vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: on behalf of the republican leader, i ask unanimous consent, not withstanding any other rule of the senate, that immediately following the disposition of the pending transportation bill, the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3606, a bill received from the house which would increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. i further ask consent that the bill remain the pending business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, last week the house passed their jobs bill. the purpose of that bill was to loosen securities regulations for small businesses. and it's what they call a jobs act. it's not going to create a lot of jobs, but it's important

legislation. the house passed the bill 390-23 last thursday. the white house issued a statement supporting the legislation. this piece of legislation clearly needs to be brought before the senate as soon as we can. we'll work to get a consent agreement that would provide for consideration of a handful of amendments to the legislation. i'd be more than happy to work with the senate to get a short time agreement providing for its consideration. one of the issues i would alert my friend to is that we've been working diligently for a way to get the import-export bank reauthorized. it is so important that we do that. i met recently with the head of boeing aircraft. it's so important for their business and many other businesses. it's really a job-creating measure. i'm not going to have that hold up this legislation, but at least i'm going to have a substitute that we can dispose of quickly if i can get my

friends to agree to this, to have a vote on that. there are a few things that we need to do. but i suggest to everyone here that i know how important this is to get finished. i don't need anyone to suggest that we're not going to do that. we are. i want to get it done this work period. and in senate time, that's pretty fast because we don't even have the bill yet from the house. that's why i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. kyl: mr. president, i appreciate -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i certainly appreciate what the majority leader said. he's right about the importance of the legislation approved by majorities in both houses. excuse me -- in both parties of the house of representatives. i join him in hoping that we can bring this to the floor as soon as possible with an agreement so that we can consider it and try to at least provide some economic growth here so that people can go back to work in america. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to

executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendars number 408, 441, 461, 462, 463, 464, 497, 509, 510, 528, 568, 569, 070, 610, 612 and 613. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, gina marie grow of west virginia to be united states district judge for the northern district of west virginia. david nuffer of utah to be united states district judge for the district of utah. michael walter fitzgerald of california to be united states district judge for the central district of california.

ronnie abrams of new york to be united states district judge f the southern district of new york. rudolph contreras of virginia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia. miranda du of nevada to be united states district judge for the district of nevada. susie morgan of louisiana to be united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana. greg jeffrey costa of texas to be united states district judge for the southern district of texas. david campos guaderrama of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas. ryan c. wimes of missouri to be district judge for the eastern and western districts of missouri. christine baker of arkansas to be united states district judge for the eastern district of

arkansas. john z. lee of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. george levi russell, iii, of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland. john j.tharp, jr., of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. jeffrey j.helmick of ohio to be united states district judge for the northern district of ohio. mary geiger lewis of south carolina to be united states district judge for the district of south carolina. timothy s. hillman of massachusetts to be united states district judge for the district of massachusetts. mr. reid: mr. president, i have cloture motions relative to each of these district court nominees at the desk. i now ask consent it be in order for them to be filed. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the cloture motion.

the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in cord an with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing riewstles of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of gina marie grow of west virginia to be district judge for the northern district of west virginia, signed by 18 senators as follows -- reid of nevada, manchin, brown of ohio, udall of new mexico, murray, begich, kohl, nelson of florida, lautenberg, shaheen, bloomen that will, cardin, coons, feinstein, leahy, durbin, lieberman, schumer. cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance -- provided mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i have filed 17 cloture motions. the clerk has read the first one. there are 16 others. i would ask the chair if it would be in order for a

unanimous consent request that the -- following the 16 nominations that were not yet read into the record, it would appear as if the same action occurred on those procedurally as the first one that was read. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i now ask the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i rise to speak about the issue of judicial nominations. our nation faces a serious

problem. one out of every ten federal judgeships is vacant, yet we continue to see, unfortunately and sadly, unprecedented obstruction from the other side of the aisle when it comes to these nominations. right now on the skaoufp calendar of the -- on the executive calendar of the united states senate there are 22 judicial nominations pending. 12 of these 22 were successfully voted out of the judiciary committee last year. last year. two of them as far back as october. 17 of the nominees are currently on the calendar. they were voted out with strong bipartisan support. 13 of the nominees of the 22 that are being held have the approval of the republican senator from the state where the nomination is being made. despite the fact that these nominations are not controversial, that they passed bipartisan through the judiciary committee and out of the committee, they still languish

on the calendar because of republican objections. i know people get tired and say i wish you all weren't so partisan around here. well, i hate to give a speech which most will say that's just a partisan speech, but we're talking about nominees that have bipartisan support, coming out of the committee with a strong vote being held on the calendar. despite the fact they're noncontroversial, there have been objections to up-or-down votes. that's all we've asked for, just give them a vote. it's not right, and unfortunately, it's a new development in the united states senate. it used to be when a noncontroversial district or circuit court nominee was reported out of the senate judiciary committee with bipartisan support, that nominee would literally be approved on the senate floor usually by voice vote within a matter of days. even when there are battles over controversial supreme court or appellate court nominees, the senate never used to obstruct a

noncontroversial nominee at the same time, especially at the district court level. when president obama took office, senate republicans adopted a new and disturbing strategy. they began refusing to give their consent to schedule votes on almost all judicial nominees. and you say to yourself what is their strategy? it is very apparent. they are praying, of course, that a republican will be elected president and they can fill the vacancies. so they want them to continue to be empty seats on our judicial courts for the remainder of this year until the election. president obama's nominees have been subjected to an unprecedented level of obstruction by the republicans, more than any other president has received. listen to this, madam president. president obama's district court nominees have waited an average of 93 days on the senate executive calendar between a committee vote and a floor vote.

93 days. how about george w. bush? how long did his nominees sit on the calendar before democrats would let them have a vote? 24 days. 93 days under the republicans. 24 days under the democrats. president obama's confirmed circuit court nominees have been forced to wait an average of 136 days for a floor vote. president bush's circuit court nominees? 29 days. 136 days, way over four months, for the obama nominees. less than a month for the bush nominees. overall at this point in their terms, president obama has had 131 nominees confirmed at the federal, circuit and district court level compared to 172 for president bush, 183 for president clinton. it is so obvious the republicans are stopping worthy bipartisan

nominees for strictly political reasons. current judicial vacancies at this point in president obama's term are 83, nearly double the 46 vacancies in president bush's term. i know my republican colleagues sometimes argue that president obama is too slow to make nominations. but that argument doesn't explain what happens after the nominations have been made, cleared the investigations, cleared the committee and reached the senate calendar. rie are 39 judicial nominees pending either before the judiciary committee or on the floor of the senate. promptly confirming these numbers would bring president obama's confirmation numbers close to president bush's, but still the obstruction continues. some might argue that blocking of judicial nominees is just another one of those silly partisan games in washington, but unfortunately this obstruction has real impact across america. there are 35 judicial vacancies

that have been designated judicial emergencies by the nonpartisan administrative office of u.s. courts. that means the federal courts are so glutted with a heavy workload that their failure to fill the vacancy makes it even worse. it means that justice will be delayed, and when justice is delayed, many times it is denied. when a court system suffers for lack of judges on the bench, the administration of justice suffers, at every level, criminal and civil. all americans rely on the federal courts to protect our constitutional rights, keep dangerous criminals off the street and resolve our disputes. when judgeships are vacant and judges remain overburdened, the american people may be denied their day in court. right now, the northern district of illinois -- that would be chicago, northern illinois, is one of the districts where a judicial emergency has been declared. geneva -- chief judge of the

district, jim holderman, an appointee under the republican president, recently sent to me and senator kirk, my colleague, urging the senate to move quickly on two nominees sitting on the calendar. john lee, my nominee approved by senator kirk and jay tharp, senator kirk's nominee approved by me. bipartisan selection committees chose these nominees and both of us signed off on them. isn't that what america wants, that we work together on these things? so why are they sitting on the calendar? is there an emergency in the northern district, the judges have asked for help. we have agreed on a bipartisan basis how to fill the vacancies, and yet they languish on the calendar. i want to take this opportunity to briefly talk about these nominees caught up in this backlog on the senate floor. both of them are extraordinarily well gifted and talented. john lee is currently a partner in a major law firm in chicago where he practices complex commercial litigation. he is the son of a coal miner

and a nurse. he emigrated to this country from korea at a young age. from humble beginnings, he went on to attend college and law school at harvard. he then worked as a trial attorney in the justice department. he had a great record in community service in chicago. when he's confirmed, he will be the first korean-american article 3 judge ever to serve in my state. jay tharp, senator kirk's nominee that i approved, is a partner in another major law firm in chicago where he leads their securities litigation practice. he's a former captain in the marine corps with a distinguished military career. he attended duke university and northwestern law school and clerked for a federal judge in the seventh circuit. for six years, he was an assistant u.s. attorney, a prosecutor, and he has received numerous recognition for his work and private practice. as part of our bipartisan selection process, senator kirk has chosen jay tharp, i have chosen mr. lee.

we have done this in the most cooperative way possible. i think it's time for the senate to move ahead with the floor votes on these two nominees and all the nominees. if a senator has an objection to one of these nominees, let's call it for a vote. they can vote no. and if they don't get a majority vote, they won't be approved. that is the way the chamber is supposed to work. good, decent americans like john lee, jay tharp shouldn't put their lives on hold when they have volunteered to be nominees to the federal court. in most instances, those who step up and ask for this opportunity at public service are actually taking a cut in pay from what they could be paid in private practice. they are willing to make the sacrifice, their families are willing to make it, but now we leave them in this limbo. they are caught in this political limbo created by the republicans in an effort to stack up judges like cord wood on the calendar, in the hopes

that come november they will get a republican president who will fill these vacancies with the true believers. that isn't fair. it doesn't reflect the reality that president obama was elected to serve and to fill these vacancies in a meaningful way. the process is bipartisan. certainly the senate consideration of these nominees should be bipartisan as well. madam president, i see the senator from michigan on the floor and i'd like to make one additional statement placed in a separate place in the record, if i might, with respect to an issue in my home state of illinois. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and i will be very brief, but it's something that means a lot to me and to my state. madam president, it was just about ten days ago that a tornado struck harrisburg, illinois. this is a picture of some of the devastation. it doesn't tell the story. i have been a child of illinois and grew up in what we consider to be tornado alley all my life. being dragged out of bed in the middle of the night with the air raid siren blaring by my dad to

head down to the basement was just one of the rites of passage. luckily our home was never hit but we saw a lot of homes that were. they might have some shingles torn off, some siding ripped away, some windows broken. maybe in the worst case, a roof actually lifted off the house, but this case here was an extraordinary one. the picture can't even depict the story. it was a level four tornado, and level five is the highest. 175-mile-an-hour winds with winds more powerful than hurricane katrina. it hit this little town of harrisburg, illinois, and another 20 miles away the town of ridgway, illinois. i took a look, saw homes torn off their slab foundations and tossed around like toys. seven people died as a result of this tornado. there might have been more, but it was a tornado that struck at about 5:00 a.m. many people were home.

had they been outside or shopping in one of the malls that was just obliterated, many more people would have died. but fortunately, more didn't. the heroic efforts by the local people at every single level really made me proud to represent that state and to be -- at least in my family to have roots in that part of my state. it was a great outpouring of caring, affection and even bravery as people rescued those who were lost and covered by the debris. the red cross was on the scene right away. the illinois emergency management agency was there as well. everybody pitched in. both at harrisburg and in ridgway. we finished our job and we heard as i was leaving on saturday -- this is ten days ago -- that the federal agencies were on their way this last monday, a week ago today. i felt confident, governor pat quinn of illinois felt confident and our state emergency management director john munkin

also felt confident we would get the federal designation. that is why it was absolutely stunning when we learned yesterday that fema turned down these communities. take a look at this shopping center. i stood by this shopping center. it literally collapsed. fortunately, no one was in there at 5:00 a.m. that kind of devastation from 175-mile an hour winds could be seen all over harrisburg and in the town of ridgway where the local catholic church was devastated. this decision by fema is out of touch with reality. the reality of the damage and the suffering and the reality of this notion that somehow the state and local governments can take care of this. historically, we have said that when a storm reaches a certain threshold of damage, the federal government steps in. in my time in the house and senate, i have never, ever questioned that decision. i have stepped up to help every state in the union with disaster assistance, knowing that this

could happen to my state. and now when fema says we don't qualify for federal assistance, it means that the small business administration is not likely to help businesses in the area with disaster recovery, small business loans, for example. as you can see from the photos that i have shown here, disaster loans are going to be desperately needed by businesses in the area. harrisburg is going to have a difficult if not impossible time coming back from this disaster without help, and our state of illinois can't do it on its own. governor quinn and john munkin have determined that the damage is just too severe for the state to take care of it. i spoke with the governor this morning. he's going to appeal the fema decision. we're joining him. on a bipartisan basis, senator kirk's office is joining our office to appeal this fema decision. come wednesday in my office here in the u.s. capitol, we are inviting the administrator of fema to come in and make the case as to why this devastation doesn't warrant federal disaster

designation. 16,000 people in these small communities have been displaced from their homes. local leaders and volunteers have turned up from everywhere, but they can't do it alone. we need to have the federal government providing its level of assistance to make sure that these communities are made whole, put back together again and life goes on. we could never, ever replace the seven lives that are lost but let us replace the spirit of those communities with a federal, state and local cooperation. madam president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, madam president. before i speak about an amendment that i have on the transportation bill, i just want to commend my friend, the senator, and our leader from illinois for fighting for his people. i understand what it's like to have devastation happen in your state and want to thank him and

let him know i'm certainly -- the people of michigan certainly stand with the people of illinois and want to be supportive at a time. something like this could happen to any one of us. thank you for being such a champion for the people you represent. madam president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support an amendment that will be coming up tomorrow for a vote, a very important amendment for the economy. it's my amendment 1812 that would stop a tax increase on american businesses that are creating clean energy jobs by extending the energy tax cuts. the energy tax credits that have been so important to stimulating the diversity of opportunity for us in terms of energy sources and things are beginning to move. it would be such an error to stop or slow this down at this point. we have right now over 26

different national organizations who have endorsed this, and more are coming, but let me just mention a few. the national association of manufacturers, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the american wind energy association, the solar energy association, the alliance for clean energy, biotech industry association, renewable fuels. it goes on and on. a number of folks understand this means jobs, including the united steelworkers and also the propane gas association, national electric manufacturers, national wildlife association, sierra club, league of conservation voters. the list goes on and on and on. this is something with brought bipartisan industry workers, those that care very much from an environmental standpoint about what's happening to our country. all have come together to support this amendment to stop a tax increase on our businesses

that are creating jobs through clean energy technologies. all across the country, businesses big and small are creating jobs and bringing manufacturing jobs back to america, building the technology that is powering our future, and we all understand that part of the next round in terms of growing a strong economy really is around energy, all sources of energy. i'm a let's do it all person, but we have got to make sure that we have energy choices and opportunities for those businesses to grow. we have entrepreneurs inventing new technology, building plants, hiring workers, producing cutting-edge new products that save consumers money and importantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. especially now when gas prices are going through the roof, and believe me, i -- as i drive

around michigan looking at the gas pumps, it's outrageous what is happening right now. when families are struggling more than ever to fill up the tank, we shouldn't be raising taxes on the innovators and the job creators who are helping to lower american families' energy bills, and that's what the vote tomorrow is about. my amendment does a number of things. it extends current policy that's puts in place, this new ability to create jobs, energy, get us off of foreign oil. it extends this extremely successful advanced energy manufacturing tax credit that has been called 48-c. this is something i was proud to author along with working with our chairman of the energy committee, senator bingaman. we have 43 states where businesses have been able to get a 30% tax cut for companies that

expand, reequip and build new plants in the united states to produce clean energy technology. you know, madam president, i want to see made in america again, and i know you do, too, and this tax cut is what is helping to make that happen. in michigan a number of innovative companies were able to use this tax cut to create jobs, building amazing new products. just a few examples -- val, i just was just with the c.e.o. today, focused on sustainability. dow is building solar shingles among other things along with new advanced battery technologies. but the solar shingles are something to see. you put them on your roof just like a regular shingles, and you roll it out and install it just like regular shingle and they generate electricity for your home or business. new technologies that are

creating opportunities for suppliers and small businesses all around the midland-saginaw-bay city area in michigan. ben tower industries builds wind turbines. they opened their plant in the southeastern part of michigan in monroe, michigan, and they expect to build as many as 250 wind turbines -- wind turbine towers, the big towers, every year. and on the west side of the state energetics come pot it's used to manufacture luxury yachts and they've turned their facility and the bays that made those yachts thanks to the 48-c manufacturing tax cut into a facility that is now producing wind turbine blades and other advanced materials. my amendment extends the tax cut

for companies that provide energy efficient appliances in lieu of tax credits, credits for those who install charging stations for electric vehicles, tax cuts for companies producing the next generation of biofuels and much, much more. it also extends the extremely important production tax cut. this tax cut for wind energy which supports businesses and utilities that produce electricity from wind. there are more than eight million households in the united states that rely on wind energy for their electricity. in south dakota, in iowa, more than 20% of their electricity is generated by wind. nationwide, more than half a million jobs are related to wind energy production so far. in my state of michigan alone there are 31 facilities, manufacturing components for

wind energy, and six more in the works. and i might just add one of those great big wind turbines has 8,000 parts, and we can manufacture every single one of those in michigan. when i look at the opportunities around new clean energy manufacturing, i see jobs in every single part for wind, for solar, for electric vehicles. any of the areas around clean energy create thousands of jobs and it really is about the future. now is not the time to raise taxes on these companies. and if we do not extend these tax cuts, that's exactly what is going to happen. madam president, our economy is slowly coming back, as we know. and manufacturing and clean energy business owners have been leading the way. there are nearly 2.7 million

people whose jobs depend on this new part of our economy, the clean energy economy. these are good jobs. this is part of moving our country forward so we can compete successfully in the global economy and keep jobs here. right now we are in a race with china, and germany, and other countries that want to lead the world in clean energy production. and they have made clean energy manufacturing a top priority in their tax policy, in their investment strategy, and we know, in fact, in china alone they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every single day trying to beat us. in the clean energy production business. we should not turn back -- turn our backs on the american

businesses who are fighting to compete with countries like china. we should not turn our back on the millions of people whose jobs depend on the strength of these businesses. we should not turn our backs on the opportunity to truly diversify our energy sources so that we can get off of foreign oil and not have to worry about what that price sign is at the pump. i would strongly urge my colleagues to join together in this amendment to support it tomorrow, to provide certainty for our businesses and our job creators. this has wide backing from business, from labor organizations, from the environmental and clean energy community. it's really a chance to come together and create some certainty for a very important and exciting new part of our

economy that is critical for us as we climb out of this recession and create jobs for our american citizens. thank you very much, madam president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: ask consented the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the pending roberts amendment 1826

be modified with the changes that are at the desk and senator stabenow be per mid to modify her amendment number 1812, with the changes that are at the desk. further, that at 12:00 noon tomorrow, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments listed under the previous order and the following two amendments be the first amendments acted upon, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. demint 1756, bingaman 1759. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we proceed to a period of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from s. res. 310. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 310, designating 2012 as the year of the girl and congratulating girl scouts of the u.s.a. on its 100th anniversary. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure?

mr. reid: madam president, every year is the year of the girl. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed -- i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to -- got so excited -- the motion to reconsider be laid on the table there, be no intervening action or debate, any related statements be placed in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask we proceed to s. res. 394. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 394, commemorating the 150th anniversary of italian unification and beginning of warm and abiding relations between the people of the united states and italy. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i further ask the resolution be be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to ver reconsider be lain the table there, be no intervening action or debate and any statements be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there are two bills at the desk due for their second readings. the presiding officer: the clerk

will read the title of the bills for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capitals markets for emerging growth companies. s. 2186, a bill to amend the americans with disabilities acts of 1990 and so forth. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading but object to my own request on both these measures. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the resolutions will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until tuesday, march 13, at 10:00 a.m. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time twor the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divide divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with

the majority controlling the fist half, republicans controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 1813, the highway bill. further, that following the vote in relation to the bingaman amendment, the senate recess until 2:15 tomorrow for our weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so there will be two roll call votes tomorrow at 12:00 noon. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> eight. 3 percent unemployment is a good measure of how the economy is doing. is still very high, so the job market is still very difficult, but is down from birth was, and it's moving lower. at think that's actually happening as well. >> the conversation with mark sandy. the numbers to call, 202737-0001, 202-737-002, 202- 737-0205. let's look at the february employment breakdown. where jobs are coming from. professional and business services, 82,000 jobs.

health care and social assistance, but 61,000. leisure and hospitality, 44,000, also seen jobs in manufacturing, mining, what -- we lost jobs and was special the trade contractors. these numbers are from the bureau of labor statistics. what do you read from where job growth is occurring? >> guest: well, first and foremost the job growth is increasingly broad based across lots of different industries. and regions of the country. if you go back when the job recovery began a year or two ago the job gains were more narrowly based. so it is encouraging that an increasing number of industries are starting to add to payrolls. you kind of lift to have listed them off. originally we are starting to see job growth in many parts of the country, and the most encouragingly in the hardest hit parts of the country, places like florida, arizona, nevada, california produces is the cut creamed by the boston housing

market, but there not showing some signs of life, so that's good. there's -- there are some parts of the economy that are not creating jobs and are still losing the. local government is the biggest drag on the job market. a lot of k-12 local governments under extreme financial pressure so they have to cut. construction is still weak. the housing bust is winding down. it's not quite over, but i would anticipate that construction improves in the months ahead. at the spot is still soft. broadly speaking the job gains now are across las of different industries. again, that's quite encouraging. >> host: rising gas prices their rents an economic recovery? >> guest: there are many things to be nervous about. the economy is still fragile. people are still very nervous about what we went through and what they're still going to. the thing that makes me most worried is the run-up in

gasoline prices. just a statistic, every penny increase in the cost of a gallon of gasoline costs the american consumer about book of one 1/4 billion of the subsequent year. go back in december and the cost of a gallon of gasoline regular unleaded was $3.25, not the 3-d. and do the arithmetic, is starting to add up to significant dollars. i think if we go over $4 for a gallon of regular unleaded that will be a problem because it's psychological. not only was hurt because is taking money out of the pockets of american consumers, but it will start winning and confidence and consumers will start pulling back. so this is the thing that makes me the most nervous. at least in the very near term. >> host: mark zendi is chief economist of moody's. joining us, the author of the book financial shock. the 360 look at the sub prime mortgage implosion and how to avoid the next financial crisis. let's go to the fountain near

from curtis, democratic caller in richmond, virginia. good morning. >> caller: good morning. good morning to you both. i would like to ask the john about the gas prices. his guess the number one export? >> guest: no. thank you for the question. no. it's not an export. we do export some refined petroleum products, but we import a lot more energy than we export, so we are still very large importers of crude oil. that's obviously the key ingredient to gasoline. so when oil prices rise, that's a problem for our economy. we produce some of it, but we import a lot more of it. and the way i kind of think about the effect of gasoline prices on our economy and energy more broadly is it's almost like tax increase. you know, if we had to spend more to fill in gasoline tank

and we have less to spend on everything else. in fact, it's kind of a pernicious tax increase because it really hurts lower middle income households is been a lot more of their budget on gasoline that higher-income households. and, of course, the money you spend on gasoline, a lot of that comes to overseas energy producers in the middle east and other parts of the world. it doesn't do a whole lot of debt. so it's a very difficult thing for our economy to digest. gasoline prices, higher gasoline hire oral prices, there's really nothing worse for our economy. >> host: mark zendi, jussive rights and on twitter and as with the drilling for mall in america will lower unemployment and gas prices? ♪ if so why aren't we doing more of it. >> guest: if you drill more energy for oil for natural gas, coal, it will produce more jobs. if you look at employment in the mining industry, that's worth a

lot of those jobs to be counted. it is really quite strong, and in parts of the country where we produce a lot of energy things a going very well. for example, the strong this state in the country in terms of job creation is state of north dakota. job growth is 45%, so this is pretty heavy. if someone needs a job they can move to north dakota and fined one pretty quickly. but here's the but, it is relatively small. the amount of jobs are talking about are very small in comparison to lots of other things. for example, mentioned the losses and local government. we lose 15,000 jobs got into the two dozen jobs a month the local government. we're going to us get that gain in the mining sector of the course of 56 months. so it is a very small sector of our economy. i think if we can figure out good ways to drill and find more

energy in the continental united states indeed and safely dead in an environmentally sound way, i think that makes perfect sense. the more energy independent that we are the better off we'll all be. >> host: viejo is in. >> will tennessee, republican caller. >> caller: good morning. i'm concerned about the way the county unemployment. every day you turn that tv on. some big company has laid everybody off or gone bust. but then the president talks about all the new jobs. the jobs coming out, minimum-wage. that means most of the minimum-wage bill a $7 a something. the gas prices.

you don't have much left fd by guess. >> host: what are you seeing where you live in clarksville? was the economy like? >> caller: it's rough. people get laid off. what mainly happened, businesses closed. that left people on unemployment . >> host: let's get mark zendi take on this. it. >> guest: well, it is still very tough. and we talked about the unemployment rate. if you also consider all the people that are working and are not counted as unemployed, but are working part-time who are kind of marginally attached to the work force, then the number is closer to 15%. some 15 percent of the work force is either unemployed or

underemployed. that is high, very high by historical standards. you know, that goes to the college next. very reasonable, it's been a very difficult time. i will say that even in a very good economy, one that's doing very well you are going to have companies shutting down and closing plants and moving things around. that is part of the very dynamic economy. you always will have winners and losers in even the best of economies. we will see that, and in a recession of course there was a lot of that because a lot of companies are having a great deal of difficulty. recently in the last six to 12 months those plant closings, the reductions in workforce has come down very significantly, and now it's quite low. in my view that's, you know, still an issue, particularly in some parts of the country more

of an issue, but the bigger problem now is in terms of the jobs and job market is hiring and getting businesses to in a sense get their group back, their confidence back so that they began to look for opportunity and start to expand their operations to invest and hire more. and right now that has been the missing ingredient, and that's what we need to see before we all still -- all starts to feel very comfortable about things are going. >> host: bill on twitter, companies have gotten rid of the 50 year olds and older and those near retirement. the young guns will never rehired them. what do you think about that? >> guest: well, i think that's a good point. there are particularly older workers in their 50's approaching retirement that have been particularly hard on them, and it's been really hard -- this recession and weak recovery has been hard on young workers. if you look at the unemployment rate for people in their teens or in their 20's, it's very

high. it's one of the reasons we have lots of young people who are still living with their parents when normally they would have started a home and be off and running. so it has been hard on both groups. my sense is that the improving economy will benefit younger workers first that were already starting to see some improvement in hiring and job creation for younger workers, particularly obviously for those with a college degree. education is so important in this economy. if you want to get a job and get a higher-paying job edt college degree or certainly a high-school degree. said that is vital. older workers, it's calling to be a lot tougher. you know, in large part because it's going to be hard for them to get back into the workforce, and in many cases there may be jobs in parts of the country where these folks are going to have a hard time moving to or don't want to move to.

for older workers of the goods going to take a lot longer before they start to feel the improving economy. for younger workers some awful they're starting to feel it now and will feel it much more clearly over the next year to. >> host: a pessimistic tweet. if you're over 50 in the usa your kids to the curb. the see what kerrey has to say. independent line. >> caller: hello. >> is it true that obama passed for job bills to the republican congress and they turned the ball down? still they blame obama for lack of jobs. isn't that the republic as well? not obama. >> well, the president has pushed toward a number of proposals over the past three years to try to support the economy and create more jobs. the most recent was the last summer, the american jobs act.

that was a piece of legislation that had a number of different proposals to try to help support the economy in a broader job market. some of the proposals the president may got through congress. for example, the payroll tax cut, the holiday that we're enjoying this year, the 2 percent payroll tax holiday, you know, that was part of the american jobs at the cut through congress. emergency unemployment insurance benefits, that was part of it. that it got through. and actually, the republican congress has pushed for proposals as well. last week they put forward some proposals. in fact, i think the administration has spoken positively about many of those proposals, so there's a good chance the some of those things will get through. you know, i don't think it's constructive or even accurate to blame one side of the other. different perspectives and different purchase. you know, it be nice if we could

come together more often and give more things done that will be helpful for the economy, but they have been able to get something sir, and those things have been, in my view, helpful to the economy in the job market. >> host: as our last call i mentioned all politics, republicans, democrats, let's stay on that. the "washington post" as a story that says ratings are sliding for obama's jobs on the economy. it says the negative movement has also stalled. a gradual increase as the fall in the president's overall approval rating. at the same time the washington times as a piece that says obama's reelection is one of the rising economy. his reelection prospects for getting a boost from the plunging unemployment rate and a pickup in the economy and financial market this year according to economic and political analysts, and the financial times has a piece this is the upturn in u.s. jobs is lifting the mood. so if you were advising other the president or one of the republican contenders for the

presidency, how do you interpret all this data? >> well, first because i'm an economist at think the economy matters. so you know, i think that's key to how the election unfolds for the president and for all incumbents. i think if the economy continues to show improvement over the next six months leading up to the election as it has over the past six months then the economy will be a tail wind for incumbents, for president obama. it will make easier for him to win reelection. obviously there other things going on. other political issues that matter to voters that could win the day. but if the economy is continuing to improve to the same degree fighting that's going to be helpful to the president and to the other incumbents running for office. if the economy stalls out or backtracks, let's say for

whatever reason, gasoline prices continue to go higher and it undermines confidence and causes the economy to falter, that is going to be a lot harder for the president. so to me the economy matters. right now if the economy sticks to script, if it stays where it continues to prove that the rate has been, i think that would favor incumbents, including the president. >> host: chief economist at moody's economy. he advised john mccain during the 2008 presidential race. this government does tennessee, larry, democrats. >> good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a quick way, a quick comment. lower gas prices and a lower unemployment rate. although republicans, if you look at history and you looked at, go back to the raid administration. the mega -- reagan ministration, the jobs, leaving go overseas. they start paying in.

and the first thing, the minimum wage. he lowered the tax rate on the rich. the jobs. you have bush, you had bush won, you had the same. he had the war. then you have bush to. he came along. you have afghanistan. we get september 11th, the housing crisis. he wants everybody to own a home. look what happened. the programs, everything they do is to make the rich rich. >> host: larry, last republicans and democrats united to get job legislation passed in the house. do you think that's a good sign? >> caller: that's a very good sign, but republicans, they are against to one let's look at the story. perris our goal to get credit for the legislation. the jobs tax package, six bills and the story said leave it to washington to pick a fight over noncontroversial legislation that everyone loves, and it talks about who is jockeying to get credit for the legislation.

let's go on to our next caller lessee has something you want to add, mark zendi. >> guest: well, you know, i think it is important that, you know, we have two parties, different perspectives. at the end of the day we have to come together as best we can to pass different pieces of legislation to address our economic problems. i think it's much more constructive to try to figure out where common ground lies, and in fact that think there is common ground. we just need to work hard to find it. >> host: in new jersey, republican caller. >> good morning. thank you. how are you? yes, i have a question. i would like to know where they get the figures for the unemployment figures. they say they get them from the labor department. word is the labor department get these figures? does the administration, the obama administration have anything to do with the numbers that are given to the labor department? it seems that the last time we

had a fight between the congress or passing a bill between the present and the congress, unemployment was unfunded for a while, it seems like when they came back the unemployment number was totally changed. so many people were just dropped off the unemployment numbers. can you explain to me how that's done one? >> guest: sure. thanks you for the very good question. of china to get to begin you, but they're is a survey that the bureau of labor statistics, which is an independent government agency runs every month. they interview 60,000 households across the country. they ask these households a wide range of questions to try to determine, the working, if there not working wind. other looking for work and through this very detailed questioning they determine

whether that person is employed or unemployed. and then they find out a lot of other things. i mean, if you're unemployed why? if you're unemployed, you know, if you were offered a job and take it? in fact, it's amazing the amount of information that is available from this particular survey. the administration, the executive branch has no impact on the survey. they are not able to influence it in any way. there is always conspiracy theories and that can the thing with regard to these numbers, but it would have to be a pretty green conspiracy, lots of different people have to be involved for that to take place. no. i am very confident that this is a very sound measure of how things are going. i think we can trust it. now, having said all that, you know, 60,000 households. we have 110 million households in the country. this is, you know, military

small survey compared to the number of households that are out there and number of people live in our country. so it does -- the result is you can get significant amounts of ups and downs of the data from month to month. and that's why sometimes you see things moving around quickly. but, you know, if you take a step back and take a look at the data i think it's saying to very clear things. first that the unemployment rate is still very high. there's still a lot of pain in our economy. and a lot of people who are struggling. but the second thing it clearly says is that the unemployment rate is falling. it's falling in a definitive way. it's falling nearly every part of the country. and while they're still paying, things are getting less painful. my sense is going forward we should continue to see an improvement unless we get derailed by something that i just can't proceed. >> host: financial times of

the winners and losers in the job market. strong sectors, professional and business services and health services, leisure and hospitality in manufacturing. it says the weak sectors were construction, retail trade in government, financial activities and a little bit of growth, but not much. mark zendi, at what point can you say that we have hit a recovery? last week ben stein on cnn said that we are nowhere close to that and they could take many years. what's your marker in have fallen weird to back. >> well, i think this is a recovery. by my definition, but the definition used by economists, recovery means growth. the economy is growing. and i think it's very clearly so and has been growing alford coming upon to a half years. the job market now, we have seen job growth for two years. in the growth is at least in terms of jobs, clearly excel

rating. ami, go back a couple years ago and that job growth was very tentative and not very significant. nell as we were discussing, very broad based across regions, cross industry. it's significant. we're creating a quarter million jobs every month on average. that's a lot of jobs, and that's double the rate of job growth you need to bring down unemployment and a consistently. so i think this is very clearly a recovery. now, having said that we have not fully recovered. we're not all the way back. we have a long way to go, and that goes to the severity of the recession. to give you a number to give you context, and the recession, the great recession in 2008 through the first half of 2009 we lost eight and a half million jobs. you know, we have three and a half million bacchanal last two years, so were still 5 million jobs below the previous peak. the previous peak was december

december 2007. you know, we have come a long way. but digging ourselves out of battle, but that always very large. even under the best of circumstances i think we could completely at it. we don't get back to that previous employment peak until sometime in 2015. gina, along with ago. >> host: from columbus ohio, independent caller. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. you know, i think that what happened on september 11th has affected our economy in every aspect of our living here in america. and that think it is being ignored by a lot of leaders in our country, just how much of an impact it's an honor economic structure here. and i guess what i would like for you to comment about his

from an economical aspect why would we pull out from up against knowing that afghanistan is the foundation of the economical disaster be too well, you make a great point. and that is september 11th did a lot of damage to our economy. lots of different levels. the most obvious is that we have been forced to spend a lot more of our resources, our tax dollars, businesses to spend a lot of their resources on security, defense. and, you know, rough orders of magnitude, iraq in afghanistan on average since september 11th have cost about $5 billion a year. to the arithmetic, over a trillion dollars. that's a lot of money. and that is been very painful.

that is resources that we could it used for educating our population, for building a better air system and internet backbone, things that would have almost certainly enhanced productivity, raise their standard of living to a greater degree. so i concur with your thesis that september 11th has done a lot of damage. having said that, you know, there is a reasonable argument that we had no choice. i mean, at the end of the day were not trying to have a well functioning economy and people are scared and i don't feel secure. so we need number one priority to have a good defense and as strong secure national defense. if we don't have that done nothing else works. but, you know, it is a judgment whether going to afghanistan and iraq and spending as resources and has the security to the degree that is reflected in the amount of resources in taxpayer dollars to put there.

and going forward i think it is a reasonable debate to have with regard to whether we should be there, to what degree we should be there because it is -- you are right, this is costing us all lots of levels, certainly all allies that are being destroyed because of this year in the united states and in the middle east and but also because of what it means for our economy >> host: chief economist and co-founder of moody's economy. he directs the company's research and consulting activities and his research includes macroeconomics, financial, and regional economics. he's talking with us today about the latest job numbers that came out on friday. here's a question on twitter. last spring's economic uptick fizzled in his opinion. why? where the chances of that repeating? >> that's a really good question. and that's right. the economy was feeling really good this time last year.

it did fizzle. i think that's the right word to describe it in the spring and summer of last year. we never really got going. i think three factors were a work. first, we did struggle with the surging gasoline prices, oil prices. in fact, if you go back to late april, early may last year we were paying over $4 a gallon for regular unleaded. so prices were higher than in they are now. that's a lot of damage. second, the japanese are earthquake and tsunami really hurt that economy, but it also hurt our economy. but the vehicle industry was significantly, and the vehicle industry is very important for our nation's manufacturing base, which has been of very key ingredient to the economic recovery. said that disrupted for a number of months. and then the third thing, and this is more difficult to quantify, will probably the most important thing was the

political vitriol back in the spring and summer. you may not recall, but we shut our government down last spring over a budget disagreement. of course the spectacle, the political spectrum to suspected over raising the treasury debt ceiling back in the summer which resulted in the downgrade of u.s. treasury debt, i think that did a lot of damaged psychologically. certainly it may business people and consumers pause in there spending. one of the reasons why businesses haven't picked up their hiring was because of the political vitriol. you know, those things to damage and our economy stalled out. we are now growing i think much more quickly. things have revved up again, but the economy is still very fragile to anything else that can go wrong. we talked about the gasoline prices. that is number one on my list of reasons for nervousness. of course we are in the middle of an election year and politically things could go wrong as well. we have to stay on high alert.

and what happened to us last year is one reason to be cautious in our thinking about what's gone to happen this year. i am increasingly confident that we're off and running. the say that with some hesitation because of our experience of the last year. the economy did not perform as well as i'd hoped. i'm hopeful it will perform better this year. >> host: indiana, rik democratic collar. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: actually, i think the problem started in the 80's. before 1980 the private sector, about 25 to 30% or union. in the 80's those jobs headed south to nonunion states. that created a rumsfeld. now 15 years is so until it got into the 90's and we have nafta. those jobs went to mexico. union jobs pay more. you have to have people making

enough money to pay income tax which have the people don't make enough now. and they are the consumer. they drive the economy. and right now the union part in the private sector is around 45% i think that's part of the problem. >> host: what to you think of a mark zendi? >> guest: well, interesting points. at think the caller is right that in the 80's the nation's manufacturing sector got hit very hard, particularly in the upper midwest, michigan, ohio, indiana. a lot of those jobs went to the south. a lot of those jobs went to mexico and the emerging world. not only because of nafta, but because janet came on the scene and other emerging economies are very competitive. so i think that the description, their is a lot of truth to it, a lot of accuracy.

i will send that i think now our manufacturing base is very competitive. if the manufacturers survived what we went through, the recession, they must be doing something right. it must have a very low-cost torture or they must have a market niche where they can sell their product to customers around the world. and these companies have done a very good job of getting they're financial house in order. they reduced their debt loads, restructured. now they have a little bit of a tail wind because of the falling value of the dollar against the chinese currency in some of the other emerging currencies. some my view is that the nation's manufacturing base is on the verge of some very strong growth. in fact, it's one of the strongest sectors of the economy in this recovery. i expected to continue for a long time to come. you know, i think the fact that

we lost a lot of union jobs was very painful. those are generally higher paying jobs in the nonunion shops. you know, going forward i don't think that's going to be an impediment to our prospects and growth. i think we are well-positioned for growth. our manufacturers and many of our other businesses are now very well-positioned going forward. for me that's one of the most fundamental reasons for longer-term optimism. >> host: republican caller, down from california. >> caller: good morning. it is amazing to me that you keep forgetting a couple things. one, we are at the lowest use of manufacturing of people working, 60-some percent. there is the loss of 6 million workers in the available pool the way that statisticians just conveniently full these people out to make that number, which is the only thing that has ever

crest of, and all this policy are using to make keeping things the better. everyone knows that gas prices are terrible. when you fill up your gas you need to say a obama is an idiot with his energy policy. he has never written down anything. he didn't even mention, were going to be bumping up against the $16 trillion debt limit. were going to have to figure where will pay for it. he is advocating all his responsibilities and see got his last from the senate democrats and told them, don't take the deal. we have this uncertainty, this terrible economy. here we have mr. mccain, and you can see how well he did trying to defend this policy is to the data we need to do. white people up. spending money on government workers and spending more money on their retirement, a 67

year-old unemployed retiree has to pay more money for my california politicians and my federal politicians, it's ridiculous. >> guest: well, thank you for the call. he said a lot. let me focus on your comments the haven't commented on that think it should. very important, and that's our fiscal situation. and you're absolutely right. this is a very serious problem. it's going to be the issue for the next month of the next six months. at the gasoline prices will probably be more of a threat to our economy, but you look out a year or two or three. if we as a nation don't come together and figure out how to up to address our long term fiscal challenges in a more consistent, coherent way we have a big problem. ultimately this is going to cost all this very significantly. having said that, i think we

have made some progress. out of the treasury debt ceiling debate we collectively, democrats and republicans, came to an agreement that to achieve what you might call fiscal stability, and that is a low enough deficit in the future that are dead the begins to stabilize, and that, i think, is our goal. we need about 14 -- $4 trillion. government spending cuts and tax revenue increases, some combination of the two to get $4 trillion. out of the treasury debt ceiling bill we, again, collectively agreed to about $2 trillion in 10-year spending cuts. that's part of the sequestration , the automatic spending cuts that will start kicking in the early next year in 2013. so if we need to get for and we have to, we need to get to more trillion dollars, and that's what the crux of the matter is a marie will have to work really

hard in a lame duck session early in the next presidential term. in this way, i'm actually optimistic that we're going to be allowed to do this because in current law we will achieve all of this. tax rates going up for everyone. we have significant budget cutting in current law. so there is a lot of pressure on policymakers, the lame duck and whoever becomes president in 2013 to address these issues. and so it's a very significant pressure point. given that an increasingly confident were going to come to gather and friday of a 2 trillion achieve our goal. it doesn't solve all problems forever. we have big problems with medicare and medicaid and health care costs and subsequent decades, but for achieving our growth for the next decade at the gradually pretty close. we just need a modicum of political civility and coming together, and i think reconfigure this one out. if we do i really think our

economic future is quite bright. >> host: you mentioned a year ago, and forseen circumstances as well as a renter in congress contributing to the fizzle, the economic fizzle. here's a story from the japan times, the mission is marking the first anniversary of the disaster, the tsunami in nuclear power plant. that happened a year ago. average on twitter and asks about lowering of the u.s. debt rating. he asks, what should the federal government do to prevent that? could that hurt the economy? >> guest: sure. well, s&p, one of the rating agencies to downgrade u.s. treasury debt back in the wake of the debt ceiling deal ended to do damage particular the confidence as ecology. the way to get it back is to execute on what i just described. for congress and the administration, the next administration and never that is to come together and come up with that $2 trillion in deficit reduction, if we do that in my view, my reading of what the

readiness is a st. is that we will hold on to that aaa, get it back from s&p and we will be just fine, but we have to execute the. >> host: a mark zendi, chief economist at moody's economy. thank you so much. >> guest: thank-you. at some point the federal government has to be able to say to a private business that was critical of research for the real depend on an enemy might attack, we have to be able to say to them, you have to meet this standard of defending yourself in defending a country. it. >> in the year 2010 the estimate is that there were 3 billion cyber attacks on private and government computer systems, 3 billion. so this is the thread that is growing exponentially. we simply must address it.

>> senator joseph lieberman and susan collins, the chair and ranking member of the homeland security committee to other cyber security bill differs from others to be considered the spring. the communicator's tonight it:00 eastern on c-span2. >> now a portion of the speech by the japanese ambassador to the u.s. his remarks from one year after a powerful of quicken tsunami said of the nuclear crisis and killed more than 15,000 people. you can see this event in its entirety to 90:30 p.m. here on c-span2. >> thanks you very much for that kind introduction. litigate this crowd am afraid that many of you, this is the tough time or 24th time the you're going to year for me. i was thinking if i could say something new. not too much, but please forgive me. the compensation is that i will

be very short. yesterday i was reading a newspaper here. i was surprised that the top article started when year later. nothing is solved. well, the picture of a young lady that little boy. i think i don't shed deal. i am not saying that everything has been soft. it's not at all true because it was a huge disaster, as you know. we can't recover only in a year's time. what we can say is we are on recovery road. now, how do you a chart of paper

. damage and nuclear issue. the number one is human loss. as you can see, it was close to 19,000 people. and either missing or found dead this is ten times worse the katrina. damage to buildings, infrastructure. katrina, it was reported as five and a half billion dollars. on top of that there were equipments, housings. altogether it adds up to the $12 billion. you can see how huge this

disaster was. as for effect to gdp the 2012 best bet was one-and-a-half growth. after the estimate is-09. not only because of the earthquake and tsunami, but it is the yen appreciation. the yen rate is appreciated more than 30 percent after wall street crash in 2008. less than 10% and the euro depreciated by 10 percent against the dollar. how can you compete in such a situation? supply chain issue, number four. i am always trying to focus on this because i think the supply chain is vastly exaggerated. if you look at -- this is the

figure. 2007, u.s. auto production, when 2008 was tree crashed because of lack of conception, it went down to 36 and at that level for some time. compared to that after the earthquake in tsunami is, there was a lack of supply of parts from japan, but it went down to 85. stay for a little. very short. then recovered. already more than 100. as the state of union, president said u.s. car industry is robust you can see that as well. at that the supply chain issue in my view -- on not saying that where there was no problem.

we have a problem, and that was affecting production, but not as big as some people have an image of. now, recovery, major affected and fisher, highway, this blue line is where there was right after the earthquake. it went down to 24%. two weeks. highway is hundred%. rail completely shut down. twenty-six bullet trains running at the time, but no passenger accidents. as seen as the train, seismic wave, is stopped. we were able to launch to 100% level in two months because we had to do the maintenance for the railways as well. now, fort worth, it is taking

time. it is up to 73%. because a lot of debris in the city. the port. some of 100 percent yet. now, electricity, the metropolitan area to fund sorry, it went down to 16%. 83 percent in three days. ninety-five. tokyo area. this is not only tokyo, but quite a big area. [inaudible] down to 79% and wind up to 1%. so these infrastructure recovery was pretty quick, even quicker

than the love people fought. this was, as you can see, huge damage. as for human life and also jobs, 81,000 people lost their lives. jobs, i sorry. 51,000 acres were inundated. twenty-eight dozen ships for a lot. so there are a lot of damage, but we are trying to recover it by doing -- pulling the budget into this. in four years' time we will recover 95 percent of all those lands that were inundated. but the serious issue here his still. i will put this into perspective.

in iea, international atomic energy -- atomic energy agency, they have a skill called in this, international nuclear events go which is from the lowest one tie seven. seven is the most. one is the most minor. and 3 miles 30 years ago, this classified as number five. together with chernobyl it is level the seven, the most serious. however, there is a great difference between the two because nuclear reactor itself did not explode. it was an explosion of the house

around it by hydrogen. it was not an atomic nuclear explosion. the other is that there was a continuation of around the atomic a clear reactor. so because of that these two reasons the level of radioactive material in fukushima is one seventh of chernobyl. there was no immediate death toll from fukushima, where as in chernobyl there was 31, in the death toll in there were a lot of people affected cajon. so that is the grave difference, even if they are the same skill. ..