out the effects of the stimulus package in that. .. 18,000 because of census this month. so we took away -- in fact, all the decline in government employment was from census.

>> 20,000 jobs lost from auto manufacturing it will be reflected in the future in the manufacturing sector? >> yes. >> the jobs loss question from dealerships being closed reflected in the services >> yeah. we've got auto dealerships. >> okay. great. thank you, mayor. >> thank you, mr. casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a brief comment on some of the points that congressman brady is making at some point we're all going to know. we're going to know whether this recovery bill worked or didn't work. you're on either side in terms of on supporting and i'm glad i voted for it and i believe we're seeing a positive impact from it. can you back up that on every point with numbers? probably not. we're seeing it on the ground.

there are projects started. there are jobs being created but it's still kind of early to tell whether or not the recovery bill has had the impact we wanted it to have. we'll know soon enough. there'll be a history written of this time period and one side or the other is going to be mostly right or mostly wrong. so i think it's a little early but i know there's a debate about that. i wanted to go back to one point in the unemployment rate for minorities but in particular, minority women as opposed to the white female number. the unemployment rate for white females -- do you have that number as compared to african-american women and hispanic women?

>> sure. the unemployment rate for white women is 6.9%. >> 6.9? >> for african-american women, it is 11.2%. >> okay. and how about -- is the hispanic female number 10.5, 10.5? >> yes. >> okay. i mean, we're seeing a gap there between -- similar to the gap on overall white versus african-american versus hispanic. it's reflected as well in the female worker numbers. is there anything that in the data that jumps out that explains that or is that -- is that typical in terms of the month-to-month or year to year job numbers because it's troubling that we have

double-figure numbers for minorities both -- double figure numbers both for minorities generally and in particular for subsets of that as opposed to white male or female workers. but there may not be anything that you can tell us but i'm just curious if there's anything in the numbers that jumps out to explain that or to put that into context? >> no. in fact, that gap is typical during economic expansions, during recessions. it's just a gap that exists, in fact, during recessions the rise in unemployment for the minority groups typical rises further. so i don't have -- i don't have a ready explanation for it. >> sure. no, thank you very much. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much. one other area we talked about last month, commissioner hall, was vernon employment. it's startling in the country

those who come back in the last few years the unemployment rate of veterans since the gulf war is higher than the unemployment rate for people who have not served our country and part of that i believe is because when they leave they have a job and then the -- because they're gone as the unemployment rates going up and jobs are going away, it's harder for them to get a job when they come back. i know that last month that the unemployment rate for veterans since the gulf war was 10.3% which includes the current wars in afghanistan and iraq. what is that rate now? >> for may the gulf war-era veterans unemployment rates 11.4%. >> uh-huh. so it actually -- did it go up from last month then? >> i think that's -- i think that's correct. i don't have that data right in front of me. that's probably correct but we can check on that if you'd like. >> yeah, could you? i would just like to see how much it's gone up each month because i think it's a big concern that we keep having that happen.

chairman cummings asked you about young people and what you say to young people about what the -- what the foreseeable future and i do appreciate some of the numbers that we've seen and that we've seen as you said that we may be on the way to good news or those were your words in terms of the bottoming out here. but one of the things i know we've talked about before is the unemployment rate for different degrees of education. so when we're talking to young people i think it's important for them to understand what is the unemployment rate for high school dropouts this month? >> 15.5%. >> 15.5%? and then what's the unemployment rate for high school graduates? >> 10%. >> uh-huh. and then what is the unemployment rate for college graduates? >> 4.8%. >> that is quite a difference. and i know one of the president's main focus here has been for -- i think he said that students should get one year of

college or post-high school or some kind of advanced education so you see this drama change from 15.5 to 10% to 4.8% if you have a college degree so there's a full difference going from 15.5 if you haven't graduated from high school to 4.8% if you've graduated from college. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the other thing that i've noticed as we look at some glimmers of hope here, we talked about our unemployment rate in minnesota. but the commerce department recently reported that pretax profits at u.s. corporations rose from $42.6 billion in the first quarter to $1.3 trillion. the first quarterly increase after six straight declines. were you aware of those numbers? >> no, i wasn't. >> this just came out recently. we do know that profitable companies are more likely to hire than those that are faultering. have you seen this before in the

unemployment rates when you have more profitable companies that you will not exactly that same month but you may see more hiring in the future? >> yeah, i'm not sure at the company level but i know on the national numbers you do tend to see the -- during early parts of expansion you do see the profits going up prior to the employment. but the employment does lag a little bit but it almost always goes in that order. >> right. so that -- that that this fact that we've seen some better profitability rates for our companies, which is as i said it is the first -- it's the first quarterly increase after six straight quarter declines. so that's after like a year and a half. so this could be a good sign if you believe my numbers which i believe are accurate. >> yes. >> all right. and i know that chairman cummings brought up the consumer confidence. that when we talked about that a lot last month because there's increases in unemployment but at the same time the consumer

confidence numbers are going up which may again help with people buying things; is that right? >> that's correct. >> sort of as we look at what -- what the glimmers of hope here to summarize just from my perspective, we have the fact that the companies seem to be not in every sector but some of these companies seem to be evening out or actually seeing some -- some improvement. we have consumer confidence up. what are the other glimmers of hope that you see? >> just to me a lot of it revolves around consumer spending even the profitability of companies relies on consumer spending picking up. >> uh-huh. >> having -- like i say, having the consumer confidence pick up is a good sign. the consumer confidence doesn't always track well with consumer spending but it does for major changes. that's the sort of thing, i think, that i find encouraging, you know, the -- i don't know how i would judge the housing market but that's going to be an

important thing probably in the recovery going forward. >> yeah, do you have any statistics on that because actually i had some realtors in my office from minnesota, like 30 of them, and they had been very glum every time they came in, every six months and suddenly they were in very upbeat moods. compared to how they were before. and they said that they were starting to sell a number of first time homes. they said the tax credit was incredibly helpful. the $8,000 tax credit that as we reach the end of the year that a lot of younger people who are first time home buyers were starting to buy. you would most likely not have those statistics. or do you? >> yeah, you know, i don't -- i don't have the statistics right in front of me but i have a rough -- a rough notion that the -- certainly the inventory of new home sales is still pretty high. i think it's like a year's worth of inventory. but i think it's kind of like the job growth. it's not as high as it was but it's still high.

>> exactly. >> i haven't looked at the numbers really carefully lately but my general impression is that i agree with you. that there maybe are some indications that the decline in the housing is slowing. >> all right, thank you very much, commissioner hall. >> just one last -- just a few questions, mr. hall. according to a study by the national center for public policy and education, i want to piggyback of the excellent questions of miss klobuchar, the rising cost of college even before the recession threatens to put higher education out of reach for most americans. the report found published college tuition and fees increased 439% from 1982 to 2007 while median income rose 147%. student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade and students from lower-incomed families on the average get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.

"new york times" recently reported the shrinking endowments colleges are looking more favorably on wealthier students. even on institutions that have pledged to admit students are finding a way of studies who will pay the full cost of tuition and state and local government budget deficits will probably mean that state college and community college tuitions will have to rise. in light of the questions miss klobuchar asked about dropouts high school graduates and college graduates given the factors that i just stated, isn't it likely that income disparities will grow if only wealthier families can afford to send their children to college? >> the benefits to education -- people with higher education have higher wages. they have lower unemployment rates. they have higher labor force participation rates.

that's been going on for decades. and that's not likely to change in the future. >> so in other words, the more education you have. >> yes >> the less you are likely to lose your job. >> correct? >> and was that true in the -- in the 1980s and 1990s? >> it's been true for decades. >> and workers who are less educated are more likely to lose their jobs currently and, therefore, less able to be able to send their children to college. what does that mean about income disparities for the next generations and other things being equal? >> uneven access to education means you have uneven outcomes in the labor market. i think that's a safe thing to say and that will probably continue to be true. >> very well. do you have anything else, mr. brady >> no. >> miss klobuchar? >> no, i don't. >> i think miss klobuchar pretty

much summarized it. it's good to hear some news not going in the negative direction. you've given us is few things to feel a bit optimistic about and hopefully when we see you next month, we'll have even better news. but thank you very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> and as this hearing comes to a close on this friday from the associated press, new government numbers show the unemployment rate jumping to 9.4%, the highest level in more than 25 years. but the labor department also notes that the pace of layoffs is easing with employers cutting 345,000 jobs last month. that's the fewest since september. >> president obama is continuing his overseas trip today. earlier he held a joint news conference with german chancellor angela merkel in dresden. they spoke about relations between the two countries. the president now heads to paris and normandy, france. he'll wrap up his trip with remarks at the u.s. cemetery there. tomorrow is the 65th anniversary of d-day and we plan to carry the president's speech live tomorrow on c-span.

>> this weekend on c-span2's book tv, live the midwest largest literary event. the "chicago tribune" printer row litfest.

>> for a complete schedule of this weekend's programs and times, go online to booktv.org. >> our party needs, obviously, a lot of work. >> sunday, on c-span's q & a. indiana republican governor mitch daniels on revitaling the gop. >> it needs to look inwardly and think about how it can speak more meaningfully to the problems of today and to the -- and to the americans of today, to the young people of the day specifically. maybe i can be a little part of that. you don't have to be a candidate to do that. >> q & a with governor mitch daniels sunday night on c-span. also on xm radio or download the c-span podcast. >> how is c-span funded? >> private donations.

>> taxpayers? >> i don't really know. >> from public television. >> donations. >> i don't know where the money comes from. >> federally. >> contributions from donors. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> now margaret hamberg the head of the food and drug administration testifying on food safety legislation. we'll hear about the food safety enhancement act of 2009 which would expand the powers of the fda. held by house commerce subcommittee, this is about four hours. >> the meeting of the subcommittee is called to order. and today we are meeting to

review the food safety enhancement act of 2009 discussion draft. i'll recognize myself for an opening statement initially. this draft -- or this discussion draft was released by chairman waxman, chairman emeritus dingell, chairman stupak, representative degette, representative sutton and myself early last week and the draft bills already introduced in this congress h.r. 579 which i chairman dingell and stupak and i introduced this year. the congress has done a lot of work on the issue of food safety in this subcommittee alone we had four hearings on this topic in the last two years. the information we learned during these hearings as well as the numerous conversations we had with stakeholder groups in the fda has been incorporated into the draft before us today. and i believe this draft bill represents a strong, well-thought out approach to improving the fda and its food

safety activities. we've heard time and again, that our current food safety system is broken. it's a system that relies heavily on the fda rather than placing the responsibility on the manufacturers to ensure the safety of their products. it's a system that is geared toward responding to food outbreaks rather than one that is aimed at preventing them. and this system does not work. and recent outbreaks of e. coli in spinach and salmonella and peppers and peanut butter highlight that fact. however, these are not isolated instances. every year 325,000 individuals will be hospitalized and 5,000 will die from food borne hazards. it's estimated that the medical costs and loss productivity due to food borne diseases cost us $44 billion annually and these illnesses are completely preventible. the good news is that there seems to be agreement that something must be done and that it must be done quickly. the president has made food

safety one of his priorities. he's assembled a food safety working group to come up with principles on this issue. chairman waxman, dingell, mr. stupak and i have worked closely with key stakeholders on this discussion draft and as we move forward with the legislation, we hope to continue those conversations as well as conversations with our counterparts on this committee. the bill we're discussing today will modernize the food safety laws currently in place. it places a strong emphasis on prevention and shifts the responsibility for food safety onto those who actually make the food. it also provides the fda with the necessary resources and enforcement authorities to ensure that all companies are in compliance with the new requirements. this draft bill would require all food manufacturing companies to register annually with the fda so that the agency has an up-to-date list of all facilities who sell products in the united states. it focuses on prevention by requiring companies to conduct thorough, hazard and risk

analysis of the products that they're making. it mandates the companies put in place preventive controls to mitigate and minimize those identified hazards and it requires companies to document all the steps they've taken to implement and verify the controls to ensure they're effectively minimizes hazards. the bill also addresses the shortfalls by requiring the fda to establish an electronic interoperable record-keeping systems that manufacturers would be required to use. this measure will allow the agency to quickly trace the source of an outbreak back to its origin and minimize the number of individuals affected by a food-borne illness. by shifting the responsibility on the manufacturers the draft recognizes the crucial role the fda needs to play in this realm. it requires the agency to set standards for food safety and hold the food industry accountable for meeting those standards. it provides the fda with stronger enforcement authorities such as recall authority and

access to records. the bill also increases the inspection and frequency for food facilities requiring that the fda inspect facilities at an established minimum frequency. now, we're going to hear today from industry experts about the various provisions in this discussion draft and i look forward to those conversations. i hope that we can all continue to work in this collaborative manner as we move to mark up of food safety legislation in this committee. i'm very pleased to welcome dr. margaret hamburg of the fda today. we had a meeting like while we were doing the energy markup. we were in the back having some conversations and i was very impressed with her. this is the first time she will be testifying before this committee and i thank her for being here. i also want to thank our other witnesses for appearing before us today. i especially want to welcome back mike embrosio. he's, of course, from my home state and i'll recognize mr. dill for an opening

statement? >> thank you for holding this hearing today and thanks for our distinguished witnesses for the draft of the food safety enhancement act of 2009. i look forward to your testimony and to the questions that this panel -- that our committee will actually have of the panels. as a resident of the state of georgia which has already received a focal point focus of the issue of food safety, i know firsthand the perspective that our nation has on the issue of the lack of safeguards and fallback measures that many people expect of a 21st century food supply chain in our country. we all agree food safety is a priority and i support giving fda the resources it needs to ensure our nation's food supply remains safe and reliable for american dinner tables across the country. additionally, implementation of preventive controls such as hazard analysis and critical point plans included in the draft under discussion is an important step forward in

ensuring unsafe food products don't reach store shelves in the first place. as we he know preventing compromised goods from entering the market is the best line of defense to preventing food-related illnesses. i also believe it's important to enhance fda's ability to conduct onsite inspections of food facilities. the schedule established under the draft does recognize risk profiles for food in terms of how frequently facilities should be inspected. but the regiment set forth in the discussion draft fails to address the cost benefactor of conducting such inspections and could result in insufficient oversight of certain higher risk facilities due to time and manpower limitations of our inspectors. it is my hope that our witnesses here today can provide input with regard to an appropriate inspection schedule, which achieves the goal of ensuring safe food for the american people without placing an undue burden and strain on the fda which is already challenged

under current food safety obligations. this legislation authorizes an annual pay to play registration fee for domestic and foreign food facilities of $1,000 to supplement appropriations made by congress to fda. in discussion, however, we've not been able to determine from the majority -- from the majority or the fda exactly how much funding is necessary to meet the requirements of this bill. i believe it would be premature to impose significant fees on industry and in turn the american consumers without any reference as to how much funding is actually needed. if the majority remains intent on imposing such registration fees we must also be certain these fees are limited to cover the activities which are such as a minimal fee paid to the fda for an application to cover the cost of review and processing. if the goal is to improve food safety, we must ensure that funds are not funneled into other activities that may or may

not have anything to do with improving food safety, a situation which i believe could occur under the language of the current proposal. obviously, these are issues among many others that i feel hopefully this committee will be able to address as we move this issue forward and i look forward to the hearing today and the results that come out of it. i appreciate chairman pallone and chairman waxman's bipartisan efforts on this issue. and i look forward to having a product that all the members of this committee can support. and thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. >> thank you, mr. deal. mr. waxman, chairman waxman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this subcommittee and our full committee is beginning the process today of passing critically important legislation designed to revamp our nation's food safety system. the food safety enhancement act of 2009 and this hearing marks a key milestone. over the past few years, a series of food-borne disease

outbreaks of spinach, peanuts, and peppers just to name is few have laid bare some major gaps in our antiquated food safety laws. oversight work by gao and by our own oversight committee has always helped us understand where we need to focus our efforts to bring our food safety laws into the 21st century. the draft legislation that is the subject of today's hearing is based on the fda globalization act of 2009 introduced by chairman emeritus dingell, chairman pallone and chairman stupak and i commend them for their work on that bill and their continued efforts in shaping this new bill. i also want to recognize the assistance we've received from the obama administration. we worked closely with the fda to identify problems with the current food safety law and to find workable solutions. we will not be passing legislation that sets up the agency to fail.

the bill requires that the agency set tough standards but we've given them the flexibility to priorities to address the important risks first. i believe we can reach a bipartisan agreement and look forward to continuing to work with all the members of this committee. in working with the fda on this legislation, one thing was abundantly clear. the administration is absolutely committed to overhauling fda's food safety program. i think we'll all see that commitment today when we hear from commissioner hamburg. the recent food outbreaks have exposed glaring holes in fda's basic food safety authorities. fda does not have routine access to any records kept by the food manufacturers. fda cannot require companies to conduct a recall of unsafe foods. the agency could only ask