underground copper mining, bringing it from under the @@@@@@@ and also the propane bottle that you doan own, you do own it, that you trade it in for a filled one. . a battery filleted fully charged one? guest: we are looking at a variety of technologies. i was in a meeting last week where we were looking at applications using lpg and other technologies to power our pickups for companies that have central depots.

workers bring their vehicle back to that central depot. we are looking at a lot of different options around and then the poles and technologies. host: here is the front page of the "detroit news" -- if you look at the "washington post" -- last call for jim campbell. jackie on the independent line. caller: you avoided a couple of questions. one man asked about the investment and better technology by texaco. you also never entered the

question on wages. general motors has a two-tiered wage system. it would no -- it would be nice to know what they are. it should be public knowledge. when you lower people's wages -- i want to know what wages you pay in western europe and in the south american countries compared to what you paid in the united states? also, canada and mexico. i understand canadian wages are much higher. guest: i would really need to bring the manufacturing teams to talk about the wage structure. they are probably the right expert on the topic. in general, we are focused on building great cars, trucks, and crossovers. we have a number of examples where we are building some small

cars in the u.s. is clearly a competitive environment out there. we are comparing the wage structure. i would say the salt salt [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> "washington journal" talked to several representtives of several car companies this morning. they are in washington, d.c.. next a look at ford motor company. put out by this restaurant, and

they have given you the "don't give up the ship" award. what have you done that has led to your decision not needing government money? guest: the most important thing is we had a plan we were working on. we've got financing a bit earlier than others as well. we were able to see what was coming. i think we are proud of the fact we did not take government money. we are showing our plan is working with great third quarter results. in general, we are proud of the accomplishment. we have great products private what we do, and with our focus on quality, we are doing well. host: what are you worried most about? guest: we still need to see the

of economy and approved. we did see the economy improves. that would be a big help. -- see the economy improve. host: what is the message to congress today about policy? guest: it is a partnership. together, we can do things better the national program on fuel economy in greenhouse gases was a good example of working together. we all have to pull together. manufacturing is important in the u.s., a core part of the economy. host: 200,000 employees worldwide, 71,000 employed in north america.

that translates to about 90 plants worldwide. we also read in the "wall street journal" that ford is to begin hiring at new, lower wages. guest: basically, we have a contract with the uaw. we are building a new vehicle in chicago, new people coming into the company. the idea to be competitive is to build things in the u.s., to build them well, otherwise, it will threaten manufacturing. the big story is we will be building a new vehicle in chicago.

host: do you see a lot more jobs coming in the future? guest: right now, we need to protect the jobs that we have. we are working on our plan for the next few years, but it is always about being competitive. that is something we are striving to stay on top of. host: first phone call for susan cischke th. caller: my question has to do with the economics. it seems there is too much focus on the price of gas and not enough on the actual cost of the car. i would like to make a suggestion to all the companies. come off with a single seater commuter car.

hopefully, it can be priced around $6,000. if you look ahead 90% of the cars in rush hour, they have only one passenger. also, the cost of insurance, if we could bring that down. once we have a dependable single-seater, maybe a single headlight, reflector. host: single seater cars? guest: we tried to build a wide range of vehicles for our customers. there are a lot of people who only have one car, and it has to satisfy all your family needs. affordability is key. we have to keep a number focus

on fuel efficiency. that is an issue for millions of people, but as well, including the attributes that people enjoy. host: what about the work you do with insurance companies? guest: we work with insurance companies on our safety measures, looking at the total cost of insurance. host: next phone call. colorado, i am 66 years old. -- caller: i am 66 years old. i have had a bunch of big cars. i had a card in the 1970's that got 30 miles per gallon in town, 50 on the highway.

you keep on talking about these electric cars. we can barely handle our electric consumption now. guest: i think you bring up a good point. ñiwe doñr have an electrificatin plan. right now there is no threat to the grid with the number of cars out there. but he brings up a good point about the internal combustion engine. our focus has been on eco boost, i were turbocharged engines that get 20% better fuel economy, 15% lower co2. the cars that he was talking about in the past did not have the safety features and regulated items that we have now. cars have gotten heavier over

time, so our goal is to take weight out, improve the efficiency of the engines. electrification is coming in the future and we will have time to work on how we interface with the gradid. host: next phone call. caller: our state works in partnership with companies that have received a huge amount of funding, but probably for manufacturing outside the u.s.. what is interesting is we have been utilizing electric vehicles.

i am curious if you have had any discussions about a model, a possible partnership down , as well as manufacturing penetration so that we do not have to watch these other countries go past? they have contracts in hawaii and california. it is true in the electric grid needs to be smart, but car manufacturers need to be able to integrate. guest: yes, we have had a lot of discussions with a better place. we do not believe battery swapping will be the key to the industry. technology is moving quickly for quick charge, and other things. one thing that you mentioned, if we could get a load leveling

storage, taking old batteries that are no longer capable of using them in a vehicle and then putting them in a bank of power so that companies can use that power and off-peak times -- that is key. charging spots, infrastructure for that will be a key part to developing the other trick infrastructure. this is day 400-pound battery that will be mounted from below. how you protect that battery, how you experience corrosion, swapping of high voltage connections -- we do not think that model is as robust. we were trying some different models in israel with smaller models but we believe the electrification will have a

smaller model in terms of how you drive costs down. i think better place has energized people to think outside the box, and we will continue to work with them, but we are not really considering swappability. host: allen bliley is speaking to folks on the floor at the washington auto show. he will be talking about the board story. next president for the four group vice president susan cischke. caller: i do not have much of a question -- maybe a comment and a question. i have noticed over the past few years from driving different vehicles, if you have a regular pickup truck, they will get

about 10 miles per gallon on the older models. and then you have@@@ @ @ @ r @ " take a diesel or a bigger -- not a diesel, but a bigger like a two-ton truck. these vehicles all got 10 miles to the gallon. and i was wondering, you have the different weight ratios, how this had taken place and just doesn't make sense. but the thing is, i don't know if the lady had seen what was the film "who killed the electric car" those cars were getting 80 miles to a charge.

but then, chevy comes up with this volt and i seen this special with charlie rose and really upsetting because the c.e.o. of chevy came out and said we only have the technology to get like 40 miles to a charge. batteries. then we moved on to the goal -- nickel hydride, and now we have moved on to lithium ion. we will be having a plan in 2012 that has a range of 30 miles on just electric. because it can offer some power from charging the battery, there

will be a range of about 300 miles. what you are talking about the mix is a number of different technologies. certainly with the trucks that you mentioned, a lot of the new regulations like increased roof strength, side impact, have increased weight over time. host: what is the percentage now of vehicles running on alternative fuels? how might that percentage be changing in the future? guest: it is fairly low right now. there are a number of solutions. biofuels will be important. we still need to get a 10% of by a fuel used over the industry. internal combustion engines will still be a big part of the market, both on the diesel and gas side.

that is why we are continuing to focus fuel economy as well. host: is the government part of the solution, in your view? guest: yes, one thing that we need to do is drive down costs. we announced plans to build our battery electric vehicle in michigan and bring fannie merritt -- battery manufacturing from mexico to michigan. making the cost more affordable is something that the government can help. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. i wanted to congratulate ford for not taking government money. i have been buying gm for 40 years come but my next purchase will be a ford.

guest: thank you. we are proud of the record we have. we are looking forward to a better year next year. host: anthony from akron, ohio. democrat line. caller: good morning. i will try to keep this short. i hope you do not cut me off. you talked about biofuels, the cost of producing them. guest: yes. caller: i was thinking, if we were allowed to grow industrial hemp, we could produce biofuels. guest: we are looking at a lot of different materials. the second generation is biofuels made from waste products like wheatgrass, alan

g., the other things that we can do -- algae, other things that we can do. we need to look at our base of ethanol because it is competitive. biofuels are certainly an answer, from all types of materials. host: our guest has a chemical engineering degree. she began her career at chrysler. next phone call. arlington, virginia. john on the independent line. caller: thank you for coming on to c-span today. i wanted to hear your thoughts on the supply chain in general. if we had more transparency through raw materials parts production and assembly, do you

think the consumers -- if the consumer software every part was being made, they could make a more informed decision and perhaps bring some of these jobs back to the united states? guest: we have to recognize that is a global world and our suppliers are located around the world. the key is bringing in the manufacturing jobs of naming plants back to the u.s. it is a competitive industry and we have to make sure we are reducing the number of suppliers we have in order to focus on quality and be competitive from cost standpoint. some of the challenges we have had in the economy is having too much supply base. trying to rationalize that --

that means and the need to be located in various parts of the world. it is pretty complicated. on the vehicles today we do show a percentage of how much the vehicle was built in the u.s. but that is probably as much as we can display. host: being a policy day, you will been mingling with federal officials, members of the epa. what message do you have about keeping your company competitive? guest: there is no single answer and we are trying to balance energy issues. that is important to realize. there is no one, quick easy fix. it would be a shame if people think that electric is the only solution. we have to look at a wide

variety of products. that is where we can work as a partnership, to develop new technologies, at the same time, encouraging feel efficiency by having a sound energy policy. host: western government not be doing? guest: they should not be picking winners and losers. we have seen how subsidizing a particular fuel can affect the market. the important thing is to encourage the development of advanced technologies. for example, trying to bring battery technology to the u.s., but not emphasizing one solution over another. it is all about energy security in general. host: charles on the wrong publican line.

fredericksburg, virginia. -- on the republican line. colorado, i understand that we have to compete with the countries in the east, but how come we have not forced higher tariffs? i had a friend who'd tried to buy a ford explorer and tried to bring into korea but they were trying to charge him 37% on tariffs. we could love all the playing field by increasing the terrorists, it may balance the playing field a little bit. guest: you are right, regarding some of the trade policies. we are all for fair trade but we do not always have the same positions. you korea, it is difficult to

export cars. we are trying to protect our manufacturing base. we will be building our small cars in michigan. this is the first time we are building a small car to be profitable in the u.s. you are right that it is not a level playing field. we believe not only in free trade but fair trade. host: we understand you have a new truck. what can you tell us about the vehicle? guest: i think it shows you the different needs that we have. a lot of people are asking us why we are building a full range of vehicles. here is a good example of a vehicle that can save lives. we are proud of those vehicles. host: gainesville, florida.

william. caller: i wanted to ask about the bond issue and whether it led to a competitive advantage for them? guest: i can tell you a little bit about that. we knew three years ago we need to go to the market to get more money. at that point, we decided to leverage the whole company. we knew it was a onetime shot. we knew that when we went into a downturn, we would be able to finance ourselves. we had a heavy load on our balance sheet, and we are working hard to improve that by not thinking government money. we are proud about that. but we still have all lot of work to do to get back to the

investment grade that will reduce our borrowing costs. host: steve from charlotte, north carolina. republican line. caller: we have a plant that makes hybrid turbine engines. they are very quiet. last year and engineering company from britain put one of those turbines into a vehicle. i wonder if you have taken a look at that? guest: we are looking at different technologies. we have to worry about scale ability and whether we can produce them in volume. on our high-volume vehicles, where we make over 2 million, we will be able to offer a hybrid plug-in, a diesel, so we need to

get the scale up. as we look at these smaller volume of applications, the main focus is giving the consumer the flexibility to drive the cost downwn. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> "washington journal's look at the state of the auto industry continues with the chairman and c.e.o. of bmw of north america, one of the car companies in washington, d.c. for the annual auto show. >> one of the executives joining us now is jim o'donnell chairman and c.e.o. of bmw of north america. mr. o'donnell, a question for you as well as federal policy.

what can the white house and congress do to help companies hire more employees in your industry? guest: by having a stable economic environment that will bring confidence to the consume er and go out and make the purchases. i think at the moment, the things are a little bit in the doldrum but as soon as that improves, you will see the car buying get back to decent level. host: what has been your experience in terms of sales? guest: extremely tough. the top-end consumers have been affected as much as the people at the bottom. there is concern and seem to be driving a top-end car where you may be laying off some people. there is concern about the he canity in their houses, not what it was. so we have seen a decline in our

sales mirroring what is happening in the actual marketplace itself. host: by the numbers -- host: speak to us about alternative fuels, so much the topic at the auto show. we have heard from gm and ford. what is bmw doing? guest: we have 450 mini electric vehicles in service in the u.s., more than any other company. we are doing this as an experiment. we want to find out what is the normal driving characterics of the consumer. ummer , a purely

electric vehicle, designed with the consumer's have it my. -- habits in mind. you will see the next stage in development where we will launch in 2011, an extension of that, and lunch or a bmw1 series which will have space in the trunk which the mini doesn't. in 2015, we hope to be in a position to launch an electric vehicle that we call the mega vehicle in the u.s. spurted host: you mentioned the general economic conditions but be more specific about the war what the government can do to help the industry move forward? guest: the government has done a lot over last 12 years to put

stimulus package to the economy. the economy is lacking cooperation. housing is the biggest issue. housing and unemployment, if that is tackled, many consumers will come back into the market. there were signs in the final quarter of last year that there is life there. host: should the government be subsidizing individuals were buying these cars? guest: i personally don't bank so. -- i personally don't think so. i am not a big fan of the "cash for clunkers" program. the government used tax credit to direct consumers toward they do technology. that is fine in the initial stages but ultimately, we should not favor one technology against another. we should let them stand on their own merit.

host: our first call for our guest who is the ceo of bmw north america, republican column. caller: i heard him mention something about "cash for clunkers," and did you go to the internet you can find out real information about the government programs. 9/11 was an inside job. host: let's hear from pittsburgh. caller: i would like to ask the gentleman -- i understand most of the companies have voted to the south and do not offer health care. hguest: we all for a comprehensive set of benefits to our employees including health care, including company cars, we treat our employees with a great deal of respect.

caller: i did not know about bmw. guest: i think if we are asking our employees to deliver premium vehicles, we need to deliver premium compensation packages. host: that was the democratic live from pittsburgh. what about the american car companies and the benefit problems they ran into the last several years? what is the bmw experience? what is the history of that? guest: when we came here, we came here with a european standard in mind. we tried to transfer many benefits we offer employees in europe. that's what we have done. in europe, health care is subsidized by the government. it wasn't, so we have subsidized the health care for our employees.

host: reston, va., on our independent line. caller: my question has to do with c-span and the auto companies. what is the tariff that is applied to american cars in the variety of the nations in europe? i was over in china and they had 100% of american cars. why don't you publish a charge of a tariff that every other country in the world supplies to american cars and other american goods? guest: we are in a unique situation in the united states where we import quotas substantial number of cars. we are also the biggest exporter of cars in the united states outside of the nafta area. we import 70% of the cars that

we build in south carolina. we accept the terrace because -- we accept the terrace because they are going all over the world. we were exporting cars from europe, we would be subject to the same tariffs. you cannot discriminate and say that china does not allow this and they are in a state of deloitte -- development where is understandable how they operate in business. that is true in other developing countries years ago. you have to understand what stage be industrial base is in a particular country. i have no doubt that in 30 or 40 years, china will be completely open, maybe 10% tariff going into, for example, europe at the moment. host: next call is on the republican line from kentucky. are you there? caller: yes, i'm here.

with our nation being unemployed so bad and everybody is so concerned about it, i don't understand why they do not have more trying to get people to buy more american products to keep our people working. host: jim o'donnell? guest: you have to view the big picture. we're good at producing some products and not good at other products. consumers' demands choice. like most big importer-exporter, we want to have a balanced society. at bmw, we chased production where we have a big market.

if you went to a protectionist regime, the whole world economy would grind to a halt and we would be back to the disaster that we were facing perhaps two years ago. host: you mentioned you are not a fan of an artificial stimulus coming from the government. what did you make of the government assistance to general motors and other companies? they say it is helping them. what was your reaction? guest: i think it was natural that the government helped gm and chrysler it was important for the industrial base of the u.s. to have two successful companies. they ran into difficulties but from an engineering base, the united states has a strong car industry and they are supportive of what the government has done. they have rescued it and let the company's debt on a man is themselves.

host: our guests joined ibm w in april of 2008. he fell barry's positions at the ford motor co.. he joins us from the washington auto show. david, from the democrats' line, new york. caller: what does he think it will take for the auto industry as a whole, not just in the u.s. base, what will it take for the whole united states -- what will it take for the whole world to get back to normal? host: when you sit back to normal, what do you mean? caller: i mean back to normal bidding 2004 levels. guest: i think it is all about

confidence. confidence in unemployment, or the lack of unemployment, confidence in the housing situation. those are the two big drivers around the world. there has been a degree in confidence leckie. we also need the banks to start lending. at the moment, the car industry has been propped up by the finance companies. without their support, we would have been in a dire position. host: cleveland, independent caller, you are a line. caller: it is an honor and pleasure to talk to you. i was the head of bmw for 23 years. i have been following the bmw hydrogen program for years. i wonder how much further that will go and how many more clean desk diesel's they plan on

expanding in the united states. i found them to be highly efficient, great torque, break machines, and i see they have two models per it will expand that? guest: the hydrogen program is still being worked on. the infrastructure is not yet available. we're probably looking at 20-30 years before the storage of hydrogen is not an issue and and you produce it. i firmly believe that in that time, hydrogen will be a key ingredient. coming from europe, as you can tell from my accent, diesel is very popular there diesel in the united states was given a bad name through "not so successful engines lost years ago.

this is being driven by the european manufacturers, you will see a revival of diesel in the united states. it gives you better fuel economy, battered miles, like your admissions, better tour, better all-around performance. we have two vehicles in the market at the moment we brought one in which was designed for two economy and to prove that diesel gives you performance. the american consumer is more interested in the economy side of it rather than the performance. we will probably bring more of those in. we will publish bring another diesel in very soon. we will concentrate on performance with the economy rather than sheer performance. host: take us deeper into u.s. policy.

in terms of competitiveness and the impact of different standards and rules here versus other countries, what is your view? guest: up until the present time, but rules have been fun and. we don't have a real problem with them. what we have lacked in the u.s. is a consistency. the thing that happened last year was that there was an agreement that we would have a national standard into a 2006 and we warmly welcome that. we know where we are going. we know the rules we have to play by. there is a threat that california may go its own way and we get -- that a big mistake. we're looking for guidance from the government and what will happen beyond 2016. the gestation period in the car industry is about seven years.

we are looking for to see what will happen with fuel economy beyond 2016. and the consumer point of view, the european union, the united states, cannot get together and come up with one common standard. that would save the manufacturers a lot of money, and ultimately, it would benefit the consumer because there will be less cost going into the cars. host: we have about 10 minutes left with our guest, jim o'donnell, chairman and ceo of bmw of north america. he is at the washington auto show. caller: my husband retired from gm. put in 38 years. my concern is that tarp money was spent on the wrong areas of the auto industry. it was used to change technology instead of help with jobs. we are very angry about our

government's involvement. thank you. guest: you have to accept the fact that the guest: you have to accept the fact that the government was faced with a set of facts that given that, they had to do something and i think the use of funds, tamp funds was correct. they had to bail out the two manufacturers and give them a chance to re-invent themselves. you need to be patient and give them time. only when the next generation of products come out we will have established a viable base in detroit. host: toledo. good morning to you. caller: i don't know if the manufacturers ever considered this, but what about going back to a model like the model t or the volkswagen, extremely basic

transportation, no frills, styling, with the minimal, universal vehicle, one one that would be the best you could make for the concept and then make the repairs done in such a way it would be a modular construction and if anything significant had to be repaired, you simply change it out even to the point of exchanging vehicles because they would be the same. that would result in the lowest cost and highest reliability for people who need basic transportation. what has happenee of the model t and a volkswagen is that governments have become involved. they have dictated summit things that must be in a car like seat belt. that is a good idea. airbags, pedestrian protection,

there is no such thing in europe or the united states for a basic corporatstandpoint. host: there was a question earlier about a single-occupant vehicles. what do you think about that? guest: i don't think there is a market for that. when we look at the mega-city vehicle, we are looking to deliver something with four seats. we have a two-seater that is insufficient for the general public. host: buford, ga., independent line. caller: i am a proud owner of a bmw 5 series and i would not traded in on any gm product. i want to address those callers

that urged the adoption of tariffs. they seem to a forget the devastating affects of the smoot-hauley terrace. guest: i think you have to have a free world with free trade. i understand terps. there is a place for them but over time, i think we would all benefit if tariffs worldwide were abolished. host: are you there? go ahead. caller: 94 cspan and thank you for being there, sir.

i want to follow on the environmental rules and diesel in europe and united states. i was under the impression that mercedes makes a five-passenger sedan diesel but i think it's 40 or 50 miles to the gallon. on the highway. i heard that they could not sell it in california and massachusetts because of the environmental rules. could you follow up and talk to whether the rules are the same as far as the missions in europe purses the united states? guest: the rules are not the same. because of the california strict rules, which the rest of the state college, the requirements for diesel in the united states are higher than anywhere else in the world. it is genuinely clean diesel that you experience when you buy a diesel car the united states.

it is a standard that will be adopted in europe in about five years' time. host: as you attend the washington auto show, you mentioned you want to hear more about the government's message beyond 20 -- 2016 when the new fuel standards will take effect. have you talked to members of congress? what other areas are you interested in? guest: the big issue is what will be the technology that will win? . i don't think you should favor any particular technology. you should examine them all. we want to see what the consumer wants and what the marketplace is there are too many people trying to hang their hat on electric cars, for example, or a hybrid, or diesel, or the combustion engine. item which be willing to review things. the way technology is moving today, who knows what will happen in three or four years' time?

host: we hear from groton, connecticut, on the independent line. caller: what has taken so long for the -- for any alternative fuel to come on line? what has taken so long? guest: with the electric cars, it is the battery technology which has not really devolved. we have proven with arab minioue that they love it. they become accustomed to the way you drive that car. it is fun. it is environmentally friendly. it is powerful. i think there is a marketplace there for electric cars.

we are to rely on the battery technology. the cost is prohibitive to mass produce that corporate host: that texas back to government involvement for what kind of investment would you advocate to increase electric cart use? guest: i would not encourage the government to do any thing. i think they should wait and see what is developed. there are enough incentives there by way of the emission standards that the manufacturers are looking at every single technology. the government sets the rules and it's up to us as manufacturers to manipulate those rules with a way forward. i am sure we will be doing more electric cars. host: san antonio, texas, independent, good morning. caller: good morning.

i used to work in the auto industry as a salesman . . when it comes to having a salesman in the auto business, they are normally known as root. ude. is the automobile industry planning on changing anything when it comes to their sales floor? guest: i think that is important to retain the right caliber of salespeople. it is very difficult to obtain good qualified staff. we know the difference between a really good bmw store and a mediocre store is actually the sales people. you see that it is the people who have managed to retain their salespeople with consistency and they are the most successful.

i wish there is a silver bullet. so far, we have not found it. bear in mind, we have been in business for 100 years. host: last call is from the republican line. caller: good morning. my concern is when i come to the european manufacturers. are they going to come up with the optional technology to put in electronic sunglass system in the roof? will there be a synthetic the protection from the sun?

guest: are we capable of bringing in something that gives you better some protection in the car -- i am not sure we are working on that technology. i am sure that if you look at history, you will see that the premium car manufacturers invented most of the technologies which we now take for granted. that is what i think it is important we have a successful premium car industry throughout the world. it is those manufacturers eventually build technology that ends up in all cars. airbags, smart breaks, what ever. when i go back to munich, i will talk to my colleagues

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next month marks one year since congress passed the economic stimulus money. of the $787 billion approved, just under 330 billion has been committed with $172 billion actually paid out so far. to learn more about those projects go to c-span.org/stimulus. >> wednesday, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress laying out his vision for the future of the country and his plan to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address, wednesday night. our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. can you listen to the president's address live on your i phone with the c-span radio.

>> live this february on "in depth," former adviser to margaret thatcher, paul johnson. his latest book on winston churchill. join our live conversation with your live phone calls for paul johnson on book tv's "in department -- depth." >> senator conrad will look at a proposal which fell to 53-46. senator conrad spoke to reporters about the latest deficit projections from the congressional budget office. this is about a half hour. >> good after and -- afternoon. there are other press who are downstairs who have sent word that they would like to be here

and i sausm they would like to arrive and give them a chance. we agreed to start this at 2:30 and we only have the room until 3:00. i want to emphasize just having received the c.b.o. report at about 10:00 this morning, we have not had a chance to do a full analysis. but i did want to put in some perspective what they're telling us. first of all, president obama inheritted the worst mess, perhaps in the history of the united states. record deficits, a doubling of the debt in the previous administration, worst recession since the great depression, financial market and housing cries sees as well as an energy crisis, ongoing wars in eye iraq and afghanistan and unsustainable long-term budget outlook. president obama did not create those conditions. he inheritted them.

since he has come into office, steps have been taken, a series of steps both by his administration and by the federal reserve to provide liquidity to prevent and avert a financial collapse. those steps are working. we can see in terms of the jobs picture that in january of 2009, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. the most recent month of december, you can see that has been dramatically reduced, still suffering, some job losses, but down very dramatically from the 749,000 in january of 2009 to some 64,000 in december. on economic growth, we see the same pattern, from a loss of economic growth, you're going backwards in the first quarter,

6.4% in the negative to a projection by the blue chip forecasters of 4% positive growth in the fourth quarter. that is a remarkable turnaround given how very dangerous the situation was when president obama came into office. with that said, the steps that were taken contribute to the long-term unsustainable in any of our butts' circumstance. we already faced an unsustainable -- our budgets' circumstance. we already faced an un sustainable and by the secretary of the treasury, both in the previous administration and this one and we can see in the 10-year budget outlook, this assumes the policies without offsets, that while in the

short-term we anticipate improvement, reduction in deficits, a slowing of the growth of the debt, we see over this period the potential for the defendant to begin to grow again. .

the gross domestic product of the united states. that's why action is called for. that's why senator gregg, the ranking republican of the budget committee and i offered our colleague this is morning an opportunity to put into place a statutory commission dedicated to facing up to the debt threat. i am delight wed got 53 votes. i think that provides a significant boost to the momentum that's under way. to begin to address the very deep challenge of a burgeoning debt. let me just conclude by saying, i wish we'd have gotten 60 votes because that's what was necessary in order to advance that legislation. but we are going to get a commission that's going to be focused on the debt, that will be bipartisan that recommendations that we will

have an assurance and get to a vote. that, at the end of the day, is what is most critical. we simply must have a proposition that puts before our colleagues the opportunity to vote, to face up to this long-term debt challenge. with that, i want to stop and answer your questions and we'll begin here. >> senator, the c.b.o. estimates that the current budget trend will add $6 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. do you support cutting federal spending by $6 trillion to balance the budget? >> i don't think this is the place to write a five or 10-year budget, but clearly spend regular straint and dealing with the revenue side of the equation are both required. as i said on the floor this morning, if you look at our

revenue compared to the last 60 years, the revenue as a share of gross domestic product is as low as it's been in 60 years, spending is as high as it's been, so clearly you have to address both. >> assurances from the president and the leaders that the commission established through executive order would get the vote? >> let me be clear that the best way to assure there's a vote on the committee recommendations, the only way i to assure it i know of is through a statutory commission. that's why senator gregg and i worked so hard to persuade our other members to do that. we got a majority, but not a supermajority. we're not going to give up we must find a way to do it in a way that's credible and the only way i know to have an

executive order commission to be credible is if there are assurances, assurances that the recommendations of the commission get a vote. we have not concluded our discussions with the white house and others on that, but i hope we will. >> will we still try to do that? >> look, i continue to hope that we will find a way to get a statutory commission, but time is running out. let's be very clear. time is running out. so we've got to search for alternatives that are credible. yes, sir. >> to come back to the point about trying to get away from this increase in deficit spending, does the c.b.o. -- i think the c.b. reflected that the bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year and then deficits after that impact is realized, deficits will continue to go back up to $1.4

trillion in 2020. after that, you said revenues and spending have to be considered. but aren't large, significant, multitrillion dollar spending cuts necessary in order to get somewhere in the neighborhood of a balanced budget? >> look, as i said before, you've got to address both the spending side of the equation and the revenue side of the equation. we've got revenue running now 15% of g.d.p. that is the lowest it's been in 60 years. spending is 26% of g.d.p. that's the highest it's been in 60 years. so i don't think there's any way to effectively address this without looking at both. i don't do it in that way.

i don't know how you separate the two or say one is a higher priority than the other. we have a revenue system that's hemorrhaging revenue. the permanent subcommittee on investigations says we're losing $100 billion a year to offshore tax shelters, $50 billion a year to abusive fax shelters. that's inexcusable. >> if you are in fact successful in coming to some sort of agreement on executive order commission, what does that mean for the regular congressional budget process? would there be sort of the stand pat approach, pending the outcome of that commission? >> no, i see the two as working together. i think the regular budget process, you know, i heard discussions that the regular budget process is what we ought to use to address the debt crisis. the problem with that, as you know, is in the 35 budgets that have been done under the budget

act, 29 of them have been done for five or fewer years. some of them for just one year. some for two years, some for three years. this is not a five-year problem. this requires a loverple plan. because our biggest problem is not in the short-term. our biggest is in the long-term. that really requires, i think, some special effort. bringing together both sides. because, you know, political control shifts. if it's going to be sustainable in terms of a long-term strategy, you need both sides at the table. >> are you going to focus in this year's congressional budget process, hope to start to take on entitlements and taxes? most people say in an election year that's simply not possible. >> well, what i have said is what i believe. we need to do what we can in the budget process. last year we put in place a

plan to reduce the deficits by 2/3. i think we need to do everything we can in the budget process but i believe we have to do more than that. because the biggest part of our problem lies beyond the five-year window. that's why i believe we simply must have a special process. >> someone is going to offer an amendment to create your commission but without the fast track process at the other end. is that satisfactory? >> if it was satisfactory we wouldn't have needed to offer ours. i don't see how that's effective. there's no assurance at all of a vote on the recommendations of the commission. beyond that, i don't know if there'll actually be a vote on that because that will not be germane, post-kilo tur. >> today's vote -- post- cloture.

>> today's vote shes the people are not -- the members are not ready for this. >> i think today's vote shows they are. the very aggressive opposition shows there's a growing and now majority support for taking on the debt. i was very, very encouraged that we got 53 votes. >> the bachus amendment sf >> it does not fundamentally alter our amendment. it creates another 60-vote hurdle, but we already got 60 votes so it does no injury to our plan. >> you mentioned still in talks on the executive order commission. what about the pay-go reached on friday and the six republicans who dropped off sponsorship of the commission in the last couple of days. >> with respect to the latter

question, i'm disappointed, of course. if senator mccoustkey had been here, indicated she would have supported our amendment, that would have taken us to 54. with the other six we'd have been successful. i was disappoint the first part of your question? >> how does the talk on the executive order commission relate to the pay-go agreement reached friday? >> it's all directly linked. i would say this to you, i don't consider there's an agreement on anything until there's an agreement on everything. so while we have had months of negotiation on a pay-go approach, which i support, it is very much linked to also getting a credible commission and again i want to emphasize what i mean by a credible commission is one that there is an assurance or set of assurances that the recommendations of the

commission come to a vote. >> would the commission recommendations be amendable? >> i want to repeat. you could have an alternative package that was open to amendment, but to me, the only way a commission is credible is if the recommendations of the commission come to a vote. could there be competing votes on other packages? sure. but what is critical is that the recommendations of the commission get a vote. >> would the executive order commission's recommendations be amendable. is that still up in the air? >> well, i've got to be very careful how i describe this because it is clearly would be open to misinterpretation. number one, we have no final

conclusion. and as i've said repeatedly, in negotiations i've always taken the position that nothing is concluded until everything is. it would seem to me, based on our discussions, it would be possible to have an alternative package that's open to amendment. i've proposed that. but, what i'm insistent on to consider a commission approach credible is that the recommendations of the commission itself get a vote. >> john boehner has also spoken negatively about the idea. can you assure that the commission would be bipartisan in any way without getting their support of the leaders? >> i can't assure what the republican leaders do. senator mcdonell repeatedly

said during this year that the conrad-gregg approach was the best chance of dealing with the debt challenge system of he'll have to explain why he did a u-turn at the last minute. yes, sir. >> if i recall, the way your commission work, it would require a supermajority on the commission to approve the recommendations and supermajorities in both houses on the bill. how is that more likely to result in changes you want to see than just using the budget process that wouldn't be subjected to all those choke points? >> first of all because it assures a vote on the recommendations. it assures a vote on the recommendations of the commission. that's the most important thing , as i analyze the way these things have worked in the past. we don't need another commission report that sits on a dusty shelf somewhere. so that's why i've always thought this approach had the

most merit. >> what makes you confident that changing the process is going to lead to a different outcome and actually make lawmakers like yourself make the really hard votes? can't even vote on a commission, what makes you think they're going to vote on higher taxes and lower spending to reduce the deficit? >> what makes you think sticking with what has been done that is proven to be ineffective, what is the evidence that's going to work? i can't guarantee an outcome. what's clear to me is that what has been done has not worked. i don't know what could be more clear. there's the record. senator gregg and i were persuaded and tried to convince our colleagues that if you lead with policy, it never works. if you lead with a process,

maybe you can convince colleagues to start a process that then leads to a policy, especially if that policy recommendation requires a vote. it seemed to us that has the best chance. i can't look you in the eye and say i have any assurance that will work either. one thing i know for certain, at least it would put before our colleagues an up or down vote on the recommendations of a bipartisan panel to deal with the debt. i don't know of any other process that does that. yes, sir. >> how helpful is this white house proposal for a spending freeze toward the long-term goal of fiscal solvency and is it the smart thing to do when the c.b.o. says we're going to have a mute red covery over the next three or four years? >> first of all, i think it sends a very important signal that the government is getting serious about getting its own

house in order. remember, this affects a relatively small part of the budget. most of the budget, as you know, are mandatory programs, social security, medicare, veterans' programs, that's by far the lion's share of the federal budget. the next biggest share is defense. that's not part of what the president is discussing. he's talking about a share of the budget that is about 1/6 or 1/7 of the overall budget, that is domestic discretionary spending and he is proposing a freeze in those categories system of it's certainly not going to solve the problem. it will make a modest contribution toward reducing long-term deficit and debt thork it will make a contribution that grows over time which is very important. much more has to be done as the

white house has acknowledged. >> [inaudible] >> look, there's no question in my mind that additional steps need to be taken to help build the environment in which jobs can be created. i asked the congressional budget office what are the most effective things that could be done for job creation? they came back and said, in terms of federal policy, the most important things that could be done is a tax credit for creating new jobs, they said small business expensing, tax assistance, and they said extending unemployment insurance. those are the three government policies that would make the greatest contribution in the short run to creating a climate in which the private sector would add more jobs. >> just given -- this may be

too simple by half but given today's volt, has the idea crossed your mind about maybe trying to see if -- about pushing thru a commission idea on a reconciliation bill later this year? >> i've not pursued that approach. i'm not certain if that could be done with a reconciliation in structuring. as you know, things that don't score for budget purposes are subject to automatic strike. things for which the score is only incidental are subject to automatic strike. my own reaction just off the top of my sedhead without the benefit of legal counsel is that's unlikely to be able to be done. let's see, i'll give somebody else a minute and come back to you. >> does the fact that you got a vote today on the commission

idea, does that change your position on voting for a large increase in the debt limit? >> no, not just getting the vote. what i have said repeatedly is i would not vote for any long-term extension of the debt absent a credible commission being put in place. that position is not altered just by getting a vote. let me come back to her, then back to you. >> as you mentioned, this was an inherited scenario. what do you think do you think this portends for the president's domestic agenda in the future with this kind of situation? >> if ever somebody was dealt a bad hand, it is this president. you think of what he inherited the day he took office, i mean, it is really daunting. run-away debt he inherited that. a circumstance in which we were on the brink of a financial collapse.

he inherited that. two wars. he inherited those. so this president walked into about the worst imaginable set of circumstances. in the short-term, and again, i want to differentiate the short-term from the long-term. in the short-term, additional liquidity, i believe is required to help reduce joblessness that is, you're going to have a tax credit for new jobs that reduces revenue that increases the deficit. as a deficit hawk i support that because job one in deficit reduction is get the economy growing again. these steps that have been taken have been quite effective. if we go back to the chart and what's happened to economic growth in the first quarter, we had a negative 6.4% negative growth this quarter, we're

expecting, the blue chip forecasters are expecting 4% economic growth that is a remarkable turn around. critically important to reducing the deficits both short-term and long-term. it's necessary but not sufficient. so i believe we need more measures that provide liquidity to help create conditions for the private sector to increase jobs, but at the same time, we've got to pivot and deal with the long-term debt threat. i know that -- in many ways that sounds counterintuitive and contradictory. unfortunately, economics is often contradictory. >> will it be finalized before the senate vote on the increase ? seems like that's kind of crucial. >> yes. >> scoring tarp money as an offset he said that the baseline they produced last

march -- that circumstances had chamingsotched in a positive way that the baseline is actively misleading and they'll supplement any cost estimate to say there isn't any money that you would save under current circumstances. so in light of that, why are democrats insisting on using that as an offset to a jobs bill? >> apparently, he just said this today, right? >> but you've been aware of it for some time, haven't you? >> this is the first i have heard him say what i just heard you quote him as saying. that should be taken into consideration. i personally favor funding this in a way other than using tarp funds. i've tried to make that clear to my colleagues. >> i hate to introduce health care into what is already a complicated conversation, but there is talk of using the old rere-conciliation instruction to revive the health care bill.

how does that affect this year's budget process? if we wanted to use the old reconciliation process, would you have to delay passing a new budget? >> well the reconciliation instruction in the last budget resolution lapses when a new budget resolution passes. number one. number two. i don't think it would be adviseable to try to do a whole health care package in reconciliation. i've take than position throughout the year. i think it would be unwise, i think it would be unworkable. but if the larger package, let's say the senate bill was adopted by the house, could reconciliation be used to do some around the edges fixes, improvements. yes, it could. but we've got to understand

again, the burg rule requirements, it specifies, if it does not score for budget purposes, it's subject to automatic strike. if the score is only incidental to the policy change, automatic strike. reconciliation, anything that would move through reconciliation would have to produce deficit savings of at least $1 billion over five years. so i think the role of reconciliation would be quite limited. in the health care context. >> if you were asked of the leadership to pursue that, some of your colleagues say they wouldn't support it, do you think if you support -- pursued it there would be 50-plus votes at the end of the process? >> i don't know. >> if it was put to to you to pursue this strategy by the white house, is it something you'd get behind as budget

chairman? >> i would have to know what that meant. words have real meaning here. i've learned after 23 years here, what would i be asked to be getting behind? i don't know that at this moment. so i could not say, yeah, i'm willing to get behind something when i have no idea what it is i'm being asked to get behind. >> to change the tax structure of the health care bill that passes? >> what changes? >> raising the threshold on the cadillac tax. >> look, i don't sign off on anything without know thinking specific details. i wouldn't just accept conversation as some description of what's being proposed. i want to know the detail, the specifics. i don't know how anybody else could make a decision without knowing the specifics. >> when an agreement is reached with the white house, do you expect all 60 democrats to vote in favor of the debt ceiling increase? would that be a reasonable

assumption? >> look, i don't have a vote count. we don't yet have a final and complete agreement. so i think it would be premature for me to answer. >> saying that you've been here 23 years, as long as i've been covering congress, you've sort of come when c.b.o. comes out and said, we've got to control the deficits. do you feel like donkey hoe tee these days? -- feel like don quixote these days? >> i look back to the 1990's when we had a budget that balanced the budget and stopped borrowing from the social security trust mund, that was a remarkable accomplishment. now we've had a circumstance in which we narrowly averted a global financial collapse. clearly that explodes deficits and debt in the short-term that puts an even greater burden on us to pivelt and deal with this

long-term debt threat. we clearly are on an unsustainable long-term path and it's absolutely incumbent upon us to address that. that doesn't mean -- to me, that does not mean that you don't take further measures to provide liquidity in a time of real economic weakness. so the timing of all this becomes critically important. we look back to the lessons of the great depression. in 1937 they tried, prematurely to rein in the deficit and unemployment exploded. we don't want to repeat that exercise. but we do have a need to come up with a plan to deal with our long-term deficit and debt trajectory. we can do both. we've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. i know it's very, very hard for people to separate out the 140r78 from the long-term but that really is -- the

short-term from the long-term but that really is our obligation. we've got a very different circumstance. what is the right thing to do in the short-term is very different from what has to be done in the long-term. we can't allow ourselves to get confused by this. we can't allow ourselveses to get confused. i have to leave here, we agreed to end this at 3:00 and we're a little past that. >> wednesday, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress, lay ought his vision for the future of the country and his plan to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address, wednesday night, our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also listen to the president's address live on your iphone with the c-span radio app. >> in the nation's capital and

across cross the country, thereon c-span radio, in washington at 90.1 f.m. and on x.m. satellite radio 132 and it's a free app for your iphone. c-span radio, covering washington like no other. >> the u.s. house is about to gavel in to vote on bills debated this afternoon including resolutions supporting flu vaccines and cervical cancer screening. as we wait for the house on the other side of the capitol, the senate is working on raising the federal debt limit. today, they defeated a plan to establish a bipartisan task force to recommend steps to curb the deficit. the senate is on c-span2. tomorrow the senate joins the hougs to hear from president obama as he outlines his goals for the next year media reports say the president is expected to ask for a three-year freeze on part of the federal budget. the speech will be live here on c-span. our live coverage getting under way at 8:00 p.m. eastern time.

we're waiting for the house live on c-span. he gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the >> the house is expected to come in momentarily. filing under the rule. spoil the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1038, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3726, to establish the castle nugent national historic site at st. croix, united states virgin islands, and for other purposes. and for consideration of the bill h.r. 4474, to authorize the

continued use of search and water diversion located on national forest system land in the frank church river of no return wilderness and the sellway bitterroot wil wildernen the state of idaho and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered precipitationed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on the motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. voteslike taken in the following order -- votes will be takened in to thing order. house resolution 990 by the yeas and nays. house resolution 1011 by the yeas and nays. and house resolution 1003 by the yeas and nays. proceedings on the house resolutions 1024 will resume later this week. first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote of the motion of the

gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 990 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 990, resolution expressing support for designation of january, 2010, as national mentoring month. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 398, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the

gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1011 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1011, resolution recognizing the importance of cervical health and of detecting cervical cancer during its earliest stages and supporting the goals and ideals of cervical health awareness month. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 400, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1003 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1003, expressing support for the designation of january 10, 2010 through january 16, 2010 as national influenza vaccination week.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 398, the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. without objection. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from florida may -- ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. this year marks the 65th anniversary of the liberation of off which it's, the largest of the nazi extermination camps. over a million people were systemically murdered at auschwitz in gas chambers or shot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house will be in order.

please take your conversations off of the floor. the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: you may proceed. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. this year marks the 65th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz, the largest of the nazi extermination camps. over a million people were systemically murdered at auschwitz in gas chambers or shot or tortured or starved to death or any cruel combination. most of those who perished were jews. but others that nazis perceived as enemies were also murdered there. as we honor the victims of the holocaust and those who helped to defeat the nazis, we must also reaffirm our commitment to enhancing holocaust education programs in our schools and urge all countries to bolster their efforts in fighting bigotry, racism and anti-semitism.

in the words of elie weasel who is an auschwitz survivor, he said, there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. let our voices be heard loudly and clearly. never again. tomorrow is holocaust remembrance day. let's honor their struggles every day. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute, to revise and extends. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. take your conversation off of the floor, please. the lady deserves to be heard. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

there have been a great deal of controversy that has arisen over what i think is good policy but good for america and that is real health care reform. today i listened to the story of a mother who lost her son by the name of mike because he could not get a colonoscopy to determine whether or not he had colon cancer. he is not living today. and he could not get it because he did not have insurance. we need health care reform that allows americans to have the dignity of health care and as well the respect of treatment -- the respective treatment. i met a man who was blind because he couldn't get the treatment while he was going blind to reverse that terrible disability. it could have occurred with good health care. and we must stop allowing 45,000 americans to die every year because they do not have good health care. we can do it by putting the bill together, house and senate, reconciliation, protecting

physician hospitals, allowing individuals to not be denied insurance because of pre-existing disease, i ask my colleagues to join for what is best for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to commend coach dave lewis, the head basketball coach at my alma mater. he dedicated the majority of his life to coaching basketball. 2009 marks coach lewis' 20th season where he is also athletic director. during this time he welcomed his 400th overall head coaching victory on december 3, 2009. austin p. is a member of the ohio valley conference and this year coach lewis became the winningest coach in o.b.c. history. it has been a privilege to watch coach lewis interact with his young athletes, recruiting and encouraging them both as a mentor and as a coach.

as rick once said, the key to coaching is not what you do, but the way you do it. the intangibles, the motivational parts of the game, are the most important facets of it. a successful coach not only prepares his team for victory but motivates them along the way. this coach accomplishes this each time he sets a foot on the court and has great concern and appreciation for each of his players and that is an invaluable trait as a successful coach. however his proudest accomplishment is being a dedicated husband to phyllis, a father and grandfather. i encourage my colleagues to join me in commending coach lewis for his service to austin p. university. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i heard my colleague from east tennessee make those remarks and i had to add something. the people from east tennessee forget about the fact that memphis exists in tennessee,

where dave lewis started his career and played basketball at the yoofer of memphis, started his coaching year at the university of memphis and is a memphian. and while he attended your school, he coached and attended my law school and he's a class act and a wonderful gentleman. i wanted to set the record straight. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a man who has been a dedicated volunteer firefighter since 1980. harold watkins. he has served the township volunteer fire company and his community in many capacities. he has held the positions of president, vice president, second assistance chief and first assistant chief. for the past 15 years he has been fire chief and in 2004 he was named firefighter of the year. in other words, harold has done it all in his 29 year of --

years of protecting and saving lives but he has decided it's time to step down. fire fighting is a family affair for the watkins family. harold's wife serves as secretary for the company and helped organize fund raisers. the chief calls vivian his personal here o'for all her hard work. his son mathee was firefighter of the year and serves as the vice president and second assistant chief following in his father's footsteps. i commend chief watkins for his years of dedication and service, saving lives and property. and i know the community joins me in wishing him all the best in retirement. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky arise? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the students, faculty and staff at ruth moir elementary school in fort thomas, kentucky. last fall ruth moir was named the 2009 blue ribbon school. the blue ribbon schools program

honors schools that are academically superior or demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. these schools are models for others throughout the nation. i had the opportunity to meet students and faculty at ruth moir and speak with them about their efforts to improve their school. students and staff were unable to be here today in washington to receive our congratulations because they're working hard in the classroom to uphold their high standards. however the students in mrs. green's class sent a distinguished ambassador to represent them. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming slad stanley to the house of representatives and extending our congratulations to the community of ruth moir for their outstanding achievement and i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? if there's not, the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: cleves of absence requests for mr. ortiz of texas

for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. mr. fortenberry for today, myself, mr. poe, for february 2, mr. moran for february 2, mr. dreier for today, mr. jones for february 2, mr. cao for today, mr. mcclintock for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be

permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey, california, mr. defazio, oregon, mrs. maloney, new york, ms. kaptur, ohio, mr. grayson, florida. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey from california. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i want to call the house's attention to the work of gregg mortgagenson who has built schools in pakistan and afghan and written two best sellers about it. mr. mortgagenson has a lot to say about the power of education to dramatically improve the lives of people.

especially girls and women. and how education can bring peace to the world. mr. moretonson began his work in pakistan where he originally went to climb the world's second tallest mountain. after the climb, he was very ill and he was helped by the people of an impoverished village. to thank them, he built the town's first school. he wrote a widely acclaimed book about the project called "three cups of tea: one man's mission to promote peace one school at a time." he then went on to build schools in afghanistan. so far he has built 131 schools, educating 58,000 children with a special emphasis on education for girls. he has written a second book about his remarkable work entitled "stones into schools: promoting peace with books, not

bombs, in afghanistan and pakistan." mr. speaker, in a recent interview with bill maher, he explains how the education of girls can transform lives and whole countries. he said, and i quote, the education of girls has very powerful impacts on society. number one, infant mortality is reduced. number two, the population is reduced, and, number three, the quality of health improves. mr. speaker, he also explained how the education of girls can be a powerful weapon against terrorism. he said, culturally, when someone goes on jihad, they should get permission from their mother first. if they don't, it's very shameful. but when women are educated they are less likely to encourage their sons to get into violence. i've seen that happen over the

last decade in rural areas of afghanistan and pakistan, unquote. mr. speaker, in fact, he said that when men leave the taliban it's often because their mothers said, what you're doing is not a good thing, the not in the name of islam. he went on to say, i asked widows and women in rural areas in pakistan and afghanistan, what do you want? they say, we don't want our babies to die and we want our children to go to school. mr. speaker, he said, we need to listen to those women. he doesn't mean we just go around the world holding hands and drinking tea and having peace. actually i would say, as an aside, why not? but he continued that he really did believe that there's a lot of power behind love and

compassion and respecting and listening to people. now some people might call mr. mortonson a fuzzy-brained peace knick but he isn't. far from it. he opposes the taliban and he believes that there's a place for american troops in afghanistan. his books have even influenced our military commanders, including general mcchrystal and general petraeus, admiral mike mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has made mr. mortonson an advisor. so mr. mortonson isn't saying, let's pick up and leave afghanistan and sing come buyia but he does want to change our mission there as i do. he wants to see much more emphasis on diplomacy, economic development, better policing, a better legal system to protect women's rights, and, of course, more schools. .

president obama is sending 30,000 more troops to afghanistan. it will cost $1 million per year to support each of those soldiers. greg mortenson says we could build 30 to 40 schools with $1 million and educate up to 30,000 young people for the cost of one soldier. i think that's a far better way to win the hearts and minds of the afghan people and defeat violent terrorism. mr. mortenson is on to something. we should all listen to what he has to say. there has to be a smarter way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: freedom and liberty

have always been the american ideal. core american values have not changed. look at the declaration of independence and bill of rights and america's values are written down for us. the declaration acknowledges that our rights come from god, not from government. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are manifested in the constitution, not granted by the constitution. the government doesn't give us our rights and they can't take them away. government has no rights. people have rights. government has power. government gets power when we give up our rights to government. the american people have made it plain they don't want the government taking over health care. that's not compatible with liberty. america does believe in freedom, that includes freedom of religion and freedom to exercise our religion. they believe in freedom of the press and the right to assemble and speak their minds to a government that is not allowed to stop them, especially if the government doesn't like what the

people are saying. americans believe in the god-given right to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their property. we have a right to be free from illegal search and seizure and american people believe in fair courts, fair play. these are core american values and are in the constitution. most americans believe they don't change with time and most of the americans i represent in texas believe these values are fairly well set in stone. now some of these americans drive trucks or pickups as we call them. recently, there have been disrespectful statements made by those who arrogantly dismiss truck owners. however, there are a lot of vocal truck owners in america. the fordf-150 pickup is the most popular one sold. 25% of all sold in america are

pickups. if you add s.u.v.s to the mix, 20% of all truck sales including pickups are sold to women. over 40% consider their truck more important than their home. as one truck owner told me, you can sleep in your truck, but you can't drive your house. not surprisingly, texas is america's biggest pickup market and you don't see too many volvo station wagons where i come from. these americans who drive trucks are fiercely independent, outspoken and will tell you they don't belong to a party but they vote for the person. these drivers are of every race and age and 64% said their truck is a manifestation of their character, and politics. truck owners are one voice in america that government would do well to listen to. contrary to washington wisdom, the americans i know and

represent do not look forward to a day when government in the name of progressive politics makes all our decisions for us. this is not a country of weak, timid souls who think government is the answer to every problem and has a better solution than the individuals it rules over. this is not a people of sheep who are afraid to control their own lives and believes government knows best. this is a country of high-spirited individuals who want to be left alone. many people i represent believe government is a wolf seeking what liberties it can devour from the people. americans don't believe our health should be turned over to the government and made a budget item. we don't want a bureaucrat deciding we can't have the pace making surgery. that will not work for america. after all, we aren't some nanny state european style. truck owners and other americans believe in transparent government, not smokey back-room

deals that have an odor of corruption, paybacks. americans believe in hard work with jobs open to every citizen. they believe in enjoying the fruits of their own labor and know how better to spend their money than big government. americans believe in giving people a helping hand but don't believe in creating a independent class of people. truck owners don't want d.c. people making decisions for us. americans believe in freedom, this nation was founded on freedom. and we don't want the government micromanaging our lives. the americans that drive trucks want america to remember the beginning of the constitution which says, we, the people, after all, it doesn't say we, the subjects. as one bumper sticker on a pickup said i love america, it's

government i worry about. i yield back. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. speaker. the joint economic committee, which i chair, has just released a report entitled "understanding the economy, state by state." the report provides quick and easy access to the major economic indicators for all 50 states in the areas of jobs, unemployment, personal earnings and housing. it pains a by-the-numbers

pictures of the current economic reality in each of our 50 states. every picture tells a story that is both informtive and sobering. it captures the anorment of the damage caused by the great recession that began in december of 2007. while making clear that the united states' economy has improved and begun to grow since the bush administration left office. and this shows the last month the bush administration was in office, this country lost over 750,000 jobs. nationally, there has been a substantial decrease in the rate of job losses. the economy started losing jobs in january of 2008. increasing at a rapid rate throughout the year. the average quarterly job loss

has now declined from a staggering 691,000 jobs lost per month in the first quarter of 2009 to 69,000 jobs in the more recent quarter, yet even that number is unacceptable. and as you delve into the report that provides a more localized and precise picture for each state. a chart like this is available for all 50 states. this chart, for example, is from my home state of new york. it shows at a glance the monthly change in private payrolls from january of 2008 to december of 2009. you can see that the unemployment rate in new york was 9% in december of 2009. that's up 4.4 percentage points from december of 2007.

it has been a bumpy road. but you can see clearly that the trend is now in the right direction. a scatter chart is also included in the report. and for new york state, it reveals at a glance that the unemployment rate is below the national rate and that total job losses have been smaller than u.s. averages. the economies of the state vary enormously. new york state depends heavily on technology and financial services. some states that are more dependent on construction and manufacturing have been hit much harder by job losses. an economic overview, an outlook, a company's each state chart. the one for new york provides an estimate from the president's council of economic advisers that employment in new york was boosted by a total of 141,000

jobs for the fourth quarter of 2009 by the investments we made through the recovery act. it also shows that real per capita personal income in new york was $43,000 in the third quarter of 2009, down from $45,000 in the third quarter of 2007. there is also useful information on housing for each state. and it, too, various enormously. for instance, the median price for single-family homes in new york was $290,000 in 2008, compared to $250,000 nationwide. and in new york, in november, housing starts increased by 52% over october to a total of 18,000 units at a seasonly adjusted annual rate. you can review the report online at www.jec.senate.gov.

we will update the date aver -- to track the progress. but from this first edition, it is clear why this congress is so focused on job growth. americans are demanding and rightly so that we must do all we can to agree the economy and help create new private sector jobs. the hard fact in real life of the economic policies of the prior administration don't make for a very pretty picture right now. mr. speaker, stay tuned. the americans' innovation is on the way and individual resilience is ready to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. jones: i ask to speak at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: mr. speaker, soon, the congress will be asked to raise the debt limit of this nation. this actually happened under the previous administration and now is happening under the new administration. i have not voted from the time i have been in congress to raise this debt ceiling because all this really does is permit our government to borrow more money from foreign governments. i think we all know that we are what's called a debtor nation. we don't pay our bills anymore. we have to go to the japanese, chinese and many other countries to buy our debt so we can spend more. that's the reason i wanted to come to the floor tonight. before we broke for christmas, frank walker sent out to each member of the house a little pamphlet that says "don't let

debt defeat a great nation." he and jim cook -- frank wolf and jim cooper introduced h.r. 1557, the safe commissions act. and i want to talk about that in the little bit of time i have. and read from his publication, mr. wolf's publication -- i can't get the word out, i'm sorry. we have amassed unfunded promises to guarantee future unfunded been fits when totalled, $57 trillion. every man, woman and child owes $184,000. i have used this back in my district and woy like to say it this way, mr. speaker. when that beautiful baby is born, the first cry out of his or her mouth is a cry of do i owe $184,000?

yes, baby, you do owe $184,000. every american does. this could, according to the information from frank wolf, could skyrocket to $21 trillion by the year 2020. how does frank wolf and jim cooper, in a bipartisan effort, try to deal with this out of-of control spending? they have introduced h.r. 1557, safe commissions act. and the actual title is the security -- securing america's act. this would be made up of 16 bipartisan appointed people to be on this commissions act and it would be their responsibility to go through how government spends its money from the entitlements to the spending on education, transportation, health care, national defense, tax policy and other items.

this commission would come back to congress if this should become the law. and then congress would be required to vote up or down on the panel's proposal. how this panel would come up with this proposal, they would go around this country and would hold hearings and listen to the american people, something we have not been doing, either party, quite frankly. we aren't listening to the american people. yes, we are now. and after what happened in massachusetts, the american people are being heard. and we do our own town meetings. but this commission would have the authority, should this become the law to say to the congress, you can't duck these votes. i would love to hear the president tomorrow night and i hope he is aware of the act known as the safe commission and would endorse this legislation and encourage the democratic

leadership in the house and republican leadership to get behind this bill. at the present time, we have 109 members who have co-sponsored this legislation. i hope my colleagues will look at what mr. cooper and what mr. wolf have done to try to bring to the american people hope that we can meet our obligations based on the constitution and deal with this out of-control spending. with that, mr. speaker, before i leave as i do every night on the floor, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless their families and families who have given a child who died in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to please, please, god, please, god, please, god, continue to bless america. and i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas, mr. moran. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio arise? ms. kaptur: address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: thank you. mr. speaker, the sickle -- single most important concern for americans throughout our nation is the vast and growing rate of joblessness. this is not difficult to understand. bob herbert asked in a recent "new york times" column, how loud do alarm bells have to ring? more than 15 million americans, more than one in 0 people, are out of work -- one in 10 people, are out of work. another 15 million people are underemployed or have quit looking that means that over 30 million americans want to work but cannot find the job they want. more people join their ranks every single day. worse, four in 10 unemployed workers have been jobless for 27 weeks or longer. yes, we have a jobs crisis in our country and it's everybody's number one issue. that's why i joined with

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to form the congressional jobs now caucus. to keep the focus where it needs to be. that's why i sponsored bills to create jobs in america, to stem our rising trade deficits, and to bring justice to wall street which has shut down normal lending across this country. contributing to the jobs crisis. job creation is not a republican issue or a democratic issue. we're all in this together. last month toledo, a city i represent, lost an additional 1,200 jobs. added to the yearly tally, more than 38,600 individuals or 11.8% of the city's population are without work. the unemployment rate in adjoining rural ottawa county, also in our district, is now over 17%. again, these are official numbers, which do not include those who have part time jobs, who need more hours, or those who have simply given up,

because there are no jobs to behood -- to be had. job creation is just not an urban issue. the damage has spread to the suburbs of our country and no one is safe from the jobs hemorrhage. in fact, a recent study by brookings institute as examined by mr. herbert in his article found that the largest and fastest growing population of poor people in the united states are in the suburbs. the number of poor people in our country grew by 5.2 million when president bush was president, between 2002 and 2008. and more than 90 million americans, 90 million, that's 1/3 of our country are living on less than $21,834 for a family of four. the alarm bells are roaring. at the same time the basic goodness and generosity of the american people remain one of our greatest strength. through it all the american people remain compassionate and caring. last weekend a local television station in our region organized a telethon for relief to haiti.

even with double-dith unemployment and great economic uncertainty the people in our community opened their hearts to the people they've never seen in the country, most -- in a country most of them have never visited and donated tens of thousands of dollars to that end. for our community and our country the first alarm bells started ringing with the manufacture promises and rapid failure of nafta as it outsourced jobs everywhere, certainly to mexico. the next alarm bell rang every time another trade deal came down the pike that took more of our jobs that used to exist in our country and dolled them out to every undemocratic place in the world. you can't make televisions in our country anymore? not a single one is made here. or clothing or cars or electrical parts or even toys? more and more, even our food is being imported. you mean we're falling behind in even that? oh, there's plenty of warning but big business and big money

existed on the right to seek out the lowest common denominator in the most undemocratic places and they found it in china, in mexico, in bangladesh, pakistan, guatemala and anyplace where penny wage workers are treated like the expendable pieces of equipment that they work with. in our country, now we need those jobs because people without jobs can't pay mortgages, they can't pay their health insurance, they can't buy cars, they can't plan for their children's future or even get enough food and clothing to meet their families' needs. unemployment also immediate -- means our federal deficits rise as people can't pay their way forward. unemployment and benefits are running out. state funds are depleted. our private charities are overwhelmed. the american people need work and they need good jobs. it's really that simple. we simply can't rest until we get our economy back on track and create jobs for everyone who wants to work. i hope it is to this subject, the economy and job creation,

that president obama will direct his address tomorrow night. we know that under president bush we were hemorrhaging 734,000 jobs when he left at the end of his term and though we haven't been losing as many jobs now is the time, during this fiscal year, when we need to do more for our people to put them back to work, to use that productive energy, to help pull our country forward rather than allow her to continue to fall behind. and that begins with work for every single american who need as job. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana? mr. burton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: mr. speaker, i listen to my colleagues and i think, we're all of one accord when we say we want to see jobs created in this country.

we want to see the unemployment rate to go down. but the way you do that is the way ronald reagan did it when he was president, when he came in, when we had 12% unemployment and 14% inflation. he came in and he cut taxes across the board. what are we doing instead? well, since january when the president took office we have spent $73.3 billion that we didn't have on one program, we spent $1.16 trillion including interest on the stimulus bill, the omnibus spending bill, $410 billion, if you add interest that's $625 billion, in june we spent $106 billion with a lot of pork in it on the defense supplemental. and then on the consolidated appropriation bill, the many omnibus bill -- mini omnibus bill we passed in december, it was $3.5 trillion. then you include the things we passed in this house which have not been enacted into law, like cap and trade, that's $846

billion in new taxes, and the proposed government-run health care program, if it were to pass, would cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. now, since the opposition party under speaker pelosi took control of this body, the federal deficit has increased from $162 billion the first year she was speaker in 2007 to $459 billion in 2008 and then it went up by a huge amount, $1.42 trillion in 2009. this is just an unsustainable growth rate. and over the last three years we've increased the debt ceiling five times since she took office as speaker. this is something that's unbelievable. it went from $8.97 trillion in january of 2007 to $12.39 trillion today, which is an

increase of $3.4 trillion or 38% in just three years. now you're talking about spending $3 trillion a year more than half of that borrowed money and we're talking about how we're going to get control of it. tomorrow night the president is going to be speaking from right there just below the speaker's lectern. and the president's going to try to address our economic problems and as i understand it, from some of the reports that have come out, he's going to talk about freezing spending or a partial freeze over the next three years that would reduce the budget by less than 1% or $15 billion in the first year. now don't get me wrong, i'm for freezing spending. but when you look at what's happened in the last year or two, especially during the last year, it's unbelievable. we had an 8% boost in spending in the omnibus bill the president signed into law in march and a 12% boost that he signed in right at the end of last year, in december.

we're spending money like it's going out of style. now what's the answer? the answer is that we get together and realize the way to create jobs is to stimulate the private sector and that is by cutting taxes, cutting personal income taxes, cutting corporate taxes, cutting capital gains taxes, that will give business, industry and individuals more disposable income for investment and to buy products. if the government just continues to spend like we're doing right now we're digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole and it's not going to solve the unemployment problem. i heard some of my colleagues down there talking about how things are getting better. we just had 10.5% unemployment. now it's at least 10% unemployment and when you add in those who are working part time who want a full time job it's probably more like 17% of the people, 18% of the people, that are either out of work or have given up. i mean, it's just terrible.

so what do we do? we ought to do what's been done by john f. kennedy in the past, what ronald reagan did when he was president and that is say, let's cut taxes. let's give a shot in the arm to the private sector. they create jobs. government cannot and will not create jobs by spending, spending, spending. and tomorrow night when the president speaks, he'll get a lot of applause from probably both sides of the aisle when he says some of the things he's going to say, but the thing that concerns me the most is the spending freeze he's talking about is not really anything but a drop in the bucket. it's not even a drop in the bucket. when you talk about a 1% spending freeze over the next three years. when you're talking about a multitrillion-dollar deficit that goes on and on and on and you're talking about a spending freeze that's going to save maybe, you know, $4 billion or $5 billion, it's just nothing. so i would admonish the president or suggest to the president that he start moving

toward cutting taxes, stimulate the private sector and cut the huge deficit spending we're facing and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise and ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grayson: mr. speaker, now that help to haiti is on the way and that we're doing the best we can to save lives and to reconstruct lives in that torn country, i think this is a good time to look back and to get some thought to people's reaction to what happened in haiti, to do us sort of a postmortem of the post more tell. and in particular i want to -- postmortem. and in particular i want to revisit one comment head by pat robertson. he claimed that the earthquake in haiti was the result of a pact with the desk il, that the people of ha -