bold decisions -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield one minute to the democratic leader of california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership in this debate this afternoon. i have been listening to it very intently. i heard the debate on the rule this morning and then the debate this afternoon. and some questions have arisen. first, i want to state a fact. the fact is is that every single one of us in this body, as our first act, raises our right hand to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. the bill that we have on the floor before us does violence to those provisions in the

constitution that describe how to pass a bill. not by one house deeming it but as our distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn, described, his daughter's school children and her class could tell you that you pass one house, you pass another house, it's signed by the president. but that seems to be missed by the makers of this resolution today. again mr. cly bush talked -- clyburn talked about the constitutional authority to bring this bill to the floor. it's truly a mystery how you can take an oath of office to protect the -- and defend the constitution of the united states, bring a bill to the floor in violence of that, and justify it actually. i have heard the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier, say that we had some visiting parliamentarians here who were watching this debate to see if america, congress can get

its job done. please don't pay attention to this. what you see on the floor today is no example of democracy in action. it's silly. the republican leadership is asking its members to make a silly vote. and it's time for us to stop that silliness and get serious about the creation of jobs. get serious about not shutting down government. abdicating our responsibilities and shutting down government. i have heard mr. hoyer earlier today talk about how we got here in terms of this budget deficit. we all know that we must reduce the deficit, that's why during the clinton years as mr. hoyer said, we reversed the first bush deaf, came out with a trajectory of fiscal responsibility, going into surplus. the last five clinton budgets were in surplus or in balance.

but because of tax cuts for the rich, two unpaid-for wars, and prescription drug bill that gave away the store to the pharmaceutical industry, we came back into deficit, the biggest swing in fiscal irresponsibility in our country's history, and now we have had to deal with that. and what is the answer that the bush administration gave us? tax cuts for the rich, that's how you create jobs. we didn't. that's how you reduce the deficit. we grew it. i think it's important when we are talking about the deficit, which we all agree must be cut, and we are talking about jobs, to note that in the first year of the obama administration more jobs were created in the private sector than in the eight years of the bush administration. tax cuts for the rich did not produce jobs.

cuts in initiatives to educate our people and keep us healthy and safe, those cuts did not create jobs. so here we are today at the end of the week wasting the public's time on a notion, not even an idea, on a notion that does not rise to the level of a credible idea that one house can deem a bill the law of the land. i also heard on the floor of the house a call for smart reid, leader in the senate, to take up h.r. 1. he did. it failed. not even the republicans all voted for it in the united states senate. three republican senators voted against h.r. 1 in the senate. perhaps you don't know the date, but it did happen. and it is -- it's stunning to hear this debate that talks about visiting parliamentarians

seeing an example of good government in action. no. wrong. so what could be the explanation for this? mr. clyburn suggested it could be april fool's and at the end of this debate the gentleman will withdraw the amendment, apologize for wasting the public's time, and say this is only an april fool's joke. because that's the only thing that it complies with. it does not comply or conform with honoring the constitution. it does not create jobs. it does not reduce the deficit, and it does have the support of the democrats in the house of representatives. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds just to remind the gentlelady that article 1, section 7 says all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives. we failed to do that in the last

congress and that's why the gentleman stands here today with this bill proudly. with that i yield two minutes to a very good freshman, my colleague, the gentleman from la, mr. landry. mr. landry: when i first elected, i declined my health care benefits because i don't believe we can fix a system we are not a part of. i declined my retirement benefits because our social security system is broke. . i support this bill because if the american people have to endure a government shutdown, which is the result of the failure of the senate democrats, then none of us, including the president, should expect the american people to continue our pay. until we fix this budget mess. the funding for the federal government is 182 days old. democrats on the senate have failed -- democrats have failed to pass a budget for 182 days.

182 case, that's an entire school year. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what would you think if your child's teacher did nothing for the entire school year. our constitution authorizes congress to be the power of the purse. it is our job to set a responsible and affordable budget for the federal government each year. and if we can't do our job we should not be paid. mr. speaker,, it is time for the -- mr. speaker, it is time for the democrats in the senate to do their job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. i'm sorry, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hastings: i thank my good friend from south carolina. david fishburg wrote in 1975, "i'm just a bill," and this has been utilized -- i utilized it

yesterday. my friend, mr. woodall from georgia, used it today. i encourage the american public to understand that my friends know how a bill becomes the law. h.r. 1, the measure that we have been talking about, really did pass the house of representatives and it went over to the united states senate and it was rejected. the president also said that he would veto h.r. 1 if it reached his desk. so what we are doing here is symbolism. and my friends on the other side are entitled easily to message anything they wish to address their base. but don't bring it to the american public under the ages of this is something serious. it is not. it is absurd. it is a complete waste of time. and even more important, as has been said by many, and i believe everybody on the other side understands, it's

unconstitutional. it also has not gone unnoticed that my friends who advocated rightly that there should be transparency in addition to being transparency that measures should be allowed to be read before they're utilized. the leadership of the house of representatives held a press conference before any member of the house of representatives saw mr. womack and mr. woodall's bill. knowing this, then i guess what must be happening here is we are wasting our time on unconstitutional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hastings: we are wasting our time on pate antley unconstitutional measures. i won't go into all of the details about the need to address jobs, but i do know this, steny hoyer said earlier what all of us in america know and when we were children we celebrated a lot, a lot of us, and it was april fools' and we played jokes on people.

but, listen, the american people are not fools, and they are not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. we're here because the democratic majority last year did not do their job, did not give us a budget, did not do proper appropriations and now the senate has had the same problem. and so i applaud anybody's efforts in trying to move the ball down the road so that we can appropriate. i just wish the senate would do their job now and take care of it. but for a bill to say provisions are passed -- that pass the house or hereby acted into law violates my conscious

and the constitution. i cannot vote for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, may i inquire as to how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 11 minutes. mr. clay: may i reserve the balance of my time to let the other side catch up? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to one of my freshman colleagues, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: it's been funny hearing the discussion this isn't constitutional. now, let me see -- it's a piece of legislation with a trigger

mechanism in it. ok, i know the other side doesn't like that trigger but it would still require the senate to pass it and the president to sign it. if i go back to a -- and it was fun seeing something from my childhood of the 1970's "how a bill becomes a law." it's how it becomes a law. it's not the gamesmanship of oh, it's april fools' day, let us demagogue this piece of legislation. what's important here is the american people know we're taking the job seriously, and giving the senate another chance, another chance to step up and do their job. we're sitting here how many weeks after we passed resolution -- you know, h.r. 1? and we're still doing this dance. at some point the american people have to expect us to do our job. and if we don't do our job not a single one of us here, the administration and in the senate deserve a paycheck. madam chairman, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i think we need to reiterate, we just had a very principled statement of the gentleman from texas. i think we need to rise above partisanship. the gentleman from texas said he agrees with the proposition that the bill is unconstitutional. i would urge members, madam speaker, to listen to that example of principle. we don't agree on all things but we should all rise to honor our oath of office and vote on this based on pure constitutional grounds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend and mentor, the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. broun: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, when a patient is bleeding to death on an operating table, we as doctors do everything that we can to save that patient's life. we don't just walk away and we certainly don't call it quits. well, that's what the democrats want to do. they want to call it quits on our spending crisis, and the worst part is they are doing it for their own political games. democrats in congress are intentionally plotting this government shutdown and they hatched their plan months ago, i believe. if they wanted to, democrats could have passed a long-term continuing resolution during the lame dug session without making any -- lame-duck session without making any spending cuts at all. but instead they passed a short-term spending bill so they could play the shutdown card right now. the democrats' political game of wedging conservatives

between unexacceptable cuts and a government shutdown is an insult to the gravity of the plan. it's an insult to american families who are struggling to make ends meet. it's an insult to all of the american people who are out of work and it's an insult to us in congress, the members of congress who are serious about trying to put this country on a road to recovery, economic recovery. it's pitiful that the democrats have wasted so much time stalling over these minimal cuts in their own self-interest. while our country is financially bleeding to death, we should be focused on trying to revive our economy rather than bickering about $61 billion when we already borrow almost $60 billion per week. madam speaker, since the democrats refuse to stop their political games and get to work, those over in the senate, in particularly, i urge my colleagues to pass the government shutdown prevention act so that we can do our jobs

and start frying to heal our economy and create jobs in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. clyburn: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, there's no stronger supporter of h.r. 1 than mr. gohmert from texas, and he made a very simple, very eloquent statement of principle, about adhering to the constitution. this legislation has to be interpreted by its own words, not by what people say is in it. and what it explicitly says, if the house has not received a message from the senate before april 6 stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriation for the departments and agencies of government for the remainder of the fiscal year, and this is the language of your legislation, the provisions of h.r. 1 as passed by law on february 19, 2011, are hereby

enacted into law. that's absurd. it's a pretend bill that says that if the house acts and the senate doesn't our action becomes law. it's absurd. it says that if the house acts the senate doesn't and the president doesn't sign this piece of legislation it's law. that's the document that you presented to this body to vote on. now, mr. gohmert took the higher road here where instead of taking out his frustration with the united states senate at the expense of the constitution he stood up for the constitution. and that's what each and every one of us have an opportunity to do. all of us have frustration with the other body because they sit on bills. in the eyes of the beholder it's a good or bad bill du it does not entitle us to pretend

that the constitution does not apply to the legislation that we have to consider. also, if we have a political impractical problem of moving ahead on a piece of legislation in the house, is it right for us in effect to mislead the people that sent us here by suggesting that we're passing a law that has any impact when we know it has absolutely no impact? is that a fair or appropriate or honorable thing for a democrat or a republican to do? i urge us to vote no on this legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to answer my friend from vermont's question which is not the appropriate thing to mislead the american people. so i'll just read one more -- one more time the -- having passed the house, having passed the senate and be signed by the president. that's the regular order. i'll say to my friend, i'm sorry we didn't have that time to finish our discussion in the rules committee. i'm sorry we were called away

by votes. i yield two minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i came here to fight for my constituents. i didn't come here to shut down the government. my state has the highest unemployment. they look at the reckless spending in washington and they get angry. it's just this simple. they don't spend money they don't have. so why does washington? this bill prevents members of congress and the president from getting paid if the government shuts down. i get it, the american people get it, why doesn't washington get it? it's something any business owner or logical individual anywhere in america can understand. if you don't work you don't get