talk about the potential bubbles in this country. this last crisis was the result of a massive bill will focus primarily on real estate. there has been a lot -- result of a mass of bubble within the real estate. the worry is will it be an instant replay of whit different actors and the same horrible outcome in terms of the movie we just went through? .

>> ideally, the way we should deal with bubbles, the first line of defense should be supervision and regulation. if we have appropriate risk controls that forced banks tnot to pile into overcrowded positions, for example, were to take excessive risks, or if we have a systemic risk council that looks up emerging asset pricing increases or concentrations of risks across the system, i think that is the first, best way to address bubbles. in my first speech as a governor in 2002, i said the first line of defense should be regulation and supervision. that has a benefit. it can help to protect the system even if you are not sure if the increase in asset prices is a bubble or not. we do not have that system. i think monetary policy has to

pay attention to the system. we are looking at it. let me be very careful. i have said in the past and continue to believe it is extraordinarily difficult to know in real time if an asset price is appropriate or not. given that caveat, we are doing our best to look at the major credit and stock markets. we have used evaluation models and standard indicators to look for misalignments. >> in some countries, they have had special measures where there have been house price increases. there have been things like mandatory increases in downpayments, things of that sort. i suppose those are ideas that

could address specific problems. for a general bubble, i think supervision and regular checking -- regulation of the system is the strongest approach. i do not rule out using monetary policy if the situation does become worrisome and threatening to our dual mandate of growth and inflation. >> thank you very much, senator. i appreciate your indulgence in breaking this up a little bit. i thought it better served your interest and ours to have some continuity. we will take a break and see you back here in about an hour. we will stand in recess until 1:00 p.m. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the u.s. senate is in session today.

the senators are debating health care for the sixth day. this is the floor, live on the senate. senator kerrey is preparing to offer an amendment. we will watch and listen as the debate continues. >> they do support it. the senator from georgia stood up and said that in our state, we have a letter based on an earlier assumption. we have no idea of what the assumptions are in the analysis they made. thirdly, it is based primarily on the house bill that is $13 billion more in reductions than we have. >> that is senator kerry on health care. there are two votes scheduled for this afternoon. one is sponsored by blanche lincoln of arkansas. the other is a republican

measure eliminating proposed cuts to home and hospice care agencies. there is live coverage of the senate right now on c-span 2. senators will return tomorrow for more debate. more votes are possible. even watched live coverage of our companion network, c-span -- you can watch live coverage of on our companion network, c- span 2. >> a press conference was held. >> we are happy to be here on a saturday, you can tell. let me start off by saying what the senate republicans have been focusing on this week. those are the cuts to medicare over the

we have said the cuts are not reform. the majority is not interested in starting over. they are trying to ram through this 2000 page monstrosity. it puts the government fundamentally in charge of 1/6 of our economy. the first day, we offered an amendment from senator mccain to send the bill back to committee without the medicare cuts. yesterday, we focused on medicare advantage. today, we will be focusing on home health care. there will be a vote on the johannes amendment. >> senator, thank you. let me say that the $42 billion medicare cut that we are

debating these days has a real impact on real people. one area where we see a real impact is in home health care. i have offered an amendment to recommit the legislation back to the finance committee to strike these build-advisor home health care cuts. -- these ill-advised, health care cuts. the most vulnerable americans receive these services. the cuts are placed directly on their backs. medicare home health spends less today than it did over a decade ago while serving a similar number of the fisheries at less cost -- a similar number of beneficiaries at west cost per person. it puts this bill on the chopping block. it seems like a step back away from reform, cutting programs that would save money. we did research in preparation for this amendment.

we came across a letter dated july of 2007. the letter was written to the finance committee by 37 current democratic senators. lo and behold, who was on this letter? president obama, vice-president biden, secretary clinton. the all specifically expressed concern regarding proposed cuts to the very same program, home health care services. only the cuts were dramatically less than what they are talking about today. let me quote from that letter. "we believe that further reductions in home health and hospice payment would be counterproductive to controlling overall health care costs." they did not stop there. they went on to say, " reducing medicare home health and hospice

payments would place the quality of home health care and hospice and home care delivery systems at significant risk." i understand from the debate on the floor today that the national home health association came out with a letter and said that they support the bill. i have to wonder who they are listening to. they're not listening to senior citizens or the american people who clearly oppose this. they are not listening to the senior citizens who desperately need this care. i have a letter from one of our largest providers in nebraska supporting light and in the to protect this valuable service. and might also mention that we have letters from georgia, iowa, kansas, missouri, and i am confident there will be more letters all expressing support for the amendment opposed to these cuts.

home health is about 3.7% of the medicare budget. 9.4% of the medicare cuts in the senate bill are taken away from this very valuable program. 9000 medicare approved home health agencies existed in 2007. 74 of them were in my home state of nebraska. this is about nurses, therapists, home care aides, and others who served elderly and disabled patients in their home. statistics show they drive about 5 billion miles each year they care for nearly 12 million americans annually. there are 428 million visits. home agencies have been successful in nebraska and across the country and keeping people out of the hospital and nursing homes. this bill threatens to take that

away. in my own state, home health providers reported this legislation will have an impact on the state of nebraska of $120 million. 68% of home health agencies in nebraska will have negative margins by 2016. the real story here is a quotation i want to share with you. that will wrap up my comments today. i did a teleconference this week with all of the groups that are impacted by these medicare cuts back home, hospitals, hospices, home health, nursing homes. this is what one provider said to me. "i can give you a human story that happened to our agency. we have a referral to addition that lived 90 miles away. the driving time is three hours. ignition takes up to two hours. then you get back to the office. you have another hour of the

commission's paper work. it would take one person an entire day to see a single person." because of budget cuts, we had to say no. there is no other agency closing of to serve this very needy citizens. here we are today. there is no other agency closing of to service very needy citizens. here we are today debating cutting the services. no one is fooled by this language that there will be no cut to guarantee benefits. that is a travesty. what is going to happen is that these programs will start to disappear because they go into the red with the cuts the democrats are proposing. thank you. >> i want to thank senator johanns on this important

issue. the idea that we would make these cuts is unthinkable. the only thing worse is to take money from home health care to create a new entitlement program. i want to reflect briefly upon last thursday when the president had his jobs summit. he was sort of mystified about why the stimulus spending had not resulted in the hope for job creation. ultimately, he was told by one. his apparent that the reason why the private sector and job creators are staying on the sidelines is because of the unprecedented number of takeovers coming out of washington. it may be the health care takeover, cap-and-trade, higher taxes. all of these are job-killing policies emanating from

washington at a time when our economy is suffering and people are out of work and losing their homes. this health care takeover is perhaps the latest of another washington to a government that is killing our economy and its ability to restore itself. it is discouraging job creation at a time when we need them the worst. >> the health care bill is a job-killer. we all know the numbers. it will expand the federal government financed with tax increases that will harm small businesses and their ability to create jobs and bring us out of this recession. the medicare cuts are also included. home health care delivery is i important. it is particularly important in rural areas. we have health care providers that drive 60 miles to deliver services.

in south dakota, the impact would be $35 million in cuts and reductions. the people in rural areas will have fewer opportunities available to them to be served by a home health care agency. they will likely end up in the hospital. that is many multiple times more in terms of cost. we have about 9000 square miles in south dakota this six times the size of the state of rhode island. it would have two home providers available to them. they are fewer of the time. this is real and taimpacts, particularly in rural areas of the country. all of these cuts and tax increases in the vast expansion of the federal government, when it all comes down to the end of the bottom line, this is supposed to be about driving down costs. you all heard the democrats celebrate the announcement of the new cbo report.

it is ironic how much expectations have changed from the point when the president said when he became president, he would have the health care reform bill that cuts premiums by $2,500 per family and covers everybody. this bill still leaves 24 million americans uncovered. the best you could hope for for 90% of americans is the status quo. that is yearly increases of about 6% in your health care costs. if you are paying $13,000 a year for a family now, in 2016, you will be paying over $20,000 per year in health insurance premiums. it gets worse in the individual market. those premiums will go up 10% to 13%. the talk about republicans defending this telescope. we are not doing that. they are. there's nothing about this the reforms health care in a way that drives down cost for the majority of americans. we believe there are remedies

that do that. we hope we can defeat this and start over again to put some solutions in place that do have a downward impact on the price people pay for health insurance. we think we can do that. we've got to defeat this $2.50 in billion monstrosity that raises premiums for 90% of americans. >> do you think it was appropriate for senator bauch us to nominate a woman he was dating at the time? >> i do not have any observations about that? >> tell us about the amendment for tomorrow. >> we are working on -- we will certainly have two. i would like to have four votes tomorrow.

we will have a side-by-side to senator lincoln's that has been discussed already to some extent. we will have an additional amendment by senator gregg or senator mccain that has not been handed over yet. hopefully tomorrow, we will have four votes. it hoped to have four today. it looks like we will only have two today. hopefully, we will have four tomorrow. >> do you think it would be appropriate to pay for any of the health care with tarp funds? >> i think i can speak for everybody in my conference. this bill needs to be stopped. we need to start over. we need to the step-by-step to fix the problem. with regard to additional jobs legislation, if it costs money,

i will look to be an extended funds in the stimulus. we know the stimulus has failed. it was sold to congress to keep unemployment at 8% or below. we know it is at 10%. a significant amount of the funds are expended. if we're going to take a look at some sort of jobs package, we're certainly open to that. we might be inclined to support it depending on the content. i think the place to look for money is expended stimulus money. i think we will discuss that after the health care debate. it has displaced everything else. we have at least three or four things that must be done this year that we're not dealing with. according to the majority, we need to raise the debt ceiling. we need to pass the appropriation bills or some

kind of continuing resolution. we have expiring provisions of the patriot act. we have expiring tax extenders. those are things that must be done this year. instead, we're spending all this time on something that should not be done this year or any other year. that is if we should do health care in this form. >> what is the reason for these evening sessions? >> i think the majority leader believes that if we stay in on weekends, the republicans will blink. i can assure him, we will not blink. we will be here. we will be voting. the longer we discussed this with the american people, the more unpopular it becomes. we know for sure that there is no way to contradict this. every survey anybody has seen on this issue shows the american

people are asking us to stop this bill. we know that. they know that. the argument is to make history, apparently. that is what they're using it to their members. the american people are saying that if you make this kind of history, you may be history. they are not ambivalent about this. i am sure there are people in my state who are for it. i just have not met any of them. ok, thank you, everybody. >> as the senate continues debating health care, visit c- span's healthcare hub. you can also watch the video on demand from the senate and house floors.

>> the bureau of labor statistics reported on friday that the unemployment rate dropped to 10% in november. according to the report, american employers cut the fewest number of jobs since the recession began in december of 2007. we will hear from keith hall who talked about the report and the latest an infinite numbers before the joint economic committee on capitol hill yesterday. >> for the first time since the recession began two years ago, the labor market has stabilized. employment remained steady in november, and the unemployment rate ticked down to 10%. the current administration took office less than eleven months ago. the economy was in the midst of the worst crisis since the great depression. in fact, council of economic advisers chair christina romer

testified to the joint economic committee that the shocks we endured in this "great recession" were actually worse than those of the great depression. less than a year ago, job losses were growing more and more severe. last november, the economy shed 600,000 jobs. losses increased until january, when they hit a post-great depression record of 741,000 jobs lost, the last month that president bush was in office. but we turned a corner. job losses have steadily fallen for the last six months. and today, we've learned that the labor market remained stable in november. the trend is heading in the right direction. there is no escaping the cruel math of recoveries. the recovery of the job market lags behind the recovery of the broader economy. businesses must have more customers before they add employees.

however, thanks to the recovery act, we are seeing signs of growth. the non-partisan congressional budget office estimates that at least 600,000 additional workers were employed in the third quarter of 2009 because of the stimulus. we are on-track to create or save at least 3.5 million jobs over the life of the recovery act. average weekly hours are climbing, with indications that the manufacturing sector is driving that upward trend. average hourly earnings are up, too. and, job creation in the temporary help sector is leading indicator of progress in the labor market. since july, temporary help services has added 117,000 jobs 86,000 in november alone. although the labor market appears to be stabilizing, too many americans remain out of work. more than 15 million

workers are unemployed. at the joint economic committee, we estimate that well over 4 million americans have seen their employment-sponsored health insurance coverage evaporate because of losing a job. in the longer term, the passage of comprehensive health insurance reform will help assure that a lost job no longer means lost access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage. in the meantime, we must insure that a jobs crisis does not turn into a health care crisis for more families. the cobra benefits program allows laid-off employees to remain insured by purchasing continued coverage from their employer's health insurance plan. many out-of-work families were able to purchase affordable health insurance coverage thanks to temporary cobra premium support included in the recovery act. but that support expired this week, and many unemployed families will see their premiums skyrocket. congress should now extend

cobra support to help struggling families. today's jobs report makes it clear we are making progress, but the road to recovery will be long, and it will not be easy. while we have brought the economy back from the brink, we are not yet where we need to be in terms of job creation. the mission is to create high- quality private-sector jobs. yesterday, president obama convened a jobs summit where small and medium-sized businesses, major employers, academics, and working men and women brainstormed ideas for putting americans back to work. in the last year, congress has enacted policies that support struggling families and encourage job creation. the $700 billion recovery act included a tax cut for 95 percent of american families and created jobs while investing in clean energy technologies, infrastructure, and education. just last month, we extended the $8,000 first-time

homebuyers credit that will spur construction jobs. we extended a host of safety net programs that will help struggling families weather the economic storm. we extended the net operating loss carry-back provision that will help small businesses hire new employees. and we are boosting funding for small business loans via the small business administration. congress is continuing to work on new policies that will jump- start job creation. putting unemployed americans to work rebuilding our nation's crumbling infrastructure is an investment in our future. other potential policies include targeted tax credits for job creation and additional investments in education, health care, and energy independence. in the coming months, the joint economic committee will be holding hearings to learn about job creation ideas from america's best and brightest. i

encourage you all to attend next thursday's hearing with nobel prize winning economist joseph stiglitz, who will be kicking off job creation. i want to thank the panelists for being here. i recognize my colleague and raking member, senator sam brownback. >> is good to see the numbers improving. while they are not building it, they are not falling as fast. that is generally one of the signs we look for. the trend line on the fault stopped going so fast. i am glad to see temporary help services rise. that is another feature that we look at. line in the fall stops going quite as fast. glad to see temporary help services rise, which another significant feature that we look

at. i have several of those strong concerns about this. it seems most is probably built on monetary policy not fiscal policy, that it's the fed flooding the market with money that's doing this, creating what i fear could be, if we don't handle it right, a government bubble that follows the housing bubble, that follows the dotcom bubble. and these bubbles seems they develop quicker and with more frequency and with more problems each cycle. they go and come around. that's one of big concerns i have is that in monetary policy, i don't think the miscal policy situation is helping much at all. i think it's a long term is in a significant debt trimt because of the huge deficits being run.

the other thing problematic to me, is the talk about raising of taxes and centralizing more and more things. with those taxesl one of the things that put the japanese into the lost decade was the raising of taxes at the time they were just starting to come out of the deep recession and deflationary situation. there is this coming out, hopefully, and probably, in the unemployment situation. then right as you come back up to the line, you say you will raise taxes to where people who would hire people say they will not do that until the situation is stabilized. you then drive yourself back down into it. your recovery is primarily built on monetary policy in the first place. employ or hire people saying we're not

going to do that until that position stabilizes and drive yourself back down and probably has run its string here in the fed and in the next six to nine months, will probably start raising rates and pulling back on the monetary policy. i think we're in a precarious spot. i would hope the administration would stop discussion on raising taxes, whether it's through cap and trade or health care or not extending the bush tax cuts and start talking about what it is we can do to stimulate the overall economic environment and not through spending, but for having a better environment for small business to grow and prosper. because otherwise, i think we really do risk ourselves of going into a -- going down again

and a very problematic situation with having a lot fewer tools at our disposal to use. commissioner hall, i look forward to your statements today. it's my hope we don't pass the raising of taxes on health care and cutting of medicare, i think it would send a bad signal at this point in time, i think it would be very harmful to my overall economy. it's my hope it won't happen in this bode. thank, chair. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i want to thank you so much for holding this hearing again. it's certainly good to see you commissioner hall. the report we received this morning is a clear indicator that the economy is slowly returning to growth. today's job report shows employers cut 11,000 jobs in

november, the smallest decline since recession began. and despite the fact that there were over 7 million jobs lost in the current recession and 10% unemployment rate, job losses have moderated since last month's report. while our economic situation is not ideal, we know we've seen signs of recovery, rose at 3.5% in the third quarter versus 2.3% in the second quarter. and of course, for most americans, jobs are the key to a successful recovery and they have not been quick in coming. americans want jobs that will put food on their tables and help send their children to college and allow them to keep the homes warm at night. to support these efforts, president obama held editorial

new york times" dated december 3rd. of course, this was before the summit. but one of the things that they say in there in that "times" editorial which i agree with, mr. obama must make the case that immediate need for more federal help trumps the longer term need for deficit reduction. otherwise, the economy is in for a self re-enforcing stretch of joblessness that would cost more in the end than additional spending today. mr. obama should detail separate plans for taming the deficit, including ironclad commitments to pay for health care reform. what he must not do is continue to conflate the need for job creation with the need for deficit reduction to the detriment of jobs. once job creation has the priority status it deserves, the next step is to build on proven

programs and add new ones to address the scale and nature of joblessness. end of quote. to support the efforts of president obama and i think we need to take a look at some things that would be extremely helpful. plans within that agenda must address reducing our deficit while simultaneously building programs. passing a clean water bill are necessary to provide funding for job creation. and that's something we can do immediately. unemployment is at record levels nationwide, but the impact on the african-american community is especially devastating with the latest unemployment rate of 15.6%. according to recent "new york times" article, race remains a serious obstacle in job market for afghan americans, even for those with degrees from respected colleges. the unemployment rate for black

male college graduates, 25 years and older, is 8.4% compared with 4.4% for white males, college graduates. i'm encouraged by the efforts of president obama and the democratic congressional leadership in working towards a job package prior to adjournment. however, we must ensure that the entire nation is brought along in this recovery. to that end, a comprehensive job package must include the creation of public service jobs, improving our nation's schools and infrastructure and strengthening small disadvantaged businesses. we must do all that we can to protect and defend our individual constituents slarkss small businesses and institutions that employ them. so as we await commissioner hall's testimony, the november employment statistics, i would like to close with the acknowledgment that despite the progress we've made so far, we know we have a long way to go.

with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. brady? >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome commissioner hall. the number of jobs lost is better than expected, which is good news. but we can't celebrate a 10% unemployment rate, especially when the long-term unemployment rate continues to grow in very troubling numbers. our economy continues to bounce along the bottom. retail was up slightly. temporary jobs were up slightly and health care, of course, continues to add jobs. but key sectors, manufacturing, construction and this month, information technology telecommunications shed jobs which i'll be asking you about, commissioner hall as well, because on the telecom side that surprised me a bit. i was pleased to see the president host a jobs summit. i still think there's a disconnect. as i listen to proposals from government spending, another $300 billion stimulus, too, the truth is the greatest hurdle to

our recovery continues to be businesses reluctant to add new workers with washington contemplating higher health costs, more regulation and taxes. congress and this white house are frightening the horses and it needs to stop because it's the private sector, not the government, that will move america into a sound economic recovery. and as long again as washington is saying grow jobs, jobs, jobs and pushing on the pedal, but because of the taking their eye off the ball on jobs and promoting issues that, in fact, frighten businesses, and making them less likely to add jobs, we're putting brakes on them. so again, the sooner, i think, washington gets a handle on its debt, which scares consumers, stops promoting higher taxes, which scares businesses, and starts looking at real

incentives from business investment. only then will the private sector be able to lead us into a sound economic recovery. with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much, madam chair. greetings commissioner hall. it's good to be here again. i want to first of all focus on this unemployment number. it is clearly some improvement, and it is a step in the right direction. but i still believe that americans of all stripes, especially the middle class, continue to struggle in some of the toughest economic times that we've seen since the great depression. i always like to remind people at these hearings of what people in our state are saying. here's a letter we just received the other day from a woman named diane in minneapolis. she said i have been unemployed for more than a year, and all my unemployment benefits have expired. i have a masters degree, 25 years of experience and as of today, i have submitted more than 288 applications for jobs,

made countless telephone calls, did all the appropriate networking and went to every job fair that came to town and i cannot get a job. any influence you can bring will be greatly appreciated by me and the millions of people like me. well, parts of our economy are clearly stabilizing with the dow jones over 10,000 again, it is clear that other parts of the economy are still struggling. we need to make sure that all americans, not just the folks who happen to work on wall street, feel that we are digging ourselves out of the hole. and i am glad that the president held this jobs summit yesterday, and i'm hopeful that as we go ahead, there's going to be a newfound focus on small businesses. the numbers quite staggering. over the past 15 years, small businesses created 64% of net new jobs nationally. and that's why i'm very interested, a group of senates, including mark warner, have suggested a portion of the t.a.r.p. money that has come back that has gone to

megabusinesses be devoted to getting the credit market flowing in small businesses again. freeing up this flow of credit so that our banks can start lending to small businesses will make a big difference. according to a treasury department report released in mid-november, the 22 banks that have received the most funding through t.a.r.p. have cut their collective small business loan balances by $10.5 billion over the past six months. although i should note that of the top ten banks that are the biggest small business lenders, u.s. bancorp, a minnesota-based bank, was one of two banks that's increased its small business lending since april of this year so that there are definitely some banks out there that are doing their part. however, at a time when wall street, after emerging from its struggles on the backs of taxpayers is set to pay out outrageous bonuses again while unemployment remains uncomfortably high for too many americans, like the woman diane,

the letter i just read, i am forced to ask the question, when is enough enough and how do we make sure this money gets out there to continue to generate jobs? part of it is the extension of unemployment that this congress are recently authorized so we have that safety net in place, the health care reform we're doing. but the other part of it is looking long term. this means a bigger focus on making things and reducing our debt and less of a focus on this consumption economy and some of the spending that has got us to where we are. so i believe if you look at the long term, this small business job generation has got to be a piece of this. it means not just some short-term help with credit, but it also means looking at the export market. 95% of the customers right now for small and medium sized businesses are outside of our borders. 30% of small businesses say that they would like to export, but they simply don't have the means to do it. they don't have the department

like you'd have at good corporations like we have in minnesota like cargill or 3m that can have their own internal people help them to figure out where their products can be marketed across the world. the commerce department, the foreign commercial service does a very good job. we need to get that out there and make sure they have the resources and really set up a business match.com so these small and medium-sized businesses at a time when the dollar is weak and so there's a great possibility for them to enter these markets can really build their export market as well. i don't think this is pie in the sky. if you look at the numbers and how much businesses are helped by just even a 1% or 2% increase in exports, and you look at what some of the companies have done in europe to promote exports. 50% of our exports are either to canada or moex co. as we look at the unemployment numbers and the good work of commissioner hall, i think we need to think forward to not

just these short-term policies we've worked on with the stimulus and extension, but some of the long-term thinking of how we better position our country so that we are in the driver's seat again and determining our own destiny in this international economy. but this is the first month since february that we've had a number that was not higher than the month before. one economist in my district pointed out that ever since i had joined the committee, the unemployment numbers went up and perhaps i should consider another committee assignment. i am grateful the number has gone down. i am not sure it is great cause for celebration because we have heard about the green shoots in the economy in the past. it is hard to tell the difference between those and the wild weeds in the parking lots that the longer contain cars.

last month's number was troubling. this number is troubling as well. where close to a post- depression high. -- we are close to a post- depression high. the number of americans unemployed or underemployed are not reflected. 10% means that many families cannot make credit card payments. it means that one of the americans are on food stamps and more than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. the economic crisis has wiped out more than $5 trillion in wealth from pensions and savings. this is what is facing the middle class. i do not frequently agree with elizabeth warren, but she wrote an article entitled "america without a middle class." her language for its forceful

although i disagree with your conclusions at the end -- her language was forceful even though i disagree with her conclusions at the end. banking triggered the financial crisis, the banks went to washington for a handout and all the while top executives kept their jobs and retained their bonuses, even though the tax dollars that supported the pailout came largely from the middle class, from people already working hard to make ends meet. the benefic yaefrs those tax dollars are now lobbying congress to preserve the rules that let those huge banks feast off the middle class. she was also right when she said, continuing to quote, pundits talk about populist rage as a way to trivialize the anger and fear coursing through the middle class, but they have it wrong. families understand with crystal clarity that the rules they have played by are not the same rules that govern wall street. close quote. so when we focus on unemployment rate or maybe we'll get the

actual u-6 number, the true unemployment rate later on this moerngs it's hard tong that congress would willingly do anything more to help the rich or can conceive of enough to really help the poor. but it is the middle, that large swath with the backbone of our society who are now seeing if they work hard, they save, they fight to educate their children and become the same stewards of their families and communities that the federal government will not be there to help them or the federal government shouldn't be hurting them with omnibbous bills and cap and trade bills and health care bills when they need help the most. you have to focus on the next generation. one perspective of this 10% unemployment number is it reflects 3 million young adults all under the age of 30 who cannot find a job. kids that have recently graduated from community college, all the way up to harvard law school. if we cannot teach our next generation how to be gainfully employed the moment they finish school, we permanently set them

back for the rest of their lives. as senator brownback and congressman brady have eloquently described the problems facing small business, i have a steady stream of people through my office who tell me that the conditions in texas are perhaps improving. they wouldn't consider adding a job. and i'm not talking about google or the big insurance companies. i'm talking about a lady that runs a saddle-making business. i'm talking about a guy that runs an air conditioning compressor remanufacturing business. i'm talking about a guy that runs a cardiologist's office. i'm talking about a guy that runs a financial services office. they've been hammered and they are hunkers down. they are not going to add jobs because they look up here at washington and see congress tinkering in all these areas where arguably we don't belong. there's no way they're going to add to their payroll. okay, that's just one job in a small mom and pop financial services or cardio shop but when

you extrapolate that across the broader economy, every politician stand up on a stump sometimes and says that small business is the engine that creates jobs. well, coupled with reduced consumer spending because peerges unlike the government, when they don't have money, they're not anxious to spend money they don't have. they don't have access to capital, even though we've put all this money into banks. we're focusing on wall street and to some degree main street. we should consider what's going on on oak street and elm street back home. this is where the job growth will occur. one of the crazy things is we have a big highway bill we all know we need to do and that's just sitting there. we did a huge stimulus bill in february which didn't produce the results it was supposed to. but we're not doing the work on the highway bill which is one of those things that arguably would produce some of those infrastructure jobs that are so desperately needed. and unlike the transportation jobs or the infrastructure jobs in the stimulus bill, these

would be real long-term projects. we're kind of coming to the end of whatever shot in the arm we got with the stimulus with the small amount of money put into transportation. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> pot holes have been killed and those people are being let go. thank you. >> i would now like to introduce commissioner hall. thank you for being here. dr. keith hall is the commissioner of labor statistics for the u.s. department of labor. the bls is an independence and national statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes and disseminates essential statistical data to the american public. he also served as chief economist for the white house, counsel at economic advisers. thank you for being here. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, madam chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data we released this morning. the unemployment rate edges down to 10% in november and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged.

additionally, after revision, the estimates of job loss for september and october were smaller than reported last month. in november, job losses occurred in construction, manufacturing and information while employment rose and temporary help services and health care. construction employment fell by 27,000 over the month compared with an average monthly decline of 63,000 in the prior six months. in recent months, most of the decline has occurred in the nonresidential components. in manufacturing, employment fell by $41,000 in nov, about in trend with the trend over the last few months. there were job cuts in machinery, computer and electronic parts and printing. the factory work week rose by 0.3 hour and increased by one full hour since may. in november, employment in the information industry declined by 17,000 with telecommunications accounting for half of the loss. employment and temporary help

services rose in november. the industry started with the year with large job losses averaging 69,000 per month through april. recent three, industry has added jobs with gains averaging 48,000 per month in october and november. over the month, employment continued to increase in health care with gains in home health care and hospitals. since the recession began, health care has added 613,000 jobs. turning now to some measures from the household survey, the unemployment rate edged down from 10.2% to 10.0% in november. the rate was 4.9% when the recession began in december of 2007. there was -- there were 15.4 million unemployed persons in november down slightly from the prior month. the number of persons who were unemployed because of job loss declined in november. the number of long-term unemployed continued to grow rising by 293,000 over the month to 5.9 million. employment to population ratio

held at 58.5%. when the recession began it was 62.7%. among the employed, the number of persons working part-time in november who would have preferred to work full time was little changed at 9.2 million. among those outside the labor force, that is persons neither working nor looking for work, the number of discouraged workers in november was 861,000, up from 608,000 a year earlier. these individuals are not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available to them. in summary, nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in november and the unemployment rate edged down to 10%. my colleagues and i would now be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. and what are the bright spots in this month's jobs report? what good news do you have for the american people? >> well, the first, of course is that the unemployment rate edged down, and the job loss at minus

11,000 was essentially unchanged for november. i also think that we now get a picture of a prior three months prior to november that job loss had moderated a fair amount to 135,000 a month. and looking forward, temporary help added 52,000 jobs. that's a pretty reliable leading indicator, and that has been steadily improving through the year. through much of the year. the average weekly hours for manufacturing is also a leading indicator. that increased by 0.3 hour and has shown steady improvement. >> and are there any sectors experiencing more job creation than job losses? >> the sectors that had significant job gains were the temporary help services, which is typical after large job loss like we've had. and we also had job growth in the health care -- education and health care as well. >> and are there any indicators

that overall job losses will continue to slow in coming months? >> well, i think -- i think that a couple of the leading indicators, the temporary help and the average workweek in manufacturing are both encouraging. and i think the fact that the -- in addition to this november number, the prior three months showed moderation, i think, is a good sign as well. >> so we're seeing some good signs for a change. >> yes. >> and what is the typical amount of time after job contraction ends before the labor market starts showing signs of recovery? >> well, if showing signs is a moderation in job loss, and i think that is a sign, that can occur just a few months after we start to see signs of growth in output. it is likely -- in the past it's been true that strong job growth

has taken a few months after we get growth in the output side of the economy. >> could you speak about how we have recovered in the past recessions? usually employment has lagged behind economic recovery. is that true, and would you elaborate on job growth coming after positive economic indicators. >> sure. in past recessions, it's taken a few months for job loss to moderate to where it's around unchanged or very modest job loss. last recession, it took about four months after the end of the recession for job loss to moderate down to something like 35,000 a month. recession before that took about three months for job loss to actually get down to around unchanged. but to actually get strong job

loss -- job gain, the past two recessions has been coming like a year and a half after that, before we got strong job growth. >> a year and a half? >> yes. >> some economists have estimated it will take 10.7 million jobs created to get us back on the prerecession unemployment rate. assuming that jobs are created at 2.8 million jobs per year, the best job creation record of any administration, and this was achieved by former president clinton, how long would you expect it to take us to get us back to full employment? >> without offering an opinion on the 10.7 million jobs, at that rate, though, it would be about three years. >> about three years. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes senator brownback. >> thank you very much, chairman. commissioner hall, who hired temporary people? you noted that temporary numbers went up. who hired the temporary people? do we have those by category, in any major categories? >> we actually don't.

and that's in large part because a lot of the temporary help companies that specialize in this, they actually can't tell us what industries the job growth occurred. so we don't know that information. we know a bit about occupations but not much about what industries they are being hired in. >> that would seem to be an indicator of where likely hiring would take place after they fill the temporary job that they would more likely step up with a full-time job, is that correct? >> yes. >> i agree with senator klobuchar that i think in the future we've got to make more things here and rely less on our consumer to spend our way into prosperity in this economy. do you see any trends or signs of that in these numbers, in either what's falling or what is starting to create some jobs? >> yeah, it's hard to tell on the employment numbers at this time what the economy is going to look like when we get back to

solid economic growth, whether consumer spending will go back to quite the level it was before. i just don't think we can say right now. >> and you don't -- you don't break it out any way like that or you can't -- you can't pick that out of the numbers or the data? >> not really the employment numbers so much, no. obviously, the -- on the output side if you look at the components of gdp you can see consumer spending and see how that's behaving. but most of these employment numbers are sort of indirect. you know, the indirect effect of >> can you define and measure green jobs? >> we have a proposal to work to

measure green jobs in our 2010 budget. we have not had the appropriation yet. our work at this point has been research so far. i can tell you that we are likely to first focus on industries where there may be green employment or output and then focus on occupations within the industries. that is the rough plan of how we will proceed when we get funding. . . tell in your numbers where there was a policy movement that was made and jobs created or a policy move made and jobs hurt? here what i'm getting at is on the cash for clunkers program, there was a lot of discussion about the maintenance of jobs within the manufacturing -- automobile manufacturing sector with that. can you pick that up or any of those factors or monetary policy

factors in any of your numbers that jump out at you or any of the economists at bls? >> no issue it's very hard for us to pick out what the cause of changes in these numbers because we're just sort of counting the number of jobs. in fact, the establishments that we survey, they don't always know why their business has picked up. so it's very hard for us to sort of pull out the effects of policy like that. certainly not all of the effects. i can tell you one possible exception, and this is the cash for clunkers. we don't know what the full effects are. there may be much more. we certainly did see a pick-up in retail sales at automobile dealerships when cash for clunkers was in place but beyon that, i couldn't tell you what the effect is. >> thank you. >> thank you, chair. >> thank you very much. congressman cummings? >> thank you very much. let me make sure i understand

this. since this -- when would you say this recession began? >> it began in december of 2007. >> i didn't hear you? >> i'm sorry. december of 2007. >> and during that period, what was the highest number of jobs lost? >> good question. >> and what month was that? >> in january of this year we lost 741,000. >> in january of this year? >> yes. >> now -- so this month we lost how many? >> 11,000. >> 11,000. we went from 700 and some thousand in january of this year to 11,000 this year. >> yes. >> that's a major -- that's a major cut. >> yes, it is.

>> it's major now. i mean, people may want to downplay it, they may want to say that it's no big deal, but it is a big deal. >> yes, this -- >> would you agree? >> i agree. this is the smallest monthly job loss we've had since the recession started. >> since the recession started. and let's go back to this temporary situation. i've heard you say from that chair many times that one of the things you look at, and you said it today. one of the things you look at with regard to temporary jobs is that when you -- they basically -- early indicator that we may be moving -- pretty good indicator that we may be moving in the right direction as you see them go up. is that right? >> that's correct. it was a leading indicator going into the recession, and it general in the past has been a leading indicator coming out of a recession. >> so going into recession, to help me with that, tell me what

you are looking for. >> sure. for example in temporary help, the temporary help industry started having declining job growth in, i'd say, early 2007 to mid2007. so it was showing signs of a slowing in the labor market in early 2007 before we went into the recession. in january of 2008 or december of 2007. >> teenagers have been especially hard hit during this recession as the economy recovers. are teens going to be the last to be hired from what you can see? are we creating a large generation of youth. i read something that african-american youth from 16 to 24 have a jobless rate of over 35%. i'd say that that's -- i don't know how accurate that is. i'd say there's probably worse than that in many districts. i was just wondering, what can you see from your teenage rates. i don't know whether you break it down, 16 to 24, how you break

that down, but however you do it, tell me what that situation is. >> sure. in all the categories of workers, no matter what age, what gender -- i'm sorry, no matter what gender or their minority status, their unemployment rates are higher than everybody else. they are higher. they've gone up more during this recession. they generally started higher as well. >> a lot of people, just as a comment, a lot of people want to say that maybe it's education, but there's been recent research that an african-american male with a high school diploma and no record, no criminal record whatsoever, is just as -- i mean, when it comes to employment, he's level just about with a person -- a white

male with a record. and so you and i have talked many times about this whole thing of race. it is significant. sadly, in this day and age. what is the unemployment for white folks in america? >> the unemployment rate is 9.3%. >> 9.3%. and for african-americans, what is it? >> 15.6%. >> 15.6%. now what was it last time for african-americans? last time, last month? >> last month it was 15.7%. >> 15.7%. so they've gone down one point. and what was white for last time? >> it was 9.5%. so it's come down 0.2%. and what about hispanics? >> hispanics is at 12.7%. it's declined 0.4%. >> i see my time is up.

thank you madam chair. >> congressman brady. >> thank you, madam chairman. i think we ought to always look for good news with these numbers. and there are some today. but i do caution this congress against any kind of end zone dance just yet on this economy. our gdp growth for the last quarter was just revised downward to 2.8%. the number of long-term unemployed increased to almost 6 million workers in america. very troubling. and our unemployment numbers. we are -- america continues to be the worst performing country when it comes to job losses of any of our major competitors. other countries are stabilizing faster, recovering faster than we are, and that's important as we move forward. and to keep in perspective. i always wonder, you know, is all this government spending working? and the massive effort, while i

think we've taken our eye off the ball on jobs and focused on cap and trade and health care and a number of other distractions, jobs have suffered. the stimulus bill, we were told, poured billions of dollars into infrastructure, and we're told construction manufacturing would see the greatest job gains they've seen among the greatest job losses. we've poured, and the question i have initially for you is, this government's poured billions of dollars into health i.t., into telecom funding, broadband deployment, yet this report today shows 17,000 job losses in information telecom. what's the reason for that? >> i don't know. i can tell you that the 17,000 decline is about on average over the past three months. so it's been a little bit of a

trend lately. and the prior six months it was still about the same. >> so these aren't one-time job losses. this continues to be steady job losses in those areas? >> yes. >> okay. can i ask about -- i want to be real realistic about how long it will take us to dig out of this hole. "the wall street journal" recently calculated if the number of payroll jobs grew at the same rate it did in the last expansion it would take nearly seven years to get back to where we were to regain 7.2 million payroll jobs that have been lost. a number of economists in the same publication have estimated that it will take five to six years before we see a 5% handle on unemployment again. you just said that it would only take three years to get back to full employment. that's a big difference. >> yeah, i was using some assumptions that came from the question.

we haven't done this calculation ourselves. >> those were -- would you consider them to have been fairly rosy assumptions compared to average expansions after recessions? >> you know, it's hard to -- it's hard to tell. it's hard to know where we're going to come out with this expansion, what sort of job growth we're going to have. how long -- >> can i ask, it's a big guess, and i'm sure it's a huge range. but based on today's report, how much would household employment have to increase for us to get back to 8% and then to 5% unemployment? would you guess? >> i'd have to think about that a little bit. we probably need monthly payroll job growth something in the 115,000 to 120,000 a month to -- that's consistent with the

holding unemployment rate. so we'd need growth somewhere over that in payroll jobs to start reducing the unemployment rate over a long-run time period. i can tell you that. i'm not sure i could do the calculation quick enough. >> that works off about 1.4, 1.5 million jobs a year, regains 1.5 million. so if we've lost seven, we're talking about four or five, somewhere in that range if we were to gain at that rate consistently? >> oh, at that rate, that's correct. although that's a fairly slow rate, but, yes. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. i just would like to respond to my good friend and colleague congressman brady who noted that democrats should not be dancing in the end zone, and we certainly are not dancing in the end zone. the president is taking job creation incredibly serious as is every member of congress on both sides of the aisle. but if you look at the chart,

you have to admit we are trending under the democratic administration in the right direction. the last month that former president bush was in office, we lost 700,000 jobs. and we have consistently moved into the right direction to this month where it is 11,000 jobs. it is a tragedy for every american family that has lost a job, and in the past or in the present, but we are trending in the right direction. the chair recognizes senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, chairwoman maloney. i think that chart is a very good way of looking at this, even though we know people are still suffering, to see the changes over time. and i will also note for the record that the only people dancing in the end zone are the minnesota vikings after brett favre has thrown these great passes, just in case you guys missed it. okay. my question first of all generally commissioner hall is

about the -- why we're seeing this trend. could it have anything to do with hiring for the holiday season, or do you see it as a broader signal of economic recovery? >> we'd have to read the latter. our data is seasonally adjusted is so we take know into account the holidays into account in estimating these numbers. so this -- this means more than just seasonal. >> so you actually anticipate when the holidays are coming up that you're going to see some bump up and you sort of discount that effect? >> yes, exactly. >> i didn't know that. that's good. >> we hear repeatedly that unemployment is one of the last things to swing back as part of a recovery. when you look back through history with all the many years you've been looking at these figures, how long does it usually take unemployment to catch up with the other economic indicators. we know we've seen increase in gdp and other things. >> well, that's actually going

to be one of the debates, i suppose. the last two recessions it took a long time. focusing on the payroll jobs, for example, the last recession it took 39 months for payroll jobs level to get back to the prerecession level. in the prior month, the prior recession took about 24 months. those are the two so-called jobless recoveries. >> for the jobless recoveries. and what years were those? >> 2001 and then before that it was the 1991. >> so in 2001, it took 39 months? and in 1991 it took how long? >> 24 months. >> then do you have those figures of when other economic indicators improved before the job numbers went up? or a general sense of it? >> yeah, i -- my count on there was from the official end of the recession, and that typically when the national bureau of economic research, that's the independent group that declares a recession over, they typically will pick the end of a recession

when the output numbers start to show growth and steady growth. so i would say the number i gave you was pretty accurate delay from the time the -- some of the other data showed improvement to when the jobs data got back. >> so you're saying there's like a 39-month delay? >> this delay is not before we see improvement in the labor market. this is before we see enough -- >> where it's back to where it was? >> yeah, exactly. the job level is back to where it was. >> okay. so that's why you wouldn't be surprised that it's take something time to get back to where we were before this all started? >> yes, absolutely. >> as you know, we discussed here the president held a jobs forum yesterday with more than 100 ceos and small business owners, business leaders, mayors, academics to figure out what we should be doing here in washington beyond what's already been done to get the job market going again. do you have any sense of what's worked best in the past for creating jobs? >> i don't.

i wouldn't want to offer an opinion on that. >> oh, that's right. i forgot you don't offer opinions. i have some ideas, as i expressed in my opening statement. the -- one of the things i talked about in addition to getting some of this set amount of this t.a.r.p. money out in addition to a large amount going to deficit reduction to also go to small business credit. do you have a sense of what's happened in the past in terms of the statistics for u.s. exports and how that has led to significant job creation? >> yeah, i think certainly u.s. exports can be a significant stimulus. i'd have to say from past experience that u.s. exports rely in large part on growth outside the u.s. and if you sort of look at the economic growth in some of our major trading partners, that will give you a pretty good idea of how exports will pick up and what sort of stimulus -- >> so you are saying there's clearly a connection between

more buying power in some of these other countries and then we do better with our exports? >> yes. >> and so the fact that we're suddenly seeing some of these other countries that have been developing countries starting to put more money basically into consumers' hands, that we're starting to see some increase in their -- in their living standards that you could lead -- from there could be the possibility that you'd see the open markets for more opportunities for exports? >> yes. >> all right. do you -- could you look back in time for me to see if you can see some connection between the unemployment in our markets and times where we've had these opportunities arise either because of the weak dollar or increasing markets for exports? because again, as i said in my opening, there's just this startling numbers if you could even increase it by 1% or 2% and we've got 95% of our potential customers outside of the united states borders with small and medium businesses having so little access to that with an

inincreasing access in the last few years. i see that as part of the improvement. i've seen it firsthand in the ag community in minnesota. i could eat as much bacon as i want on tv to show pork doesn't have h1n1. but what really helps is when china finally opens its markets to our pork. thank you very much, commissioner. >> congressman burgess? >> thank you madam chair. commissioner hall, let me ask you a few questions, and i know you can't answer. you said the recession started december of 2007? >> correct. >> george bush was president. who was the speaker of the house in december of 2007? >> the same as now. >> and that would be nancy pelosi? >> yes. >> and she had been speaker for a year at that time. and in that point, we had some from an economy that was relative expansion to an economy that was coming into decline. now has that been the same

speaker of the house since december of 2007 to the present time? >> yes. >> do you think that congress really has an affect creating or eliminating jobs in this country? >> be careful. i'm asking you for an opinion. >> yeah, and i was going to -- >> well, and that is of course you don't have to answer the question because we've got people all over the federal district today talking about how congress is going to create jobs, how the white house is going to create or save jobs. but really, it's small business that creates jobs. we have the white house summit going on and they've got all the big actors. they've got the googles and the big folks down there. but it's elm street and oak street as i pointed out. i think senator klobuchar has an

excellent point. i have delft with some of the trade agreements we've done in the past. but now it's been a year since we've done a trade agreement. is that -- is that a good thing or a bad thing in a country that's trying to recovery from a recession and reduce unemployment? >> i can give you a generic answer. the generic answer is lots of times exports can be a real source of growth and stimulus for an economy. >> again, i'll just emphasize it's been a year since we've done any sort of agreement. some agreements, like columbia, have been languishing since they were passed by -- or introduced to the last congress. we've been blocked by the speaker of the house from having a vote on that. we can argue the rightness or wrongness of that or whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but we can't argue because it can't come up for a vote. and to the extent that congress does bear some responsibility for the loss of jobs or the lack

of job creation, i think that's one of the things that has to be considered. we look at previous times where the white house has made a difference in job creation in this country and in my brief lifetime, that was when president kennedy reduced the marginal tax rates and when president reagan did the same thing in the 1980s. and after both of those activities, we saw substantial job growth. in 2003, shortly after i arrived in congress, we had some other tax policy that instituted in a time where the economy was in a recession and job growth was lagging, and it was a result of that tax policy three months later after it was signed into law, in july of 2003, where we begone to see substantial job creation. i just wonder if we shouldn't be looking at those things that have worked in the past.

now interestingly enough, we had a stimulus bill that passed in february. and the stimulus bill had in it as part of the stimulus bill there was -- we're going to invest in infrastructure. create shovel-ready jobs or go to shovel ready jobs around the country. february say good time to do that because the construction season will be starting in the northern part of the country in just a few months time. but out of that $787 billion stimulus bill, my state of texas received $2 billion for infrastructure projects. it seems like a fairly weak effort. but probably more importantly, the gao report that has just come out today states that the federal highway administration is the best agency to fulfill job creation. now in the stimulus bill, the whole federal highway administration, only about $27 million, as i point out, texas

got $2 billion. but also, because we have not done the highway bill reauthorization, we are having to rescind money back to the highway trust fund in texas. texas had to send back $787 million in long-term funding, which put projects that were indeed shovel ready a year ago, has put them now off the -- off the docket. they're not even being considered. so it doesn't make sense to provide a stimulus of $2 billion to texas but take $787 million away in what otherwise should have been stable highway funding. that's actually a yes or no question. does it make sense? not really an opinion, but i guess it could be regarded as an opinion and you may want to dodge it. >> commissioner hall may answer his question. >> i am not an expert in that so

i'll dodge that. >> the answer is, no, it doesn't make sense. >> thank you. the gentleman's time is expired. while some of my good friends and colleagues would like to find a negative spin to these numbers today, people on main street and the markets have found that today's news is nothing but good. the dow jones opened up over 100 points. the dollar surged. the price of oil fell and most importantly, this chart shows that in january, the last month president bush was in office, we were losing 700,000 jobs. every job loss is a tragedy, but under the bush administration -- the obama administration, we've been trending in the right direction, and this month, we only lost 11,000 jobs. it's 11,000 jobs too many. and the administration has responded with the congress in passing the american recovery reinvestment act which has

jump-started productivity. the extension of unemployment insurance that has given hope to american workers that are still looking for jobs, aid to states that's maintained public and private programs for some of the neediest americans and we are starting a series of hearings on job creation ideas, working with the president and others, and we look forward to working with the american people to get this economy moving even more in the right direction. and we will not stop until we have created a job for -- a job opportunity for everyone who wants to go to work. i thank the commissioner hall for your hard work and my colleagues for being here today. i look forward to seeing you next week on thursday. meeting is adjourned. >> i was just going to say hope you have a great holiday and commissioner, we

comprehensive medical liability reform that i've introduced earlier known as s. 45. it's an effort -- in an effort, though, to find xri mierksz i'm offer -- compromise, i'm offering this amendment today. this amendment was originally offered by edward kennedy in 1995. while many of the members of the 1995. while many of the members of the senate were not here members from the other side of the aisle who were the majority at the time supported this amendment. those members included, senator

akaka, senator >> president obama on thursday expressed support for tax initiatives stimulating job creation. his remarks came at the conclusion of a jobs summit at the white house. there are also comments from those attending the session. this is one hour.

>> there are a lot of great ideas still out on the table. i hope that everyone had a great discussion in the breakout sessions. we offered a lot of treats as well. [laughter] not paid for by the taxpayers, but paid for individually. you have got to have good treats to have lively discussion. some of the issues and recurring themes of were the needs for certain see -- certainty in certain policies. the more certainty that the business community has, the better. the consensus is that there is a job emergency and that we need to focus on public sector and private sector jobs. there is a lot of support on that. we also need stable government policies to focus on a long-term and not just the short term.

we need to focus on incentivizing demand. . and of course, research and development. these are just some of the ideas. i do not think that anyone has any illusions about what we face as a country. there is no silver bullet to reduce the unemployment rate that has now surpassed 10%. that figure is completely unacceptable to the president and everyone in this administration. this gathering is an important part of the economic recovery process that began even before obama was sworn into office. it will continue until every single american that wants a job as a job. we welcome any idea to create jobs. whether it comes from the left

or the right. that is an attitude that begins at the top with president obama. all of his domestic initiatives, from reforming health care energy to extending to the families are designed to make businesses more competitive, viable, creating new businesses, and ultimately putting people back to work. a few months ago at yorktown president obama promised an unrelenting, and yielding day- by-day effort by this administration to fight for economic recovery on all fronts. real recovery is achieved when all americans have the dignity and security that comes from a good paying job. that is the message that the president has conveyed to nearly every message -- meeting i have attended. today's meeting is just another

demonstration of that relentless commitment to job creation. let's welcome back the man of who convened us all and what your thoughts and ideas. ladies and gentlemen, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you, everyone. please be seated. i had the upper coat -- opportunity to attend two of the breakout sessions, it was a terrific conversation and some great ideas. i heard a great deal of challenges this afternoon about the challenges we are all facing. businesses large and small when it comes to creating jobs. there is no question that it is difficult out there right now. we also heard exciting ideas and

proposals. laying the groundwork for sustainable economic work in the future i attended two of their sessions. one on infrastructure, where there was broad agreement that the infrastructure in america is not where it needs to be and we have enormous investments to make. we got good feedback from people like a dog and others about how we need to do this more effectively, about how we can measure cost and benefit infrastructure investment, making sure that shovel ready means shovel ready. how can there be more effective coordination between federal, state, and local government in order to maximize the benefits of infrastructure spending. there was a considerable amount

of discussion about leveraging the private sector. we also heard, in a clean energy sessions that i just left, some terrific ideas about how energy efficiency and whether his asian promises immediately -- weather arrives -- weatherization promises immediate ground work for energy independence and, as a consequence of making those investments, setting up a prospect that pays for itself. now, i will tell you that in the clean energy discussion there was also the acknowledgement that we would not be able to maximize the benefit of clean

energy investment unless we get it settled how we are dealing with the price of carbon. we do not want to turn this into a discussion about congress and legislation, but there was consensus -- consensus around the table to focus on business opportunities that america will benefit from. that the next great round of economic work is coming from around the world. i was not in some of the other meetings. but i have received a quick summary. my understanding is that the business tax session, there were important ideas to report about how we can provide additional tax incentives. before the provisions went into

effect, bill mccollum was going to close 10 stores, now he is going to open an additional 25. it is indicative of how tax policies can make a difference. larry mitchell and alan blinder proposed additional tax incentives for job creation. this process was raised in a number of other sessions as well. in the small business section, joe stieglitz presented a case for how credit markets can fail, putting forward specific ideas about how we can get credit moving again. if you are a big corporation, right now credit markets are working for you. if you are a small or medium- sized business, even if you are profitable we are hearing that you are still seeing your credit

frozen. we are going to have to unlock that. that will require an interface between what we are doing on the recovery side that we are doing with banking policies. angie sheldon, who runs virtual solutions, where are you? there you are. she explained how she is creating thousands of jobs, bringing them back from overseas over the last several years. she had very specific ideas about how we could foster this reverse job migration. which brings us to the export session. one of the things at this time of fiscal constraints that we are looking for is how we can spur job growth in the united states without taking a whole lot of government money. we will need to put public dollars into it. everyone agrees that expanding

exports has to be a priority. this was a major topic when i traveled to eight -- asia several weeks ago. we heard from jim about the importance of strategies to open markets. we heard from the boeing ceo about the 22,000 small business fliers that he relies on. these suppliers, if they are not given credit, it is hard to build products for export. we talked about how we could make businesses more competitive and specific ideas for protecting intellectual property to promote innovation here at home. finally we work with a broad cross-section of thinkers for more effective training. we talked about a successful

partnership with san antonio community colleges, committed to bringing jobs back from india. we all agree that we should look to build on these kinds of partnerships to leverage in the infrastructure session we heard the same refrain. randy suggested one specific idea, community schools in rural areas where kids are learning during the day. that is a terrific idea worth exploring. let me close by saying that what was striking was the overlap that existed in a lot of these sessions. so, we were in the clean energy section. how could we get contractors certified to see the contract --

contracts that were needed. when we were in the infrastructure session, there was a strong urge not simply to accept existing problems, but provide a clean air transportation industry. there is a lot of overlap between the sessions. it underscores the fact that despite we had these breakout sessions, we will have to integrate strategies to get the most bang for the buck. i think that some of these ideas we can translate immediately into administration plans. what i want to do is for the remaining part of this jobs forum to call on all of you to

see which kinds of ideas i have not highlighted. things that stood out before in the session, you might have a burning idea that is going to set the world on fire. [laughter] i want to make sure that you have the opportunity to lay it out. so, please do me a favor and introduce yourself. a lot of you i know, but not everyone. >> one of the things that we spent a lot of time on was the regulation last year. to your point about creating regulations and the consequences, that is important to us as a small manufacturer. one of the things that i wanted to make sure of that we were not able to get out in our session, we spent $4 million every year

on health care. we developed programs to have our associates be healthier. we have avoided extra costs of this year of 10%. we kept it down by creating programs to keep associates more healthy. by sharing those with anyone that will listen. >> this is not a plan, but let me just point out, obviously the inefficient nature of our current health system is a drag on the economy and job growth. as a small business or a large business, if you are seeing premiums for your employees going up 15% every year, i have had many letters that have said that these policies were jacking up their costs by as much as 48%. in those situations you will not

be able to invest in hiring new workers. it is very important for us to take steps legislatively and also in the private sector to improve prevention, improve wellness. i think that the legislation that we are working on as we speak will have that salutary impact. you are absolutely right. companies like yours have done some important creative work on your own. the question is -- are there ways to further incentivize the practice? ways that you can save money and return investments to businesses. >> in reference to silos, will

we be able to boil down the different groups? >> we had extensive note taking in each session. that will be distributed to all of you. i want to assure you that this is just the start of his interaction we are having with you. we will have the opportunity to continue with many of these ideas. the input that we are soliciting is going to be continuous. frank? >> i would emphasize that we feel that it is important that we receive targeted fiscal assistance to local government. whether it is through infrastructure projects that we have talked about in our groups or energy efficiency block grants, types of grants or cbdg,

those programs have worked in the past, bringing money to where people live and work, where gdp is produced in this country. >> let me pick up on this point. this may have been discussed in some of the groups, but it might not have. as tough as this financial crisis has been on the federal budget, in some cases it has been worse on state and local government budgets. about one-third of the recovery act is essentially stabilization funds or assistance to states so that they did not have to lay off teachers, firefighters, and police officers. we do not get a lot of credit for that. i would point out that some of

mayors and governors who are very critical of the recovery act were very happy to get this money. i think that it raises the point that what we have been able to do this year is stabilized aggregates. that has been very important to preventing a much more difficult economic and job environment. next year we will still have some of those challenges, because usually state and local government revenue lags behind recovery as a whole. they might need more help from the federal government. it is important to signal to business leaders that we understand that fact. if you see a complete collapse in state and local government spending on basic needs, that creates a very bad business climate for all of you.

something that we will have to consider working on. gentleman right there? >> thank you, mr. president. one of the things we are looking at with medium-sized and small businesses is financing. every month and looks better, but the ability to get the financing for the upswing, purchasing the raw materials, we are struggling to buy raw materials and hire people. >> as i said earlier, credit markets were frozen for everyone. because of extraordinary intervention on our part, the financial panic abated. and some of the credit markets out there fought out.

so, for a fortune 100 company right now, you can probably get credit. if you are a small business out there, it is still very tough. now, we have increased loans by 73%. we are constantly looking for more ways that we can push the banks and the credit markets to get money into the hands of small and medium-sized businesses to create a majority of jobs. i am not sure if secretary geithner is here, -- there he is, in the back. one of the things that i think he will testify to is that at least every other day i asked him what are we doing to help credit flow to small and medium sized businesses. there is going to be an overlap

between what we are doing on the recovery act and what we need to do in terms of bank policy, what the fed is doing in terms of credit markets. and one of the things that we are exploring is how we can help community banks and smaller banks to loosen up on credit. the banks are just a little bit caught in between because regulators are looking at their books and saying boy, that was a real mess, and as they increase capital requirements and to tighten their lending criteria, on the other hand they have got the president asking why they are not lending more money. so, they are in a bit of a fix. some of that is unavoidable. the banking sector was in bad shape and over-leveraged.

we really needed to take some steps. but we have to make sure that we do not over correct, which is something we are concerned about. some of the smaller banks, while not involved in the crazy stuff going on on wall street, frankly they were overextend it when it came to the commercial real- estate market. they're building a lot of st. paul's out there. now they are finding that the commercial real-estate market, not having bottomed out, it is trailing behind housing market in terms of the problems of having. this is affecting small banks as well. the bottom line is that we know that this is a priority and we are pushing as hard as we can to do it responsibly. we actually think that by getting financial regulatory forms done in congress, it will

provide the certainty in framework available to us so that we can then help these banks more effectively do the right thing. right behind the gentleman i just called. i want to make sure we're getting some gender equity. no, not you. [laughter] go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. i am a farmer from ms. r link, representing the national family farm coalition today. i wanted to bring this to your attention, there has been a lot of conversation about where we will get the biggest bang for our buck. often in this country in rural communities, independent family farmers are the biggest bang for our buck.

as the people that we buy seeds from to the people that we use to process meats, transportation systems for hauling grain, we create a lot of jobs and we want to make sure that that is not overlooked. one of the things that you and the first lady have highlighted this incredible move underfoot where thousands of farmers are producing food for local markets. so, we have to make sure that the infrastructure is in place. from the meat processing to the transportation and storage, to make that a reality, as it could be a reality for us, whereas in the past we have tended to put a lot of money into the hands of corporate agriculture business. they have not given the bank for the buck that family farmers have in terms of job creation that is good, good paying, and fair jobs in the community. so, thank you for what you are

doing on competition and local foods and we want you to remember that we are a job creator out here. >> wait for the microphone so that everyone can hear you. >> you know, most of the things proposed today cost money. there is this concern about the press -- federal deficit. i would hope that your administration recognizes, as i know you will, that it is possible to reduce the deficit over time and sometimes in the short run realize that you need to increase the deficit. i hope that concern about the deficit in the long run is not crowd out the need for spending in the short run. i also think that some of these programs that increase jobs and increase gdp are probably the fastest way to get the economy

back on track that will reduce the deficit over time. it is certainly a better way than putting ourselves into a debtor's prison, assuming we can inflate our way to recovery. >> an important point. we have been speaking a lot about specific initiatives. there is a macro economic element to this. let me just amplify what was just said. we have a structural deficit that is real and growing. apart from the financial crisis. it has been inherited, and we are spending about 23% gdp, taking in 18% gdp, and that gap is growing because of health care, and we have got to do something about it. on top of that we have a huge loss of tax revenue from the

financial crisis, and the greater demands for unemployment and so forth. that is another layer. probably the smallest player is the recovery act. there is a misperception that somehow the recovery act caused the deficit. we have got a $9 trillion deficit, may be $1 trillion can be attributed to the recovery act and the cleanup work for the banks. it turns out that tarp, , as wildly at -- unpopular as it has been, has been much cheaper than we anticipated. so, a long-term structural deficit that is being driven by health care costs.

now, if we cannot grow our economy and it is going to be that much harder, it will be difficult to reduce the deficit. the most important thing that we can do right now for deficit reduction is sparking a strong economic growth, meaning that people that have jobs and are making profits are paying taxes. that is the most important thing that we can do. this is not always the dialogue out there in the public. we will have to do a better job of educating the public on that. the last thing that we would want to do in the middle of a group recovery is take more money out of the system through risk factors or slashing spending. frankly, state and local governments cannot engage in deficit spending and some of that obligation does fall on the

federal government. having said that, what is also true is that businesses and global capital markets have a sense that there is a planned medium in the long term to get the deficit down. that can also be counterproductive. so, we have got about as difficult and that -- economic play as possible. with no way to apply the brakes credibly. we are trying to strike that balance, but we will need help from all of you. because we want to leverage what ever public dollars are spent. we are under no illusion that somehow the federal government

can spend its way out of this recession. but it is true that any of these ideas mentioned here are going to require some public dollars and good investments right now. ok. how much time do we have? i want to make sure. we are doing good? ok, good. we actually have an internet question. because we are trying to make sure that this goes out to other locations. what have you got? >> as you know, many people have been watching the breakout sessions through the web site. but they have also been talking on facebook and twitter about what they have seen. we have one question from dawn errington, "my mba has educated me right out of the market.

i thought it was supposed to help me"? >> first of all, i got a law degree, it was more expensive, it took longer, and i do not know how much more useful it was. but that e-mail is indicative of what a lot of people are feeling out there. this is not a normal recession we have just gone through. this one is going deep into the economy, and not hitting only blue-collar workers. in some cases when it comes to middle management, it's harder. people that expected to always be able to find a job are at it -- finding a very tight job market.

one, we know that long term more education means more opportunities for the individual, greater income, and that is not decreasing, it is increasing. the gap between higher education and someone with a high-school education. in a knowledge based economy, that is not going away. as frustrating as it might be for the college grad or nba, the fact of the matter is you will still be much better off with the education. it is not only good for the individual, it is also critical for our economy. i told this story in this room just a while back. we were doing a session on science, technology, and one of the things i was very proud of in this administration is that no one except a couple of

others, we are actually initiating more education reform, covering education reforms, then any administration over the last several years. people like randy and others are helping in this process. i told the story of my lunch le with le of south korea -- my lunch with president lee in south korea.

as parents. one people are going to have to be more demanding in terms of our ability to compete. i don't want -- the last thing i want relates to the previous question. the last thing i want is us to essentially use up our seed corn here to not make investments in education, to not make our investments in clean energy. to essentially say the only way we can handle this is to constrict our dreams and to go small because these other countries out there, they are making these investments in

infrastructure, in education, in clean energy. and we can't lose the race just because we're going through a tough time right now. that was the time, actually, to make sure we're prioritizing properly and pushing even farther on that front. ok, yes. >> mr. president, i am of merit medical systems. one of the overriding thoughts in our forum was that there is uncertainty that there is such an aggressive legislative agenda that people don't really know what they ought to do. in fact, onesie is he said that he thought he has to kind of wait and may have to restructure his business. this is a large multinational farma company. that uncertainty is really holding back the jobs. i hear that a lot in the press. there is so much going on. no one knows what to do.

how can you give us that confidence and make sure that we're certain about the near-term and long-term growth prospects? >> i actually think this is a legitimate concern. this has been a tough year with a lot of uncertainty. now at the beginning of this crisis when we were in transition, we could have have made a decision and there are legitimate arguments for that decision. there are legitimate arguments for the course that could have been taken, which is to say that things are so bad, we go two wars. we got a crisis in the financial markets. we just found out we lost 700,000 jobs per month in the first quarter that we should not try any big initiatives legislatively. just shouldn't do it until everything has stabilized and settle down. and i thought, i strongly considered that argument.

i think the response is the point that was just made earlier that if we keep on putting off tough decisions about health care, about energy, about education, we'll never get to the point where there is a lot of appetite for that. i mean, keep in mind we just went through 10, 15 years where everything looked pretty good except what happened was is that that growth was built on a house of cards. the fundamentals of the economy were weakening and they were papered over by massive leverage, credit card debt, a housing market bubble. our health care system, we keep on putting off but the fact of the matter is there is no way that businesses can sustain their current spending levels on health care.

they can't do it, and families can't either. and the c.e.o. of a pharmaceutical company i think would know that because i'm sure that companies and for health care providers are sending that message. so my belief was that we had to start tackling some of those fundamental problems if we were going to emerge stronger than we were before. having said that, my strong hope is that we get health care done by the end of this year. that eliminates some unbe certainty because people have a sense of what is going to be happening in the health care field. that we get financial regulatory reform done, if not by the end of this year, than early next year so that banks have certainty, and that, to the extent that the uncertainty is derived from these major legislative initiatives i think will be solved in the next few

months. i think that the best way for us to deal with long-term uncertainty is to tackle the things that we have been putting off and sweeping under the rug. there is no point in us pretending that these aren't problems and thinking that somehow we can go back to business as usual because i think if we take that approach, then we might be able to manage for the next three or four or five years. sooner or later we are going to get back into the same problems that we have already been in. it's very important to start doing the hard business now. ok. yes. right there. >> thank you, mr. president. my name is chandra brown. we are hiring and we are building the first modern streetcar in 58 years back in this country so we're bringing jobs from europe to here.

and i just wanted to emphasize the importance of having the federal government as a partner in some of these infrastructures because we're a traditional manufacturing union house. and we want to be the next generation in clean energy, whether that's building streetcar vehicles for the 85 cities looking for it, whether it's building the first wave energy device that we're going to be build off the coast of oregon. it's critical that our traditional manufacturing base that those jobs stay here in the united states and that we can continue to advance on those where it's going to be a benefit for all things, climate change, job characters, and economic development, especially for street cars and 85 cities looking at them. >> i'm looking forward to riding on one of them. >> all right! any time. >> this gentleman has been waiting. >> mr. president, thank you for the invitation. i'm from cedar rappeds, iowa.

i have a request that won't cost anything and bring people home. can you help ease the advicea regulations so we can have students come back and the international visits that will bring money and cultivate long-term resources of culture and academic relationships. so please help ease the advicea. it will bring money in and won't cost us anything, thank you. >> i think you make an important suggestion. we live in an inner connected world and an interdependent world. i think that properly we had to respond to 9/11 by reviewing our policies on visas, on immigration, on a whole host of issues. but i think it is important for us not to get into a bunker mentality. that's not america's strength. our strength has always been saying yes to the rest of the world, inviting ideas and different cultures and

commerce. and we have not seen the same kinds of openness i think over the last several years that i would like to see. now, we have got to do it in a presumed innocent way, but let's just -- prudent way, but let's just take the example of foreign students. one of the great things about this country is we get the best and brightest talent to study here, once they study here, they enjoy it and they stay and start new businesses and suddenly you have a whole new generation of folks that creating intel or other extraordinary businesses. if those students start seeing a closed door, then we are losing what is one of our greatest competitive advantages. and that's something that i think we're committed to doing. let me broaden the point. there are a lot of things that don't cost money that could

make a difference. so it just goes back to the issue of certainty. i mean, i do think that providing some regulatory certainty and reducing red tape on a whole bunch of areas like infrastructure investment is very important. and what i have instructed our team to do is any good idea that will make the systems and processes of the private sector interacting with government smoother, quicker, crisper, more tech savvy, i'm for. i think on the export front is another example of where a lot of times just showing up, making sure that gary lock or our trade representative, what's that guy's name, ron kirk -- i'm messing with you, ron. is he here?

[laughter] you can tell him i said that. but making sure that they are actively pursuing business opportunities overseas and we are not making it tougher. let me give you one specific example that could have some significant job implications. we still have a lot of trade restrictions on high-tech exports that are actually carryovers from the cold war. now, part of the problem is we haven't gotten the kind of intellectual property enforcement in other countries that we need, so understandably, businesses are wary about sending their products overseas just to be duplicated and then shipped back to us with using the lower wage labor. but in some cases, it really

has to do a failure to update and review what restrictions still make sense, and what restrictions don't. now, china, korea, a whole bunch of asian nations would love to import some high value added high-tech stuff that could create huge numbers of jobs here in the united states. if we just increased our share of exports to asia by 1%, that's about a quarter million jobs right there. if we increated it by five, that's a million jobs, that fills a big hole. it doesn't cost us money. so we are going to be scouring federal regulations, restrictions, etc. that are inhibiting export growth. we are going to link up businesses to export more effectively. i note a lot of the stuff was

talked about in the export section. this is going to be a top priority. even though i was supposed to take one more question, i'm going to take two because i had actually called on this gentleman right here and i felt bad that -- go ahead. >> i'm the chairman and c.e.o. of ethan allen. just to follow up on this question of immigration although my comment is on a separate subject, i came to the united states at age 21 with just a few hundred dollars. i presented envelopes during the day and went to school and this country afforded me the opportunity to be where i am today. i think we should make sure that that kind of an opportunity is not taken away. now, my comment is that ethan allen is a 77-year-old company. we have, just to survive, we had to reinvent either by chance or by plan. otherwise, anybody 77 years old, an enterprise, cannot survive. so this last year, i refer to

it like a tsunami hitting the economy. it has given us more opportunity to reinvent in the last seven or eight months than the last 25 years i have been president of ethan allen. we have in the seven or eight months, we had to consolidate. we had to let people go. we had an integrated company from manufacturing to retailing to logistics, we have taken the brunt of this recession in communities that are very, very far away from washington, in vermont, in maine, north carolina, pennsylvania. and we have had people with us 30 to 40 years to let go but we had to. in the last seven months as i said, after all of this major reinvention, major consolidation, but we are inventing. in the last few months we have been adding people. we make furniture and we have 30 stores in china and we're shipping them from the united states. it's possible. i would say, mr. president,

that we should not miss this opportunity. crisis creates an opportunity. we as business leaders are ready for invention and i think the government should help us in fiscal policy, should help us in tax policy, because the reinvention like you talk about the infrastructure of building bridges, we have to build our technology. i think the government can be a very, very important -- play a very, very important role because this opportunity is going to be shot. and i think we should not miss it. >> well, this is actually a good place to close. what people are going through every day is heartbreaking all across the country. and the decisions that you just made as a c.e.o. obviously have enormous ripple effects. you had to do it in order to keep your company profitable. on the other hand, the consequences of those layoffs obviously are felt deeply, not just by the individuals

involved, but by the places, the restaurant that that person who has been laid obvioused to frequent and it just keeps on rippling throughout the economy. digging ourselves out of a hole that we dug ourselves into is not easy. the loss of the -- the job loss this past year and the months preceding it were as severe as anything we have seen for a very long time, as rapid as we have seen in a very long time and generating the kind of economic growth that leads to the kind of hiring that gets our employment base back up to where it was is going to be hard and it's going to take a lot of work. but i just want to echo what i said at the beginning of this session, we still have the best universities in the world. we still have the most open

entrepreneurial economy and market of any advanced nation. we still have the most productive workers in the world. despite the issues of unsettled around some of -- things like the banking industry and the financial sector, the truth of the matter is that we are still the most stable country in the world, which is why during the midst of this crisis, everybody was buying into the u.s. and the dollar was shooting up and people were snatching up treasuries because they still have confidence in what america has to offer. and so the most important message that all of us take away from this session is if we combine traditional american optimism with an

acknowledgement that we can't go back to business as usual, and we have to rediscover a sense of seriousness of purpose when it comes to educating our kids or when it comes to government managing money properly or it comes to c.e.o.'s feeling some obligations to their workers in their communities, if we can recapture that sense that we're in this thing together and that we're willing to work hard that america is not great because it's owed to us, but we have been great because previous generations have put in the hard work to get us there, then i'm confident we're going to get through this tough time and the 21st century is going to be as good for us as the 20th was. but it's not going to come easily and it is going to require a level of cooperation and a willingness to work strategically together that we

have not seen in the last several years. and frankly, this town and the way the political dialogue is structured right now is not conducive to what we need to be globally competitive. all of are leaders in your communities in the business sector and the academia, we have a few pundits here. it's important to understand what's at stake and that we can't keep on playing games. i mentioned that i was in asia on this trip and thing about the economy. -- thinking about the economy. when i sat down for a round of interviews, not one asked me about asia or the economy, i was several times if i had read sarah palin's book. true. but it's an indication of how our political debate doesn't

match up with what we need and where we need to go. but this kind of dialogue helps and i appreciate all of you participating. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> excuse me. because i'm traveling to allentown, pennsylvania -- >> yeah! [laughter] >> i want to make sure that this room of business leaders and labor leaders and others just have a chance real quickly to hear directly from the mayor of allentown who is here right now. come up here, mr. mayor, because i want to make sure that -- [applause] >> this is the kind of town where the rubber hits the road and i'm going to be having conversations with workers, small businesses, community colleges, and i wanted the mayor to just give a sense of what's going on and what you think would make the biggest difference in your town. >> thank you so much, mr. president. i want to say we're really

honored to have you come to allentown tomorrow. i'm very thankful that you're taking on these cadges. i know you were handed a mess when you came in, probably the worst economy in 70 years. i want to say thank you personally for all that you have done. i think you're doing a great job. on behalf of the city of allentown, you know, we have had some difficult challenges like most midsized cities in the northeast. our unemployment rate last month went up to 9.8%. we have 41,000 in that region that are unemployed but there are great things that are happening. we hopefully and hopefully you're going to see those great things. we have great companies that are actually growing, that are expanding. we have a company that i know you're going to be at tomorrow that is actually manufacturing steel still in the united states and doing a great job at it growing their business and growing the workforce. we have a number of unique small businesses. in that particular region,

we're diverse tied too, we have fortune 500 companies. we have pennsylvania power and light. olympus has their north american headquarters in the city of allentown. we have 1,400 employers. only 1,100 are large employers. the majority of them are small businesses. there is a number of small business in the area that are growing the economy. one of them is the terra group, i want to say thank you on behalf of them. they started a product that was a small water filtration, portable water filtration system, and the marines have just bought that for our troops in afghanistan. and they're expanding, you can clap on that. they're actually expanding to hire another 40 jobs because of that. and so i want to thank you. we look forward to having you tomorrow and we look forward to having you around the city of allentown and talking to many of the businesss that are doing

some great things in rebuilding this economy. [applause] >> if there are any c.e.o.'s that are looking to locate, i'm sure the mayors are all interested in talking to you. and they have literature, i'm sure. so thank you very much, everybody. [applause]

actually asked for time today is >> the senate came at 10:00 y is this morning continuing their obligations on health care. a couple votes degree with home health visits, otherwise steady debate throughout the day. we see what is happening on the senate floor live right now. senator al franken is speaking. and tomorrow president obama is heading to capitol hill. a congressional quarterly reporting that president obama's visit on 2:00 p.m. on sunday could help quell some of the grumbling and dissent from some of the various factions of what is or isn't included in

the current versions. the sharpest divisions is how to create a public option that would compete with private insurance plans. the senate will be in session tomorrow at noon eastern. watch live coverage on c-span 2 and c-span.org. >> as the senate continues debating health care, visit c-span's health care hub to read the senate and house versions of the bill. you can also video on demand from the senate and house floors. today on america and the courts, a look at the relationship between the media

and supreme court. panelists discuss the nomination of sonia sotomayor. panelists include cnn legal analyst jeffrey tubin and "new york times" reporter adam liptak. america and the courts at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. house minority whip eric cantor discussed ideas for creating jobs at an event earlier this week. more about job characters now with horse minority leader john boehner, he and a group of economists spoke briefly in the

capital. this is 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone, my name is michael frank, i'm the vice president here for government relations and i want to welcome you to our event this afternoon. as the president hosts a forum to discuss job creation and as leading congressional democrats draw up plans for another stimulus bill which appears likely to include additional billions of dollars in new spending, the republican minority whip eric cantor thought it would be a good idea to consider what common sense steps the president and the congress could take to help grow the economy and create jobs without additional government spending new bureaucracies and added debt that will be left to our children and grandchildren. to that end, representative cantor who has the economic recovery solution group here today to outline several of these proposals. let me give him the proper introduction. he was first represented in 2000 to represent the seventh district of virginia which is

from richmond and northward in virginia. he rose quickly to become the republican whip in november of 2008 which is the second ranking leadership position in the house minority leadership structure. mr. cantor is a member of the house ways and means committee, and he has taken a keen interest in everything in america's economic competitiveness. a lot you'll see demonstrated today. he believes the government overtaxes investment and savings and he has championeded in the races on capital gains and dividends. he wants lower rates in other parts of the world. the first bill was actually to provide a tax credit of $1,000 per child for parents of school-aged children. he has been involved in just about every major congressional effort since he has been in congress designed to help spur economic growth. he is the chairman of the house

republican economic solutions group which is a group of over two dozen house republicans who are focused on precisely these issues. during the debate on the first stimulus bill, they developed lowering tax rates on individuals, families, and small businesses and it was estimated, it was using the white house's own economic model that their proposal would have created twice the jobs at half the cost of the proposal that eventually became law. with no further adieu, give me a welcome to house minority whip, eric cantor. [applause] >> thank you for your commitment to the common sense conservative principals that i believe form the bedrock of this country. with many of those values under

cjc today, you really -- seige, you truly are on the front lines to get out our message. that's why i'm here today to offer a contrasting approach to how republicans would handle our economic struggles. i want to start by sharing with you what i heard around the thanksgiving dinner table last week, a set of sentiments that families around the country are experiencing. there was plenty of good food and good cheer, i was struck by the overwhelming sense of pessimism about our station's future. instead of looking forward, i heard people talking about the past. remember how great we used to be? it's not that the folks that i was with believe that we can't get back to those days, but there clearly is a fear, an insecurity about the future, not just their own, but their

neighbors and their friends. nearly everyone that i spoke to knew someone who had lost a job, and if not, they knew someone that was worried about having to make a college tuition payment next semester or admitted that perhaps they wouldn't be able to retire as early as they had hoped. no doubt, america is struggling and people need our help. the question is are the policymakers in washington listening? the last 11 months have been spent on an agenda that is out of step with the struggles of the american people, an agenda that expants the reach of government, increases the deficit and requires us to borrow even more from foreign countries. this agenda includes everything from spending to cap and trade to card check. clearly jobs have taken a back seat. as a result, the debt is set to

double over the next five years , triple in 10. within four years, the federal government will spend $1 billion a day just on interest on the debt. within 10 years, it will be nearly $2 billion a day. the $800 billion stimulus bill that washington passed last january has failed to create or save the jobs promised. the bailout culture in washington has raised moral hazard problems throughout the economy signaling to industries that they'll not be held accountable for their mistakes or their poor decisions. even worse, the proposed volley of heavy taxes and mandates has draped small businesses, the nation's job creators, in a blanket of fear. that's the reason why small businesses remain on the sidelines not hiring, not

expanding, and not investing. all the while the democratic majority continues to push through a trillion dollar government run health care overall. it will fail to lower the costs as promised. the president and the democratic majority in congress have a right to chart their own course. they have got all the power, but ignoring the realities of today's economy and the needs of working families and small businesses only exacerbates the economic challenges before us. there is now even talk of a second or is it a third stimulus bill. but those in charge say we are not allowed to call it a stimulus bill. to do so would acknowledge the failure of the stimulus bill passed in january. so what is the majority? what is it that the president is considering for this new

don't call it a stimulus stimulus bill? more government spending, more bailout to states, more transfers payments to individuals and expanding government agencies, all of course financed with more borrowing and more debt. it sure sounds like the other stimulus bill to me. the question for us then -- is there a better way? can we grow this economy? can we create jobs and help struggling families without further mortgaging our children's future? is there a no cost jobs plan? as mike said, i chair the economic solutions working group for the house republicans. this group of members has a meeting all year on ways to improve the economy. and lately our focus has been on a no cost jobs plan. so if the president kicks off his job summit tomorrow, i

would like to highlight some common sense proposals that we have had under discussion that i believe are worthy of serious consideration by the president and the democratic majority. now, i know that there are philosophical differences between the parties, but surely we can agree on a few common sense things to help get america back to work. let's begin with a simple premise. an overactive government did not make america the land of promise, prosperity, and opportunity. why have our small businesses, entrepreneurs and workers been so moat indicated to work hard and innovate over the years? it's because hard work was rewarded. why have investors and job creators around the world looked to the united states and its capital markets? because america was a place where taxes and regulations fostered competitiveness,

fostered accountability and transparency. why have countries around the world made the u.s. dollar, the world's reserve currency? >> because america was a rock of financial stability but pursued sound fiscal policies. so with that in mind, what is it that we should be pursuing? first, we must tear down self-imposed obstacles to economic growth and wealth creation. the prospect of a barrage of tax increases, new government regulation, and costly government mandates have had a paralyzing impact on our job creators. as the c.e.o. of a steelmaker recently told the "wall street journal," i'm not going to do anything until these things, health care, climate legislation, and others go away or are resolved. therefore, congress and the administration should stop the deluge of detrimental rules and

regulations. since taking office, this administration has put on the table over 100 detrimental regulations, each with an impact of $100 million or more on the economy. the president should issue an executive order mitigating the impact of my proposed rule that would adversely affect jobs, the economy, and small businesses. second, we should agree now to block any federal tax increases at all until unemployment drops below 5%. that includes any new taxes to pay for more spending or any automatic tax increases embedded in federal law. americans of all political stripes agree that the government should never raise taxes during periods of high unemployment. obviously there is a face sole call different on taxes, but clearly in a time like this, we

can agree on that. the revenues higher taxes will generate are much better off in the pockets of families and small businesses. third, we need to restore confidence in america's economic future. record deficits and debts coupled with run away spending have taken confidence in that economic future. many believe the only solutions are higher taxes or inflating the dollar with promised lasting pain for small businesses and working families. one simple solution is to freeze domestic discretionary spending at last year's levels without raising taxes. this would save u.s. taxpayers $53 billion immediately. but more importantly, it would send a signal that we are committed to lowering the deficit. fourth, we should reform the unemployment system to help

people out of work actually find jobs. federal unemployment recipients who are likely to exhaust benefits should be required to participate in education, training, or enhanced job searches. a program such as this in ohio resulted in the return on investment of 5/1 in terms of saving compared to program cost. in georgia there is another example of how states are experimenting and paving the way. they are placing recipients in part-time jobs. at the end of a six-week trial period, the employer makes a decision about whether to hire the individual. the initiative has resulted in quicker returns to work and less unemployment payments. why not bring this kind of innovative outside-the-box thinking to washington? further more, declining negative balances in

unemployment trust funds will foss states to implement payroll tax hikes on employers this year. these will average almost $250 per worker per year through 2012. the federal government could help ease the burden on employers by immediately suspending the federal unemployment tax. this would save employers $56 per worker per year. and the $7 billion a year cost of this tax suspension could be offset through a reduction of improper government payments which according to the administration's own count totaled $98 billion last fiscal year. that's an increase of $26 billion over the previous. fifth, we need to approve three promising free trade agreements with colombia, south korea and panama that have called under the new administration. recently the president stated

that increasing u.s. exports by just 1% would create over 250,000 jobs. sure enough the independent international trade commission estimates that the three deals would boost u.s. exports by over 1%. we urge president obama and congress to stand on the side of job creation and quickly approve these agreements. sixth. we must take action to reduce regulatory and tax barriers that inhibit domestic job creation. federal regulation and tax law often make it easier for large companies to create jobs overseas instead of here at home. efforts should be taken to ensure the most favorable environment possible for domestic job creation. for example, we should act immediately to remove obstacles

to domestic energy production tapping more heavily into oil, natural gas, shale, nuclear and renewable sources will lower cost, create jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. we can also provide an incentive for companies to reupdateate earnings back to the -- rerepatriate earnings. as a result, american companies often keep their earnings stranded in subsidiaries overseas. in 2004, congress allowed companies a limited time to repatriate foreign earnings and pay a reduced tax rate. the policy resulted in more than $350 billion of profits being returned to the united states and a windfall to the treasury of about $18 billion in tax revenue.

providing another limited window of repatriation of foreign earnings would help u.s. companies retain domestic workers and weather the current economic downturn. finally, we must deal swiftly and honestly with the looming real estate collapse. congress should move quickly to give bank regulators incentives to deal responsibly with banks and their borrowers. forcing liquidation of performing loans just makes no sense. if regulators could assume a prudent posture toward risk, the badly wounded credit market that we're experiencing would begin the process of repair. in addition, reducing the overextended depreciation standard, currently a whopping 39 1/2 years to 20 years or less would provide a lift to property values and bring some common sense back to the tax

code. these are seven simple solutions that don't involve massive new government spending, new bureaucracies or more debt. they are based on time-honored principals proven to create jobs and ultimately economic prosperity in america. i would like to share with you a story about thomas jefferson. it may be just a story, but it is an inspiration for us during these times. president jefferson was riding on horseback from the white house back to his home in monitor cello near char lotsville, virginia. he was an entourage of men on horseback. they reached a river for which there was no bridge or no ferry. the men decided they would have to get off, walk their horses across to get to the other side. one by one, the men went first and the president was last. as they filed into the river,

they passed a gentleman on the riverbank. finally when it got to the president, this gentleman who had a big bundle by his side approached the president and asked for a lift. president jefferson in that true tradition of a virginia gentleman said absolutely and allowed the gentleman to get up on his horse and the president led the gentleman and his bundle across the water. when the group got to the other side, the president's men were furious and they asked the gentleman how in the world, why did you do that? why did you ask the president of the united states for a lift when you could have asked us? this gentleman said simply i asked the president because each and every time i looked at one of you, i saw the letters n-o written across your forehead. when i saw the president, i saw the word yes.

yes, these are troubling and difficult times, some of the worst that we have experienced in our lifetimes. as leaders and public servants, the people of this country and the world are looking to us. they need to see a face that says yes. the contrast between our conservative vision and the policies being pursued by those in charge is stark. while they push for driving us deeper into debt, we will stand for the very tuesdays of restraint. while they seek to expand government control, we will promote common sense solutions that have been proven to work. if our faces say yes and we lead with character, enthusiasm and also with an attitude toward seizing the opportunity before us, america can get across the recover and continue

to build that land of freedom that can and will lead the whole world. thank you very much, again, for all of you and what you do towards the pursuit of service to that dream. thank you to heritage for having me. thank you. [applause] >> the congressman has some time for questions. the first question we're going to take, it's from one of our viewers on facebook. >> thank you, congressman, we were posting this on facebook. dan letterman wants to ask you a question. why would the cap and trade legislation stifle job growth and limit american companies? >> first of all, the cap and trade legislation obviously is a scheme by which some think we could reduce carbon emissions.

but it starts with the premise that perhaps washington can identify a commodity and begin to assess value and charge people for the use of that commodity. the free markets should be setting prices of commodities. ultimately, how the cap and trade bill would impact small businesses, small businesses, working families would have to pay an additional charge to turn on a light switch, to fill up the gas tank or do whatever it is that we do under that bill that could end up resulting in increasing carbon emissions. i don't think that the american people right now especially want washington telling us what kind of fuel to use in our car, what kind of car to drive, when we can turn on our lights, and then charge us a tax to do so.

>> i'm curious what your thoughts on the president's speech about sending more troops to afghanistan. >> certainly i as well as my republican colleagues have always stood for providing our troops the resources they need to protect us in this country. securing afghanistan in that region, ensuring that it does not become a safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks against the united states is certainly within our national interests. so i support the decision. i am troubled by continued insistence that we must juxtapose a commitment of troops with an announcement of a date certain that those troops will leave. we should be about success in execute age mission and yielding to the commanders on the ground to accomplish that mission.

>> hello, obviously one of those troubling pieces of legislation that is being considered right now is the health care bill. i would like to ask you if you had any ideas for how health care realistically could be made available and more effective to americans, what are some of the -- what do you find are the best ideas out there for health care reform in general? >> just in general, i think that there is agreement on both sides of the aisle that the status quo is unacceptable. i think that republicans several weeks ago in the house proffered our alternative. that alternative was focused on trying to fix the things that were broken without throwing out that which works in this country. first and foremost, i think that the issue of the inequities of our system dealing with the insurance companies, the fact that folks with preexisting conditions may be denied covering is something

that needs to be addressed. we are allowing for essentially reinsurance pools to mandate that they be created, that insurance companies could draw upon them to offer preexisting condition patients with competitive insurance rates. we, i think, throughout our proposal felt and do feel that there is no competition for individual insurance in this country. we are a country where 70% of those, nearly 70% outside the medicare market are insured at their employer. so we don't have a lot of action in terms of insurance companies competing for individual business. so if we're about competition, it's not about putting government in place as a competitor. that's not going to bring down prices. what can bring down prices is true free market competition. that's why our bill also said allow individuals to purchase insurance policies across state lines. we also believe very strongly that you can't have health care

reform unless you effect real medical liability reform. you got to get the privilege laws lawsuits out of the equation. it is causing enormous amounts of waste. even c.v.o. validated that claim and said, look, you have almost $54 billion of waste due the fact you have frivolous lawsuits going on. we have privilege laws lawsuits going on and it was substantiated saying that individual market recipients would receive up to a 10% reduction in health care costs. even more than that, if you took an average policy under the democratic bill and compared that to a policy under our bill, our policies were $5,000 a year cheaper for the average family. so, again, we believe you can effect more coverage, you can effect reform by adding competition and lowering prices. that's what our alternative did. >>

>> i'm a former intern of congressman frank wolf. where do you see entitle reform going in the future, if you could comment a little bit on that, thank you. >> sure. there is no question if we're going to get a handle on the economic future and the out of control deficits in this country, we got to do something on entitlement reform. in fact, in our republican alternative in the budget earlier this year, we did propose a beginning of bending the curve on entitlement. we'll have to deal with that. my concern about the safe bill is the creation of a commission that will more than likely produce the possibility for increased taxes. and we know now, we can't go about increasing taxes and expect the quality of living in this country to stay the same. and we have got to look at ways to reduce spending, not only on

the discretionary side, but certainly the mandatory side. >> another question from a facebook user. he is concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs in america. he wants to know specifically what the plan that you're proposing today would do to help revive manufacturing jobs here in america. >> when you look at the proposal that i just spoke of getting rid of the detrimental rules and regulations that are impeding job growth and job creation, what i speak of there are some of the rules having to do -- coming out of e.p.a., the rules certainly that impact manufacturers right now. cap and trade is a legislative example of what these kind of rules will do. i don't think any of us want to promote anything but clean air, but we have got to have an eye towards the cost and the benefit and make sure we

remember, it is really about jobs that people care about right now and if we want to get jobs created, we got to look to the small manufacturers just like the small restaurant owners and the small business users. in our bill is a clear attempt to say, look, relief the harm right now. you have done so much in terms of what you see the democratic majority push, whether it's cap and trade, whether it's car check, whether it is this spending hundreds of billions of dollars and incurring more debt, that has created such an environment of doubt and uncertainty as to what washington will do next. let's stop the harm. i think we can agree on some of these things without getting into their policy agenda, some of these things that could possibly affect the manufacturing outlook in this country. obviously, the trade agreements could be very beneficial to small manufacturers as well.

>> lee ross with fox news. i would like to go back to one of your simple solutions on tax cuts and maybe i'm going to be a little bit of a devil's advocate on this. could you explain why a tax increase would be ok at a point when unemployment is below 5%? >> i would not support the suggestion that the tax increase would necessarily be ok. what i tried to articulate is that there is a philosophical difference between the parties on tax hikes. i don't believe that tax hikes is a way to promote a pro growth outlook for the future. but what i'm trying to say here is we are in desperate times and we have got to look for ways and solutions that we can

agree upon in a bipartisan way. and i think all of us on either side of the aisle can agree that you ought not hike taxes during a recession and you ought not hike taxes when unemployment is so high. and so, again, it is trying to go where i believe that we can work together and accomplish what's doable right now. listen, i'm as mike said, i'm a proponent of drastically reducing sort of the tax obligation in terms of job creators in this country. can we effect that right now? i don't think that speaker pelosi or president obama would embrace that, but i do think that the proposals i put forward are something that maybe they'll at least take a look at and say, hey, there is is nothing crazy in here. >> another facebook user wants to know about the invitees, the

people who are invited to president obama's job summit and specifically what your thoughts are on leaving the chamber of commerce off of that list? >> well, any job summit should be about job creators and we know that almost 70% of the new jobs in this country are created by small businesses. from the looks of those participating in the job summit, i don't see an overwhelming representation of small business owners. perhaps that may change, but i would say to the white house, if they're serious about creating jobs, if they're serious about doing something productive at a forum and not just a photo-op, maybe they should bring some people that are experiencing the kind of pain that all of us hear about when we go home to the dinner table. .

>> sorry for the long name. he wants to know your thought about the concept and how can apply to economically depressed areas in terms of job creation. >> the enterprise zone concept is the very essence of entrepreneurialism. the secret of prosperity here, to encourage risk based investment. our country has always been a country much more comfortable with calculated risk to seek reward. other societies may be much more inclined to not take the extra step and risk something to achieve the opportunity that we

all want. it is trying to reduce the price of risk in a certain area of -- perhaps a depressed area of a city to encourage on japan doors that want to make a go of it. -- a city to entrepreneurs that want to make a go of it. [applause] >> more about job creation and the economy with house minority leader john boehner. this is 10 minutes. >> it has been our pleasure to meet with a group of economists to talk about our economy and where it is today. the problems it is facing, and the potential solutions to help

get people back to work. 3 million americans have lost their jobs this year alone. the biggest problem that we heard from our economist with regard to why employers aren't hiring is all the job killing policies offered by this administration and this congress. and creating an awful lot of uncertainty for american employers. in addition to that, not knowing what the tax rates are going to be, with all the tax increases proposed this year, employers don't know what the effective tax rate is going to be. without having some idea of what the cost is going to be. the former congressional budget office director.

>> i think he has given an eloquent summary of what small businesses face in the united states to create jobs. the underlying theme leads to greater national debt. the congressional budget office looked at the administration's plans, and over the next 10 years, we will triple our national debt. we will arrive 10 years from now with an economy that has presumably recovered. with revenues above historic levels and nevertheless, running a trillion dollar deficit. in the end, job creation is something that entrepreneurs will do. they cannot do it with a legacy of taxes, and that is the most

troubling aspect. >> i am a senior fellow at the hudson institute. what is troubling to me is what potential legislation in front of us would raise taxes on our most productive small businesses. the tax rates scheduled go up to 39.6% on january 1, 2011. and to the house bill, it would go up to 45%. their dna% payroll tax on employers that don't provide the right kind of health insurance under the catastrophic health insurance program. plus, there is the cap-and-trade legislation. if you are a small business, you would not think about hiring under the circumstances if you do not know what the tax rate is going to be. the tax revenue taken from the private sector, taken from small

businesses, that is also a transfer where people cannot go and take that money and go to our restaurant. that diminishes all of the economic activity throughout the entire economy. these kinds of things discourage job creation, and it needs to be fixed. taxes will not rise. they can proceed with confidence. i would like to introduce the director of economic studies at the american enterprise institute. >> the president is having a job summit today because the stimulus package did not work. they claim they have created 640,000 jobs. that is $1.2 million per job.

if instead of doing the stimulus package we had just hired people, given them jobs, and pay than the average wage in the united states, we would have created 21 million jobs. where is the multiplier? the multiplier is luck -- lurking in the background waiting for policy. i can guarantee you that such policy will not be created by the team that gave the previous stimulus bill, the team that is meeting at the white house today. >> any questions? >> [unintelligible] that the chamber of commerce was not invited to the jobs summit? >> it is the nation's largest organization of rep employers, and the fact that they're not at the white house gives you some indication that they are considering policies that are not going to help employers be more confident about the future of the economy, and therefore, but employers in a position

where the -- where they're not going to employ more people. i have begun to scratch my head and wonder why i came to this political arena. i know what it means to create jobs. and without certainty, without some confidence about what tomorrow is going to bring, i am not going to move. when you look at all the policies being proposed in the tax rates that are still uncertain, it is no surprise to any of us that employers continue to do nothing. >> were you invited to the white house to participate in this? or do you know any republicans that work? >> i was not invited. >> [unintelligible] >> the tarp money was intended

to solve an economic emergency in the financial sector. and now that money is being paid back, it should be used to lower the federal budget deficit and the national that -- debt. the idea that we're going to take this money and turn around and spend it on useless government programs is a very big mistake. >> last question. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] and >> we are seeing the senate live with debate on health care continuing. senators are taking a couple of amendment votes today. more votes when the senate will be in at noon eastern live on c- span 2. president obama comes to capitol hill to talk with democrats.

here is more on that. >> alex is a staff writer with congressional quarterly. we hear that president obama is coming to capitol hill tomorrow. why? >> he has come to rally the troops, it looks like. democrats have been fighting amongst themselves over the health bill. he wants to try to smooth things over. he had a number of his senior staff here today. >> what time is the meeting set to happen? >> at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. >> who has majority leader read been meeting with today? -- reid been meeting with today? >> charles schumer has been meeting with a group of moderate and liberal democrats. folks like john rockefeller from west virginia, mark pryor of arkansas, russ feingold from

wisconsin. they're trying to reach a compromise that will draw 60 votes. >> has there been any progress at all on a public option? >> they told us that their goal was to come up with an agreement by monday. they are not disclosing much of what they're talking about or the direction they are headed. a couple of moderates said that they seem to be talking about a public auction that is run by some kind of nonprofit, rather than being run by the government directly. liberals are saying that they're not comfortable with that structure. >> one of the challenging issues tends to be abortion language and abortion funding. do we know anything else about an abortion amendment? >> senator grassley said he is still working on the language of that amendment. we will see it early next week. it still closely resembles the language in the house health bill which was written by resident -- rep stupak.

most democrats cannot stand that language, and they want it out of the bill. i think the amendment will fail if it resembles these tupac -- the stupak amendment. they will deal with a couple of amendments tomorrow. all of this, by the way, is pretty up in the air. we did not know until today about which amendments they were going to vote on. tomorrow, they will deal with an amendment that will limit tax breaks for insurance company executives. excuse me, limit tax breaks for their salaries. we will see what happens with the president's visit. there has been some grumbling by democratic aides, some say that the president has not been hands on enough in this debate.

someone from ohio told us that he would like to see the president come down and express our important to him the public option is. and the lead on some of these moderates a thesend lean on -- and lean on some of these moderates. >> are we any closer to the goal of having it done by the end of the year? >> it is definitely an ambitious goal at this point. they do not seem to be very close. i don't get the sense from talking to democrats on both sides of the spectrum that they are very near an agreement on some of these major issues. if they lose nelson over abortion, which seems likely, they will need at least one republican to vote for this bill. they do not have the republican on board. >> he is a staff writer for "congressional quarterly." thank you for joining us. >> in his weekly address,

president obama discusses the latest, and his plan to unveil a job creation strategies next week. then, the republican address by u.s. senate candidate who talks about her battle with breast cancer and her concerns over a government sponsored health-care system. >> when i became your president, i spoke to you about the reports of the labor department on the number of jobs created or lost during the previous month. numbers that tell a story about how america's economy is faring overall. in the first months, the numbers were nothing short of devastating. the worst recession since the 1930's has wreaked havoc. yesterday, they continued positive trend of diminishing job loss. for those that were laid off last month and the millions of americans have lost jobs in this recession, a good trend isn't

good enough. trends don't buy groceries or pay the rent, or college tuition. and when he did the productive and provide for our families, make the most of our lives, reach our dreams. it is true that we are in a different place when 2009 began. because of the recovery act, we are no longer facing the potential collapse of our financial system. we are no longer losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month. and our economy has grown for the first time in the year. but many of our neighbors are out of work because it has not translated into all the jobs that we need. stung by the british recession, businesses are still wary about adding workers. instead of hiring, many are asking them to work more hours or adding temporary help. history tells us this is what happens with recessions.

even as the economy grows, it takes time for jobs to follow. folks that have been looking for work cannot wait any longer. i am determined to do everything i can to accelerate progress so we are adding jobs. that is why, this week, i invited a group of business owners to the white house to talk about additional steps we can take to help jumpstart hiring. we brought together unions and universities to talk about what we can do to support our workers today and prepare students to out compete workers around the world tomorrow. we brought together community leaders to talk about how we can open up new opportunities in our cities and towns. on friday, i spent the day in pennsylvania and met with workers and small business owners. i went by a steel company and spoke at the community college. i visited folks at a job placement center.

the stories and concerns i heard mirrored the countless letters that i receive every single day. they outweigh any government report. the folks at allentown and at all the towns a across the country are just looking for a fair shake. that is what i want to give them. in the coming days, i will unveil additional ideas aimed at accelerating job growth. and so we don't face another crisis like this again, i am determined to meet our responsibility to do what we know must strengthen our economy in the long run. that is not why i'm going to let up on my efforts to reform the health-care system, to give children the best education in the world, to promote jobs of tomorrow by investing in a clean energy economy, is to deal with the mounting federal debt. from the moment i was sworn into office, we have taken a number of difficult steps to end this

economic crisis. we did not take them because they were popular or gratifying. we took these steps because they were necessary. i did not run the president -- and run for president to bail out banks or shore up a lot of companies. i did not run for president to manage a crisis of the moment while kicking our most pressing problems down the road. i ran for president to help hard-working families succeed, and to stand up for the embattled middle class. responsibility is still rewarded, and hardworking people can get ahead. i ran to keep faith with the sacred american principle that we will deliver to our children a future of even greater possibility. my commitment to you, the american people, is that i will focus every single day on how we can get people back to work and how we can build an economy that continues to make real the promise of america for

generations to come. >> hello. today, i would like to speak to you about -- as more than one of the 2.5 million women in america that have been diagnosed with breast cancer and beaten it. like everyone else that was diagnosed with cancer, i never thought it would happen to me. i was fit, healthy, and active. i even got regular checkups. earlier this year, two weeks after a clear mammogram, i discovered a lump through a self exams. soon after that came the diagnosis, the surgery, the long and difficult treatment regimen, and the painful experience of wondering whether i would make it. whether i would pull through. i am fortunate to live near one of the greatest cancer centers in the world. i am fortunate to have the incredible love and support of family and friends.

and my diagnosis gave me time to think about my future. because one of the things that happens when you have to face your fears, including the fear of dying, is that you can pacer future with renewed hope and enthusiasm. my doctors tell me i have won my battle with cancer. i realize it makes me one of the lucky ones. last year alone, more than 40,000 americans died from breast cancer. aside from lung cancer, breast cancer is the most fatal form of cancer for american women. nearly 200,000 new cases were reported last year alone. that is why a recent recommendation on mammograms by the u.s. preventive services task force, a government-run panel of health care professionals that makes recommendations on prevention struck such a nerve.

the task force did not include an oncologist, a radiologist, and in other words, a cancer experts did not develop this recommendation. they said that most women under 50 don't need regular mammograms, and women over 50 should only get them every other year. we all know that the chances of surviving cancer are greater the earlier is detected. if i have followed this new recommendation and waited another two years, i am not sure i would be alive today. this task force was explicitly asked to focus on costs, not just prevention. as it turned out, costs were a significant factor in this recommendation. well a bureaucrat determine that my life is not worth saving? all this takes on even greater urgency in the midst of the health-care debate in washington. we wonder if we are heading down

a path for the federal government will at first suggest and a mandate new standards for prevention and treatment. do we really want government bureaucrats, rather than doctors, dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer? the response has been less than encouraging. in the face of a national outcry over the recent task force recommendations, the secretary of health and human services said that preventive services task force does not set federal policy. the real question is whether bodies like this would set policy under the $2.50 trillion , 2074 page plan that is making its way through congress. the answer to that question is not encouraging either. the health care bill now being debated in the senate explicitly

empowers this very taskforce to influence future coverage and preventive care. section 4105, for example, authorizes the secretary of health and human services to deny payment for prevention services the task force recommends against. another section requires every health plan in america to cover task force recommended prevention services. in fact, there are more than a dozen examples and the bill -- in the bill were the task force is empowered to influence care. there is a reason that american women have a higher survival rate than women in countries with government run health care. unlike those countries, our government does not dictate what prevention and treatment women can get. while some defend the idea of a government task force, my experience with cancer tells me

is wrong. cutting down on mammograms might save the government some money that it will spend on something else. but it won't save lives. and isn't that what health-care reform was supposed to be all about? this is just one of many examples of serious problems with this health care reform legislation. rather than remaking the entire national health care system at the cost of higher taxes and exploding deficits, we should build on what works. like expanding access to integrated care and to community clinics that will give those most in need appropriate care at a reasonable price. congress to reform medical malpractice to match what we have in california, where frivolous lawsuits are a thing of the past. we should permit consumers to purchase health insurance from any company in the country,

expanding consumer choice and a driving down costs and the necessary mandate. people want to know that their care will stay where it belongs, in the hands of doctors and patients. unfortunately, the path congress is on in this debate is not giving us the confidence that it will. thank you. >> now, a discussion on how the u.s. and its allies respond to iran. this is 45 minutes. host: nicholas burns and joins us now. how would you compare the current administration's approach to iran compared to the previous one? calle guest: there are similarities. the major funder of the terrorist groups that concerned us in the middle east, on iran

is very influential. both administrations seized upon i ran as a major problem for the united states and our friends. president obama has tried to engage iran and that was a smart move by him. we have had 30 years since 1979 since the islamic revolution where we have not had sustained contact between our two governments and societies. there are no journalists there. there were no college professors. president obama tried negotiations. the iranians have now rebuffed him. the group that president obama has been leading, we will probably seek and turned toward sanctions. i think that is appropriate, too. there is unity between the last two presidents. i think that president obama has done the right thing by trying to see if diplomacy can be a part of the answer to this problem that iran process.

poses. sanctions are an imperfect instrument. in the last 30 or 40 years in south africa, sanctions were influential to convince the apartheid government to give it up. it led to the result that nelson mandela came to power in most cases, sanctions do not work well. the united states and their allies are out of options, in this case. if the iranians refused to  want to use sanctions to see if it is possible to inflict some pressure and pain on the government in iran. they might come back to the negotiating table. the other option would be to use military force to slow down the development of their nuclear program. that is fraught with risks. we already have two wars in the middle east. the president get a speech about one of them this week. iran is a strong country. there is reason to believe that if they were attacked, they would respond.

you have to calculate if that is in our interest. i think it is not in our interest to have a third were in the middle east. the smarter strategy might be to impose financial sanctions on iran, try to drive up the price for the iranian government. i think we should maintain a strong military force in the gulf and around iran so that they cannot break out of that cordon. i think we should establish a containment regime rather than go to war. my view is that would be a smarter strategy. host: haven't we already done financial sanctions? caller: the united nations security council has said sanctions on iran since 2006. they have been limited because the chinese and the russians did not want to see harsh sanctions imposed in iran. there is a little bit of south -- self interest going on.

china is the largest trade partner with iran so they have watered down the sanctions. russia does business with iran. they are the largest seller of arms to iran. russia and china have blocked effective u.s. sanctions against iran. if you have the entire world with you, if everyone agreed to implement them and implemented them, you might have a good chance of sanctions working. we don't have that situation now. host: the decision to rebut the inspectors in iran as for the nuclear facilities factors into this? caller: the international atomic energy is the arm of the united nations which is supposed to be inspecting iran's plants. iran has taken steps in recent weeks to say it will reduce the ability of the agency to inspect its plants. there was an article this morning that says iran will build 10 new sites to enrich

uranium. this is an outright violation of the u.n. security council resolution. those resolutions are important. they represent the entire world. they have the force of the u.n. and international law. countries that are members of the un, like iran, need to abide by these laws. i helped negotiate the loss for the united states. once you pass a resolution, some countries actually implement the resolution and some do not. i do not see a lot of other options. it does not appear to me that president obama and his team want to initiate military contacts. they are absolutely right about that. we should delay that. then again, we have to be very strong to put the pressure on iran through sanctions and

through our military presence. we have to make sure that iran does not feel they have carved blocks to act as they want to in the middle east. host: will talkq about policy n the united states and throughout the world. we are taking your calls. as far as the need for the enrichment plant, is there any enrichment plant, is there any >> is there any justification to show that these are for energy matters and not for weapons? >> no, there is not. iran is the second largest producer of gas and natural gas in the world. it is a major oil producer. it derives most of its energy from those resources. develop peaceful energy but nobody around the world believes that.

the iranian government has been hostile to most of its neighbors and has cheated in the past. there are plants that are being inspected by the united nations that iran didn't tell anyone about until they were exposed. there was a press conference held in the ynew york where they unveiled another plant that had been hiding from the world. a government with that record of deception, you would be naive to trust them. it would not be building this tremendous capacity to enrich uranium if they did not have nuclear power plants for electricity production. the arno nuclear power plants in the country so why are they enriching uranium at these sites? there are too many questions about this country. i don't want to blame the irony

in people, it is the government. when i was a diplomat traveling around the world, i talked to governments that were not friendly to the united states, they felt iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapons program. host: does the holdings in oil and natural gas complicate china and other countries coming in and asking them to cooperate? guest: china has become the largest trade partner with iran over the last couple of years. while the u.n. sanctions have been in place and countries are supposed to be drawing down the level of their economic activities, the chinese have escalated their trade and they have become the largest trade partner. when you go to the chinese and say we have to put pressure on iran, the chinese are not doing that. bay and the russians have acted

in a very unproductive way. they are not being helpful to the rest of the world to put pressure on iran. host: our guest is with us until 8:15 with questions about iran howard beach, new york on a republican line is next. caller: it seems to me that iran is a nuclear threat. they also have the problem of maybe terrorist getting nuclear weapons. they are as much of a threat to china and russia and europe. they have an unwillingness to help. one that call their bluff? -- why not call their bluff? let's let them do what they want. if they want a nuclear war and

the radiation spreads over china and russia, so be it. we will perish together, thank you. callerguest: you have to look te threat of the you -- you have to look at the threat to the united states. if iran becomes a nuclear power, that will change the balance of power. it will become a very powerful country which is bad news for israel and the palestinians and the moderate arabs and for the west. it is not in our interest to see this happen. i am unhappy with the russians and chinese. i do not think they are acting as they showed. you have to think of your own interest as well. the threat from the nuclear weapons and the terrorism support that iran gives and the fact they are so influential in

the two places where we are fighting, iraq and afghanistan, we can afford to let this pop problem fester. president obama has done the right thing. he has regained a lot of international credibility for the united states in the wake the has acted on iran. he tried diplomacy first and having tried that, even if it has failed, he has more credibility to go back to the rest of the world and said he did what was asturian -- he did what was asked. the threat is too important. it is not in our interest to strike out with military. when you start a war, you never know when the war will end. we learned that from iraq in 2003. the united states lead a coalition to contain the soviet union and to contain communist china during the cold war.

it worked and we contend the nuclear power of those countries. with the military presence of sth patient application of pressureh and force, i think you can circle iran and contain their ability to be destructive to the rest of the world. host: ballston is next on our independent line pare. caller: the average american cannot wrap their minds around the true dangers of nuclear power in iran. is it possible that more and more government officials in this country will finally step up to the plate and finally educate the american people to the true nature of the global jihad that is going on in the world and the true danger it brings to all society? guest: i would agree that one of the greatest risks to all of our security and future peace of the world is the fact that there

are -- there is not one global jihadist organization but there are many like al qaeda that if they got their hands on the most destructive weapons, could do unbelievable damage to the world. the worst-case scenario is that if one of these radical terrorist groups got their hands on fissile material or chemical weapons or biological weapons, they could kill multiples of people that we lost on 9/11. both president bush and president obama have been right to focus on this question of terrorism. since 9/11, we have had countless government officials at the federal and state levels talking to the public about terrorism and the need to confront it. president obama's speech at west point the other night really focused on the fact that we have a vital national interest in

preventing groups like al qaeda gaining control over the worst possible weapons. i think you are right to say that this the way to peace and security in the world. both president obama and president bush had been ringing the bell. they have been trying to talk about this so that all americans know what a profound threat this is. host: we have tried diplomacy and been rebuffed, what goes into making the next step? what issues have to be resolved in the mind of the president? guest: i think this is a terribly difficult situation for president obama. he cannot ignore iran. it is a major issue on the agenda. there is a combination of diplomacy, the threat of force and use of force that constitutes foreign policy. president obama has been very judicious to say that we have to

be patient and have a long-term strategy and have to apply pressure against the iranians. he has been responsible in my judgment in not moving toward force. if we used force against iran and launched a military strike, it is reasonable to assume that the iranians would respond as they might use their proxy groups, the terrorist groups, to strike out against american diplomats or israelis or moderate palestinians. they might use their influence to strike at our troops in iraq. they could make life difficult in afghanistan. that is not a reason not to do it. before you use force, you have to weigh those factors. i think president obama has been rightfully and correctly restraint and the use of force, particularly given the fact that position in history. we have never been in a

situation where we have been fighting two very violent and difficult wars. he has been right to say that he will be patient. he will apply pressure but he will not fly off the handle and use force in ve+ precipitous way provided that is the right decision. host: will become to a point where he he gives them a time frame? guest: 1 can proceed in that fashion but i don't dumping that would be smart. we could say that we will encircle the iranians and they could not use the military outside the country and we will make life very difficult and isolate them internationally and and like sanctions. if they cross our allies and attack us or our friends, we will attack them very i think all that is that as the smarter, more patient way to mount strategy. we are stronger than iran. we're a better government. where a democratic government.

the dictatorship that the iranian government is, i think we can wait them out and encircle them and protect israel. we need to protect the arabs and israelis. host: next call is from trenton, new jersey on our democrat line. caller: good morning. my hat is off to this gentleman speaking this morning. iran is a threat. if this thing explodes, it will be the biggest destruction and the world. all i can say is we need to sit

and talk with that gentleman. no one will ever know what he has. it would put a bullet in the chamber, we have of iraq. we are fast with iraq for the moment. we have pakistan. pakistan was just the same period in the was just the same. we got them together. guest: you make a very good point that in a complex and complicated world, you have to talk to governments you don't like. one thing i admire about president barack obama is that he has the courage to say that we may not like the north korean government or the iranian government or venezuela but we have to engage before you even

contemplate the use of military force, you have to sit down and see if there is a diplomatic solution possible. that is not a weakness, that is being smart. president obama has been smart but president bush tried to negotiate with the iranians. they rebuffed him. president obama has tried. the united states at a meeting with the iranians in september. that was the only meeting we have had and the iranians have backed away from the commitments they made at that meeting. i do not fall president obama at all. i think he has gone the extra mile. he does not have a government that is willing to negotiate. it may be because they are badly divided. you all know about the june 12 elections. he saw the iranian people contest a clearly stolen election. that government in iran is badly divided. that means it is a mobile. they cannot make the tough decisions that they need to make when they get to the table with

a country like the united states. host: what justifies aggression toward iran? what have they done to us? guest: before you go to war, there has to be a cause. i am not advocating war. i am advocating the patient application of diplomacy and sanctions are we have had a difficult situation with the iranians over the last 30 years. they have grievances with us. we have some, as well. the iranians took 52 of our diplomats hostage in tehran in november, 1979, held them for over one year. some of those people have been writing about that experience in recent years. the iranians have supported terrorist acts against american military officers and civilians in the middle east. the iranians have made life difficult for the united states in iraq sent our troops have gone in. this is not a government that has been friendly to the united states.

they have taken a position that is directly contrary to the knotted states print -- to the united states. i think both governments need to look forward. i would commend president obama for doing that. mahmoud ahmadinejad has not done a great he is stuck in the past and cannot get his way to the negotiating table with our government. host: our republican line is next. caller: 94 cspan and happy holidays to all. you mentioned that mahmoud ahmadinejad and his statements in the past, as soon as he can, he will kill everybody in israel. can you talk about the relative size of israel to iran and how much of a threat do you think that is? is this guy telling us what it

will really do when he gets the opportunity or is that just all smoke and mirrors? guest: mahmoud ahmadinejad has has said several times publicly in the united stations -- united nations that israel should be wiped out. he is a despicable leader. i have great respect for the israelis given the history of israel and the holocaust, they have been attacked some money times. the israelis cannot disregard this. they have to take this seriously and they are taking it seriously. the biggest issue in israel today is this issue, what to do about iran. the united states is a close friend of israel. we were should remain separate part of our strategy should be to tell the iranians that they cannot threaten or attack the state of israel. if they do, they would have to deal with the united states and i think we should make that commitment to israel. we owe it to them as a friend. if you took the attitude that

mahmoud ahmadinejad is crazy, that might be foolish. he is a president of a country that has a lot of power. he has also denied the holocaust. you have to take it seriously and apply pressure against them so that he cannot harm the state of israel. that would be my answer. host: what kind of intelligence about their nuclear capabilities do we have in their country? guest: the united states and iran broke 30 years ago. we do not have diplomatic relations and the governments did not talk to each other. they do not allow americans to travel there very often. they do not allow their own citizens to travel to the united states. we do not have a relationship with iran. of all the countries in the world, we have the least diplomatic government to government contact. that is why i supported

president obama in trying to move to make the negotiating table host: where we get the quality of the intelligence we have of iran? guest: we don't discuss intelligence and public. i'm a former government official and i can talk about diplomacy but one of the problems we have is that our societies do not know each other. sometimes, if you try to create peace between two countries, if the government cannot talk, sometimes you try to build bridges between societies with academic and journalistic exchanges. there has been very little of that. we don't understand the iranians and they don't understand us. that is clear from their comments and actions. they don't understand what makes america a great country. overtime, i think we have to see if we can create these contacts between the two countries. host: someone on twitter says

the reports were that the iranians wanted to negotiate with the bush administration and he rebuffed them with the access of evil speech -- with the access of evil speech. guest: he tried to negotiate with them and i was involved in that we made a public attempt and the u.s. made repeated offers to sit down with the iranians in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. we were open about it and secretary condoleezza ricel stood with three european countries and we make public offers. we were rebuffed i don't think it is there to part criticize president bush. he tried in those years. his access -- is access of evil speech -- his axis of evil speech was earlier. after that, he tried to negotiate. host: are independent line is

next. caller: why did we attacked iraq believing they had weapons of mass destruction? we know that i ran as weapons of mass destruction and what are we waiting for? i do not believe the sanctions will work. russia and china will not help us with that. let's do something. the american people are tired of hearing this bs. the american people are tired. they really are. let's do something about this. thank you. guest: to support president obama, he is trying to do something. he is also trying to do the right thing and a smart thing. .

>> it would be a major risk for the united states. iran is a lot more powerful than iraq ever was. and certainly more powerful than the afghan -- and those that we were fighting in the afghan situation. you have to think, before you start a fight, is it in our interest? will we win it? what is the cost in lives and money for the country. our president has been admirably restrained. it does not mean he is weak. he is adopting a different strategy, longer-term, meant to weaken the iranians themselves. >> how long to play out diplomacy? as far as our attitude towards

iran and his frustration of the way that we help diplomatic measures -- overall, when you factor in how long you play the diplomatic situation or how long you move to other situations, where does the temperature of the country -- >> it matters a great deal. it matters a great deal. any leader has to listen to the american people. i have not seen the latest public opinion polls, but my sense is americans would not be too enthusiastic about a third war in the middle east. we would apply pressure and try to impose sanctions, that is not weak. i would think most americans would believe that is the right way to go, so i think president obama has a lot of public support. host: is it fair to say that as long as president ahmadinejad is in iran he will still have this stalemate?

guest: it is not just ahmadinejad, there is the supreme leader much stronger than him. there are lots of people competing for power which makes it difficult. no one can seem to gain decisive authority to make decisions. particularly when it comes to a controversial issue like negotiating with us. we have to take on more than ahmadinejad. there is a powerful group called the revolutionary guards who are very anti-american. there are the islamic leaders who are quite antagonistic to the united states also. host: virginia, you our next on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i was -- earlier you touched on the huge economic relationship between iran and china. one of the things i have rarely heard mentioned was a 2002 deal

that came to fruition in 2006 for iran to send 95% of its crude oil direct to china. you have a chinese companies in their now developing oilfields. essentially, this makes iran of lyell interest of china. we aren't -- makes iran a vital interest of china. there is no way we will threaten something that is of vital interest of our banker. this is just an illustration of the changing of the polls with in the world right now. i wonder if you would comment on that. you can look up the deal on the internet, but nobody ever talks about it. nobody talks about this deal,

which ahmadinejad on jumps up and down and says crazy stuff but he knows he is not threatened. i am a refugee from the big green house and i knew ford would move into china, so none of them want to see china get threatened. thank you. guest: his is an interesting question. you are right that china has -- its investments have increased dramatically, particularly in energy. they are now the leading investor in oil and gas. i would not agree that just because china holds a significant number of american treasury bills that they somehow have us over. we are their largest export. they cannot afford to have and

-- cannot afford to have a breakdown with us. we are in a symbiotic relationship. the challenge president obama has is to make it clear to the chinese president that we need china to step up and act like a global leader. sometimes they have to give things up and compromise. you have seen the u.s. do that time and again. china is not yet accustomed to its new-found political power or taking the lead role in trying to limit the actions of a difficult government like iran. you are right to say part of the problem is that china has not exercised responsibility, but we have the ability to talk very directly and disagree with the chinese and hope to push them in a more positive direction. host: to the people of iran support their leader? -- do the people of iran support

their leader? guest: my guess is that iranians are very divided about their government. you saw millions of them take to the street after the elections. they tend to break down on political lines and also -- persians are only 50% of the population. there are other minority populations that have grievances with the iranian government, so is a complex political system. the government does have some support, but has a large group of people opposing them. that is one of the problems in getting them to move because they are frozen by their internal political divisions. host: john says when i iranian leaders believe that islam demands certain positions, how can negotiation achieve anything?

guest: there are lots of muslim countries in the world. each of them has a different foreign policy. they are all islamic, but they interpret islam differently. the i iranians have grossly distorted in the islamic resolution and their dictatorship, grossly distorted their interpretation of islam and used it against their own people. i don't think that is -- because they are islamic is not a problem. the problem is the way they have interpreted it and their own political ideology. their hatred towards the state of israel which we need to oppose and their hatred towards america. host: [unintelligible] guest: the trick is to get them to the negotiating table and see if it is possible to make progress.

we have not even been able to do that yet. that yet. caller: >> thank you very much for taking my call. the essence of the problem with iran is that they are -- the united states foreign policy is not there, especially in the middle east. they use that, all the governments they want to stay in power. they reject american government, and use that against us. for example, on the nuclear issue, why should they have nuclear power? they are all sunni, and ron is the only company -- only country [unintelligible] how do you expect them to be -- the dictatorship that they

have, it is not just a group. it is running the whole country. . . they select who will be the president and the leader. they are the ones behind everything. you cannot fight, and they know that. they cannot afford to go to war. it will be against the people. there are other ways to bring back government to their needs to negotiate, but you cannot do that with war. that is my comment. guest: i just make one distinction in what you said. distinction in what you said. the u.s. has never contested iran's right to civil nuclear power. but because iran has consistently lied to the un and

deceive the un over the last 20 years, most every country is saying iran does not have our right to nuclear-weapons power. on your second point, we have to remember we are a lot stronger than the iranian government. we can contain them and wear them down and wait the amount. that is a legitimate strategy, as opposed to going to war with them with the unintended consequences that might ensue. host: what kind of time frame are we talking? guest: hard to say, it took us 50 years to contain the soviets and with china. i don't think it will take that long with iran because there are so many internal weaknesses that the government will fall at some point. there are some many iranians dissatisfied that we don't need to go in there to dislodge the

government ourselves the way we did with saddam hussein, but if you apply the pressure and be patient a tough with them, i think we will weaken th qaddafiem -- we will weaken them. host: mike on the republican line. caller: back in the 1980's during the iran-contra scandal, there was an israeli cia spy. remember him? host: ahead. caller: he stole our nuclear secrets and then he sold them to other countries. as far as sanctions go, maybe

the sanctions should be put on the u.s. because of our 200 year history of slavery and terrorism. just go to some of the indian reservations and ask them about terrorism and our history of strong arm. host: you can respond if you wish. guest: all i can say is the u.s. is a highly imperfect country but we have dealt with our problems. you don't see that happening in dictatorships like iran, so i am proud of our country. we have dealt with the civil rights struggle, we were able to resolve some of the historical problems that confronted us, but you don't see these middle eastern countries dealing with this in an open fashion. host: one more call on our democratic line. caller: i respectfully disagree with your guest. if anybody needs to be disarmed

in the middle east it would have to be israel. they have lied about everything concerning their nuclear weapons program and nobody says anything. who have the iranians attacked in the last 200 years? israel is built on all all with my tax dollars and are committing genocide, and i don't blame the of iranians. if the israelis attacked the iranians, i have to back the iranians. i don't understand the hypocrisy when it comes to his real. -- when it comes to israel. guest: i profoundly disagree with you. if there were a war between israel and iran, we should support the israel's. i would agree with you that when it comes to the palestinian issue we ought to try to use our influence to convince the israelis to allow the creation of a palestinian state to

resolve the problems there, but i separate that issue from iran. the government of iran is despicable. it is in a church human rights violator of its own people -- it is a major human rights double under this bill. and what you're going to do, you're going to do this: you're going to say, i'm going to pay the tax rather than cover insurance. because it is fin

the health-care debate could wage nonstop until christmas eve. we have serious policy disputes and procedural battles. again, you can see the debate on c-span 2 and c-span.org. now, a discussion on health insurance for the unemployed. this is 20 minutes. joining us now is the executive director of familyusa. this has to do with making your health insurance payments. guest: cobra is the way that people who are laid off can continue to get health care coverage. most people have their health coverage through their jobs. when you lose your job, you are at greatest risk of losing your health coverage.

cobra allows you to continue getting coverage that you had your job for about 18 months. there's a catch. the catch is you have to pay the full premium. instead of your employer picking up a portion of the cost, you have to pay the full amounts with a 2% administrative cost for the average poll brought monthly premium for family coverage is $1,111 over $13,000 per year. that consumes more than 83% of the average unemployment insurance checks. . for most people, cobra is unaffordable. it could be useful but it is unaffordable. with the guidance of the president, congress in february said four people who are recently laid off, they provided a subsidy that pace for almost 2/3 of the cobra premium.

that subsidy was supposed to be a temporary measure to help people during this period kkbn people lost their jobs. that subsidy was supposed to be provided for nine months. the program started in march. anyone who started getting this subsidy actually have that subsidy run out at the end of november. there are many people who are losing their lifeline to cobra coverage. our hope is that this subsidy will be extended. there are bills in the house and the senate to do that. it is my hope that will happen. host: do the bills need your satisfaction as to what they do? guest: i think they are few steps in the right direction. i am delighted that the leadership in the house and senate seems interested in this. the president appears to be supportive of this.

they would extend a subsidy for six months. this is so that somebody whose subsidy is about to expire or has expired, they would continue to get that subsidy for the next ñhalf a year. the senate bill does something else. it actually increases the subsidy. instead of getting a subsidy that pays for a 65% of your cobra premium, it would pay for 75%. that would probably make sure that many people cannot afford paying for 35% of cobra, that will make it more affordable. host: what deadlines are we facing? is it the end of the year this has to be done by? guest: some people have already lost their cobra subsidy. those people who started getting the subsidy in march when the program began, it ran out at the end of november. starting december 1, they no

longer are receiving the subsidy. the house of representatives apparently will be taking up a jobs bill in the next two weeks. i have heard from both in the leadership that they are really interested in including an extension of the subsidy as part of that bill. the senate is focused on the broader health reform legislation. i can perhaps explain that. that health reform legislation would permanently fix this problem. in the interim, people are going to need some relief. in the senate, they probably will continue the debate on health reform up to sometime close to christmas they can then deal with some of the other bills, including the jobs bill. my inclination is that the senate will deal with this in january. for those people whose cobra subsidy has expired, my hope is

that they will get some retroactive relief. i am afraid some people will remain uninsured because they cannot afford to pay 11 of $11 on average for family coverage. host: is there bipartisan interest in extending best? guest: of luck -- on one level i would say yes but on another level i would say no. the negative part of this is that the subsidy was included as part of the recovery legislation. that recovery legislation did not pick up a single republican vote in the house of representatives. it only picked up three republican votes in the senate, one of which is now a democrat, senator specter. theoretically, people know this is it an important thing to do. people think this is a good thing in isolation. we have had a lot of partisanship on t-bills and i do not know whether the republicans

will continue to oppose anything that the administration is trying to promote. host: the numbers are on your screen. 6&ñsouthport, mass., on a republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you very much for talking about this topic. i actually found out about this on tuesday. i have been unemployed for 13 months. i was shocked to find when i got the bill that my cobra premium has gone up, triple what it had

been previously. i recognize that it was set to expire in nine months. i was dismayed that our legislators, knowing that the first wave will occur, have delayed the process. the conundrum on all of this that i understand is that now i will be forced to go off and find a private insurance carrier that will be a lower cost than cobra. when i do that, going off of cobra, from what i understand, i cannot go back on later. cannot go back on later. i will so i'm wondering