Transcripts For CSPAN Capital News Today 20100306

jihadist groups have several principal police. one is that we are the epitome of evil. they see america as being the great tempter and democracy as being incomplete violation of their view of god's will. they believe the law should come from god and not man and democracy flips that in their view. they see america, as they describe, as the great satan. they want to see the elimination of israel. ultimately, most of these jihadist organizations seek the establishment allow of global jihadist -- cb establishment a of a global jihadist -- seek the establishment of a global jihadist organization. i believe we will overcome it and there are signs of progress even in the world of islam against these radicals. they threaten the world, in part, because of the weapons that are increasingly available to them. we shudder at the thought of them have the access to nuclear technology. . >> but what actions can be taken to prevent timohty -- timothy mcveigh or a pentagon shooter, someone that is not,jihadist -- not a jihadist, but hates the united states? >> i don't know the best way deal with these folks or prevent their attacks. the number of attacks that have been prevented will underscore the same story. in 2002, we had endured five months before, the attack of september 11. we were very worried. it would we be attacked in the opening ceremonies? would roughly 10 venues be attacked? would citizens be attacked on the streets? we put up fences and mag netometers. someone with a mortar could launch a shell into a populated area. the could be helpful against a lone shooter, but someone with a more violent weapon, perhaps not very effective at all. the fbi worked at great length in the years leading up to the olympics to identify sources of potential threat to follow them , interrogate in some cases, or ask questions to let them know they were being watched. and to ensure through good intelligence work that we were safe. great intelligence is the best source, in my view, for the protection of our people and our property. therefore, i become very alarmed when i see the justice department say that we are going to go after our own cia members. this is not a time to be causing our intelligence officers to have concern about the support that they received from their government and from their people. we should be standing arm in arm with those that protect us in the best means we have, which is intelligence. that is what has stopped attack after attack in this country since 9/11. it is what protect our soldiers and loved ones around the world. >> in your book, you call for 4% of gross domestic product to be spent on defense. given the constraints that will be spent on the federal budget as well as the constraints of the military in iraq and afghanistan, what would your top priorities before finding against threats given day you have spoken about jihad and nation-states? >> if you get a chance to look at the book, we look at military missions. we have to think about what our priorities are. i don't know if you know how much spending government does as a percentage of our total economic activity. i was a little surprised. we are a free nation where the private sector creates the wealth and the opportunity for our citizens rather they are starting in brand new jobs or whether they are on top of the executive ladder. the government today is roughly 33% of total gdp of america. they spend about 20% of gdp. i would make sure that we draw a hard line and not let them take a larger and larger share of our overall economic activity. if the government is going to spend 20% roughly of gdp, how much should be allocated? at least four points of those 20 points, roughly 1/5 of total federal spending should be spent. we can spend it better. we buy a lot of military projects that are not desired by the pentagon but are desired by congressperson or a senator. we can be wiser in the way that we can spend our money and make sure we are spending it as effectively as possible. i like us to have another 100,000 troops. those that study the greater depth on the number of missions we have and our stretched -- and how stretched our armed forces are, i like to see more than 100,000 boots. that number we should plan on keeping in mind is about 3.8% over the next decade. it is projected to fall, fall, fall. our spending on entitlements will grow and grow. we can't allow our entitlement desires to eat up the entire federal budget and put at risk the ability to defend ourselves and protect ourselves from threats wherever they might arise. >> you talk about the culture and prosperity of nations. do you believe the united states was founded on christian principles and that they are an important part of our cultural dna? >> i believe the judeo-christian principles generally, the biblical principles described in the old testament and the new testament are part of the culture. i don't believe that we have ever adopted the stance that a particular religion or even branch of religion is an aspect of being an american. but i believe their religious principles including christian principles and those of other great religions are part of our culture. getty of honesty, integrity, family, commitment, patriotism, serving things > one's self and charity towards others. they have rooms that flow back into religious cultures as well. i am not going to a sign that to any one religion. but do believe that those elements flow from those original sources. >> we are almost out of time. thank you for all the time you have spent with us today. before last question, there are a couple of important matters to take care of. on march 8, we have lisa jackson, the administrator for the environmental protection agency. on tuesday march 9, we have ron kirk that will discuss the administration's export agenda. and then we have dick armey. second, i would like to present our speaker with the traditional national press club mug. [applause] >> used wrong for the big bucks. thank you. -- you sprung for the big bucks. >> i know you will be very busy on your book tour, and you also think about your family. are you considering destinations for vacation such as des moines, manchester, cedar rapids? what are your travel plans? >> some of those places are lovely and the summer. -- in the summer. this is a pretty critical year for people like myself that are conservative. as a result, for people like myself, and hopefully a number of you in this room and others across the country, we're going to be working in various states to let folks that share our views and values throughout the country. you can expect me to be an awful lot of states. i will be visiting 49 cities doing book signings and speeches. the book is about the challenges i think america faces, and my view that we have a stop apologizing for who we are and for what america has done. and instead, stand tall in our belief that america is right for our kids and our grandkids. and that we have to strengthen the foundations of what has made america so strong in such a model for the world. i am not going to avoid being in new hampshire because i have a summer home there. i will make a trip to iowa as part of that 2 or -- tour. i will be in states where not presidential primaries are key, where certain elections are key. we need to bring back the kind of balance that is essential to make washington work. that is something that is kind of a key point here. the way to get things done in washington is not have one party have unilateral power to push everything it wants through. that is not the right way to make it work. the way to make it work is to have two parties that find common ground to ensure that we're moving towards the middle and the great support of the american people. if you take a sharp left turn or even a sharp right turn, america will say no. let's see some balance in washington. ayer appreciate the fact that a republican is here today, and let there be many more. [applause] >> and thank you, governor romney. i would also like to think the national press club staff including the library and broadcast center for organizing today's event. for more information on joining the national press club, please visit our web site at www.press.org. thank you for attending. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up next, michigan congressman john dingell talks about health care legislation in his career in congress. another joint economic committee reviews february's employment figures. that will be followed by president obama's remarks on the job market. this weekend, former republican presidential candidate mitt romney in his latest "no apology." after words, part of our book tv weekend on c-span 2. over 1000 middle and high school students into this year's student cam documentary competition with a short video on what our greatest strengths or a challenge that the country is facing. we will announce the winners on march 10. >> now, michigan congressman john dingell talks about health care legislation and his half century of service in the house of representatives. this is about 30 minutes. >> we're pleased to have the dean of the house of representatives and the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, representative john dingell, democrat of michigan. erce committee john dingell democrat of m. mr. -- michigan. some news reports this morning said that the house of representatives wants to have healthcare done by march 18 when the president leaves the country. is that going to happen? guest: i can't tell you that. we have run in nothing but trouble as we have progressed on this matter. if you will recall i have been trying to get it enacted for 54 years. i'm hopeful we are going to be able to do it and i believe we will. but there is almost total partisan opposition from my republican colleagues on this legislation including tremendous amounts of effort to at all almost everything in the senate. host: you wrote an op-ed recently for the "detroit free press" i believe it was where you said that the bill is bipartisan but the vote will not be bipartisan. guest: i think that is a fair statement. there are a lot of things in that bill which were ideas which the republicans had. it is far different than the bill which i would have had. i would go for single payer. host: that is what h.r. 1 is each year that you introduce it? guest: actually h.r. 15. but i'm a little bit like former prime minister deng of kline who said he didn't care whether the cat was white or black, i want to catch miles. host: what do you like about what you think going to be the reconciliation bill? and do we know what it is going to be yet? guest: we have a pretty good idea fpltd it will be somewhere between the house and senate bill and president's first and more recent suggestions. to the congress. frankly, i care less about the precise language of the bill than we do -- we have a calamity coming at us. in 2020 about one dollar in every five will go to that purpose. that is healthcare. by the 2080 every nickel spent and earned in this country will be health care. and in 2020 you are going to find that health care is going to cost -- it is doubled the last 10 years. it will double the next 10 years. it is $12,000 a year for a family now. it 2020 it will be $25,000. families won't be able to afford it and businesses are not going to be able to afford it, especially small businesses. we can't afford what we are doing now because if you look at one of those nice american cars you see running by, they have $1,600 worth of health care, $750 worth of steel. foreigners don't have to put any of that in. the result. s united states is uncompetitive and health care cost is one of the main reasons for both the autos and steel companies going in bankruptcy. host: john ding he will is your guest -- john dingell is our guess. we are talking about healthcare and the healthcare debate. first-time callers only. reserve dingell can talk about just about anything legislative legislatively. so, if it is going from $12,000 per family to $25,000 per family, how do we bridge that gap without -- is it deficit spending, tax increases, cost controls? all of the above? what is your preference? guest: first of all, we can't undergo that without hideous consequences. but understand if we pass the legislation we will be able to get that cost curve down. if we had taken what richard nixon wanted us to tdo do durins year, the total percentage of healthcare in the gross domestic product would be about 10%. if we'd taken what clinton wanted it would be 14%. it has gone to 18 and it will go to 20 shortly. so, if we get something done to control the cost expansion, which the bill does, we can head that off. host: why, prior to you, why have you always introduced healthcare and why did your father always introduce national health care? guest: that is an interesting story. dad was a poor polish boy aged 20 from the west side of detroit. he got tuberculosis and he was sent west to die of tuberculo s tuberculosis. he survived because he got the healthcare that that particular union got. the doctor gave him six months to live when he got his first examination. he always had a tremendous interest in this. that was very important. that formed his thinking. and it formed the thinking of a lot of people. remember, otto von bismarck did this in germany in the 1980's. edward vii did it in britain in 1907. teddy roosevelt started it out. franklin delano roosevelt took it up in 1935. harry truman tried it in 1943 when dad introduced his first legislation. host: tom from levittown, pennsylvania, democrat. you are first up. caller: congressman, i would like to ask you a question. i saw the guest that was on befo before. and he said that it showed the money being spent overseas. how can you justify spending that money overseas when we have thousands of people dying here without healthcare insurance? i don't understand that. host: we were talking about the director of usaid. guest: i saw the program. your question is a good one and it is hard to defend but remember the united states has many concerns in it world. not the least of which is, quite frankly, very important questions involving foreign policy. and our foreign policy is supported largely by expenditures but those expenditures are necessary, quite frankly, to maintain a position of leadership in the world. when we help people, or we we give palmeiro the means to work with us on matters of importance in our policy, it helps us. as you have noted, my friend, tom, we have a tremendous demand for money, far in excess of what it is this country can produce to carry out all of the difference policies and concerns. but foreign policy is extremely important because with wise foreign policy we avoid wars, we help friends, we see to it that our position of leadership in the world and our security and world peace are protected. host: congressman dingell, you have been in congress since about 1955. who has been your best friend over the 54 years? guest: well, my closest friend was a little guy named john moss from california. but i have had many wonderful friends. rayburn was one of my mentors and teachers. john mccormick was good. tip o'neill. jim wright. a great chairman i served with was warren harris from arkansas. i have had great friends in the senate. hube hubert humphrey and senator douglas. host: after 54 years maybe you have perspective on congress. what would you recommend to somebody who wants to run? guest: i would say work like the very devil to get yourself educated and ready. learn the issues. and learn a couple of things. first of all, my dad taught me that you have to tell the truth because you can't remember the lie you told yesterday. second of all, be careful to do what is right because there is luge danger for those that don't. host: we have a tweet here from twitter.com. i wonder if people understand they will get a fine for not having healthcare if this passes the pure socialism. guest: well, here is the problem. we have a huge number of difficulties. you have preexisting conditions. they will bar you if you don't do that. they now can cancel your policy while you are being rolled into the operating room on a gurney. and there are lots of reforms. but if we are going to carry out the reforms we have to cover everybody. the fine is very modest. i am willing to take another course. we have to get everybody covered so that we can control the costs. they are going to destitute the country and have a crushing effect upon our economy and our people. so the mechanism chosen to handle it is to say somebody who doesn't get himself a policy has to pay a part of that cost. that is to encourage people to have a policy. it is in their interest. now, there are a lot of young people who don't want to have policies. but away find that most of them don't want to have policies because of cost of current policies. this legislation will bring the cost down very startlingly and eliminate all the abuses. but to do those things we have to see that we cover everybody. that is one of the mechanismmec. host: call from dothan, alabama. caller: [inaudible] healthcare bill. if it is done right. thank you. guest: thank you. could you repeat the question? host: it is not -- i could barely hear it, too. she wanted to know that if you would be the first to sign up for this health care bill if it passes if it is so great. guest: absolutely. if you look at the bill, it does -- it gives everybody exactly the same healthcare opportunity that member of congress and federal employees have because members of congress are treated as federal employees. so, emphatically so. this not to give somebody less than i have but it is to give everybody the same thing that i have, the same opportunities, the same securities and same protections and same opportunities for coverage. host: you have always called for a single payer plan. . yes. host: the u.s. is unique in its employer based system? pretty much so. guest: well, yes. host: so chances are we are not going to move away from that? guest: well, this is an evolutionary thing. our system of government and our people and the way things are going in this country has made us always be evolutionary in our approach to government as opposed to revolutionary and we say thank god for that. but, having said that, i would much rather see a single payer plan. but i don't believe that is to happen at this time. while i would very much like to see that, the hard fact of the matter is it is not possible. so, politics being the art of the possible and having to do what is best for the country at the time, we are going to have to go for something different, less than i would have chosen to have. host: just to change the subject a little, your colleague from michigan sandra levin is taking off the ways and means committee. guest: he will do a fine job. 's very decent, balanced guy and he has the kind of temperment that will be necessary and needed to run the committee on ways and means, which is an enormously complex and difficult operation. host: is charlie rangel a friend of yours? guest: he is a good friend. i have very few enemies in the congress. i have a lot of friend. charlie is a very good friend and i'm sad about his problems. host: have the democrats in your view made mistakes in the way healthcare has been crafted over the last year or year and a half? guest: not really. there are things they have done in this legislation that substantively i don't agree with. but i have to tell you that i think, given the problems we have had, they have done a good job. the big problem that we confront on these matters is that it is enormously complex. you are talking about a piece of legislation for 300 million people and programs that will cost enormous sums of money and you are going to talk about a free society of people who all have their own ideas and thoughts. that is reflected both in the house and in the senate over there. and it is the making of legislation is a very complex business and bismarck said if you like sausage and you like legislation, don't watch either one of them made. host: waldorf, maryland, robert on the independent line. caller: how are you today, congressman? guest: fine and i hope you are. caller: i'm good. a couple of questions. with all of the media hype that this process was so bad, isn't this the closest we have come to changing of the healthcare syst system? and why is that? and, also, isn't there a provision in the bill that says the insurance companies will have to invest 90% of their earnings back into the system? guest: there is a provision which requires that the insurance companies pay a certain amount out in its -- to its clients of the earnings and revenues that it gets. that is to stop opl of abuses that we have seen in the insurance industry by paying too much in, frankly, benefits to their officers and shareholders and too little to their policyholders. it is one of the many rorls we are trying to get into the insurance industry for the protection of the rate payers. having said this, you are right. this is about as close as we have ever been and i'm hopeful that we can finish the issue because the urgent need of addressing the problem before in bankruptcy the country. host: houston, pennsylvania, eleanor. democrat. caller: good morning. it is a pleasure to talk to you. i felt like your last question was right on for the fell will that is running the -- fella that is running the show. i feel like one of the things that happened in healthcare is in the 1950's my brother had to go to school in italy to become a doctor and i never could understand that. that the american medical association did that to people in america, that they couldn't be a doctor if they wanted to be because it is such a hard profession. i think that the majority of those >> well, there is much in what you say. there is now and will shortly be an increase -- an increasing shortage of doctors. that is because of costs, the fact that in many instances, the doctors are not adequate. one of the things in this legislation and in other legislation is that i am addressing is to see to it that we get those payments up. the other problems we have with regard to doctors that are very severe that if you look at foreign countries, they pay their doctors the cost of education. we do not. our young people when they come out of school have a debt of 200,000 or $400,000. it is huge to get through medical school. other countries don't do that. a lot of foreign doctors come over here and out compete our people in this matter. we have some very difficult problems, rather, family physicians and a general practice physicians are all in short supply. there are in part because they can't make as much money in this area that they could in others. s they could in others. most doctors don't go in to make money. they go in because they believe in public service. but you have to -- a fella has to look at what he is going to be able to earn and pay off his debts from education and whether he can provide a decent life for his family. host: lieutenant dingell was in the army at age 18, due to take part in the first invasion of japan in november, 1945. where were we the bombs were dropped? guest: he was just graduating frommen fan industry o.c.s. at fort better thanking, georgia in class 517. and we got news that the one bomb had been dropped and a few days later came the story that the war was over. i had my orders to report to the port of embark indication where i was -- embarkation where i was going to be a small unit leader. i called the army later saying what were you going to do with me. he said you were going to be in the first wave. i said what is my life expect is he. he said we are glad you asked because it was 10 seconds. that told me that you did the right thing and harry truman did the right thing. host: who is your favorite president of all time? guest: oh, can i say two? host: sure. guest: roosevelt, who was a hero. host: f.d.r. guest: f.d.r. the other roosevelt was great, too. but f.d.r. was very special. then harry truman. i remember we were talking about my time in the army. when i was -- the guys in my platoon came over to me one time and after roosevelt died and said, dingell, your dad is in congress. i said yes. they said what does he say about this guy truman. they didn't noah kind of president he was going to be. they said will you write your dad and ask him? so i wrote dad. and the next mail call they called my name and pitched me my letter are dad. i wouldn't let him write on his congressional station neri. because i wanted to make my way on my own. and when i was sitting there on my bunk reading the letter all of a sudden the whole company is there. i said dingell what kind of guy is this truman going to be. you said you are going to write. i said well i will read the letter. dad said son, he is going to be a great president and he was right. host: battle creek, michigan. reginald. republican. caller: good morning, sir. guest: good morning. caller: i want to know how you can justify voting for a bill that the majority of the american public is not for. guest: well, let's address that. i have looked at polls that say 76% of americans are in favor of this. and if you look at the essential parts of the legislation you will find almost all the americans are in favor of it. you will find also that there are a tremendous number of falsehoods told about what is in the bill either by reason of deliberate intent to deceive or because people don't understand. one of the problems we have had has been that we have been writing this bill in public instead of having the bill presented which could then be discussed and dissected in the orderly congressional process. that has led to a huge number of misunderstandings. you will recall we had last y r year, when we were traveling around, people were saying there is a death panel. they are going to kill people. that is hooey. it is not in the bill. then they were saying they are going to pull the plug on grand phafrplt they are not going to pull the plug on grandma. both of those proposals existed in other republican sponsored legislation. the same folks that sponsored those proposals as republican bills are now denouncing them with the democratic package. host: somehow nancy pelosi doing? guest: nancy and i have a somewhat rocky relationship at advertisements. but i think on this she has done a superb job. it has been one of the most difficult pieces of legislation. i handled legislation that took me 18 months to get through and i'm hopeful that we can better that but i'm not able to tell you so. we passed a bill in the house by a good decent majority and then we passed a bill in the senate by 60% of the norse voting for it and everybody is saying we were ramming the bill through. that is hooey. host: columbia city, indiana. jerry is on with congressman john dingell. caller: how are you doing today? guest: fine. and i hope you are. caller: i'm fine. why are we the only nation that allows for profit insurance companies? every other country or industrialized country has outlawed it. guest: well, they really haven't outlawed it. but offensive other major industrial country in the world, all of our competitors, has this done through government sponsored and government parameters and the end result is they are able to outcompete pus the most unbelievable fashion. it is one thing that drives our people under. in businesses it was a major cause of the bankruptcy of the steel industry, a major cause of the bankruptcy of the automobile industry. and one of the curses of this is our people are having the devil of a time competing. having said that, it is just the way it evolved. if you will observe our government tend to be a rather slow-moving enterprise around other countries, with the parliamentary system, are able to move faster on these kinds of things and have a rather different system of government. they tend to be more social democracies where away tend to concentrate on the rights and privileges and responsibilities of the ordinary citizen. host: quite heated toyota hearings last week. you were quite active in them. what is the status of toyota and the u.s. congress? guest: well, toyota is a business that manufactures automobiles, and they, like every other business that we have in it country, is entitled to be fairly treated. but they are also entitled to be regulated in the public interest the way their competitors are. and, very frankly, there are new substantial questions about the safety of their automobiles, about their cooperation with the national highway transportation safety administration, and there are questions of whether or not they know what was the cause of the brake problems and the sudden acceleration problems. all i want to do is see that toyota does what they need to do to comply with the laws and keep american citizens safe as they drive down the road. now, having said that, one of the problems we had before our committee was you will remember that i asked a lot of questions of the c.e.o. of toyota. one of the distressing things is he couldn't answer the questions. he pointed out that the answers to the questions were known in tokyo. and also he pointed out that he could not answer them for that reason and that the responsibility for those questions was not his. now, this is the c.e.o. of the company. and i think one thing we will have to do is assure not only that toyota cars are safe and treated fairly, they comply with our laws, they are not -- they don't use the fact that they are a foreign ownership to get better treatment and to escape federal regulation for the safety of people. i think that those questions, plus the safety questions, still have much to be answered. host: boston, carol, democrat. please go ahead. caller: hi. guest: good morning. tkpwhrao i just want to make a comment. i live in massachusetts and you know we are mandated to have health insurance. i don't have a problem with that but i want to say a lot of people i believe that is opposing this bill just really don't understand. i do know that the cost gets more people and everybody has to have insurance and the cost will go down as a whole but right now i'm paying almost half of my paycheck in health insurance and i would love to see this pass so we can all share the cost and the cost can go down. guest: that is a very wise observation. thank you. first of all, unless we cover everybody we cannot control the costs and we can not prevent the calamity that he see coming where one dollar in give of every person's will be spent on healthcare. i will point out something interesting. the united states is now approaching the point where 50 or more of the costs of healthcare are paid for by the federal government under various federal programs. i think that is unacceptable. so, to get control of the costs so that when you go to bed at night you are not going to have to worry, is my employer going to cover me when i get up, or when you retire you will not are to say is my employer going to continue taking care of my healthcare now that i'm retired because you are finding retirees all over the country are losing healthcare and employees are going to bed with health care and waking up the next morning and finding they don't have it. host: employment statistics just came out about 20 minutes ago. 9.7% unemployment rate nationwide. what about the 15th congressional district? guest: the 15th congressional district, we know the meaning of economic downturn. when the nation gets a cold it is the 15th district that sneezes. michigan is dependent on manufacturing and when the auto industry and manufacturing hurts as it is doing now we really do hurt. our unemployment levels are above national because of the terrible things that have happened to manufacturing in this country. that is true not only for michigan but all across the midwest because all of those economies in states like michigan, ohio, indiana, illinois, wisconsin, pennsylvania, they are dependent on manufacturing. host: what scares you the most looking ahead, healthcare, manufacturing? what worries you the most? guest: well, i'm not scared. i worry. i'm worried about the -- i'm worried about, frankly, world peace, terrorism. i'm worried terribly about the economy and getting it going. by the way, the economy is interesting. george w. bush got taken to the woodshed by mr. bernanke, head of the fed, and by his secretary of the treasury and they both told him if he didn't do something very drastic like passing tarp that we were going to see an economic collapse because the banks were going to die. and so we had to do that. but george w. bush, a very conservative guy, reviewed that he couldn't make hoover's mistake and fail to see to it that the banks remained viable. so, the economy worries me. i'm, of course, concerned about world peace and the terrorists. i have environmental concerns, global warming, pollution, danger to the great lakes from invasive species and pollution. these are all concerns. but they are concerns that every american shares. we have some differences on what ought to be done >> our guest has been john dingell, the dean of the house of representatives and congressman from 1955 from the fifteenth district of michigan. >> tomorrow, on "washington journal." "pianin about -- eric pianin talks about job numbers. michael shifter reviews secretary of state clinton's trip. and we discussed what can be done about the rising dropout rates in the nation's high schools. "washington journal," live 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> up next on c-span, the joint economic committee gets the february employment figures. and president obama comments on the job market. after that, congressman barney frank talks about homeownership. and senator christopher dodd talks about the need to count -- create a consumer protection agency for financial institutions. >> as "washington post" international correspondent, t.r. reid has traveled the globe. including the united states of europe, the healing of america, and "confucius' lives next door." live sunday at noon eastern on "book tv's" "in-depth." >> which presidents live past 90 years old? did john adams, herbert hoover, ronald reagan, and gerald ford. find these and other presidential fax in the book "who's buried in grant's' tu omb?" >> you can tell a lot of people at the end of their lives. >> a resource guide and the story of their final moments. who's buried in grant's tomb, get a 45% discount at the publisher's web site. and now, the bureau of labor statistics monthly jobs report the national unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.7% for the month of february. hear more about the unemployment numbers from the bureau's commissioner. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> the hearing will come to order. i will think the witnesses for being here this morning. thank you for being present again, we will have a number of members that will be here. as they come in, we will be able to prepare for the questioning. i did want to thank you for once to thank you and your team for once again being here. we are in a period of tremendous, for a lot of americans. i know in pennsylvania, by way of example, we do not have one of the highest unemployment rates, but the numbers are staggering. we have had about 560,000 people out of work in pennsylvania. we do not know what the number will be for february, but a lot of people in pennsylvania across the board, it is not limited to one region, have had great difficulty. the recovery bill has worked in some places insubstantial ways. that is not enough. we have taken steps that i will highlight later in the last couple of days. another house just worked yesterday to pass legislation that the senate worked on. we will have that return to the senate and get that piece of legislation worked through the so-called hire act to create more jobs. in addition to that, we have other legislation as well. i am grateful, as many americans are, that the unemployment rate has remained unchanged at 9.7%, but as i said before, there is much work to do. in february of 2009, across america we lost 728,000 jobs. that was after january of 2009 where we lost about 740,000 jobs. we lost over 600 -- over 600,000 jobs in march last year. a year ago, every single month for at least four months will losing over 600,000 jobs. the job loss is still too high. we cannot rest in terms of moving forward. instead of losing 740,000 jobs, or 726,000 jobs in those months of january, february and march of last year, or around that number, we are now losing in the tens of thousands. we lost 26,000 in january 2010, and this month of february 2010, 36,000 jobs. we know that the congressional budget office, which for a lot of americans, because of health care and some other debates we have had here, it has been recognized as an arbiter or the one office in washington that has had a significant impact on certifying are stating what the numbers are, whether it is healthcare, scoring the healthcare bill, telling the american people what it calls, but also in terms of what is happening with employment. the congressional budget office reported last week that the recovery act added between $1 million -- 1,000,002.1 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009. it raised economic growth by 1.5% to 3.5% over that period. the cbo director said in a prior hearing of this committee that the policies enacted in the bill are "increase in gdp and employment relative to what it otherwise would be." however, we are not anywhere near a out of the woods yet. we have zero ways to go. i mention that the senate and house had worked on the so- called hire act. there are four basic strategies, four basic elements. a payroll tax credit for those of our new employment, number two, a build america bonded tax where local government entities can borrow money in a way that is more affordable, and thirdly an extension of the highway trust fund, essential to preserve jobs. there are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be preserved by just a one-year extension of the highway trust fund. fourth, the hire act focuses on small business, the ability to write off certain strategies. if a small business wants to invest in equipment, we can give them an opportunity to do that in a more substantial way. currently the senate is working on an additional piece of job creation legislation, the american worker, state, and business relief act. upon passage of this legislation, it will provide a couple of things. number one, energy efficiency tax credits, tax credits for businesses that free up cash flow and enable them to expand and hire, no. 3 the extension of important safety net programs. is critically important that we do that for cobra, health insurance for those who have lost their jobs, unemployment insurance for those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and we have big numbers of americans in that category. millions of people that have lost their jobs. we have to help them get from here to there, from unemployment to employment. we cannot ask them to do that and have their families do that alone, as some in washington seem to want to do. so we need to continue to focus not only on new and more focused job creation strategies. we also have a safety net in place. by the way, the safety net programs also have an economic benefit. it's been a buck on unemployment insurance or food stamps -- you spend a buck on unemployment or food stamps and you get a return on investment of more than that. we need to continue to make sure that americans know is not only the right thing to have a safety net, it also has a jump-start in effect on our economy and creating jobs. we are going to continue to work on this legislation that i mentioned in the senate. we will continue to focus on job creation strategy is as we move forward. i will wrap up so we can move forward with our opening statements from our members, and then we will get to the commissioner. congressman brady. >> i am pleased to join with you before the committee this morning. the report is more bad news for american workers and their families. the number of discouraged workers reached a high of 1.2 million. early this morning the administration attempted to spin these numbers as a result of storms in the northeast, but in truth is the blizzard of bad policy proposals, health-care mandates and dangerous levels of debt, the real reason people are delaying key investment in hiring decisions. coupled with consumers concerned about their finances, as well as the government's unsustainable finances. we have the real answer why this economic recovery is so sluggish. the uncertainty in america among job creators is powerful. demming and other wasteful spending bill for congress will not restore confidence. with two-thirds of the stimulus left to be spent, it is ludicrous for congress to attempt a second stimulus bill, one which for small and medium- size businesses, they said it would do nothing to encourage them to hire new workers. a $1,000 tax credit or payroll holiday to hire a $40,000 a worker is not good math. i know the president and congress are well-intentioned in all these efforts, but i am puzzled by the president's's economic approach. i do not know what you call it. if you can blame it, you can tax it. we are seeing that in proposals to punish u.s. energy companies to produce jobs here in the united states. u.s. banking and financial- services industry, u.s. insurance industry, investors with high taxes on dividends and capital gains, higher income tax on professionals and the wealthy, higher taxes on real estate partnerships, hedge funds, forced -- pharmaceutical companies here in the united states, companies that compete around the world. i think when the white house sees these four numbers, they wonder why isn't anyone hiring? it could be that these proposals are having a huge dampening effect on the ability to recover. i am convinced that if government does move out of the way, american consumers and american business leaders are inherently optimistic. they bounce back from a severe or -- severe recessions more easily than any other country. what they see are the bad policy proposals that are having a huge impact. we talk about restoring consumer confidence, but i know this is the week that congress was snowed out, dispirits of the american public lifted. perhaps the best emulous package, and i say this half jokingly, would be for congress to adjourn for the rest of the year to allow businesses to move year to allow businesses to move >> without the heavy hand and putting the dampening effect of these proposals. i think we can do better than this. i am anxious to work with other senate members and house members on issues that really can't get government out of the way and allow us to prosper again. i yield back. >> congressman burgess? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in january, this committee of frequent attendees, the council of economic advisers responded to the losses of jobs in december defensively by stating that sometimes, real recovery occurs in fits and starts. but we need to focus on the overall trajectory. let's do that. we have 40 months of the trajectory of the obama administration. -- 14 months of the trajectory of the obama administration. the blame was cast on previous administrations in bringing it to the current situation. realistically, one year ago last month with the passage of the stimulus bill, this administration began its ownership of what was going to be their recovery. advocated for a $787 billion bill. . . now cost the american taxpayers $862 billion. we had to pass it without reading or thinking about it because we had to act quickly to keep the unemployment rate from going above 7%. it did not work out. it did not work out. row that money, unemployment has been on a rise to 10%, with a small reprieve today, and congressional budget office said the economic effect of the stimulus bill would go- negative starting at the beginning of this fiscal year. the country has lost 3 million jobs since the bill passed. the question is why? why did the administration and this congress passed this bill only to sit on the money, all the while paying interest on the loan, all jobs are leaving in droves? yesterday's in one of the little newspapers that is published here on the hill, they reported that energy department got $33 billion from the stimulus and has been $2.4 billion. i never thought the day would come when i would agree with senator schumer, but he is right to want to freeze the stimulus spending on renewable energy grants, because the oversight is nonexistent. there is no looking into how these funds are being spent or if they are being spent at american companies. or consider the education department. the secretary received stingless funds, doubling the budget from the previous year, and despite his albert commitment -- his outward commitment, the administration could not even be bothered to give the district of columbia the $8 billion it needed to fund the d.c. opportunity scholarship fund that has helped over 3300 students in washington d.c. improve their quality of life. i cannot even calculate the percentage, it is so small, of what that percentage is of deep hundred billion dollars they got for the education department. i hope as we continue to look at the unemployment numbers, we consider this administration's solution to unemployment and hold them accountable as to how the money is spent, if it is spent at all, and how many jobs have been created. i will deal back the balance of my time. >> i appreciate calling this hearing and the two hearings that were held last week on job creation as well as all the fine work this committee has already done on this very critical issue. the matter how many hearings we hold, it will not be enough. there are 14.9 million unemployed americans, and the damage done to them, their families, and their communities is an ending. the unemployment crisis we face right now was preceded by the collapse of a nationwide housing bobble. falling home values left boris underwater, and in many cases unable to make -- let borrowers under water and in many cases unable to make ballooning payments. unemployment leads to more foreclosures, which drives down demand and feeds more unemployment. last thursday in the oversight and government reform committee we heard again about the havoc wrought by foreclosures. this time it was officials from the northeast ohio area, discussing the destruction that foreclosures have done to the city and the outlying suburbs. we saw pictures of bacon homes in cleveland, side by side with pictures -- vacant homes in cleveland, side by side with pictures of post katrina new orleans. you could not tell the difference between the two. i do not need to attend a hearing to learn this. i just had to go home to my baltimore neighborhood or across the city and i could see the same things. thus, i have made a foreclosure prevention my highest priority and will continue to do so. as the witnesses told us last thursday, we can only six the economy if we can keep people in their homes. as long as the perfect form created by unemployment and foreclosures remain over us, it is incumbent on us to do more and soon. i know the senate passed a $15 million jobs bill and yesterday we moved the bill toward president obama's desk. i did not cast my vote for mayor satisfaction. there are too many people sitting at home, six or even 12 months unemployed, with a house worth 20% less than the note on it, and they need more than a watered-down jobs bill. before i close, i will pass along a quote from last month's ""atlantic monthly." reading it will not solve anything, but i still keep it in my head as a reminder. there is unemployment, a brief and relatively routine transitional state that results from the rise and fall of companies in any economy, and there is unemployment, chronic, all consuming. the former is a necessary lubricant in any engine of economic growth. the latter is a pestilence that slowly eats away at people, families, and if it spreads widely enough, the very fabric of society. history suggests that is perhaps society's most obnoxious ill. mr. chairman, thank you again for your leadership in addressing the employment and housing crisis. i also thank dr. hall and his colleagues for their consistently strong work at the bureau of labor statistics. >> i want to introduce commissioner pauhall. it is an agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates a central statistical data to the american public, the u.s. congress, other federal agencies, business, and labor. he also served as the 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 for the u.s. to part of commerce. dr. hall has also spent 10 years at the u.s. international trade commission and received his b.a. degree from the university of virginia and degrees in economics from purdue university. >> the unemployment rate held at 9.7%. employment fell in construction and informational temporary help services at a jobs. severe winter weather in parts of the country may have affected payroll employment in february. as i will explain in a moment, there are too many unknowns to say precisely how the weather might have affected these measures. construction employment fell by 64,000 in february, about in line with the average monthly job loss of the prior six months. job losses continued throughout the industry although nonresidential special trades accounted for much of the over the month decline. temporary help services employment increased by 48,000 over the month. since last september, this industry has added 284,000 jobs. health care employment continue to trend up in february. employment in most other industries showed little or no change. average weekly hours for all employees in the private sector decreased by a one-tenth of an hour in february. hours declined in construction and manufacturing. these declines likely reflect the time lost due to severe winter weather. turning to data from the survey of households, most key labor force measures were essentially non change in february. employment rate remained at 9.7% with jobless rates showing little or no change. of the 14.9 million unemployed in february, the proportion who had been jobless for 27 weeks or more was 40.9%. the number of individuals working part-time rose to 8.8 million in february, offsetting a large decrease in january. in voluntary in part-time employment levels held at or near 9.2 million in the final months of 2009. before closing out like to return to the issue of how the severe winter weather in february may have affected the payroll employment estimates released today. major snowstorm struck parts of the country during the referenced. for our established survey. many schools, government agencies, and businesses closed temporarily and many people were off work for a time because of the storms. in the establishment survey, workers did not receive any pay for the entire period and therefore were not counted as employed. not every closure or temporary absence caused a drop in employment. workers are counted as employed if they are paid for a single hour during the referenced pay period. whether they were not. half of all workers have biweekly, semi monthly, or monthly pay periods. i would assume that most of them worked during the part of the pay period that preceded or followed sesno events. we do not know how many workers may have been added to payrolls for snow reproval -- snow removal cleanup. we do not know how many new hires are separations were affected by the weather. we cannot say how much february's payroll employment was affected by the severe weather. persons with the job his work for weather-related events for canada's employed whether or not there were paid for their time off. in summary, non-farm payroll was little changed in february and that the unemployment rate held at 9.7%. my colleagues and i will now be happy to answer your questions. >> using the phrase used earlier, little changed, is encouraging. from my vantage point, it is hard to use phrases like good news to be overly positive, but it is encouraging that we are at least stabilizing. that is critically important. i wanted to ask about a couple of sectors. i want to ask about health care. consistently, health care employment as an industry has been fairly strong. i want to get your sense of that over the last couple of months of what you see for the rest of the year, to the extent that you can predict or identify a trend in health care. >> health care has continued to consistently add jobs, even during the worst times during this recession. this past month health care at about 12 dozen jobs. over the past four months we added an average of 15,000 jobs -- this past month healthcare -- this past month healthcare added how about other sectors that have had growth? i know we have had in manufacturing challenge for a long time. any other areas should complain to within the last year? >> fowe actually had manufacturg jobs this month. our point estimate was about 1000 jobs. for that is the first time in has shown job gains in three years. >> i will call that good news. >> yes. >> my words. >> a lot of the industry's best -- have stopped losing jobs. the average job loss has been centered in things like construction. we lost to 4000 jobs in construction. -- 64,000 job cuts in government. government this month. >> in my opening remarks i talked about comparing january 2009 and february 2009 with the 2010 months. do you have those in front of you? i just want to establish that on the record. >> in january 2009 we lost 779,000 jobs and in february lost 726,000 jobs. that is compared to 26,036 thousand in 2010. -- compared to 26,000 and 36,000 in 2010. >> i know my time is running out. veterans and americans who have disabilities, i was handed a note here that i wanted -- if you could answer this, because i know we are low on time. veterans from the post-2001 gulf war, i am told that rate is higher than the national veterans rate. can you just walk through some of those? >> the unemployment rate for february was 12.5%, well above the national average. >> is their no. 4 overall veterans? >> for overall veterans, the unemployment rate is 9.5%, actually a little less than the national average. >> so the folks serving most recently are having a tougher time? >> yes. >> persons with disabilities, do you have that number? >> yes, i do. the unemployment rate for persons with disabilities is 13.8%. i will say that the more notable fact on people with disabilities is a very low labor force participation rate. it is only about 21.9% for people with disabilities, as opposed to over 60% for a national average. >> earlier this week the white house attempted to spin the bad numbers in advance, knowing their policies have failed our economy miserably. larry summers said that the snowstorms localized would distort that unemployment jobs numbers of today. that is equivalent of the doll 8 might economy as an excuse. -- the dog ate my economy. you collect jobs numbers for our country. one is the household survey were you call people and ask them, and obviously if they are on vacation or home sick or prevented from working by bad weather, and they are not counted as an employee, they are just not working that day. the other way you collect information through the employment survey, you sit in your testimony, the only way they would be counted as unemployed is if they received not a dime during the month of their pay. -- pay period. they would have to be out of work for the whole pay period to be counted as unemployed during that time, is that correct pressure or cracks yes. >> would you say that the snowstorms distorted the jobs numbers you presented today? -- is that correct? >> yes. whatever happened with the snowstorms this month will be gone by next month, so we will see a bounce back if there was an effect. there is really no way for us to precisely known. obviously we saw a decline in hours worked, but as you say with a payroll jobs, it is difficult. different establishments have different payroll periods. we really cannot even give you a good idea of how likely it is. >> i think it is important that we not be trying to spin these numbers in advance when we know they are headed the wrong direction. within the white house did not talk about was distortion caused by the hiring of temporary census workers. my understanding is that the government will be hiring between 700,000 and 800,000 temporary workers, which will boost the jobs numbers out of the mainstream. in january and february, how many of those census workers were hired and are counted in these numbers today? >> for the job growth today, 15,000 jobs were added for the census. >> i am convinced our economic recovery is sluggish and subpar in comparison to how we respond to past recessions. how we responded to the reagan recovery. against competitors around the world, i am looking at the unemployment rate from when the stimulus to the effect until today. our unemployment rate increase by 1.5 percentage points. australia has increased by a fraction during that time. canada is one-tenth of our increase. japan has increased by less than one-third of what the u.s. has increased in an employment. we are worse than the european union and falling behind countries like south korea. can you compare -- it appears we are falling behind our major competitors in an effort to come back to a sustained, vibrant economic recovery. can you compare our unemployment numbers and increases over the past year with our major competitors? >> i do not have that in front of me. i would have to take a look at it. we do make those comparisons in one of our programs were reduced international labor comparisons. in general, our unemployment rate is comparable with a number of european union countries. at the moment, some are better and some are worse. >> i think they've increased 1.2 percentage points over are 1.5. >> thank you again for your work and the work of your staff. i was just going back to chairman casey's statements. it is so easy for us, and listen to my good friend mr. brady, so easy for us to say that there has not been progress. there has been, and chairman casey pointed out that back in january of 2009, we are losing 729,000 jobs, and in january of this year we are talking about 26,000. is that significant? >> yes, that is significant moderation. >> that is what i thought. it is not about twisting numbers are trying to make them look better than they are. we want every single american who wants to be employed. the fact remains that we are seeing some progress. that me ask you this. going back to the temporary help services, that has been up. how much up was that? >> it was up 48,000 this month. that is significant, and that is a fairly reliable indicator of a strengthening labor market. >> in other words, it sounds like -- as i understand it, when you have that temporary help, the logica tells you there is a probability that at some point, those jobs will increase in to permanent jobs. is that it? >> historically, when temporary help services start add payroll -- start to add jobs, the overall payroll numbers increase. >> let me go to the african- american unemployment situation. with regard to african- americans, back in january, last month it was 16.5%, and this month, 50.8%. i understand that is not a statistically significant figure, but it is a reduction. for african-american women, in january 2010 the rate was 13.3%. now is 12.1%, 1% less. is that significant? >> i am not sure of hand. i am guessing that is probably still not statistically significant, even though it is a fairly large change. gregg's but it is a reduction of a point, is that right? >> yes. >> let's go back to this whole snowstorms situation. i guess that could fall either way, could and it? -- couldn't it? it could have affected the numbers negatively or positively, is that right? >> that is correct, but i would expect if it has had an effect overall, it would be a negative effect on the numbers. >> in other words, the unemployment rate would have been higher or lower? >> with the unemployment rate, i am not sure it is likely to have been affected much, but the payroll jobs numbers could have been affected. >> in what respect? >> let me give you some perspective. there were literally 1 million people who did not work during the referenced week at all. while we would tell them as employed for the unemployment rate, there is some question as to whether or not these people showed up on payroll when we collected the establishment data. some of them have shown up and gotten paid. they may have worked at least part of the time, but some may not have worked at all. if they did not work at all, they would not show up in the payroll jobs numbers. so you are saying the numbers of people employed could have been higher. >> yes. >> this whole issue of 31,000 jobs lost in local government. i guess that is pretty significant? >> yes. >> so local governments are seeing their tax bases harm, and they just cannot have the funds? >> the numbers have been >> the numbers have been consistent with that. we've lost about 17,000 jobs. it is unusual for local government to lose jobs over that. even during their recession. >> comment recover some burgess? thank you for being here. >> we had a discussion about the weather and the effects on new numbers. i'm grateful to hear your explanation today. they are similar to the ones you gave me april or may of last year. because of the way you calculate things, it is unlikely that the snowstorms would of had a significant effect. have you looked back at the way the numbers were calculated that in the blizzard of '96? >> as the mansion, we had a million people who did not report to work. this time in '96, we had about 1.8 million people coffer. it is a more severe storm. during that time, there was a drop in payroll employment. there may have been in effect of payroll employment in '96. that was a larger and then then this. we still do not know for sure. >> we may see an adjustment in the figures next month. the numbers were not bad as they appear? just do not know? >> we just do not know. >> on the household data -- let me just apologize if you have already given this number. we talked about the chronically unemployed, the people who had just given up looking for work. where is our number with this month's report? >> the long-term unemployed, people who are still looking but have been unemployed for six months, that is 6.3 million people, a very high number. we have people who are marginally attached, another 2.5 million marginally attached to the labor force. >> talked-about 17% of people who are no longer looking for work. >> are broadest measure -- it includes the unemployed, people marginally attached, and people working part time for economic reasons to want to work full time. that rate is 16.8% this month. >> that is higher than the previous couple of months? >> it is down a little bit from last month. i am sorry, it is up a little bit from last month, but down from the month before that. >> on the six months unemployment figures, we are all trying to figure out if we are seeing green shoots or weeds growing in the parking lot, as far as the economy is concerned. just looking at the numbers for february 2009, maybe going back to january 2009, we had 2.6 million people who had been unemployed for six months, but the unemployment number now is well over 6 million. am i reading that correctly? that role in window of six months of unemployment has doubled over the past year. >> yes. >> comparing this to other recessions and other economic downturns, how is this looking for us? to meet, that looks disturbing, that people who have been looking for work for six months has doubled in the past year's time. >> the level of long-term unemployed is record levels that we have never seen before. the number of long-term and unemployed are extremely high still. >> is that doubling in spite of the things we have tried to do to boost the economy, and that's typically what he sees in a recession, or is it unusual for this recession? >> the long-term unemployment usually goes up significantly during the recession. it is not unusual for that level to double. sometimes it might go up much more than that. i go back to the recession in the 1970's where it started out at 300,000 and ended up at 1.6 million. in percentage terms, dublin is not unusual. -- doubling is not unusual. we started at a higher rate and we are at a much higher level than we have ever been before. >> mr. cummings was talking about the increase of temporary help and updating the leading indicators. where does this number fit in with previous recessions? is it getting better, worse, what can we say about the state of the recession? what is this number telling us? >> i am not sure it tells us a lot about current conditions. the long-term unemployed blacks. once the economy starts to recover and we start to grow jobs, this number in the past has continued to go up. >> we put $787 billion into the economy a year ago, or at least we thought we were. then there is talk about a second stimulus bill. people are asking, what good are we doing with pumping these dollars into the economy if we are not seeing any relief for people who have been looking for work for six months? they are the very ones who were six months into this stimulus package six months ago. the rolling number of looking back for six months, six months ago was august, and we were down six months into pumping all that money into the economy and saving are creating all those jobs, but it did not work out for these folks. >> this number did rise over 2009. the last month or two it has not moved very much. over a longer time, and has continued to grow. >> i wanted to make a few points about the numbers. dr. hall, the total number of americans unemployed right now, according to your report, is 14.9 million. i think the record is clear, not only from your testimony but also from other data we have been seeing or recently, it is validated today that job loss has come down. according to the numbers you gave us for january and february 2009, 1.5 million jobs lost, in 2010, 62,000 jobs lost. i know those numbers will be adjusted, but that is a significant difference. the other reference point i wanted to put in the record, the bureau of economic analysis reported that real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 5.9% in the fourth quarter of 2009, which is a 0.2 percentage points higher than initially estimated. we went from 8- a -- a negative -- i wanted to ask you a couple of specifics on some of these sub sectors. i asked about veterans and persons with disabilities. congressman cummings engine african-americans. i am not sure any of us asked about hispanics. with regard to african-american unemployment, that rate is 15.8, so substantially higher than the overall number. for hispanics, 12.4%? >> yes. >> i think the percentages are always helpful, but sometimes the numbers are more telling. i forgot to ask about veterans number, the total number -- for those who served post 2001, do you have that number? >> the number of unemployed are 212,000 veterans overall. >> you do not know how many of those -- >> those are post 2001. >> 212,000 unemployed veterans in those who have served since 2001. >> correct. >> and in terms of the african- americans, we have talked about the african-american total and the hispanic total as opposed to just the percentage of unemployed. >> for african-americans, 2.8 million are unemployed. it is the same number for hispanic or a latino, 2.8 million. >> i think that is all i have for this round. >> i think we are looking for hopeful signs in these numbers. what we are not looking for is false hope, especially one that would a drive an agenda of more spending. many sectors hold the key to job creation. i think it is important to remember that keeping perspective, we looked -- we actually lost your jobs during this recession than during the 2001 recession. in the first six months of 2001, lost more than 50 million jobs. in this one, 48 million. one reason the unemployment rate continues to be so high is not in the job losses, it is in the lack of job creation. we have almost 8 million jobs gap right there. i believe the uncertainty throughout this country by businesses, many of whom spoke to the president in his roundtable, where they basically said we are holding on for capital. we are delaying key investment and hiring decisions because of this forcing through this health-care takeover, with all its mandates and taxes. cap and trade will have a devastating impact on our economy long term. just a debilitating debt and we are rapidly approaching levels where we will lose confidence among our investors in the united states. i question is, how do you measure, or are you able to measure the obstacles to an economic recovery, those rational expectations where businesses look at this massive stimulus with little effect and look at the second stimulus, and are you able to measure the fact that in this environment, businesses are delaying those key hiring decisions? >> we really are not able -- what we can and do measure is the number of people they employ and the wages they pay. >> looking at productivity, it seems that we always look at that hour is that average workers have, knowing that businesses tend to make their businesses tend to make their workers more productive the and they continue to be around 33 hours a week. the averages over 35 hours before they had on the cost of employees. what range are we in? >> still around 33. i am sure that is correct. let me check. >> the average weekly average is 33.8 hours. >> hiring temporary workers is -- should be an indicator that we have a long room to grow in hours per week before traditionally businesses start to higher. is that true. >> that is correct. with that some strengthening in hours worked. it signaled better job growth in the past. >> the two areas were told we would see the most shopping the said construction is down how much more. but still a break that out? >> it was plus 1000. issue, we are trying to figure out the unemployment rate and jobs lost, we are talking about net. it is not that jobs are not being created, it is that you are looking at an overall picture, is that right? >> that is actually true. some of our data suggest that literally 1 million people are hired a week, even now, during a recession. but 1 million people lose their jobs as well, so the numbers we give you our net numbers. >> looking at the long-term unemployed, that is basically people who have been unemployed for at least six months. >> that is correct. >> 23.6% of those people have been unemployed for more than a year. . . let me ask you this. the unemployment figures have slowly crept down from 10.2% to 9.7%. that is for tuzla packages months. is it fair to say the labor market has stabilized? the setting worthy even news? >> emmett used. let's it is choose that the job loss has moderated considerably. we are fairly close to neither gains nor losses. that is consistent with the idea of possibly stabilizing. >> sometimes i listened to my good friends on the republican side. it is not that anybody is trying to paint a rosy picture. we are very realistic. we refuse to look nc a difference between 729,000 jobs lost in january 2009 and 26,000 lost in january of 2010 and said that is not significant. we want every single american working. or we talk about stimulus, and lots of people beat up on stimulus. i had when the most interesting experiences three weeks ago in my district. we hired 50 police officers for who would not have been hired if it were not for the stimulus. to see the show officers -- these are people that we desperately need. i think a lot of people have beat up on summer's and the administration, saying he predicted this would happen. for trying to predict is not always easy. the fact still remains that we are -- i do believe -- moving in the right direction. i always say i believe in cheering for the home team. so often what happens is they spend so much time looking at the doom and gloom that we do not see the progress that we are making. i want to thank you again for your testimony. i want to thank your staff. hopefully, we will be able to have been even stronger report for the american people with regard to the employment situation. thank you very much. >> i am reminded of the philosopher who said the future ain't what it used to be. the problem with these predictions, and is not easy to be in the prognosticating business. these predictions were part forward as a rationale for selling a policy or a group of policies that congress passed rather hastily last year. i think the only quarrel that i saw and said i wish to would it taking a little bit more time to get things right. we passed the "cash for clunkers" bill that may have been nothing but accelerate fourth quarter. we are not sure how that will pan out. i think there is someone in my neighborhood to good vantage of "cash for clunkers on " it was passed by congress. it is available to take advantage of. every day when i walk on my front door, i see the automobile down the street. a cannot help but think my grandson is lent to paper that car every day for the rest of this lies. there are better ways of doing some of the things we have done. we may be blocking ourselves and to policies that may be difficult to unwind. just on the numbers themselves, for when this number hovers around her has been for the last several months -- when is the last time in our economic history that the numbers we are here? -- were here? >> yeah, he is going to look up the exact number. i am sure it is 1983, that recession. >> we talked a little bit about the number of minorities that are unemployed. what about young people who are just getting out of college? >what is their unemployment rat? >> i may have to get back to you with that. >> where i am going with this -- i can characterize it for you. >> it is really high. >> it is very high. the use unemployment rate tech -- the youth and of plummet trade has gone up quite a bit. >> has anyone looked at it this situation in previous recessions? order the numbers of young people unemployed, college graduates? for this is verses' times that may be regarded as more normal. does having the bad fortune to start up in your projected years when the countries in the midst of a serious recession -- i think fairly member of 1983. i do not remember 1972. it is hard to find a job. i went back to school because it was hard to find one. it does affected in a significant way. i remember in 1982 or 1983, the new start talking by and people getting out of college with no hope for employment. it is the worst economy that they have ever merged into. with all the statistics gathering, i just wondered if anyone had looked them now that we have the 25 years of experience. how did they differ from some of their cohorts who might have graduated at times when things were perhaps immeasurably better? you have to ask yourself, a young person who aspires to go to college and once to go to a great college and amassed a lot of debt, is the really a good idea? the expectation of lifetime earnings may have adjusted downward. nolan those along the recession will continue. i think is a valid questions. we as policymakers do need to take the into account. just one last thing. we heard from the american enterprise institute. he voiced a concern that the extension of unemployment benefits was -- the word is not encouraging, but we were facilitating people staying unemployed. if you all look into that, their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits which time of the six month rolling average. we have gone down to for three years of unemployment benefit. is there any correlation delaney to become aware of it? o>> i do know how to characterize it. the three unemployment rates go up. i do not know the cause and effect of that is. fowe could put together some studies. >> a thing that will both helpful. -- i think that will be helpful birde, >> the one in to comment about some of the points that were made by my republican colleagues. and a constant refrain has been with regard to the recovery bill. and a they voted against it. i voted for it. a lot of democrats did. there is a real debate about what has been working in what has not been working. for when you look ahead in terms of the congressional budget office, they said the recovery act added between men in the end to put 1 million jobs by the fourth fourth quarter. the cbo director house is not a partisan in this debate. he said "the policies that were enacted in the bill are increasing gdp and employment relative to what it otherwise would be, " fo." i am glad that congressman brady a couple of minutes ago was talking about history. history can be relevant. you mentioned the reagan era. he also compared job loss in two different time periods the history is instructive in the number of ways. if you look at in terms of jobs gains, it gained 22 million jobs. under president bush, about 2 million. you look at in terms of deficit, one president clinton left office, the following things that happen, the surplus was to $36 billion. for president bush left office, it had changed to about a $1.30 trillion deficit. trillion deficit. we know what the job numbers were in december 2008. we had to put that on the table. president obama walked into 2010 facing a set of economic circumstances and no congress or president had face the 1930's. i would not declare it a recovery bill has worked perfectly. i would not say it has worked completely. we still have a year of jumpstart in effect from their recovery bill. i did want to get to a question about manufacturing jobs. we did have some been no moves -- some good news there. could you walk through those for us? >> manufacturing has had a real long-term decline. the previous recession manufacturing lost literally over 3 million jobs. they'd never really recover any. it has now lost another couple of million. fthe last couple months, we have had essentially no job loss in manufacturing. >> fit has only average about 6000 jobs lost. it is really a moderate. . . >> in my opinion, that is good news. >> congress has the power of the purse strings. i'm trying to call who was in charge of congress. it is republicans, if i recall, in the major surplus. i'm trying to member who led the persian and congress for two years. years. i do recall that we were promised if we pass that a hundred dollar trillion stimulus the we would predict unemployment will be no higher than 8%. it would creeate jobs. we are having a run since our unemployment. we have lost another 3 million jobs. only 6% of americans said they believe the stimulus created jobs. have americans not feel less financially secure today then they did when the stimulus past. i'm a fan of the cbo in a major way. since the report, to different reports have showed the stimulus had little impact. one reported showed it to actually cost the economy 3 $10 billion because it is crowded out. it has created jobs in the government sector. it is wonderful. fojobs in the private sector are what drives the recovery. we want the jobs to be created. they see them sells under taxes -- themselves under taxes. our real-estate industry and hedge funds and medical devices -- it is no wonder they are not hiring jobs. i think again of will together to find the economic policies that work best for america -- we are anxious to work together with the democrats th. >> fought for th>> the will loos 2020. there are lots and numbers above the recovery reinvestment act. our contribution to growth will turn negative during the latter part of 2010. it would be nice to give it more time. i do not know the giving it more time is necessary. dr. hall, we appreciate you coming in and sharing for wisdom. i would appreciate if you could dig up those figures. for a vote for it to visiting with you. >> i fail to mention why i am in this committee. congress woman alone cannot be here. she has been ever faithful in attending these hearings. she is not able to be here. i want to thank our colleagues from making a long trek in the house to the senate. we are trying to have this hearing in both places. the debate will go on. thank you very much. >> [no audio] ex-president obama said that the new jobs report is better than he expected, but added that too many families are still struggling. he urged lawmakers to expand unemployment benefits through the end of the year. the president made those remarks in suburban virginia of visiting small businesses. >> ok. good morning, everybody. it is great to be here. looking around, this looks like a fun place to work. [laughter] >> the work you do here is making homes more efficient, saving people money, and putting america on a path to a clean energy future. i understand you doubled your work force last year thanks to connie. [applause] >> you are hoping to hire another 100 workers this year? this is a model of what we want to be seen all across the country. our goal for the economy is to show similar job growth in the months ahead. this morning we learned that in february, our economy lost an additional 36,000 jobs. this is actually better than expected considering the severe storms all along the east coast are estimated to have had a depressing effect on the numbers. it shows that the measures -- that the measures we are taking to turn the economy around are having some impact. qeven though it is better than expected, it is more than we should tolerate. far too many americans remain out of work. far too many families are still struggling in these difficult economic times and that is why i am not going to rest -- i am not going to rest, my administration is not one to rest in helping people who are looking to find a job and help of business owners were looking to expand feel comfortable hiring again. we are not want to rest until our economy is working again for the middle class and for all americans. my immediate priority is not only providing relief to people that are out of work, but also help the private sector create jobs to put america back to work. early this week, after breaking through a political logjam that some of you saw if you're watching television, congress passed and i signed into law a bill that -- a bill that extended unemployment insurance. it also extended cobra. it extended financing for small businesses and makes it possible for two thousand furloughed transportation workers go back to work. signing this bill, and getting it released swiftly, it is essential. it is only temporary. the relief i signed into law will last about one month. i am calling on congress to extend this through the end of the year. the best form of economic relief is a quality job. i am also called on congress to pass measures to increase lending and incentives for businesses large and small. >> this tax credit may aspire to hire more workers quickly. we will see. instead of 100, we'd like it one time, -- instead of 100, we might get 110, or 115 [applause] >> now, even as we fight to help the private sector create more jobs and fight to bring about a full economic recovery, we know that there have been success stories all across america. çthis is a company that works with utilities to help folks understand. energy costs and how theyç can save money on their energy bills. this board testified to a number of kilowatt hours that have been saved, the amount of money that has gone back in consumers' pockets, and the amount of carbon that has been taken out of the atmosphere. part of the reason i suspect you are growing is that you're doing your jobs well. i also know that a big part of the reason is that you are seizing the opportunity of the future. the jobs of tomorrow will be jobs in the clean energy sector. this company is a great emblem for that. that is why my administration is taking steps to support a thriving clean energy industry across the country. producing cutting edge batteries, making it wind turbines, and helping consumers get more control over their energy bills. that is also why earlier this week i urged congress to act a initiative we are calling home star. it is going to offer rebates if they are getting this good information from opower as they see that the drafty window is costing me a couple hundred dollars a year, they will have incentive to go to home depot and hire a contractor and make changes that will ultimately improve themselves, our environment, and ultimately, our economy. think about the way the rebates could help spur private-sector job growth. it could not only help businesses, like yours, to help consumers make their home more efficient, it will also create business for the companies hired to upgrade homes. they have to purchase supplies. that chris business for retailers. the retailers would need to restock their shelves. almost all of the goods that are required to make homes more energy efficient are actually produced right here in the united states of america. it is hard to ship an energy efficient window across an ocean. yes, the people that are out of work right now need in the belief. we need to extend unemployment insurance to help americans whether these tough times and we need to do everything we can to help the private sector create jobs right now. even as we do, we need to replicate the success of clean energy companies like your own, investing in jobs of the future and the industries of the future. the country that leaves in claimed energy and energy efficiency today, and maps of the convinced will lead the global economy to market a one that country to be the united states of america. -- the global economy. i want that country to be the united states of america. it is good for our environment. it is wonderfully exciting to be here, and i think that when you look at this group that is gathered here, you can see the future in this company. thank you for the great work you are doing. let's see if we can replicate your success all across the country. thank you very much, everybody. [laughter] [applause] ♪ bucs now, the latest on the economic stimulus. of the seven night -- $787 billion total, over $343 million has been committed to the states to spend on stimulus projects. that is up by billion from last week. over $190 billion have been paid out for those projects. c-span.org/stimulus, you will find more information. that is all at c-span.org/sti mulus. >> up next, congressman barney frank talk about home ownership and senator christopher dodd discussed efforts for financial institution. that will be followed by remarks from mitt romney. >> tomorrow, on washington journal, the washington editor of fiscal * box about jobless figures and creation of jobs creation proposals. michael shifter reduce the secretary of state hillary clinton visit. " washington journal, on c-span. >> we are in the business of trying to help our students, predominantly young women and men who come to us that you should focus on achievement in your own life and not be looking to grab headlines. >> a sunday, meet the woman credited with turning around from into washington university, patricia mcguire. >> and now, massachusetts gov. barney frank talks about the housing markets. he also takes questions at this conference on minority home ownership. this is about 20 minutes. during a conference[applause] [applause] >> thank you. let us get started. unfortunately, we really need to get started. i was asked to come until 930, and i have a habit of trying to stick to a schedule. i have events that i have to stick to that depend upon my reading at the agreed upon time. i am pleased to be here. i say that more often than i mean it, in my line of work. [laughter] we also must often tell people how much we regret not being somewhere. you have heard people say, "i cannot be with you in person, but i am with you in spirit." in my line of work, it is often the opposite. it is very time-consuming. [laughter] i say that because you are people in the business of selling houses. one of the things we have to rabat, and you do it more effectively than anybody else because of what you do, is the notion that sensible regulation somehow is an attack on the business being regulated. in fact, the absence of regulation is the worst thingç for the economy. we are in a terrible economic situation now, the worst since the great depression, because of the absence of sensible regulation, because in some cases the regulations are on the books and people refuse to use them. alan greenspan was given by the congress in 1994 the ability to regulate mortgages in and out of the banking system because more of the problems came outside the banking system than inside. he refused to do it for the ideological reasons. if he had used that authority, we would not be in the same problems we are today. in other cases, new forms came up -- derivatives, credit defaults swaps. çthe problem was not the regulation but non-regulation. when the economy evolves as it does, the new parts reach a point where new regulation is needed because there are new phenomenon. theodore roosevelt recognized that. franklin roosevelt recognized that. the people in power until recently did not understand the need for that. we are trying to put together regulations for the financial community that will do what theodore roosevelt and franklin roosevelt did -- not attack private business, but set up fair rules. you understand that. let us give an example -- the community reinvestment act. it is a right wing argument to blame the community reinvestment act for the fact that they would not regulate some prime mortgages. -- regulate sub-prime mortgages. i support broadening the community reinvestment act. the thing to underline is that, disproportionately, the bad loans that should not have been made were made by institutions outside the scope of the community reinvestment act. if only depository institutions had made loans, we would not have the crisis of today. blaming the community reinvestment act for this problem makes no sense. to the credit of appointees of the bush administration, almost any appointee it involved ini] the administration ?fd these regulations has joined us in saying you cannot blame the community reinvestment act. i welcome your support for a consumer financial protection agency. there is an odd argument we are getting. it is that you cannot haveç a agency unless it is subordinate to bank regulators becausesit would be damaging to the safety and soundness of banks to have an independent consumer regulator. in other words, there are peopleçó who believe that if bas are not able to treat consumers unfairly, they cannot survive. [applause] banks have increasingly gotten more of their funding from overdraft fees, credit cards, and other fees. there are two problems with that. it is not good for consumers, but it is bad for the economyç in a broader way. it reduces their need to lend to make money. a bank would make money by lending people money and getting interest on those loans. as they find other ways to make money, there need to lend is diminished, and that is part of the problem. we are going to be pushing for more literacy. there are various things that are going to be difficult to do. mandatory anything is difficult in this country. we are a country of people that are fairly independent. mandatory education is going to be difficult. i am not yet convinced there is a problem of who pays for it. clearly, we want to at least agree to make it far more available than it is. i want to touch on a couple of other things. on modification, i want to outlay this thinking. we have worked a lot on this. trying to deal with the foreclosures situation is important to stabilize in housing prices. people say housing prices were too high. isn't it a good thing they went down? yes, but not at the speed with which they have gone down. i have lost weight. i would like to lose another 15 or 20 pounds. but not by sunday. that would not be healthy. [laughter] there is both the need to reduce but also the pace at which you do it. i met with the obama administration people. we have investors who own these mortgages, ready to write them down. we are talking about principle reduction. a big obstacle is the holders of the second mortgages. there are people who hold second mortgages which are not worth anything. for a variety of reasons involving accounting rules, a number of people say -- many of them owned by the largest banks. i have written to them to ask how we can deal with the second mortgage issue. one of them is to give them shared equity potential for the future. we are continuing to find new ways to try to deal with this. the point i want to make is this. i think the people here best know this. we have had this false choice between home ownership and knocked -- and not. what we are looking for is responsible home ownership. you do know what a favor when you induce him or her to buy a home that he or she cannot afford or can't afford only if everything goes perfectly. -- or can afford only if everything goes perfectly, if you need no repairs, if no one loses a month of work, if no one in the family gets sick. you can look at things on paper that will only go if there is nothing to stop it. this is what education is important, and counseling. i am a double renter. i rent apartments here and in massachusetts. çi have, in the past, on theç condominiums. given my personality and work demands, i should not be a home owner. i do not want to be in the middle of a committee session and be told that the pipes broke or the work is -- or the roof is leaking. i need to be able to call somebody and say, "please fix it." çhome ownership is not somethg çyour home needs to be well organized so that you can -- your life needs to be well organized so that you can deal with these things. the flip side of that is that we had people in power for too xdlong who did not appreciate rental housing. that included the clinton administration as well as the bush administration. one prominent member of the clinton economic team used to say, "no one has ever watched a rented car," as if that meant you could not rely on renters to take care of their homes. most people do not live in cars. they treat a car they rent for aw3 weekend differently from thr home. also, people do wash leased cars. a rental apartment is more analogous to a car leased over many years. i had this debate with aç sectr of hud. i was asked if i wouldç support reducing the section 8 program so that no one could be on a section 8 rental vouchers for more than five years. i said can you arrange for them not to be poor for more than five years? if you can get them not to be poor, then i will agree. he said, "what is your objection?" i said, "if you cut people off after five years, where will they live?" he said, "we will help them become homeowners." that was the damaging idea. rental is important. home ownership is sufficiently important to be treated more seriously than we have treated it. we have put them into those homes to quickly and too easily. there was the point that was documented recently, relevant to the group that is here. racial discrimination continues. i think i am fairly sensitive on the subject of race. but i was reminded recently how living day-to-day is different than just looking at it. i was making a point i have made before. in the security minded world, one of the things you get our trunks sales. -- are trunk chekcs. has anybody who did the trunk checks at a security point been subjected to a search? everybody i mention that to said know until i talked to an african american man yesterday. he said he gets it all the time. race is still there. we were reminded by that done in massachusetts -- we were reminded by a survey done in massachusetts. w3#gnon-white borrowers were mh more likely to be given some prime loans than white borrowers with less income. that is something we have to deal with. you are obviously people who can help us fight that. i want to leave some time for questions. we are going to continue to promote responsible home ownership with your help. one last point. we were supposed to have a hearing yesterday. i had to cancel it because of a conflict in my schedule. we are going to begin hearings on the subject of housing finance. it is not just any mae and freddie mac. it is the fha. we have a number of institutions involved in housing finance. we have a number of functions, the deep subsidy. i want to do that for rental housing. we have a shallow subsidy for home ownership. that specifically works through the fha. we have the function of replying -- the function of applying liquidity. a mixed function turns out not to work. with fannie mae and freddieok mac, a privately owned corporation with a public commission did notxd work well. warren buffett has a great quote. when the tide goes out, you see who has been swimming naked. that is what we found out. çw3we are going to close them,ç moving forward. ççlet me throw this open to ay questions and comments. ççi would be glad to respond. >> [inaudible] right now, the disaster policy [inaudible] xdthe time. qxdçv:is just too long. it is keeping us fromç getting people houses while credit deteriorates. >> this is a taxation issue. >> this is the fha rules. we need a disaster policy. it eliminated the flip rule. it allows us to get the housing stock back on the market. >> gail lester, who was the council at high debt, is now part of the housing service for the committee. give that to gail and she will take it back to look at it. we will talk to the fha about it. yes, sir. go ahead. >> [inaudible] you made mention that second loans are a big issue. what efforts are you making to deal with investors? >> we were worried about the investors. we now believe that the investors -- we have servicers, investors. we were looking at them. we now believe many of the investors are ready to accept the fact that they are going to get something instead of nothing. that cannot be easily worked out unless the second lienholder agrees. they are probably going to get something. the second lienholders are probably going to get nothing. people have more of an incentive to get something done to get nothing. -- to get something than to get nothing. bank of america are a major presence in my district, and we have worked together. citicorp, j.p. morgan/chase, and wells fargo -- i have written to the four ceos saying we need to talk about this. it is an accounting issue. the second lands are not working, but by accounting rules they may not have had to acknowledge that. at the point when they acknowledge that, the banks' capital could be negatively affected. we had a meeting yesterday. we have met on this with people from hud. we are trying to figure out a way to deal with that accounting issue. there is a group of people who are talking about trying to do a shared equity situation to get the modifications down. if that happens, then the second lienholders would have to be given a piece of any equity appreciation. it is accounting. i have written to the four big banks that hold the second liens. i have said we cannot get this resolved -- what can we do that will help you? that is where we are. i have time for one more question. >> [inaudible] the problem -- >> that will not happen. >> the main thing is we need them to stay consistent. right now, our problem in community is that the only available loan is fha. we have been there before. >> we are not going to change -- the status quo is going to remain until we know what is going to replace it. we have the fha. fannie mae and freddie mac are no longer private corporations but a public utility that is being used to help finance housing. what we will start with on the functions -- there are subsidies for rental housing. we may want to do a show lower subsidy for home ownership. there is general liquidity on the secondary mortgage market. there is back stock if the market freezes up, so you have a liquidity short-term problem. we are big -- we are going to begin by looking at all of those and figuring out what institution should do that. we are talking about -- given these functions, what is the best way to deal with them institutionally? do we need to have the government start them up or not? until we know what the new system is, no one is going to interfere with what is going on. no one is going to say fannie mae is now under fha. we are talking about a new set of institutions doing various functions. until we get those in place, we are not going to disturb existing arrangements. thank you all. [applause] on the senate floor, christopher dodd talked about efforts to create federal consumer protection agencies. his remarks remarks are about 20 minutes. >> i'm going to take a few minutes to sort of lay out where we are on the efforts to reform the financial structures of our country. it has been a long undertaking. won't go into great detail, but i thought it might be helpful for our colleagues and others to get some sense and a feel for how things are progressing. so i'll share some thoughts on the major issues that we're grappling with. and i want to begin by thanking the 22 other members of the banking committee. one-quarter of the senate is seated at that table in our banking committee hearing room. and i want to thank every member for the work. we've been deeply involved now for well over a year -- more than a year, a year and a half -- on the issue of how should we shape the regulatory structure? reform it. we've had just this year alone i thinking is 80 hearings just on the subject matter listening to a broad range of experts and others who have brought their thoughts an ideas, not to mention the informal meetings that occurred outside of the normal hearing process. it's been a long undertaking and a worthwhile one, trying to examine the causes of that problems that have been devastating to this country and outside of the country, the economic collapse or near collapse and then from that experience try to shape senate policies that will fill in the gaps that led us to this problem on the one hand and, secondly, try to take the steps so that we're prepared to deal, as we will at some point in the future, with another economic crisis as it comes along. to have what i call an architecture or structure that will allow for our system to be able to respond far more prudently than it was able to in the last couple of years. i should add as well, a third goal, and that is to make sure we make a structure that not only grapples with the crisis but be a source of innovation, creativity or wealth creation, job creation that our financial sector had to accomplish over the years. those are not inconsistent goals. they're a challenge to balance them. and it's never perfectly right. but our responsibility, both as legislators in this chamber, and the other body, as well as the role of regulators and obviously those in the private sector and public sector is to try and strike that balance. -- that balance between protecting the public and consumers who use financial services as well as to be able to provide a level of confidence to those who use them that the system is going to be fair. it doesn't mean you're going to get a guaranteed return when you buy a stock, but you ought to feel confident when you deposit your paycheck that the institution will be there or you'll be protected from losing those resources. mr. president, i wanted to take a few minutes to share the thoughts on where this is. i want to pay particular thanks to the members of the committee. as many people are aware, senator shelby and i, the ranking member, have been working together since i have been chair on this committee, and i am grateful to him for his efforts. he's been involved with this the debate significantly. i want to thank bob corker, the senator from tennessee, a new member of this chamber, but has performed a tremendous task of trying to sit down and work out the differences and they are complex and they are difficult, but nonetheless, he has rolled up his sleeves and demonstrated a level of maturity and interest far beyond his years of service here. all of us, and i certainly want to thank him publicly as well for his efforts and the efforts of his staff to get there. jack reed of rhode island, chuck schumer, mark warner, have taken on particular heavy lifts, and i'll talk about them in a minute as i discuss what's going on, along with judd gregg, mike crapo of idaho as well. there are a lot of people involved in this, mr. president, as we go forward and i would be remiss if i didn't acknowledge their hard work and that of their staffs over the many months. we're still not there yet. i'm not here to announce an agreement or it tell you that we've reached a consensus. we're trying to get there, but we're not there yes we're making an effort to see if we can develop a set of proposals here that would enjoy broad support in this institution as we go forward. so, mr. president, we've all seen, of course, the devastating consequences, and i hardly need to spend much time enumerating, i hear people are living them every day. they don't necessarily need to hear them outlined, but i'll just share again what all of us are painfully aware of, 8.4 million jobs have been lost since december of 2007. the unemployment rate currently at 9.7% has been obviously far too high. i think all of us know, i think that the presiding officer does, there are pockets that 9.7% is half the unemployment rate in certain areas, in rural america, urban america. 6.1 million americans have been without a job for half a year or more in our nation. millions of fellow citizens who did nothing wrong have nonetheless lost homes, their retirement security, their jobs, their health care. small businesses unable to access credit have been forced to lay off workers, reduce production or even to shut their doors as many have. working class families in our country have seen their wealth decline significantly. and, worse of all, today we remain entirely vulnerable to another crisis. we haven't finished this work and if something were to happen again tomorrow, as much as we've been working on this issue, we haven't passed the necessary legislation that would minimize a crisis bringing us close to the brink of financial collapse as the one we're presently in did. so obviously the status quo, remember that word, kind of getting tired of those words, business as usual, whatever you want to describe it as cannot persist. congress and i in my view, particularly this body, must pass comprehensive, meaningful reform of our financial system. and my intention is to do everything i can in the waning days of my service after 30 years here to achieve that goal. we've got to correct the failure that's allowed us to get into this mess that we're in. but we also also develop a regulatory system that is prepared for the next one and ones that going to invite as well the kind of creativity and innovation that allowed for job creation, wealth creation that our system has in the past provided. over a year ago the banking committee, as i pointed out earlier, set out to investigate the causes of the financial crisis and the vulnerabilities that lie in our financial regulatory -- regulatory structure. over the last year or more we've had dozens and dozens of gatherings, hearings, informal, formal meetings. we've listened to hundreds of experts in a wide variety of fields that have been either affected by or offered some ideas as to how we can create this architecture that i talked about. we have examined and reexamined all sets of proposals sent to us by the white house, the treasury, the federal reserve, the fdic and others. in november of last year i offered my colleagues a discussion draft -- at least where i was. i didn't suggest it had cosponsors or backers, but i thought people ought to know where the chairman of the committee was. so i laid out a broad proposal dá@ @ bd4,xtgb) ç-- if i were goingi] to writes alone, i had some pretty sound çxdideas. çi then asked my fellow commite members, democrats and republicans to work on major parts of the bill. it was so complexç and bra thai did not think that any one member, even a chairman and a ranking member can actually put their arms around all of this. i asked various members if they would take on the responsibility. a democrat and republican working together to see if they could come up with some ideas. çit has been an enormous task. this is an incredibly complex issue. çi believe that we are well on our way to producing a strong bill. xdthe problem with our economy n systemwide. while there is a temptation to address only one or two issues, and kahlah de, we are working on a bill that will attack these problems on a vulnerability in a rather comprehensive fashion. ççi would argue this if i hado prioritize it. çwhether or not others fall in this category, we need toçó endt too big to fail bailouts. ç]hat isç the most importantg that we need to achieve. never, ever again. there is an implicit guarantee that the federal government of the united states will bail out a company will affect the economy. it will make it undesirable for a company to get too big or too complex with new capital and to leverage requirements and set up a mechanism so that large, complex companies can be shot down three bankruptcy or resolution. it is a resolution. it is a bankruptcy. it is a receivership, and it is painful to creditors and shareholders and to the management that bears the burden, we are very close to achieving that. i want to thank spmark warner of virginia. . . tennessee who dealt with this issue, this and the systemic risk, which i'll mention in a minute, and they have worked i don't know how many hours sitting down, trying to fashion this resolution mechanism. but the idea that we'd watch the american taxpayer write out a check for $700 billion, knowing the reaction of the american public. and by the way, in the absence of what we're trying to do here, i think we did the right thing. had we not done it, i think the financial problem would have been a lot worse. but we never again ought to be put in that position where that's the only alternative we have. this bill will address that issue, mr. president. this bill will address that issue, mr. president. se warning system in the economy so that somebody is looking out for the next big problem. the bill would create what we call a systemic risk counsel -- that's our goal -- that will have the job of looking across the economy to identify unsafe products, activities, institutions that could threaten the economy as a whole in the future. we cannot afford to be caught off guard again by obvious weaknesses in our system, because no one is responsible for taking a broad view. again, not going to stop everything but we didn't have that ability in the past. and, again, mark warner and bob corker have worked very, very hard on resolution mechanism and systemic risk and all of us owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts. third, mr. president, we bring transparency and accountability to the exotic instruments such as derivatives, credit default swaps, things that are rather arcane to most americans, to put it mildly, but who have been lurking too long in the dark and we're able to -- were able to cause untold damage to our economy here because they lacked transparency and regulation. we change that in this bill. that's our hope, anyway, when we get to the conclusion of it. we've got to regulate these activities that left investors and our economy open to the tremendous risk that they didn't even know existed. billions of dollars, literally billions, being traded and, frankly, gambled behind closed doors drove our economy to the verge of collapse. senator jack reed of rhode island, judd gregg of new hampshire, and their staffs have been working on this issue over many, many weeks, mr. president, to try and come up with an intelligent, thoughtful, well-drafted set of proposals on -- on these exotic instruments, particularly derivativesment -- derivatives. i want to thank them for the job that they've done and i'm confident when our colleagues have a chance to be briefed about their efforts, there will be broad-based support for what's included in our bill. we've got to rein in these crazy compensation packages that have outraged the public and hurt companies by rewarding short-term profits and wild risk taking. senators chuck schumer, mike crapo -- chuck schumer of new york, mike crapo of idaho and their staffs, have been work on governance issue. and more work needs to be done on this but i want to thank both of our colleagues, again, a democrat and a republican, trying to come up with some ideas on governance issues that will avoid some of the problems that we've all -- we're all too familiar with. and we create and one that's attracted probably the most attention because of the issues involved, we create a strong and independent consumer protection watchdog, one that's never existed when it's come to financial services. it's somewhat ironic, i suppose, that we have a consumer product safety commission so if we buy a toy for our children or a product or an acompliance and it doesn't work -- or an appliance and it doesn't work or it causes us great harm or danger, there's a place called the consumer product safety commission that will protect us from these hazardous -- hazardous appliances. and yet when it comes to financial services, we've had no place really to go to get the similar kind of protection. that analogy has been drawn by others in the past and i think an appropriate one. we have undertaken this effort. it is controversial, mr. president, because i think there's a lot of -- of fears people have about what we're trying to achieve with all of this and yet if you look back and you watch what's unfolded over the last couple of years, and particularly where you watch and you see some of these barons of the financial services sector reaping millions of dollars in bonuses after their companies have been shored up through taxpayer efforts and yet the very people who had their homes, their jobs, their retirement, their health care, their life savings put at risk, what do they get? having come up with the tax dollars to protect these industries? and so we want to see to it that we never have again the consumer of financial products be unprotected when we start examining these issues. and so we're working at this issue here to put together what i have set out as some principles that should be included in a consumer protection watchdog. failure to protect consumers, as i think most people know, led to some of the dangerous practices that saw -- that we saw and put our economy at so much risk. people were given mortgages they didn't understand and couldn't afford and to ensure strong consumer protections. the real question is, will this office have the independence and the authority that it needs to get the job done to take care of consumers. mr. president, i've focused on four principles from the very beginning of this debate. involving this consumer protection idea that we hope to produce. one, it have an independent head appointed by the president of the united states and confirmed by this body, the united states senate. secondly, it have an independent budget so that the office will have the resources it needs to do the job. thirdly, that it have the autonomy to craft rules and protect consumers. and, fourth, an ability to enforce those rules as well. with these features, the office i think can act to protect consumers from the kinds of abuses we've seen, such as skyrocketing credit card interest rates, an explosion in checking account fees or predatory lending by mortgage industry. where rent space is less important -- not unimportant but less important -- what power and authority 2 has is -- it has is the more important question. and obviously you want to do this in a way that does not in any way jeopardize the safety and soundness of institutions. and i don't believe there necessarily is any conflict here, although some suggest there may be. so we're trying to provide as well a mechanism to resolve when, in fact, you may have some conflict between safety and soundness and consumer protection. i understand that concern. we're trying to accommodate that while simultaneously maintaining the independence and autonomy of this agency. our goal here is to end the status quo, as i said earlier, words i'm getting tired of using but obviously doing nothing is unacceptable. and to create a system where honest businesses, large and small, can thrive on a level playing field, where middle-class families can afford work, invest with confidence, and achieve the dreams they have for themselves and their children. so today, mr. president, i'm pleased to report that good work has been done by democrats and republicans both on the banking committee and they've put in -- to put financial reform in a strong position. and while we do not have a bipartisanship agreement yet at all, we're getting there, we're trying to. i don't know if it will happen or not. i'm optimistic it can happen but i've been around here long enough to know that these things can fall apart very easily. it's fragile. it's complex issues that you think you've resolved can both produce unweeken unintended con. and trying to get this, most importantly, getting it right. so while i'd like to get it done soon, i want to make sure we do it correctly and properly. and it's one of the hardest tasks i've ever been asked to undertake in my years here to try and fashion these proposals in a way that can bring broad support in this institution. so we don't have an agreement yet but because i've got colleagues like the ones i've mentioned on the democratic side, like jack reed, like mark warner, like chuck schumer, like tim johnson -- i could go down the list here -- that have worked on this these issues, i also have colleagues like bob corker and dick shelby and others on that side to see if we can't reach those agreements. and i know in the face of everything you're hearing about congress these days, that nothing seems to be working here, we are making an effort, mr. president, to come up with a proposal here that will achieve those goals. a good, strong bill and one that will enjoy good, strong support in this institution. so with that, mr. president, i -- i hope i haven't talked too long but i wanted to give you at least a flavor of where things are today, and as i said, we're not done yet but i think we're in a pretty strong position to achieve a good, strong bill, one we can be proud of in this institution. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor >> up next, remarks by former massachusetts gov. mitt romney. after that, health care çólegislation by rep john dinge. >> this week, on "america and the courts,"the australian sheep justice -- chief justice is hosted by the new york bar association. america and the courts, tomorrow at 7:00 p.m.ç easternn c-span. >> the next journalism must be one that is open to blogs and 2 emails -- and to emails. it will add new information, raise new questions, and suggest new context. >> winners of this year's national press foundation awards talk about the role of journalism in a changing society. >> andñokokgvñ now,;+sq)t(ñrxd ç ì+ y8talksxdv:ççh2ñ about obamaç ñsi] i]çlanguor of this issue.]çlanguor of this greatness. it lastsçç about an hour. >> you tug at my heartstrings as you talk about the olympics, what a thrill that was toçt(u!e part of the olympicw3ç experieç y.ñpi was not a great athlete in college anthñd high school. the fact that i was asked to take on the olympic job was ñ we quick to point that out to me. i have five of them. ==ñwe have a lot ofçç competig sports in our family. i typically come in last among the six boys all together, including me. when my boys actually read the story about my new job in the paper, they give me a call. my oldest son said, dad, we sell the paper this morning. i talk to the brothers. we did not know why you are on the front page of the sports section. my life has not been a very clear and smooth pathway intod8: politics. i spent most of my life in the private sector. i have always had a great deal of interest in seeing how private enterprise grows and bribes and also how it does not do so well. christmastime, i was shopping at walmart for some gifts for my grand kids. i happen to be in a long line with a basket full of things. i looked around the store and i chuckled to myself that this store reflects

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Australia ,California ,Dublin ,Ireland ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Des Moines ,Iowa ,Massachusetts ,Rabat ,Rabat Saléemmour Zaëmo ,Morocco ,Poland ,South Korea ,Levittown ,Pennsylvania ,New York ,Canada ,Japan ,Tokyo ,New Hampshire ,Germany ,Afghanistan ,Cleveland ,Ohio ,Rhode Island ,Indiana ,Wisconsin ,Georgia ,Virginia ,Manchester ,United Kingdom ,Michigan ,Iraq ,Tennessee ,Israel ,Idaho ,Houston ,Texas ,Italy ,Polish ,Americans ,Australian ,America ,Britain ,American ,Theodore Roosevelt ,Judd Gregg ,Lisa Jackson ,Christopher Dodd ,Jim Wright ,Nancy Pelosi ,Ronald Reagan ,Mike Crapo ,Charlie Rangel ,Harry Truman ,Gail Lester ,Warren Harris ,Alan Greenspan ,Franklin Delano Roosevelt ,Hubert Humphrey ,John Moss ,Tim Johnson ,Ron Kirk ,Chuck Schumer ,Freddie Mac ,Sandra Levin ,Bob Corker ,Warren Buffett ,John Dingell ,Barney Frank ,Gerald Ford ,Jack Reed ,George W Bush ,Dick Shelby ,Dick Armey ,Richard Nixon ,John Mccormick ,John Adams Herbert Hoover ,Hillary Clinton ,Franklin Roosevelt ,