close this gap and close it quickly. the car bomb found in times square was not the only attempted terrorist attack on our city since 9/11. since 1990 there have been more than 20 terrorist plots against our city. that is what is critical for congress to fully fund homeland security programs like the securing this city's initiative. in the last year of the nypd working closely with federal authorities prevented timmie of major attacks planned on our city. -- prevented two major attacks. the second was in september when the city and authority broke up a plot to designate -- detonate

explosives in the new york city subway system. land attacks have not been limited to new york. into the s and 76 men were arrested for planning to attack fort dix -- in 2007 six men were arrested. last june in arkansas, and an open fire at a military recruiting station -- a man opened fire. the fbi was already investigating this man after his arrest in yemen. he was charged with murder and 16 counts of terrorist acts. on november 5, 2009, major nadal hasan killed 14 people. he was able to buy a handgun despite being under investigation for links to terrorism. after the fort hood shooting , hood shootingan op-ed urging

congress to close the tara kemp -- i wrote an op-ed proposing closing the terrorist act. -- closing the terrorist gap. it is important to note the legislative before you would give fbi. -- agency ability to make exceptions when they determined blocking a sale might tip of a suspect under investigation. the bill allows those on the list to appeal their status to the justice department and challenged the determination in court. eric holder supported closing the gap last year. so do the best majority of americans.

and senator lieberman also. apoll found 82% of nra members support closing the gap. even if the gap and background system were to be checked, suspects would still be able to go to gun shows to buy guns. that is one of our coalition of mayors is urging congress to close the gun show loophole. it was also found the same 82% in favor of closing the gun show called. in new york city we're doing everything to prevent another terrorist attack. the police department has developed one of the world's most advanced counter-terrorism programs and thousands of police officers work on intelligence every day. a key element of any strategy is

to make it harder for terrorists to strike. that is why air passengers walk through metal detectors and police randomly checked bags on the subway. that is why it is common sense to give the fbi the authority to keep suspects from buying guns and explosives. let me say something about the second amendment. our founding fathers did knight wrote the second amendment to empower people who wanted to terrorize -- did not write the second amendment. today, the security of our free state is being tested by terrorists. i urge you to take a common sense steps to strengthen law enforcement, including closing the tear gas and protecting americans from -- including closing date terror gap.

>> when i talk to law- enforcement people around the country, they feel the standard of law enforcement is set by the nypd. if anything, you have raised that banner even higher. thank you for being here. we welcome your testimony. >> senator collins, thank you for the opportunity to be here. terrorists are determined to attack this country by any means. the attempted car bomb attack is the latest example. since 9/11 , new york city has been the subject of 11 plops. each of them was -- subject of 11 plots. each highlights one of the many ways terrorists might try to attack you nor, with homemade bombs, -- trying to attack new

york. police department trains constellate to defend against every type of threat, especially those from guns and explosions. the more we can do to deny terrorists access to these weapons, the safer we will be. that is why it is urgently close the gap in the gun laws. failure to do so places this country at greater risk. i testified about their response to the assault and india on 2008. that was carried out by small teams using assault rifles. they maximize casualties. as part of our response, we have held exercises with officers

from our special operations division. we have trained more than 250 additional officers said they will be able to supplement the work of our emergency service operators. we will use the instructors in our tax three units -- and our tactics unit. they all receive basic instructions with heavy weapons. we believe an attack is always a possibility. we also guard against terrorists with homemade bombs. our subway search program which we implemented immediately after the 2005 london bombings is

decided -- it will counter such a threat. we have also conducted an undercover operation to see how easily things can be obtained. this is part of a terrorism program we built from the ground hup. we realize the police department needed to build the intelligence correction and the infrastructure capabilities to defend new york city from another attack. we established the anti- terrorism bureau and restructured our intelligence division. we recruited the best the government has to offer. we created a new civilian intelligence program to support our commanders with timely information.

we have strengthened our controls of key infrastructure in the sitting we have forged relationships with the private sector. all of our efforts would benefit from the passage of this bill. it would exclude anyone on the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase a gun, obtain a permit, or a license to sell them. it would also complement the aggressive anti-gun strategies already in place. new york city has become a national leader in commenting gun violence. the police department has made progress in stemming the flow of illegal guns into the city.

it is a reason we have an able to drop crime down by 40% since the beginning of 2002. we are by no means declaring victory. we know there are far too many guns available to criminals determined to obtain them. the same is true for terrorist organizations which are plotting the next attack as we speak. this legislation would go a long way and stopping them from exploiting a loophole and succeeding in their mission. i hope that congress will pass this legislation without delay. >> thanks very much. we will do a seven-minute round of questioning. the fact that you are here so soon after the events of the last four days gives us an opportunity -- just to ask you

if you have any immediate lessons learned? from my perspective, the lot of what we hoped would happen in a post-terrorist attempt situation, it happened. but from mayor and commissioner, you were there on the ground. give us your reaction to the cooperation between levels of government, and if you came with any lessons learned. >> i came away pleased in the sense that the public did something. we keep telling the public to do, it turned security over to professionals. there are the ones with boots on the ground that we want to defend us. and all of the training that

commissioner kelly and the nypd and commissioner bruno, do together and with federal agencies. it showed itself instantly. a police officer was cold over -- called over and saw something was wrong. he got the other officers to start pulling people back. they called in the fire department and you saw a group of people working together. think that it was not worse than it was, but had the explosive bond off it was fair to say the professionals did what they had to do to protect us. that should give us comfort for the future. but we are the target. we will be the target again. the next attacked will be different. we don't know what that is.

that is why we keep training. >> commissioner. >> it was clearly a team effort. the terrorist task force, the fbi task force is the largest in the country. we worked seriously on this case, as we have on many others. although sometimes people seem to a question that. the relationship is strong here and a very productive one. it also illustrated the benefits of technology. we were able to pull the information from databases that was very hopeful. the key finding was the vin number on the vehicle and very quickly identify the owner. and also were able to link up

telephone numbers that led us to this suspect. there are a lot of people who say 53 hours is a remarkable amount of time -- as far as the rest of the process is concerned, to bring this to closure. >> i could not agree more. i was pleased to understand that some of the databases that are within the homeland security which this committee oversees, were very helpful to you. customs and border control, tsa -- they were able to bring that to bear very quickly. correct? >> yes, sir. >> a was thinking about those two street vendors. i am getting to an age where i remember things a lot of people don't.

remember the horrible case where a lot of people watched a woman being attacked and did nothing. this was a dramatic contrast to that. two people seeing something suspicious, not clearly a problem, immediately going to a police officer and that prevented worse from happening. whatever has changed -- i give you credit for the campaign you have conducted in new york to alert citizens to their role. because we are an open country. there is an enemy coming at us at home. we simply cannot stop no matter how hard we try. that is where the citizenry becomes 300 million more prevent terrorist -- security providers for our country.

i thank you for that. let me ask you a question about the alternative proposal. people understand the brady gun law says if you apply for a federal license your name is run across databases. some of them automatically disqualify you if you have a criminal record. others like the criminal -- terrorist watch list delays the purchase for three days, during which law-enforcement is informed. strangely, in this case the department of justice may be informed your name is on a watch list, they cannot stop you from buying a gun. that is a gap we are trying to fill. apart from the obvious fact he wants to keep a gun at of the hands to is a suspected terrorist, talk about what the purchase of a gun may say about

the moment in a would-be terrorist activity? might it suggest that that person is about to go operational? >> certainly, it is a possibility. we are still gathering information about faisal shahzad's purchase of a gun. we know he purchased a weapon in march in connecticut and had it with him in the car that he drove to jfk airport on monday night. it appears from some of his other activities that -- when he decided to put his plan in motion, he came back from pakistan on february 3. it may very well be an indicator of putting something

catastrophic in motion. >> my time is up. i just want to stress what has been said, that in the legislation, it does not mandate that the person on the terroriit watch list be prohibited from buying a gun. it gives the department of justice the authority to do so. there may be cases where a justice decides it wants the purchase to go forward because they are following that individual and this may lead to other conspirators. senator graham. >> just for the record, but we have a chance to have a good discussion about important issues. you took time away from a very busy day jaunt to help the country. peter, i have enjoyed working with you. we had a difference of opinion

on this issue, but the idea that america has gaps in our defense is a timely topic. we do have gaps in our defenses and securing our southern border. we had camps by allowing people to overstay their visas. all 19 hijackers were here illegally. they came here on a visa. they had multiple drivers licenses and almost 10 years out now and i don't think we have learned all the lessons we should have. that is one thing we can agree on. i was in new york sunday night at the marriott marquee, the very place for s thisuv was found -- the place where this suv was found. i could not have been better treated. i went to a yankees game monday and they won 4-1. if anybody is worried about

going to new york, go. i have never seen a more professional group of people other than the u.s. military. all over the place. it was a wonderful experience, so new york is open for business. you are going to be well-taken care of, but there is a risk to getting out of bed. maybe a meteorite hit you at home. it is irresponsible thing to do for americans to be talking about topics like this, but there has to be balance here. i am in the camp that i am not sure this is the right solution to present what the dangers are. the d.c. gun ban long was an experiment-- ban law, if you own a handgun he would be safer. i don't think that worked. the supreme court said that went too far. there are about to issue a

ruling to determine whether or not gun ownership is an individual right. i would argue that will affect the outcome of this legislation. i have been told and i will not ask for specific numbers, but there is 1228 people on the watch list that try to purchase a handgun. is that right? >> it sounds right. >> what percentage of those people are facing terrorism charges now? >> i don't know. let me say that i could not agree with you more. this country does not have control of its bordersvisa overstay -- control of its borders. anybody can forge a passport or a green card. here we should do something about that. we should get control of our borders. we track people when they come through immigration. we don't track them when they

leave. we should fix that. we have documents that are too easy to fake. we have to get control of immigration in this country. here we need immigrants, but we should be choosing who comes here and not let who wants to come here determine that. i am 100% with year. >> that is what i look forward to working with you. >> when it comes to reasonable restrictions which the supreme court said are acceptable and consistent with the second amendment, i think this is a reasonable restriction. why don't know whether any of the 1200 on the watch list are facing charges at the moment, those that are -- bought guns, but i do know if society decides these people are too dangerous to get on an airplane

with other people, then it is probably appropriate to look hard before you let them buy a gun. >> i totally understand, but we are talking about a constitutional right. the reason i brought that up, commissioner kelly -- if all these people are fanatics and everyone of them on the watch list is a terrorist planning and attacked, it would be on that 1228 -- none of them are being charged with a terrorism offense. there is a disconnect between what we are saying and reality. there are 400,000 people on the watch list. what percentage are american citizens? >> i could i give you any insight. >> the law prohibits purchase of

a gun unless you are an american citizen or legal resident alien. i think we are talking about a small percentage. in the nra some people believe banning handguns is the right answer to the gun violence problem. i am not in that camp. i believe my right to own a gun should not be in french because the nut -- should not be infringed. i want us to take our social security cards and make them by demetric. i want to start really -- stop reading these guys. the rights. your son is a marine, right? it was a fighter pilot come against? >> my son was a former fighter pilot -- former fighter pilot.

>> at the end of the day you have been great on this issue. nobody in their right mind would expect a marine to read someone caught on the battlefield their rights. catch them and interrogate them. your special unit is probably the best in the world at this, but i don't think it's smart for us to say that the homeland is not part of the battlefield. you get to america and you get a much better deal? you get rewarded? if you can be caught in pakistan and intelligence gathering can happen with an intelligence agency in -- why should you get a better deal when you get here? even if you are an american citizen helping the enemy, you should be viewed as a potential military threat, not some guy who tried to commit a crime in

times square. i look forward to working with the nypd, mayor of new york, peter king, to devise a law that recognizes we are at war. when you capture someone, and it was a marvelous piece of not police work alone, but a combination of intelligence gathering, that you would have the opportunity to hold this suspect because they represent a military threat to our country even though they are a citizen, and be able to gather intelligence before you did anything else. what i want to know more about this guy is not how he committed the crime, but what led him to commit this crime? randle warnings are counterproductive. we need a law -- miranda warnings are counterproductive. working with the intelligence officials to gather intelligence and mmke a good

decision. back to this issue at hand. a column i have is at the watch list, when you look at the numbers. it has so many problems with it that i think is not appropriate to go down the road we are going, because the constitutional right is involved. that is my only concern. i understand from the mayor's perspective how you feel about this issue, but please understand i feel differently not because i care less about terrorism. >> perhaps we can delay your fears. the watch list is accessed 1 billion times a year and error rate is probably as low as any large list. keep in mind, and congress you have passed laws preventing convicted felons from buying a

gun. that does not mean every convicted felon will commit another crime. you had a law that says you cannot sell munns to minors -- cannot sell guns to minors. i know we disagree on this. is a reasonable position to take. here there is the ability to contest if you are on the list -- there is the ability to contest. >> maybe we will have a good discussion about how to fix the list. it is hard for me to believe that if 1228 people have tried to buy guns who are on the list, and a 91% were allowed to buy guns and none are prosecuted, that we had a good connect here. there is a disconnect between the people on the list and those we will prosecute. before we subject innocent americans to have done nothing but have the wrong name to going

to court and pay the costs to get their gun rights back, i want to stop and think about this. >> agree with you and senator lieberman completely. my reading is that you can declare an american citizen and enemy combatants. they had moved the battlefield from afghanistan here to the united states. we should refine that and define it. he was an enemy combatants. >> let me set the record straight. the fourth circuit held an american citizen as an enemy combatants. we have had case law that says an american citizen overseas could be held as an enemy combatants. it is my belief the supreme court would allow congress to write a law that said the homeland is part of the battlefield. i cannot imagine the supreme court saying the homeland is not

a part of the battlefield. when it comes to an american citizen, they had a responsibility not to betray their country. once you go down that road you should be viewed not as a common criminal, but a military threat. you cannot try an american citizen in military commission, but they can be tried in federal court. the charge of treason should always be on the table. if it is proven that this man committed an act of treason against citizens, i want to keep that charge available. that is my view of that. . .

in the current status of operations, only people on two of the more a limited list are actually given secondary screening before they get on an airplane. that means that anybody who is not on a terrorist watch list, because someone suspects they are a terrorist, it is in the

interest of everyone on that plane and in society to at least stop them and give them a secondary screening. presumably, the christmas bomber had explosives on his person, but leave that aside. if someone is on a terrorism watch list -- most of them are foreign nationals, but there are a good number of americans, including -- well, a good number of americans. why would we not want to give the department of justice discretionary authority when one of them comes in to buy a gun? a suspected terrorist, after a review or a three day waiting period, to saying -- to say, no, he cannot have a gun. i just do not see an argument

that is based on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. listen, if you have a criminal record today and that turns up when you go in to buy a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer, you cannot buy a gun. you do not have a choice. that does not compromise the rights of law-abiding citizens. they're not even trying to make it that strong. they are just saying give the department of justice discretionary authority. >> can i take a shot at that? no pun intended. you are my friend. >> i do not get your concern. >> i will try to explain it to you. i know i talk slowly. i will talk slower. i have an accent. i know your ability to understand my argument is based on a not you but me.

>> i think i understood input -- i think i understood it. >> there is no constitutional right to get on an airplane without being screened that i know of. when the founders wrote the constitution, they did not consider flying. i don't believe the constitution protect any of us from being able to get on the airplane without being screened. here is the elephant in the room. what if all the secondary screening happens to be, 99%, muslim males? that is where we are headed with this thing. >> are they on the terrorism watch list? >> we are at war. here is the thing about profiling. we have to realize the profile of the enemy. if you do not want to focus on law-abiding american muslim males who are serving in the military and justifiably, as you

said, mayor blumberg, this is not about a religion. there are plenty of people in this country of the muslim faith who are willing to fight and die for this country, so we have to watch what we're doing and what we are saying here. but senator lieberman, we're talking about second amendment rights. some of the people pushing this are also talking about banning handguns. i do not think that makes me safer, because every criminal seems to be able to get one. i do not believe that taking this concept of a gun under chef and denying it, not after you have been convicted of a lawful -- convicted in a lawful court -- i think you are going too far here. there is a huge difference between losing your gonna write based on a felony charge that has been proven in -- losing your gonna rights based on a felony charge that has been proving -- losing your gun

rights based on a felony charge that has been proven in a court of law. i am very concerned about the gaps in our defenses. maybe i am not making a good argument to you, but it makes perfect sense to me that we believe that the constitutional right to own a gun being linked to this list is unnerving at best. >> you and i will continue this argument, but no one is trying to ban guns here. i am not. some may, but i would not support that. the second amendment right, just like the first, is one of our most prized right. these are not unlimited rights though. to me, this is an

extraordinarily limited law that is being proposed. to say that if somebody is suspected of being a terrorist, they cannot buy a gun. we will continue the discussion, i am sure. i want to ask a few more questions. what i am about to us would be to slightly expand the databases to which gun purchasers are related. do i understand correctly that one person was not on a terrorist watch list but was the subject of an active terrorist investigation? because of the e-mail contact he

had with a radical cleric in yemen. there is a larger fbi data base of people who are the subjects of investigation. this does not even need to be done by law. it could be done by the fbi. would it not make sense to, again, for this precautionary system that we're talking about, would not make sense to also ask that somebody who came in to purchase a gun be run through the larger databases that the fbi has of people under active investigation? >> senator, i am would be fully in favor -- i would be fully in favor of that. i agree with you completely. >> thank you. a couple of more questions, quickly. nypd has a program that reaches

out to businesses that some material and equipment that could be used to facilitate terrorist activities. i would like you to talk a little bit more about that and how it has worked, and how you have encouraged other communities to adopt the same program. >> it had to do specifically with airplane parts leaving the country. this is an outreach program on the part of the department where we go to businesses that may unwittingly sell things that could be used by terrorists, even garden supply stores that sell fertilizer. insecticide spray companies. we have gone to their

conventions, conventions of storage facility honors, the sort of thing. we have made about 50,000 visits since the start of this program. it gives them away to notify us if they see something of interest. and now the british authorities came here in 2003 and said quite openly that they looked at this program and copied it, and they were helpful in a case that i am short you are familiar with in which there was ammonium nitrate stored in a storage facility in the uk. i see no downside in doing a program. people are under no obligation to call us, but the business owners who are approached seem to like it. they feel like they are "in the

game," you might say. it has been helpful in a series of leads. >> i appreciate that. i am going to see if we can encourage other communities to adopt it. there has been a reference to the "gun show loophole." that is not specific to this hearing, but it is obviously another concern that we have about the ability of would-be terrorists to buy firearms at gun shows without having to go through the checks, including the one the we are trying to expand and toughen here, that they would if they walk into a gun shop. i want to ask both the commissioner and the mayor, i believe that the nypd did an investigation of gun shows recently.

you reach what i thought were some very important conclusions. i wonder if you wanted to share them with us. >> let me just, for the record, explain what the loophole is. the federal laws require background checks if you buy a gun from a dealer. there is an exemption for had a gun show -- for at a gun show, ostensibly so that if you own a gun and went to sell it to me, you would not have to go through the investigatory process. the trouble is, people are coming in and not with one gun to sell, but with hundreds of guns too. there are fundamentally dealers. they have the same size inventory as the legally registered gun dealers to go to these gun shows, but the law does not apply to them. i do not think that congress meant for the loophole to be a

way around having professional sellers of guns avoid having the regulations that you have to do a background check. it was meant for individual purchases for one gun or two, and it has been used for something different. closing ben hall loophole -- closing of that gun show lou loophole would help keep guns out of the hands of those that the federal legislature has already dictated should not have them. i think the gap is just another one of the categories. i am is sympathetic to senator gramm's concerns. i think he is a very thoughtful senator and he has put a lot of time into this. i would argue that this is

consistent with the other laws that the congress has passed and that the supreme court has said are reasonable. >> thank you. commissioner, tell us level -- tell us a little about some of the findings of a study. i am struck with just a willing the gun show participants are to break the law. >> this was done by private investigators. we are obviously concerned about the gun show loophole. it has been known and talked about on the street. certainly, in some states it is more of a problem than in others. we have certain states that seem to contribute excessively to the guns that we find on the stteets of our city.

gun shows predominate in a lot of those states. >> let me just add one other thing. in our investigation at the gun shows, we make sure that the seller of the gun, who was somebody that we had hired, said to the potential buyer, "if you had to go through a background check, would you pass?" 63% of them said, "absolutely not." 99% of the gun dealers in this country are reputable. people who cannot buy from them go to gun shows to avoid the federal law. i do not think that is what congress wanted to happen. they passed the law. it should be enforced. >> i agree.

thank you very much for your testimony. thank you for taking the time in the middle of everything else you are doing. truly helps us draw attention to this gap, and hopefully it will encourage our colleagues to vote to close the gap. to proceed with the second panel. we will give the first panel a moment or two to find their way out. [inaudible] [no audio] >> this weekend, retiring supreme court justice john paul

stevens and u.s. solicitor general on the justices life and legacy. "america and the courts," on c- span. this weekend, 10 years after doing the crime, this woman spent 15 months in prison for delivering cash to an international drug ring. her book is "orange is the new black." former first lady rosalynn carter takes a look at how far mental health issues have come in the u.s.. laura bush talks about her new book. you can follow us on a twitter. >> next, a look at the 37 gubernatorial races this november. this is 40 minutes. rnal" continues.

>> we have nathan daschle, the executive director of the democratic governors' association, and naysayers, the director of the republican governors association -- and nick ayers, a director of the republican governors association. 37 states have gernatorial elections this year. our goal is to look up the hot ones, some of the close ones, and were these two general and think there could be some switching in seats. -- two gentleman think there could be some switching in seed. -- in seats. guest: we have 12 open seats. we feel very good about being able to hold the ones that we have. we think our incumbents are in a pretty good position to get reelected, with the exception of one who suggested he will not

make it out of the primary. that would be jim gibbons in nevada. the former judge, former attorney general of the state of nevada left the bench and is ulling at 10 or 20 points in the primary. we are not involved in the primary. we think is best to leave that up to the republican primary voters to choose their nominees. but we do pay attention to the data and it does suggest that brian cent of all will likely be the nominee in nevada -- brian sandoval will likely be the nominee in nevada. we had two net gains last year in virginia and new jersey, which we are very proud of. our goal this year would be to get to 30 republican governors. that would mean we would need to win 24 of the 30 races. we would have to win over 60% of the races this year.

host: how many are of for reelection? what is your situation? guest: we have 18 of for reelection -- i'm sorry, 19 democratic seats, seven incumbents and 12 open seats. there's no question that if the election were held today, we would probably suffer some losses. i think it will be very difficult for nick to get to 30. but the election will be held six months from now and in between that time i think the democrats have an opportunity to take their message of growth and prosperity to t american people. at the state level, there's only one party talking to those voters. if we can continue the conversation for the next six months, i think we will continue to do well. host: let's put this conversation of four phone calls as well. -- but for phone calls as well.

you can go ahead and start dialing in right now. weill talk to these two gentlemen about the importance of the governors. why should we care about gubernatorial election? guest: that is a great question. this is probably the single most important gubernatorial election that this country has faced. we of 37 races, more than we have had in one year in the history of this country. and it has been 20 years since we have had these races on the eve before redistricting. the long-term and short-term impact of these going to elections is virtually unprecedented. guest: i totally agree wth nathan. at one of the things that he and

i try to work on together is raising the level of awareness about the importance of governors' races this year. he and i took our jobs at a similar time and when we came to this town, people were very focused cycle after cycle on senate and house races. that means a lot of our donors were only focused their as well. the house and senate races in 2010 are very important, but we want -- every one -- and we want you to continue to focus on those, but the gubernatorial races will be relevant for the next decade. there are a few reasons for that. one, the country will go toward the redistricting in 2011. every state go through rediricting in 2011, the states that really matter will be the ones that will be reapportioned. it is estimatedhat 18 states

will leave your gain or lose a congressional district in 2011. 15 of those 18 have governors races in 2010. 14 of those 15, the gernors play board -- a large role in the rear portion process. --in the reapportionment process. but the majority wille 10 seats, or whether the republicans have a 10 seat majority or the democrats have somewhere between a one to 10 seat majority. that means whoever controls the reapportion process will likely have a bigger say in the 2012 election. i think david axelrod and rahm emanuel are very smart man. there is a reason they're paying attention to the governor's race in ohio and colorado and other swing states.

they want democratic governors there. i do not blame them. if we had a republican president, i would what republican governors there. guest: we are blessed right now with having the problem of the really large map. there are places like the northeast and midwest and the great lakes that we have a great opportunity to go on offense in those areas where we have not been on offense in a long time. you can immediately look to places like ohio, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylnia, illinois, those are an area -- host: is ted strickland leading in the polls? guest: absolutely. it is already a horse race. host: nathan daschle, what is your one biggest goal that you want to have? guest: probably california, texas or florida. i know you asked for one, but it

is difficult when you have 37 states. but those three are the three that we're looking at because they all have republican governors and we all have very strong democratic candidates. host: when is your recollection? guest: in june. host: d right now and jerry brown is running unopposed? guest: he is unopposed. host: and in california? guest: steve poizner and mikelyn. -- meg whitman. theris a real civil war going on between the far right, who is perceived as the establishment candidates -- and i think a civil war is taking place in california, florida. you can virtually pick any state with the governor's race this year and you will see that. guest: it is a wild stretch of imagination to say that when you have a lot of candidates running

against each other it is a civil war. it is a democracy. the reason we have big primaries is because people are inspired to run this year. one, they want to take their country back. they feel that the country needs more checks and balances and that more reblican governors would provide more ccks for this president. but the the thing is that they can win in november. we are blessed to have things like steve poizner and meg whitman battling it out. frankly, it will make better candidates out of them in the fall. host: they are pretty rough on each other. are the poizner people going to support the equipment -- the whitman people? guest: we did not have a problem in new jersey last year with chris christman. there was a popular mayor of the regatta, steve login, a very

conservative guy that got 35% of the vote in the primary. chris christie won because people understood he was a conservative, fiscally conservative, maybe n a socially conservative. the primary helped chris christie prepare for what john corzine wanted to do with him in the fall. host: and does this help youn any way down the florida gubernatorial race? guest: it does. i note nick does not want to take the gop were too seriously, but it is a serious threat to his party -- the gop war too seriously, but it is a serious threat to his party. there is a former congressman who has lost two statewide races. there is a sharp lack of enthusiasm for him in florida. just a couple of weeks ago, a conservative businessman got

into the race, rick scott. he is going to tap into the two- party momentum -- the tea party momentum andhat will be problems for the other candidates. i understand in an off year midterm election, republicans feel that they need to focus their efforts. but it leaves this huge space in the middle. host: who is running on the democratic side? est: alec cink, unopposed. host: we want to take some phone calls, but we want to first show and add that the republican governors association is putting out. and tt we want to get the leader of the dga to respond to it. here it is.

♪ >> yes, we can. >> the bill is passed. >> yes, we can. >> the ain't no rules around here. we make them up as we go along. >> we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it. >> americans wanted to vote for socialism when they elected president obama. >> certainly, our government cannot produce money at we do not have. >> yes, we can. >> we suffer from a fiscal cancer. >> we killed what made us a great nation. >> yes, we can. >> this is what changed us.

host: nathan daschle, that is what you are running against. guest: it is a perfect example of what and tking about, the need to radicalize their base. while extremely well produced, and i'm glad to know that make is spending his money on web ads, but it is shocking. the republican party knows how to blow a whistle to its supporters. this is clearly an allusion to a 17th century domestic terrorist, guy fawkes. remember, november is an allusion to remember. it is the start of iran paul campaign. -- the start off to the ron paul campaign.

the images that they use are violent and it is a very anti- government message. but it is reflective of were the republican party is right no guest: the video speaks for there was not one image of violence. people protesting, it is news to me that people protesting is violence. and the democtic leadership, we are going to make of will up. you know, al sharpton and others, those are their words. we put it t on the web. and nathan might be disappointed to hear we did not spend a penny producing the. our in-house team produced it and we t it on the web. it says a lot about the pent-up anxiety in this country that in 72 hours, over 1 million people

downloaded the video. many of them signed up to support the rga and give us donations, but yours and mine and nathan's interpretation of it does not matt. everyone just saw that on c- span. i'm very proud of those who produced it. host: let's take some calls. paul from massachusetts, your first up with our two guests. caller: thank you for letting me get through. i'm from massachusetts and i see a very disturbing had against tim cahill from the republican governors association. i want to know why other governors in other states can get into state elections. i haveev heard of that before. also, why don't the democrats get on tv and defend packard?

-- and defend duval patrick ordaz? host: are you a supporter of duval patrick? calleryes, i am. host: but get a response. guest: i understand if they do not have -- do not like a third party activism in these races. it is our job, but the bus, to support -- both of us, to support the cndidates'kg host: nm

cahill hurt your chances in massachusetts? not i guest: robb. when i saw that the rga went up in massachusetts i almost ve them money because of a like t see them spend more money on this ad. the more that kale and bigger fight it out and they fight over -- e more cahill and baker fight it out in the fight over who is more conservative, it will be apparent that the only serious candidate in this is deval patrick. guest: nathan and i agree -- i should not say that we agree, but based on what he just said,

it is clear that a vote for tim cahill is a vote for deval patrick. the only tng he is going to do is split the anti-patrick vote. right now, all of the internal polls show that 60% of the voters in massachusetts want someone besides patrick as their governor. that is pretty disappointing that 60% ofhe people do not want to see you reelected. the only thing tim cahill can do in the next six months is split the vote and bring the winning number down to about 40% because that is all patrick would be able to get. guest: governors across the country are facing tough poll numbers right now. rtunately, the election is still six months away. what is going on is that republicans have no enthusiasm for charlie baker. a lot of thinking is too liberal. this goes back to the gop war

that i was talking about that is playing out all across the country. kale is independent and surrounded by strategist -- cahill is independent and strata by strategists who say that baker is too liberal --and is surrounded by strategists who said that baker is too liberal. host: tampa, merle, replican, hello. caller: i wanted to bring up this subject, and it does have to do with governors. i am basically a conservative, although i am liberal on the idea that the tax code of our country is screened the conscience of our country -- but the tax codof our country is screwing the conscience of our country. democrats need to get together like never have before. we will not get out of it until we change the tax code.

neither one of the parties will talk about it. host: merle, who would you vote for for governor if it were held right now in florida and for senate? caller: i will be voting for rubio. host: and what about the gubernatorial race? caller: probably the lady --nd i cannot think of her name right now. there is a lady that is running. host: she is the democrat, right? caller: she is covering the serious issues that we have. host: oh, a third republican, thanks so much. any respse to what the gentleman had to say? guest: i'm not sure there was a question. host: well, states in trouble physically, are all those states in trouble? and is this an issue -- the state in trouble physically, are

all of the states in trouble? and is this an issue across the country? guest: 1 dramatic difference is the economic records of democratic governors versus republican governors. my friend is not like this, but these are the facts, the top five states with the highest unemployment numbers, republican governors. for best list for business, democratic governors. -- for this best list for business, democratic governors. the rga want to talk about these talking points that work more on the national level, but they are not backed up at the state level. guest: nathan and i are friends. i will try to be short. but first of all, on the job unemployment numbers, based on his own model -- ok, if he wants to tout the five states with the

highest unemployment, you do not hear him touting the three states with the lowest unemployment, which also have republican governors, north dakota, south dakota, and nebraska. the difference between the lowest unemployment, with republican governors, and the 45 that are the highest, those 45 are also -- and the four or five that are the highs, those four or five are rich -- are controlled by the legislative level by democrats. on the forbes list, where he is not saying is that if you look at the top 10, five of the top 10 are also republican governors. these are not born to be won by statiscs. these races are going to be won by a state-by-state basis.

host: another state with a gubernatorial race this year, interesting one, chicago, illinois. go ahead. caller: i have a question. it seems to me that both the republican and democratic parties are pretty much the same these days. there is s much corruption in both of them. so many of the states make it difficult for third-party candidates to geon the ballot. i would like to know whatour parties are -- when your party are going to loosen up te stranglehold on the american populace. host: nathan daschle? guest: i think right now we're seeing a lot of third parties running for office. they are just running for -- runng as republicans. and bill britton in most systems would be far right beuse -- would be republican

because he is that far right in his day. host: didn't they see a poll where he is leading governor quinn? guest: that is what he is not telling you. guest: but the race is still six months away and nobody knows anything about the brady. host: is it your job to make sure that they know about bill pretty? guest: yes, it is, and in six months, quinn will be back on top. host: six months before last year's election in new jersey, the same was said about chris kristie and jon corzine. people in new jersey, joseph people in illinois, -- just like peop in ilinois, are not confused about whether governor has been doing. if you have 40% and the toll --

in the polls, your toes. -- you are toast. if a governor is below 47% or 46% in their reelecting number, they are seriously vulnerable. our candidate is 10 to 12 points ahead of his incbent govnor and are kennard has one-third of the name by dedication. guest: part of thatis that one candidate has to make tough decisions, and there is a really difference -- a real difference here. democrats have been making the tough decisions and they are turning their states around. host: each state has different problems, yes? what is the purpose of an rga? guest: really, we are a source of campaign finance reform.

probably as early as 2000, 2001, the rga and i think the dga were just campaign offices. then they were spun out in their own natial committees. our job is to make sure there are more republican governors in the country than democratic governors. guest: i think it is similar, our function. it is primarily two-fold. one is to elect democratic governors. but we believe in electing democratic governors. we believe the difference in leadership of the state level is very important in this country. we also act as a policy source in this country in which there can be a forum. host: beverly in phoenix, you

are on the air. caller: i have a question for nathan. i lived down here 16 years ago and i have yet, except for janet nepolitano, seen a good race against a republican in this state. and jan burqbrewer is going be reelection and i do not even know if there is a democrat running against her. also, in the senate race, even though i voted for mccain twice for senator, i think he should go out now. and who is running against him? j.d. hayworth, other republican. host: you always call on the

democrats line. caller: i am a democrat. host: ok, thanks. good to hear from you. guest: right now, all of the action is going on, surprise, with the republican primary. the incumbent governor is one of the few, and we only have seven, that will face a difficult election. she has a number of challenges, a number of primary chalngers. i think her immigration bill was a very shrewd move in her attempts to winepublican nomination, but it will be a huge setback in the general election. let me tell you how extreme this immigration bill is, rick. -- rick perry is against it. if someone who advocated cession iagainst your bill,

that tells you something. guest: rick perry did not advocate the session. at least 70% of arizonans absolutely support and likely conced his opposition to the wind. had he supported the bill, you would have gone to the primary and lost. if gov. brewer wins the primary, i believe she will sell only to feed the attorney general goddard. host: california has a gubernatorial race, tara from daly city, hello. caller: i have a question for mr. ayers.

gov. schwarzenegger has not been paicularly successful and has been keeping a low profile lately. i'm wondering if he is thinking about switching parties. also, is mr. poizner or ms. whitman going to have to runo the right of mr. schwarzenegger if they hope to turn out to the republican vote. -- the republican vote? host: do you think that they should run to the right? caller: yes, they should. i am running to the right of governor schwarzenegger, so i think that they should do the same. guest: polling would suggest that you're not the only one, and certainly not the only republicann california that feels that way. as governor schwarzenegger enters his last year in office, i have not been entirely focused on what he has been up to. one thing i have focused on is

attorney general brown. we think jerry brown and an overwhelmingly democratic legislature would be disastrous for the future of the state of cifornia. i am not sure who will win the primary, whether it is meg whitman or steve poizner, but i am confident that they will run on fiscal conservatism. and i beeve either one of them would be competitive against the democratic candidates. host: nathan daschle, along with jerry brown you have a cuomo and edmonton. those are familiar names. guest: in california, nick is going to have to get used to the fact that jerry brown will be the next governor of california. in the republican primary, both whitman and poizner are having a sprint to see you can get their forest. that leaves this huge hole in

them -- can get there first. that leaves this huge hole in the middle. in new york, despite nick's overwhelming financial commitment to steve levy, the candidate who is down 30 points, the next governor is going to beat andrew cuomo. -- is going to be andrew cuomo. ho: what about edmonton? guest: he still has the primary. we feel very good about the strength of our candidates in the primary. guest: is thata civil war because you have a primary in oklahoma with two candidates? guest: it is not because i think we have candidateswho get along. and what you have with snakes is that you have -- with nick is

that you havehe two-party -- the tea party that has an effect on how these things play out. host: georgia, go ahead. caller: thiss like watching wrestling. you are mentioning the monarchical dissent in the families. jefferson and adams and others are very clear out what is beneath and and in when you peel it off when they corresponded. you look out the window and you can see where the white jet flew up over the top of the capital from the pentagon on the morning of 91 and thousands were evacuated from capitol hill. host: let's take this to georgia.

your and independent. who are you supporting for governor right now. caller: there was a guy that bought -- that fought bush's boyd, a rich guy dutch tried to steal genco island -- jacko island. he seems like a regious man. host: we're going to leave it there. we're talking about the gubernatorial races. in georgia, mr. barne is running to recapture his seat. guest: that is right. host: what do the polls say? guest: in the polls, barnes maintains the lead, but this is something that is not that

difficult. i clearly hit a nerve with the civil war something. look, that does signal something very serious when it becomes anti-government. host: who is going to be the republican nominee in georgia? guest: it is too close to call. we have several great options. we will go to a runoff. i think the race will be so close that the top two vote getters will go to a runoff. ho: and that is happening in july and then the primary in august? -- that is happening in july, the primary, and then in august? guest: that is right. host: do you think it is going to be a democratic pickup? guest: no, they do not have a chce this year. there is a 55% job approval rating.

voters through the democratic party out of office, led by -- and voters threw the democrats -- the democratic party out of office and they do not want to see if return. caller: i knew the republican was on that because i even -- before i even attuned to it because they have that holier than thou attitude. i would not vote for republican because if i was on fire, they would not spit on me because they would be afraid they would be giving me something for nothing. and poor people who vote republican, escially white, poor people, they must be cist because they will noto anything to help you if they -- if you fall through the cracks. and people dfall through the cracks.

host: what is your question? caller: where did the republican party get the idea for the scary add that you showed? guest: i totally disagree with the caller, and i think she is just fundamentally wrong abt her political philosophy. i think most americans who watch our video, clearly, over 1 million of them who have downloaded it and support our gorda organization come to a far difre conclusion than the caller. -- support our organization come to a far different conclusion thanhe caller. she sounds like a better perso and a better person. -- bitter person. caller: the gentlemathat was talking aboarabout jan burqa ah-

jan brewer, and she got my vote because she signed the bill because she knew it was right for arizona. host: how often do issues like that play into the mature a racist? guest: it is good news for -- in the gubernatorial races? guest: for the most part, this is about moving forward, about who can put together a division of economic prosperity for the state. right now, i think there is a difference becauserepublicans are unaturally obsessed with washington d.c. and the democrats are talking about their states. there is only one party that is talking to middle-class voters and moderate voters and only one party that has an economic vision for the future. host: next call from sara on the

democrats line. caller: my question is basic one. i want to know what the young men think the governors can do to promote our economy again and get us back into manufacturing. and i have a section -- the suggestion -- i have a suggestion. by love trains' my whole life. i think of this country -- i love trains, my whole life. i think if this country will manufacture the beautiful locomotives to go all over this country -- host: who are you supporting for brawner in florida? caller: i do not care for -- for governor in florida? caller: i do not care for either

one of them right now. i hope they come up with someone else. host: all right, we will move on to apollo, pa., regina, republican line. you have quite gubernatorial race going, don't you? caller: 0 age, yes -- oh, yes my representative is sam morrah. we taxpayers --perty taxes continue to increase for the mandate for notre but behind. -- no child left behind. representative sam more has been a leader. host: give us a thumbnail of pennsylvania. guest: we are blessed to have two good candidates for attorney general -- to good candidates,

one is the attorney general. the democratic nominee will likely be dan al-nahda, but -- of dan's orinado, but they have half the primary, too. it is a 20 " swing state, and we believe we will be competitive -- a 2012 swing state, and we believe we will beompetitive with our nominee. gues this is where nick and i can agree. although, i think our candidates will be the winner there. therimary is in less than two weeks, so we will know pretty soon. this is going to be a very competitive race. it is one of a series of open seats. host: there was an article about the merc the special election --

murtha special election and that could affect the primary race. do you agree? guest: i think specter will bring a vote in the philadelphia area and that will help swing candidates in the area. i think it is a very strong formula because onarado is at a very strong candidate. ost: would've been a failure to have sestak -- would it benefit you to have sestak as the candidate rather than arlen specter? guest: we will deal with the hand is dealt and ultimately, ii think we will have

extended unemployment benefits and created jobs while investing in clean energy technology, and for structure, and education. there is the worker homeownership and business assistance act, which has the first time homebuyer tax credit and enhanced small business tax relief. the house of representatives passed an additional $300,000

-- 300,000 summer jobs for young people. in addition to today's job numbers, we're seeing more evidence that the actions taken are working after four straight quarters of negative growth, the economy has now grown for three straight quarters. retail sales have increased for three straight months. sales of both existing and new homes increased in march, with sales of new single-family homes rising by almost 27%. while it is encouraging to see these signs of progress and the return of job growth, we will need stronger growth to get all employ americans back to work. as we focus on getting our national economy going, families all over are grappling with their family economy. working mothers are key contributions to both. on monday, we will be releasing a report that looks at how working moms have feared during this recession.

unemployment remains at an unacceptably high levels with more than 15 million americans out of work. almost half of the unemployed have been have worked for six months. almost one-third have been unemployed for over a year. african-americans and hispanic workers see a number -- see an unemployment rate of 15. represents and, above the overall unemployment rate -- it up 15%, above the overall unemployment rate of 9.7%. in march, we received a report on the long-term unemployment. we put out a report on unemployment among hispanic workers. later, this spring, we will examine the challenges facing the younger members of the work force. while hiring has tended to increase, it is uneven.

just two days ago, dr. alan krueger, chief economist at the treasury department, testified that hiring among smaller companies remained weak. he testified that small businesses are generally the drivers of new jobs during recoveries, but larger establishments had yet to expand hiring during this recession. he testified that access to credit for small businesses is a large part of the problem, keeping them from hiring. i know that my republican colleagues share my commitment to do everything we can to help small businesses get the loans they need so that they can expand their operations and hire more people. we need to identify new policies that all leashed the job trading power of small businesses and support the sound proposals which have been put forward by the obama administration. i am particularly supportive of

the 30 billion small businesses lending fund proposed by the administration because it targets small and mid-sized community banks at the center of small business lending. while they represent 20% of all bank assets, they account for more than half of all small business loans. by transferring funds from turkey to create this fund, we can get new loans to the community, growing businesses and adding jobs. we could raise the cap on small business administration loans from $2 million to five millions. raising the cap on loans could have a powerful and positive impact on small businesses and is something we should move through congress as quickly as possible. while today's report on the april unemployment

situation shows improvement, we still need to concentrate on creating jobs, jobs, jobs. i look forward to hearing information about the april unemployment numbers from dr. keith hall. now i will recognize my colleague. >> i am pleased in joining you in welcoming dr. hall. today's report is mixed news for american workers and their families. on the one hand, apparel implement increased by two and a 24,000 jobs, excluding -- unemployment -- overall employment increased by 224,000 .obs the unemployed long-term have

increased. a painfully slow recovery is better than a recovery, but for those out of work and waiting for washington democrats to finally focus on jobs, this report is this morning. at this slow pace, it will take a long time to return to normal employment levels. consumers and businesses are increasingly concerned that runaway government spending and the dangers web of debt couldn't send america down the path that greece is finding itself. small businesses are reluctant to hire workers while government is demanding new taxes and more expensive health care costs. washington is standing firmly in the way of america's recovery. although real gnp grew at an annual rate of 3.2% -- although real gdp grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, some of it was from

restocking inventories. in line with this modest growth trend, the most recent blue-chip consensus forecast predicts that gdp will grow by 1.1% in 2010 while peril employment will grow by an average of 117,000 per month this year. unfortunately, such slow growth in payroll employment means that the unemployment rate will remain elevated. the blue chip consensus forecast predicts that it will still be 9.4% in the fourth quarter of this year. at the same point, the reagan recovery of 99 -- of 1981-1992 was twice as strong as gdp growth from the current

recovery these have vastly different economic policies. they could either have a tail wind with accelerating gdp growth. combined with the disinflationary monetary policies under paul volcker, reagan laid the foundation for two decades of prosperity. in contrast, president obama and congressional democrats have pursued largely anti-growth policies that will hinder this policy. based on cost and mandate, premium increases, and higher taxes, the cap and trade and financial services reform and other regulatory initiatives.

instead of providing encouragement, president obama and this congress have given entrepreneurs a reason to worry. yesterday, the u.s. stock market fell by more than 3.2% and widespread fears that the greek debt crisis would spread to ireland, lee, portugal, and spain, n.j. ireland, italy, portugal, and spain. -- would spread to ireland, italy, portugal, and spain. after use -- after years of reckless spending, the greek government must slash spending.

there is another country whose government budget deficit and debt could readily reached alarming levels found in europe. unfortunately for the american people, that country is the united states. according to our own congressional budget office, the federal budget deficit will be over 10% of gdp this year and the publicly held federal debt will be 6.2% by the end of fiscal year 2010. if the congress adopts obama's budget, the budget deficit will exceed 4% of the fiscal year during the next decade and a drill it held public debt will be 9% of our economy. president obama -- they are following fiscal policy that is clearly unsustainable. reverse,t is quickly resol

the u.s. could find its own debt crisis. unlike degrees, there will be no one to bail us out. >> thank you very much for holding this important hearing. like congressman raheem devaughn, i am also concerned about the debt. that is why i am a strong supporter of the bipartisan debt commission. at the same time, i think that we need to be honest about what has happened here. when president obama took office from president bush, we were in a major financial crisis. we lost the same number of jobs in the first month when president obama inherited this mess as the number of people living in vermont. this month, while we have the

9.9% unemployment, which is clearly traveling and not good news, this month we have added 290,000 jobs, which is the largest gain since march 2006 and the fastest growth in the last four years. clearly, it is still much good enough. i hear time and time again in my state from people who do not have jobs. even though our unemployment rate in minnesota is 7.4%, which is significantly lower than the national average, they say that in their household it is 100% grand mayas working an extra job at night to get christmas presents for their -- is 100%. granma is working an extra job at night to get christmas presents for her grandchildren. these are real people experiencing these real problems and that is why having a 60 net in place and making sure that we have adequate -- having a safety

net in place and making sure that we have adequate programs is important. i am looking for -- i am looking for to delving into that with you. the money went to wall street. most of it has come back. but there are still so many problems on main street. at one of our past hearings, it was like wall street got a cold but main street got pneumonia. we also need to get the tax cuts, the standards, for our important -- the extenders, for

our important businesses. if we do not stem the tide of some of these problems and plug some of these loopholes, we will run into the same problem. yesterday's decline in the stock market was one example. it is an example of what can happen with volatility in the financial markets. i view that as part of the solution as well, to really move ahead with this economy we can get that wall street reform done. i did note that you were featured in a profile recently. i thought you were sort of under the radar screen. was that in "the washington post?" he will might even say yes because he is still under the radar screen. it was a nice profile of you and the importance of gathering the statistics. we look forward to asking you

about that today. thank you very much. >> i guess the time is the new status, the new celebrity. [laughter] madame chair, i do thank you for calling this hearing. first, we know that the consequences of unemployment are severe. the unemployed are not only vulnerable to conditions like depression, but are also at higher risk for heart attacks and other stress-related events. studies show that the unemployed experience a shorter life span just from being

employed. let me say that again. the unemployed experience a shorter life span. basic unemployment is a virus and an epidemic and requires the attention that we would give to any public health concern. for many employed workers, substantial reach training is now necessary. this retraining often requires a return to the classroom, which requires a significant financial commitment. we are asking workers to commit to serious change. as a result, we owe them a serious return in this investment in education. therefore, we need to learn it and build on successful programs that we highlighted last week.

they successfully get the unemployed into training and backed out to work. however, the record investments in education do not end with worker retraining programs in higher education. one program is in dire straits itself. the recovery act provided over $100 billion to state and local governments to ward off future layoffs. as we had hoped, the stimulus money did prevent these losses. however, we are far from out of the woods on this issue. the american association of school administrators issued the results in which they predicted that two hundred 75,000 education jobs across the nation are at risk for the 2010-2011 school year.

george miller told the washington post yesterday that the hardest hit by layoffs or the youngest. teachers, exactly the people we need to keep teaching their kids, are affected. not only with the job losses be a tragic blow, but it is estimated that it would lead to 82,000 additional job losses from lost spending by the schools and the employees that were laid off. that is why we cannot reject focused policy. the money in this bill will love only help local economies grow, allow state and local governments to avoid a tax increases, and keeps sufficient police and fire personnel on the streets, but will provide

crucial on the job training in the private sector and give -- and keep teachers in america's classrooms. i am prone to add my name to this bill because it makes investments in education that will help us thrived in the long run. with that, i look forward to hear the commissioner's report and i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to introduce commissioner hall. he is the commissioner of labor statistics for the u.s. department of labour. it is an independent national statistical agency that collects, processes, and analyzes the central statistical data to the american public, the u.s. congress, state and local governments, business and labor. dr. hall also served as chief economist for the white house

counsel for economic advisor for two years under president bush. prior to that, he was the chief economist for the u.s. department of commerce. we welcome you and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data from this morning. growth -- the employment rate edged up to 9.8%. job growth is fairly widespread with gains in manufacturing, professional, and leisure and hospitality. non-farm -- non-farm employment has grown since december and

483,000 jobs were added in the private sector. manufacturing continue to add jobs in april. three industries -- three industries have accounted factory job gains so far this year. elsewhere, mining employment continue to trend up. the industry has added 39,000 jobs since october. in construction, nonresidential building and heavy construction each added 9000 jobs in april. employment in professional and

business services increased by 80,000 over the month. within the industry, job growth continued in temporary help services, where employment increased by three and a 30,000 since september. it also rose in services to buildings -- by 330,000 since september. it also rose in services to buildings. it is in line with average growth over the prior 12 months. it also continued to grow in leisure and hospitality. the industry added 121,000 jobs since december, led by gains in food services. federal government employment rose in april, reflecting the hiring of the 66,000 workers for the census 27. employment in state and local governments was essentially unchanged. within transportation, employment fell in career and message and -- messenger services. turning now to measures on the survey of households -- the unemployment rate edged up to 9.9% in april and the number of unemployed persons was 15.3 million. those who re-entered the work force rose to 7 million. 6 million people had been jobless for 27 weeks or more. they made up 49.5% of all unemployed persons, a record high.

the labor force increased by 805,000 in april. the labor force participation rate rose by 0.3 percentage points to 65.2%, an increase of 0.6% since december. the employment to population ratio increased in april and rose by 0.6 percentage point since december. among the employed, there were 9.2 million individuals working part-time in april who prefer full-time work. that is about the same as march. in summary, employment rose by 21 90,000 in april, with gains in several major industries. by 291,000 in april, with gains in several major industries. we would be happy to answer questions. >> what are the brightest spots in this month's report? another are a number of bright spots. -- >> there are a number of

bright spots. the private sector gain was a large gain -- the biggest gain in about four years. the trend has been encouraging. every month this year, we have had job gains. we have had 573,000 jobs added so far this year. growth was also defused -- it was widespread. we have something called the diffusion industry, looking of the industries they gained and lost jobs. it looks a very detailed industries. nearly 2/3 gained jobs this month period to give you a perspective on that, in march, 2009, only about 15% of those industries gained jobs, so that is a significant improvement. manufacturing has been an encouraging sign. it has grown for four straight months.

manufacturing is around 25% of the job losses so far. nonresidential construction is showing signs of life. that had been a consistent job loser. for the last two months, we've had job growth. there have been about 260,000 jobs added there. hopefully, that is a turnaround in that industry. average weekly hours have risen. this is an indicator that the labor market is tightening in improving, both in terms of the title -- tightening and improving, both in terms of the manufacturing processes. the increase in the labor force was a sharp increase. it is probably a sign of increasing confidence in the labor market by workers. i will pull out one more data point, which i think is particularly important to look at. the employment to population

ratio. the basic logic here is, our jobs growing faster than the population is growing? it had only grown cigna valiantly -- it has been growing significantly all year. i consider that to be a good sign. >> are there signs that any additional sectors will start expanding in the near future? >> the fact that the job growth was widespread is a good sign. it means there is overall strength. that is in correcting that the job growth will -- that is encouraging that the job growth will hopefully continue to be broad. the health services at the job. that is an indicator of future job growth. the weekly hours worked continues to be a good sign. the weekly hours in construction went up a good amount. that is a good sign in an industry that has borne the brunt of the job loss. >> are there for their -- are there more indicators that job

gains will continue in the coming months? >> the encouraging thing here is that it is a trend. we have jobs -- we have had job growth for four months. the last two months, it has been solid growth. that is a good sign. >> i think the chart here -- we're not going to call a victory, but is certification -- it is certainly stepping in the right direction. when president bush took office, we lost jobs. in the last month that president obama took office -- when he took office in the last month of president bush's terms, we lost over 700,000 jobs. we have now put in place many programs that have moved us in the right direction. the chart is becoming a step chart, as we step up towards more job growth. it is not success, but trending

in the right direction, as you aptly said, commissioner hall. thank you so much for your testimony. i now recognize mr. brady. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would just caution with the all-time record high of long- term unemployment, no one in congress is raising an open " mission accomplished" banner just yet. there are 6000 -- hospitality, manufacturing, federal government, construction, mining employment, building services, temporary help workers, health care -- the federal government is hiring more than each of those sectors. how many federal government workers have been hired since december? do you know?

>> i think i can pull that appear quickly. -- pull that up quickly here. >> i would like to know the comparison on the government side. >> let's see. i have to do a really quick calculation on that. the last couple of months, we have added about 120,000 jobs. for the year so far, it has been 155,000 in the federal government. thank you. >> thank you very much. that, too, continues to outpace manufacturing, health caree and other sectors. at the initial unemployment claims have remained -- of the initial unemployment claims have remained stubbornly high -- the initial unemployment claims have remained stubbornly high. should we not expect them to slow down?

>> historically, the unemployment claims -- they are more volatile, but they will track the payroll jobs pretty well. >> why is the number stating so high, month after month? >> i am not sure it has been inconsistent with the payroll job loss we have had. the job loss has been significant up until a few months ago. even as the -- >> even as the job recovery is painfully slow, it is headed in the right direction. should not those who are entering -- filing those initial claims -- be decreasing? >> yes it should -- yes, it should. >> does this reflect layoffs of workers to a managed to hold on to their jobs and are now being laid off for the first time? or does it include people who have been laid off before, found a job, and then were laid off again?

>> i believe it is the latter, people who are being laid off again. they could have been laid off before. >> on the census bureau, they expect to hire how many workers? they have hired 100,000 and they expect to hire about 600,000? >> may be in excess of that. they may have as many as 900,000, even 1 million. >> that will boost the numbers for the next few months, and then decrease them later this summer. >> i believe that is right predictor temporary jobs. -- i believe that is right. they are temporary jobs. he presented findings at a hearing based on unofficial be zero as -- bos data. i guess i am troubled by the thought that our main street, versus wall street, companies, are not hiring.

they're not creating job openings. why is that? why are not small and medium businesses confident enough yet to hire? >> i do not know. i do not have a good theory for that. >> but that is your data that he based his findings on? >> that is correct. >> small and medium businesses are not hiring at this moment. >> that is correct. >> thank you, commissioner. >> thank you very much. thank you, commissioner paul producing but explain why we add nearly -- thank you, commissioner -- commissioner hall. >> it is the number of people who are unemployed but actively

looking for work. we did big increase in the number of people actively looking for work. >> before, they were not even looking. they had just given up. is that how you see it? >> yes, that is correct. >> you have told me before the changes in temporary employment are a sign of good things to come. what do those numbers look like now? >> we grew another 26,000 jobs in the temporary health. they are somewhere over -- there are somewhere over 300,000 jobs added in that industry since december. >> what about the people who are under-employed? they would like to be working full-time, but they are not. i am always struck by that. they have part-time work, but they're not where they used to be or where they want to be. >> we have a large number of people who are part-time for

economic reasons -- 9.1 million people. >> how has that changed over timm? can you measure if they want to work more, as opposed to doing it by choice? >> that one is hard for us to measure monthly. it is not a large sample. i can tell you that our broadest measure of labor under utilization -- u6 -- people who are actively looking or people who are under-employed by being part time or who are discouraged, that increased as well. it went up about 2/10% -- 0.2% as well. >> one thing i have heard for recent graduates -- i got a letter from a woman who is from st. paul, minnesota, a college honors graduates -- monza she is stuck under a desk job and sinking under -- her mom told me

she is stuck under a desk job and sinking under a pile of debt. what is happening to these young workers who marched recent college graduates? canyon -- who are recent college graduates? can you get that to me? >> we can get that to you. the numbers have not been encouraging. the young graduates have more share of the brunt of this. we can get you more precise numbers. >> as we look at policies and what we can do to work with small businesses -- i am a big fan of doing more with exports and those kinds of things, to being private partners with industry -- the recent graduate issue is one we have talked about. we talked about the difference between some with a college degree, and mr. gregg, high school degree. do you have those numbers?

have they changed? we have always been struck by the great difference between the unemployment rates with someone with a high school degree and someone with a college degree. >> those numbers are like they always are. >> can you go through them quickly so we're reminded of the shocking indifference? >> the unemployment rate for those with less than a high school diploma was 14.7%. for those with a bachelor degree, it is 4.9%. it is almost 10 percennage point difference in the unemployment rate between the two groups. >> that ratio -- i was wondering as manufacturing and other tax increase -- you have still not seen any change. it contains to be the case at an advanced degree or college degree is one path to jobs. >> i would agree. it is hard to track the impact for manufacturing. >> how about the veteran employment numbers?

soldiers that have returned in the last -- from the iraq and afghanistan wars? >> the goal for -- gulf war ii is 13.3% -- it is significantly higher. we have been -- >> we have been working on a bill for the spirit we want to provide more opportunities. it seems out -- on a bill for this. we want to provide more opportunities. it seems outrageous. what are you seeing across the country? you talk about the improvement in the diffusion rate, but how this has been a recession this time that is not just east coast or midwest. what are we seeing in regards to individual states? who is still a top or the bottom? are there any trends by region? >> sure.

the states with the highest unemployment rate continued to be states that have had the highest rates for most of this recession. michigan topsail list at 14.1%. -- michigan tops the list at 14.1%. nevada, south carolina, florida, the district of illinois -- the district of columbia, illinois -- they have double digit unemployment. there are others, as well. there is no real regional pattern there. it does seem like states that have been harder hit than other states -- it is hard to see such a simple regional pattern or a simple pattern of any kind. >> one last thing. i will have to do a floor speech. i had a tourism subcommittee. you said there has been some increase in travel and leisure. >> yes.

>> thank you. >> one more question and we will move on. >> the leisure and hospitality industry had a significant increase of 45,000 jobs. >> thank you, very good. >> mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. i want to drill down on something miss klobuchar said. sometimes as i am sitting here and watching the press, i can imagine them putting up a headline -- "the unemployment rate has gone up 0.2%." people who came back into the system. is that right? >> that is correct. >> do you call those reentrants? >> i talked about the increase

in the labor force, which includes new and re-entrants. >> how many were there? >> about 800,000. >> that is a huge number. so, if we did not have these reentrants and new entrants, you would have our rate that would be lower than 9.7%. -- you would have a rate that would be lower than 9% -- 9.7%, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i was listening very carefully to my good friend, mr. brady, who was talking about the government jobs. but then i looked and saw that manufacturing added 44,000 -- private jobs? >> they are.

>> factory employment was up 101,000. with those beep private jobs? >> they are. >> construction. is that federal or private? 14,000 jobs is a lot of jobs. >> they are all private. >> nonresidential and other mining -- private? >> yes. >> let me ask you this. it is my understanding that the gdp aboot 60% to 70% is about people spending money. is that, to your knowledge, accurate? >> yes, that is correct. >> when i look at manufacturing, 44,000 jobs, factory employment 101,000 jobs, construction -- somebody must be buying something. is that lot -- is that a logical conclusion. -- is that allow the inclusion -- is that a logical conclusion?

>> yes. >> let's go back to the census jobs. how many of these jobs are census jobs? the ones that had -- how many did we increase this month? >> 66,000. >> the total jobs that were picked up? >> 290,000. >> approximately 1/3 -- about 1/4 of them were for the census? >> yes. >> basically you are talking about a lot of other types of jobs coming to play. so, when the headlines are written, you have to take all of those kinds of things into consideration, would you not? >> yes. >> one thing that was very

interesting is that my good friend, mr. brady, talked about this the other day, the fact that -- a lot of times, small businesses were nottdoing as much hiring as we would like to see them do. one thing that he talked about -- and it really makes these numbers even more interesting -- isn't a lot of small-business is not even able to get loans. -- is that all lot of small businesses are not even able to get loans. there are businesses who cannot even get lines of credit. they would not be able to do the contract. the connected the credit, so therefore they're not able to do contrast -- whom they cannot get the credit, so therefore they are not able to do the contracts. it is a very significant factor, when credit is a problem, we do not agree?

>> yes. -- would you not agree? >> yes. >> i agree with miss " which are -- miss klobuchar that we cannot conclude that everything is rosy and that you're still going in a positive direction. is it an accurate statement? >> it is. >> thank you. >> thank you. i would like to go back to a point that was raised by my colleagues. it was raised by the chief economist at treasury who said that the rebound for the hiring was very uneven between the size of companies, between a large and small. from the bls data that you have, of the hiring patterns between large and small and -- are the hiring patterns different between large and small firms from the recession's you have seen?

>> large firms experienced more jobs lost in the 2001 recession. they had job loss well into 2003. the last recession was centered in large firms. the 1990 recession, it was the reverse. there were more net job losses in the small firms, rather than larger firms. it does vary. this recession, police threw the beginning of the recession, the job loss was -- at least through the beginning of the recession, the job loss was both in small and large firms. >> many people believe that small firms are unable to expand because of lack of capital. in your opinion, what are the reasons why small firms aren't hiring?

>> i do not think i know enough about it to offer an opinion about that. i can tell you that collective small businesses had trouble getting loans, but -- i can tell you that, if small businesses had trouble getting loans, that would be a concern. >> have you seen any change in the small and mid-sized firms in recent months? are they picking up some what now? >> the data that was discussed crow a little bit -- discussed does show a little bit of a pickup in large firms, but not small and mid-sized firms. >> with mother's day just around the corner, it seems like a good time to ask you about mothers -- working women. it seems like they were hit in hard sectors, suffering significant job losses.

in recent months, these sectors have begun to recover and add workers. are women gaining jobs in those male-dominated sectors? but not so much. they are underrepresented in those particular sectors. >> what has happened to employment in female-dominated secttrs in recent months, such as education, local and federal states government work? >> the education sector did not experience the same amount of job loss, but the job growth has slowed in education. state and local garment have seen no job growth. >> what is the unemployment rate for working mothers? have working mothers -- how have they done in this great recession, compared with other women? >> the unemployment rate for working mothers is 8.3%. that is an increase from 3.7 percentage points during the recession.

that is actually fairly comparable to women who are not mothers. their unemployment rate is about 8%. the more shocking number is probably the actual job loss. we have some issues with labor force participation. working mothers have lost about 6.1% of their jobs during this recession, compared to women who are not mothers who actually lost 0.1 percentage points -- essentially no job loss. >> is it different for working mothers who are sole breadwinners for their families? and i guess, actually, that is much higher. it is 13.6%. >> how have minority working mothers cared? >> that one has also been much higher. african american -- 13.4%. hispanic working mothers, 11.8%.

both higher. >> given the economic challenges facing families during this recession, have more mothers enter the workforce and searched for work. -- and searched for work? >> the answer is yes. labor force participation has gonn down during the recession. it has actually gone up for women with children -- foremothers. >> how has the experience of working mothers compared to prior recessions? >> in prior recessions, working mothers have had a higher than average increase in their unemployment rate. in the 1990 recession, the unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points, compared to 1.3 percentage boat " for women without children.

-- percentage point for a woman without children. this time, it is almost double that. >> my time has expired. mr. brady. >> thank you, madam chairman. normally, america bounces back quickly. it is not happening this time. we do not have a v-shaped recovery. it is a very gradual recovery. it is a third as low as that 1981 and 1982 recovery. i'm convinced it is partly because businesses do not have the confidence to make investments. there are anxious to get back on their feet. -- they are anxious to get back on their feet. i know we like to be our chests and proclaim our programs that have spurred the economy. when i run our programs passed a small businesses in southeast texas, they say the gimmicks to not work, the small inducements -- i will not bring on workers until i see the customers and

clients. retail is moving a little, but not much. it added 12,000 jobs last month. there are 15 million people unemployed. is just a bit to eat. -- it is just a blip on the screen. people are concerned about their own jobs and by the financial crisis here in america. with our budget, there are very concerned. every poll shows that americans are increasingly concerned that this runaway spending, the dangerous levels of debt, will hold back economic growth. i was looking at the numbers. greece was so in the news yesterday. the news continues to be -- you can see people gathered around the tv set ask -- tv set

watching what was going on. if you look at countries that are the most troubled and their deficits, the most troubled countries have deficits between 4.1%, the lowest is in italy, and over 16% in greece. america will be toward the high end of that at 10% annual debt for this year. if you look at the growth of the central government debt, again, the five p.i.i.g. countries -- they allow government range of 45% to 125%. we are already in the middle of that at 60%. the cbo says if we adopt a budget, we will be at 90% of our gdp by the end of this decade. we will be toward that high-end of the troubled, financially- suspect countries in europe

that are causing trading panic and riots in the street, which is not going to happen here, by the way. it is a real concern everywhere i go back home. average people are not just worried about their checkbook. there are worried about america's checkbook. in your household survey, seeing that retail, which is the best sign of what they're doing is again painfully slow on the uptick, do you measure consumer confidence? are there other indicators within your numbers that tell us what people are doing? it seems to me they are holding tight. they're worried about their jobs. we do not see that bounceback

that normally would after this kind of recession. >> our data is a step removed from actual consumer confidence. we're looking at employment levels. we're looking at for reactions to things. >> what do you see on the auto side? cash for clunkers accelerated some spending and it has now gone back to a more normal aspect. what do you say on that side, for example? >> in motor vehicle production, we have modest growth of about 4000 jobs. in the automobile dealers retailing, we added about 2000 jobs for the month. >> pretty flat. >> it has not been strong, but modest. >> are there any other retail indicators? >> just the retail trade is the most directly connected to something like consumer spending. >> in past recoveries and

recessions, what have you seen in retail? what types of growth month- over-month would we be expecting to see? >> i do not know with respect to employment. i do not know what that is going to look like. i can tell you a little bit about what i know about other data. consumer spending and gdp over the long-run will sort of trapped together. in the short term, they do not necessarily do that. gdp does rely very much on consumer spending. >> on 2/3 of it. i'm out of time. i do apologize. will that change over time? will we be less consumer- dependent when we reach a full recovery? >> that is an interesting question about this recession. consumer spending was not always that large a percentage of gdp. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. cummings.

>> thank you very much, madam chair. mr. hall -- we have the summer months coming up. we have young people graduating. -- graduating from college and high school. tell me, what is the unemployment rate for our teens -- the teen unemployment rate? i would like to know what it is for african-americans, whites, and hispanics. ok. >> the unemployment rate for teenagers is very high -- 25%. >> do you have a breakdown for african-americans, whites, and hispanics? would you have that? and i do not for teenagers.

i have those groups overall. we can get to the teenager ones. do you want me to tell you the unemployment rate for african- americans? 16.5%. >> is that pretty much what it was last time? >> it is unchanged over the last month. four respects, it is 12.5%, also little changed. -- for hispanics, it is 12.5%, also little changed. >> for african-american teenagers, the rate was 37.3%. that is a little lower than it has been in recent months. that is a small group. it really jumps around from month to month. the white rate is 23.5% from a fairly stable in the recent months. is 23 -- the white rate is 23.5%, fairly stable in the recent months.

>> i take it that is pretty high to what he might consider a pretty -- what you might consider pretty stable economic situation. >> that is correct. >> i want to go back to the reentrants and new folks. that will temper any dent we can make in the unemployment rate. .

>> how do you know they are looking? >> we actually conduct a household survey. we do a telephone survey of households and ask people, essentially. >> 7 commons -- so, what kind of increase can we expect in the labour force? this is kind of a tough situation. as the economy get better, i would imagine people look up there and say, you know what, i have been unemployed for a while, but now i am going to get back out there, because i think i have a chance to get a job. so the entrance will continue to increase. i have not even counted the new people like the folks coming out of college right now.

so, we have a steady increase if the economy get better. is that a reasonable assumption? >> do you mean the increase in the unemployment rate? >> right, right. in other words, you have more people to deal with, because you have more people looking. >> is not at all uncommon in the early stages of a recovery to add jobs and have the unemployment rate go up because people are re-entering the labour force, as you said. >> said you cannot anticipate what might happen, as you just said. >> can you estimate how many expect to return? >> sure. >> does historic data suggest anything with regard to that?

>> it is actually one of the reasons why i pointed out the employment to population ratio. that cuts through whether people are looking or not. it is how many people are employed versus how many people live in the country. that is sort of a nice way of cutting through all of that. we have had a significant drop in the employment to population ratio. in this recession, it has dropped 3.9 points. that is pretty significant. this last year, it increased 0.6 points, which is a sign of recovery. >> thank you very much. this is good news today. this is the second positive amount of employment gain. after weathering the harsh storms of to the 9 and 2008, it is good to see some rays of --

of 2009 and 2008, it is good to see some rays of sunshine. we're not out of the woods, but we are glad to see some progress. we will continue working on policies that will help to create jobs so that we can continue this progress. we press is very much, commissioner, for your testament -- we thank you very much, commissioner, for your testimony today. we are adjourned. thank you. [no audio]

>> now, more and the april unemployment numbers. president barack obama said the increased jobless rate is largely a reflection of the fact that workers who had dropped out of the work force entirely are now seeking jobs and get -- seeking jobs again. his statement is about 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. on what seems like a daily basis

we are brushed with statistics and forecasts and data related to the health of the economy. from the first days of this administration, amid the worst economic crisis since the great depression, i have said that the truest measure of progress would be whether or not we are creating jobs. that is what matters to people's lives. in matters if someone who needs a job can find work, whether people can provide for their families, faced the future and achieve some measure of economic security. everything we have done has been with this goal in mind. today, i am happy to report that we have received some encouraging news. in april, the economy added two hundred 90,000 jobs -- 290,000 jobs. this is the largest monthly increase in four years. we created $121 and more jobs

in february and march than previously -- we created 121,000 more jobs in february and march than previously estimated. this is particularly heartening considering where we were 1 years ago. at the time when i took office we losing an average of 76,000 jobs per month. this news comes on the heels of news last week that our overall gdp is increasing. we know that the economy has been growing for the better part of the year. this is giving businesses the confidence to expand and hire new people. the unemployment rate ticked up slightly from 9.7% to 9.9%. this may seem contradictory, but this increase is largely a reflection of the fact that workers who had dropped out of workers who had dropped out of the work force entirely are now seeking jobs again. they are encouraged by better prospects.

i want to emphasize that the economic crisis we faced has inflicted a lot of damage on families and businesses across the country, and it will take time to rebuild. more than 8 million of -- more than 8 million jobs were lost. many people out there are facing real hardships. while today's numbers are welcome, there is still a lot of work to do to achieve the sustained job growth that is necessary. long before this recession hit, for a decade, middle-class families have been facing economic uncertainties. yes, we have a long way to go, but we have alsoocome a very long way. we have taken difficult and at times unpopular steps over the past year. they're making a difference. productivity is up. the number of people working is up. there are signs that companies

may be hiring more workers in the months to come series of the largest increase in manufacturing employment since 1998, and we can see the benefit of our recovery act in strong employment report from construction and other sectors where we have made a key investment in creating and saving jobs. of course, there are limits to what the government can do. the true engine of job growth in this country will always be the private sector. that is why we are very pleased to see strong employment growth and the private sector side. what government can do is help create the conditions for "-- create the conditions for companies to hire again. small businesses can add workers, and entrepreneurs can take a chance on an idea, manufacturers can set up shop right here in america, not overseas. that is what we have been doing. because of a bill i signed into law a few weeks ago, businesses

are now eligible for tax cuts for hiring unemployed workers. companies are able to write off more of their investments in new equipment. we are spurring additional investment in school renovation, clean energy projects, and road projects. this will lay a foundation for lasting growth. in addition, as a result of a health care reform, 4 million small businesses recently received a postcard telling them that they're eligible for a health-care tax cut this year. this is worth tens of thousands of dollars to each of these companies and will provide welcome relief to companies that too often have to choose between health care and hiring. we created a $30 billion small business lending fund. small businesses are a major source of job creation.

this morning, a week -- this morning, we sent legislation to congress on this fund. it now includes a state initiative, which was designed with the help of governors and legislators on both the house and the senate side, and it will aid states facing huge budget gaps. we are seeing the layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. this not only harms the economy, but also the community and the economy as a whole. we are working with congress to find ways to keep our teachers in the classrooms, police officers on the beat, and firefighters on call. a few months ago but also proposed giving people read it to upgrade the energy efficiencies of their homes. this will not only saved

people's money, it will provide assistance to manufacturing and construction sectors. is energy-efficient appliances are overwhelmingly made in america. a bipartisan vote passed this proposal in the house of representatives yesterday. i am calling on the senate to act as well and to expand the clean energy tax credit that is helping to create jobs building wind turbines and solar panels. even if we take these steps, we are also mindful of other economic factors that can emerge. i want to speak to the unusual market activity that took place is today on wall street. regulatory authorities are evaluating this closely to work on preventing this from happening again. they will make their findings public, along with recommendations for appropriate action. i also spoke this morning with

german chancellor angela merkel regarding economic financial development in europe. we agreed in the importance of a strong policy response from the affected countries and a strong response from the international community. i made it clear that the united states will continue to cooperate with european authorities and the imf during this difficult time. these job numbers come as a relief to americans have found a job, but are cold comfort to those who are still looking for work. to those of you still looking, and give you my word that i will keep fighting every single day to create jobs and opportunities for people. every one of my team standing alongside me here has the same sense of mission. we are not going to rest until we put this fiscal chapter behind us. i will not rest until you, and millions of your neighbors caught up in these storms, are able to find a job and --

brighter day. thank you very much. >> mr. president, can you tell us about the supreme court? >> the senator from utah will address the convention. what coverage at 8:00 p.m. watch n here on -- wha

coverage here at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, justice john paul stevens will be on "america and the courts." >> the president said to me, " judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next justice on the supreme court." i caught my breath and started to cry. i said, "thank you, mr. president." >> learn more about the nation's highest court from the eyes of those who served there. pages of photos and interviews with all the justices, active and retired. "the supreme court" is available now in hardcover. >> there was a bipartisan

congressional delegation to the new orleans area to investigate the oil spill in the gulf of mexico and the cleanup effort now under way. he is cosponsoring a bill that would create a commission to investigate the leak and the effect upon the region. after meeting with area residents, coast guard and officials, he and other members of the house energy and commerce committee held a 10 minute conference in louisiana. >> thank you for being here. i am from the third louisiana congressional district. we are part of a congressional delegation that up this morning to be brief. we did a flyover of the site. we're here this afternoon. i am going to introduce you to the congressman from massachusetts who chairs the subcommittee on energy in the

house of representatives. he can take it from there. >> and thank you. charlie wanted us to come down here to see what is going on, and to help us determine what it is that we can do to help him, and to help all of the people down here in the gulf region. what we saw this morning gave us some reasons to be helpful -- to be hopeful. it is obvious now that they are in the process of trying to put a dome over the major leak. we all have our fingers crossed that they are trained for success. we are here to see what is going on as well with the booms and their ability to aggregate the oil, to do controlled burns so

that they can removed some of this oil from the potentially catastrophic conditions being created. i think the trip here has been very worthwhile for our committee. i think it is going to give us a real sense of what is going on here, what needs to be done, and combined with a visit to the coast guard and bp officials who are in command and control, working to bring this catastrophic event to a close as quickly as possible. we know that the lower the oil is, the higher our hopes can become. that is what is happening here today. we are cautiously optimistic, but we are very cognizant of the technological difficulties that

are still going to be encountered by all of the communities along the gulf coast. they're going to have to be able to deal with this. there will be long-term environmental disasters here it we have a very distinguished -- long-term environmental disasters. we have a very distinguished group with us here today. >> i am the ranking republican on the committee of oversight and energy commerce. we're very grateful to the chairman for setting this up. tickets things that i took away from today -- two things that i took away from today, one was just the magnitude of the problem. there is no way that you can capture the magnitude of the spill from a picture in a magazine or a newspaper article. the other thing is the

cooperation occurring between the coast guard and bp at the command center. we have all heard stories. we have all heard things, but i was impressed today with the level of cooperation, the degree of candor. the anecdotal stories that we have heard about the facility with which things get done -- it does not seem to be the bureaucratic tie up that you would expect with an operation this large. our job now is to continue fighting on behalf of this effort, to make sure everything they need gets to them in a timely fashion, and to investigate what caused the disaster. >> with us as well is a congressman from the state of vermont, also a member of the energy committee. >> thank you for urging us to come down. i think the congressmen have aptly described the coordinated effort that is being pursued here in a very aggressive, very

cooperative manner. what has been made clear to us is that there is going to be a lot of heartache here for folks in the oil and fishing industries. that is life here in the gulf coast. we have got to be here for those folks so that they can put their livelihood back together as soon as possible. there is immediate word that has to be done to try to end this bleak, but there is going to be worked to done in the future when the press goes away to get folks back into fishing boats, to get folks back into their jobs and their livelihood. we really want to thank you for bringing that to the attention of congress. >> [unintelligible]

>> obviously, going forward, we are going to have to establish what went wrong, why it went wrong, and obviously bp is going to have to shoulder much of the responsibility for what happened. there were other parties involved, but bp was the overarching corporate entity. they have given assurances that an accident of this magnitude could not happen, and that it could never reach this magnitude if it was an accident. we are impressed with the level of cooperation that is now going on to deal with the consequences of this catastrophe, but there will still have to be an assessment of the culpability, the responsibility for what went wrong. clearly, bp is going to be at the top of that list. >> if i could just add, part of

our job will be to ensure that all parties involved are participants in the hearings that we have. yes, bp has significant probability. federal agencies that were responsible for the inspections obviously have some questions to answer as well. we need to be fair minded about this, but throw. people in this area certainly deserve answers. the american people deserve answers, and we need to get them in a timely fashion. >> if i could interject. one of the things i have told people is that if you look at the exxon valdez in alaska, they looked at what happened, what caused the problem, remedies for the problem, and then moved forward. you do not shut down oil and gas without trying to figure out what it is we need to do and do it better so that going forward

in the future we should not expect this to ever happen again. that can be done by making sure that management is doing what it is supposed to be doing and not just allowing things to move forward with just a wink and a nod, and making sure that the oil companies know that they have an obligation to do it safely, not just for their employees, but also for the environment. that is what i hope we will get done starting with this hearing next week. >> as the congressman said, we will begin a comprehensive set of hearings next week. we intend on ensuring that the american public, especially those that live down here in the gulf, know everything that happened, why it happened, and what is going to happen in the future. lives were lost. livelihood's have been ruined.

we have a responsibility to ensure that this never happens again, and our hearts go out to the people whose livelihood and -- whose livelihoods are being harmed by this. we want to make sure that no one else ever has to ensure -- ever has to endure what is happening here in the gulf region. thank you very much. >> this weekend, retiring supreme court justice john paul stevens on the justices life and legacy. the solicitor general is being interviewed as a potential replacement for the supreme court justice. people >> the president -- >> the president sat on the phone and said to me, "a judge,

i would like to announce to as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court." and i said to him, i caught my breath and started to cry. i said, "thank you, mr. president." >> learn more about the highest court from the eyes of those who serve there. there are pages of history, photos, and interviews with all of the justices, active and retired. "the supreme court" is available now in hard cover. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national cappioning institute] >> in the state department briefing, pj crowley talked about iran, north korea's's nuclear program, the car bombing attempt in new york city, and a

proposal by joe lieberman debt would empower the state department to revoke the u.s. citizenship of individuals with ties to foreign terrorist organizations. this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. welcome to the department of state. it is foreign affairs day. happy foreign affairs day. today we celebrated foreign affairs day with the men and women of the state department. one person celebrated her 500th day in the job. she delivered remarks at a plaque ceremony honoring state department colleagues who lost their lives in the line of duty while serving their country overseas. tragically, we added three names

to the plaque. one lost her life in the one was serving in kos extent -- in kazikstan and one was killed by a roadside bomb. the secretary of state had a conversation with her foreign counterparts from germany, the u.k., and the european union. this is a kind of regular interaction that the secretary and other leaders in the government have with their european counterparts to talk about multiple subjects, but the predominant discussion is just to update themselves on the current status of negotiations

in new york toward a security council resolution. in a similar vein, last night ambassador alex wolf participated, along with other representatives from the security council nations, and at dinner hosted by the iranian foreign minister. there was a frank and professional exchange. members of the security council pressed the iranian government to meet their international obligations. several members of the council, including the u.s., pointed out the flaws and shortcomings in iran approach. there was a focus on the counterproposal to the iran nuclear reactor. there was an agreement that iran

agreed to and then walk away from last october. we see this as another opportunity for iran to meet its international obligations. regarding the oil spill, we can report that two additional nations have come forward with proposals to offer assistance, vietnam and japan. we continue to evaluate the offers that we have received, and we will make a decision very soon. a me just get through a couple of other things. kirk campbell participated in the lower u.s. mekong's senior officials meeting.

scott gracion is going to ethiopia where he will participate in a meeting on sudan and discussed regional strategies for international coordination and a peace agreement. george mitchell just started a dinner meeting with president across -- president abas. he expects to have additional meetings tomorrow before he returns to the united states late tomorrow night or early sunday morning. finally, and then i will get to your question, we are pleased to announce the appointment today of a woman as the department's special representative for international labor affairs. she comes to us from the afl-

cio, where she served as director of the international affairs department. she will lead this department efforts in women's rights believe it is done in -- in women's rights, the liaison in global movement. >> can you talk more about vietnam? >> i do not have more. it is still being evaluated. >> on iran, what is the current status of negotiations? >> we continue to work on the specifics of the un resolution. there is still work to do.

we will be moving up forward in the coming weeks. >> it appears that the people that she spoke to our fall creek, reject -- are all greek. >> this conversation did not get into specifics. it was more a case of where do we stand, but mostly comparing notes on various consultations with the united states and that other countries have had with those who would be in a position to evaluate the resolution.

>> or china and russia on the call? >> know. -- were china and russia on the call? >> no. this was a call between contacts who we speak with on a regular basis. china and russia are not part of that component. last night all of the countries on the security council, including russia and china, joined in pressuring iran to change its course. we are very comfortable with where we are in terms of interaction with the p5 +1. >> all of that begs the question as to why you felt you should consult without your chinese and russian partners? >> we have a lot of different

groupings depending on the issue. [laughter] [inaudible] we are not excluding anyone. this was a case where, like i say, there were other topics of discussion. this was the primary focus of discussion. our countries have touched base with others who sit on the council. i would describe this as a bit of a whip count. >> your plan is to put forward the resolution to the poll

security council next week. is that correct -- to the full security council next week. is that correct? >> the report is not correct. >> does it seem that iran is buying more and more time? >> this week iran had an opportunity with the president and foreign minister here, and we have literally heard nothing new. they are not in compliance with their obligations. they have not come forward with a meaningful counterproposal. we offered something last fall in order to build confidence. it was made clear to iran last night that they had the opportunity to build confidence,

and their actions and words have done it just the opposite. we are in a position where we are working closely with others on the security council on this resolution. we look forward to a very strong united international statement that calls on iran to change course and meet its fundamental obligations. >> [unintelligible] >> on the margins of the meeting, he did stress that the united states continues to have concerns about the welfare of our citizens who are in a iran and. he shared some of foreign letters from family members.

>> [unintelligible] >> i cannot characterize any reaction. >> you have heard something new from him this week ago. he talked a lot this week for the first time about how it this revolution comes forward, all ties will be cut with iran. obama will regret it. he seems to have a very strong message of threats this week, saying that the united states would actually -- our efforts in afghanistan and iraq and the palestinian territories would be destroyed.

he had some pretty strong words about that. what is the reaction? is that giving anybody pause. ? >> it is our view that absent a strong and significant pressure, iran is not going to engage in this debate. we have offered a path of engagement. has been iran that has failed to reciprocate. iran is isolated. unless it comes forward and answers the questions the international community has, it will face additional presser and isolation. -- additional pressure and isolation. >> you expect a resolution this

month. >> i did not say that. [inaudible] bayh >> it will take as long as it takes. we are working hard on this. i expect that there is still work to be done. we will work hard until it is finished. we have a sense of urgency about this, but we are working as fast as we can, but there is no specific time line. >> in pakistan, is there any further communication on the investigation, anything the pakistanis are saying in return, or anything on the u.s. side as

far as what it once? >> we have had a range of contacts with the government of caucused on -- government of pakistan. we continue to develop and permission here as the investigation continues. the flow of information to pakistan continues. >> issue seems to go beyond u.s. borders. one person held in chicago provided much information about the bombings in india. >> there have been multiple plots that have involved the united states and pakistan

citizens on both sides who have chosen to take these actions. i am not aware that there is any specific connection. clearly, we are looking to see who this individual met with while he was in pakistan, what support, if any, he was provided. that is why we are working so closely with pakistan on this issue. >> the flow of the information has begun. we knew that yesterday. is there anything specifically today, significantly more information? >> more, yes. significant, hard to judge. i am sure we are learning more today than we knew yesterday court that day before -- new

yesterday or the day before. pakistan and the u.s. are doing exactly what would be expected. we are sharing in formation. they are also taking their own actions. we are having the kind of dialogue we need to understand what happened here and there and to eventually put that together. >> what is pakistan saying now? >> we have regular dialogue with india, including on counter-terrorism issues. i cannot say at this point if there is an indian bleak to this -- believed to this case -- leak to this case.

>> were you able to find out if the administration has an opinion about the legislation that was produced. >> we are taking a hard look at it. we do have constitutional implications, including the 14th amendment. the bill is focused on amending what is called the loss of nationalities statutes. it adds terrorism activities as an expatriate in act -- expatriating act. we are studying it across the administration.

we are going to take a hard look at it. it is something that we must evaluate. people that associate themselves with terrorism groups, but ones that are at war with the united states, it is a serious matter, and we are looking closely at the issue. >> when is the last time the state department actually used this power? i understand the law would expand the category that basically removed citizenship for people who joined by foreign armies? >> that is one of the criteria. >> when is the last time we

revoked someone's citizenship for that reason? i know you do not know that now, but can we find out. >> i can go through this. among the current criteria, and someone who is a naturalizing in a foreign state after the age of 18, declaring allegiance to a foreign state after the age of 18, serving as an officer in a foreign military if the foreign state is engaged in hostilities with the united states, excepting -- accepting an oofice where an oath of allegiance is required, renouncing citizenship. some of those authorities lie with the department of homeland security as opposed to the state

the last one is the one being piggybacked on, committing an act of treason against the united states, if convicted in accord. like i say, there are constitutional implications to this law. we are going to study it. some of the assumptions behind the proposal are subject to cases in the court right now. there may be questions about constitutionality in them. >> the reason i am asking is because of the law requires the state department to set up a process. lieberman is acting like the process is already here. >> this proposal but it senator

lieberman would potentially add to its authority. we do already have lawyers to evaluate these issues and who do take action to remove the citizenship of individuals. there are many legal questions associated with this proposed law. >> people in al-qaeda do not fall into that category. >> one of the assumptions behind these actions which can be taken under the immigration and nationality act involves actions that are assumed -- where the individual taking these actions is -- the actions

are taken with the voluntary assumption that citizenship will be relinquished. there are very set legal issues inherent not only in the proposal, but in cases that touch on this proposal. >> the only thing about the bill is the lack of terrorist organizations on the list. the taliban is not part of the terrorist organizations. >> all the more reason to look hard habit -- hard at it. >> do you have any observations, comments, or reactions to the elections in the uk? >> we are watching it closely, and we look forward to continuing our close

cooperation with whatever government emerges. this is a great day for political junkies. it is a testimony to the vibrancy of the u.k.'s democratic system, but the united kingdom is our strongest international partner, and shared values, cheryl -- shared world views. that is not going to change. >> on the phone call that the secretary had [inaudible] >> i would assume so. >> are you still going to use the words "special relationship ?"

>> i know that my counterparts in other parts of the government have different views on that. >> about what? about the special relationship? >> about the use of the term. >> the president of afghanistan is coming here next week. what issues do you want to raise with him? >> that is a good question. we are working on a complete agenda. let's see if we are about to release a schedule. >> there are reports about who will be the next u.s. ambassador to iraq. do you have any comments on this?

potentiallywe're announcing ambassadors to keep positions, i deferred to the announcement. [inaudible] >> i do not have a comment. i have not seen, specifically, what he has said. [inaudible] i am not sure what moving toward a resumption of a sixth party process would mean. as we have said all along, we will be guided by north korea's actions. there are things they have to do, not say. they have to meet their international obligations and

sees provocative actions. that is what we will be looking for from north korea. [inaudible] again, what we want to see is a commitment. we want to see north korea seized provocative action -- cease provocative action. with >> dina the purpose of the meeting between japan and state officials to it -- do you know the purpose of the meeting between japan and state officials today? >> i cannot answer the question. >> [inaudible] >> it is my understanding that the chinese government has given a read out.

>> does that include north korea pose a position in the six party talks? >> we received a readout of the meeting. i cannot characterize what was provided to us, but i assume it would be both an indication of what china told north korea and what north korea told china. >> we keep asking and you keep answering, but we do not get anywhere for 20 years now. [unintelligible] >> the national league for democracy decided back in march that burma has deeply flawed election laws. as of today they are subject to

due registration. for more than 20 years, they have served as beacons of hope in burma, and as an inspiration to all who hope for democracy around the world. we applaud them for continuing to work for the people of burma. we will continue to work with all of those, including the national league for democracy, who are committed to building a better future for the country. we find it incredible that the regime has created circumstances where they felt they had to take those steps. kurt is still evaluating what his travel plans will be.

>> [inaudible] >> we obviously see them as part of a legitimate democratic opposition. as we have indicated to burma through meetings we have had, ultimately burma has to open up greater political space and have a meaningful dialogue with political pposition. >> there was a comment about favorable conditions for six party talks. >> i think if kim jong il wanted to have six party talks, he could do what we outlined for months and years. he could meet his international obligations, pursue the commitments made in 2005, stop provocative actions the

destabilize the region. we have provided the guidelines. >> if a statement does come out, could you try to not put it out at 2:00 in the morning like the last one? if you do expect a statement to come helps -- to come out -- >> right now, is scheduled for about two o'clock in the morning. [laughter] >> could you put it out somewhere in the world where it is actually daylight? >> i gotcha. >> do you expect that the statement will announce the resumption of proximity talks? we expect >> we expect to have meetings

tomorrow. we will tell you where we are at the end of those meetings. >> did these talks not in fact begin in march? you're on the record at the time as saying they had begun. >> yes, and then they went on hold. maybe at 2:00 in the morning we will have a dramatic reading of the statement. [laughter] >> and your home phone number is? >> it is actually listed. >> i know you are loath to scoop senator mitchell, but can one not logically conclude that the proximity talks have hit a bump? >> there are meetings taking place.

when the meetings conclude, we will tell you about them. i do not want to scare ourselves either. -- scoop ourselves either. [inaudible] [no audio] >> this weekend, retiring supreme court justice john paul stevens on and the justices life and legacy. the solicitor general -- the solicitor general has been interviewed as a potential replacement. >> the midterm elections are just six months away, and could change the balance of power in washington. watch the candidate debates that have already taken place in key races across the country online at the new c-span a video library. it is all free, cable's latest

gift to america. >> the outcome of the british elections is still up in the air. thus far, conservatives have won 306 seats, labor 208, and liberal democrats to 57. next, we will show you this morning's statements from the three party leaders. . . more people voted for us than

ever before, even though we had a higher proportion of the votes than ever before. it was a source of great regret to me that we have lost friends values.n many people during the election campaign were excited. about the prospect of doing something different. when they came to vote, many of them decided to stick with what they knew best. it was a time of great economic certainty. i understand that. that is not going to stop me from redoubling my effort to show the real change is the best restaurants -- reassurance that things can bit better for

families. we are in a very fluid political situation pit. they are not an advantage. whatever party gets the most votes, it is not the absolute majority. they have a right to speak and govern by reaching out to other parties. i stick to that view. it seems this morning that it is the conservative party said has more vote. they are not an absolute majority. that is why it is up to the conservative party to prove they are capable of seeking to govern

in the national interest. at the same time, this election campaign has made it abundantly clear that our electoral system does not respect -- reflected the people of britain. whatever happens in the coming hours and days and weeks i will continue to argue not only for the creature responsibility in economic policy-making but also for the extensive real reform that we need to fix our broken political system. thank you very much. hot >> with the outcome of the general of the action, we find ourselves in a condition unknown to this generation of political leaders with no single party able to have a commons majority and have a majority government.

i felt i should give you my assessment of where we are. i do so as prime minister with a constitutional duty to speak to resolve the situation for the good of the country and not as the leader of the labour party a day after the election. what we have seen are no ordinary election results. people have been talking for some time about the possibility of a hung parliament that possibility has now become very real. the question is whether a parliamentary majority can be established the six to reflect what you the british people have just told us. it is well understood that we face immediate economic challenges that must be met. a meeting of the bureau group has been held tonight to discuss

a grease and other issues. the g-7 finance ministers including america and britain are meeting by conference call to discuss the deteriorating situation in the euro area. alistair darling is participating for the uk. our economic parties for britain are to support economic recovery this year, 2010 and as it stabilizes to move swiftly. on the formation of a government that can demand a parliamentary government, i have seen the statement the other party leaders are due i understand and respect the position of mr. clegg say that he was first made contact with the leader of the conservative party. we already have in place mechanisms and facilities that will give the political parties any civil service support that

they may need. mr. cameron and mr. clegg should be entitled to take as much time as they feel necessary. by my part, i would be willing to see any of the party leaders. should the discussions between mr. cameron and mr. clegg come to nothing, then i would of course be prepared to discuss with mr. clegg the areas where there may be some measure of agreement between two parties. there are two areas in particular where an adjustment would be likely to focus the did the first is the plan to ensure continuing economic stability. and the plan to reach far reaching political reform, including changes to the voting system. we have made clear our commitment to this and are manifestoes and the electorate has and is a strong message which must be heard. my view is clear.

there needs to be immediate legislation on this to begin to restore the public test -- just in politics and restore reputation. i believe that you the british people should be able to decide what the system should be. what all of us need to be mindful of is the imperative for a strong and stable government. with the authority to tackle the challenges ahead and one which can command support in parliament. it is with this in mind that all of us should be facing the times ahead. i understand that people do not like the uncertainty or want it to be prolonged. we live in a parliamentary democracy. the outcome has been delivered by the electorate. it is our responsibility to make

it work for the national good. i am sure you will understand that this is all that i have to say at this stage today produce the seed of very much. -- stage today. thank you very much. >> david cameron, a good afternoon predicn. considered party a more seats than at any election over the last 80 years. i am proud of the results we achieved and of the strong and positive campaign we fought. we campaigned for hope, not fear, and people responded to that, giving as 2 million more votes. we campaigned for change not more of the same. people responded to that, giving us a higher share of the vote then labour achieved at the last

election when they won a majority. there are many great conservative members of parliament but to becoming to the house of commons. i am very proud that this will be a new, modern conservative party in parliament. i know it'll make a huge difference to our policies. to all he conservative party supporters and activists who fought so hard in the last few years, i want to say a huge the seabed -- a huge excess -- a huge thank you. the worst loss of seats for labour than any election since 1991. however much pride we can take and that enormous advance, we have to except that we fell short of an overall majority. as i said last night, britain

need strong, stable, a decisive government. it is in the national interest that we get that on a secured basis. we are at war in afghanistan with our troops putting their lives at risk for us every day. we are facing financial and economic situation of great seriousness as a result of our dangerous debt and our deficit. we need a government reassures the international market . we need it to bring economic recovery. we need a government that understands the great changes needed in order to restore faith in our political system britain voted for change yesterday. it also voted for a new policy it did not vote for party political bickering. our country's problems are too serious. they are too urgent for that.

we must rise to the occasion and show leadership. nick clegg has said that the conservative party won the most votes in the most seats. we should have the chance to form a government. i thank him for that. we will now begin talks with other parties to see how that can be done. one option would be to give other parties reaser and she is about certain policy areas and then seek their agreement to allow a minority conservative government to continue in office without the country currently facing the threat of its government falling. this is a confident and supply arrangement. it has been done before. we can try to do it again i am prepared to consider alternative options. it may be possible to have stronger, more stable and

collaborative government than that. there is a case for going further that keeps a minority government in order. i want to make a big offer to the liberal democrats. i want us to work together in tackling our country's big and urgent problems, the debt crisis, are deep social problems, and are broken political system. but me explain my thinking. it is reasonable to make knowledge that there are policy disagreements. many were highlighted. to those who work the advance, i want to make it clear that i do not believe any government should give more power to the european union. i do believe that any government can be weak or soft on the issue of immigration which needs to be

controlled. musthe country's defenses be kept strong. i also believe that on the basis of the election result that we achieved, it is reasonable to expect that the bulk of the policies and our manifesto -- across the two there are many areas of common ground. there are areas i believe that we in the conservative party can give back both in the national interest and in the interest of open and trusting partnership. we share a strong desire to make opportunity more equal in this country. i recognize the high priority the liberal democrats have given to the proposal. we agree with this idea. it is an hour a manifesto. i am sure we can develop a common approach that recognizes the urgency that the liberal democrats have attached to this.

they made the achievement of a low carbonite. we support to this aim. i am sure we can agree on a common ground. they have also made proposals to reform our tax system. but both agree that labour's job act is a damaging tax on jobs. we would seek to reverse it. it has always been an aspiration to the conservative party to reduce taxes, especially on those who earn the least. we are happy to give this a much higher priority and it to work together to determine how to move forward. we share common commitment. we agree with the liberal democrats that reform is urgent thing needed to restore trust. that reform must include the electoral system. the liberal democrats have their ideas.

we have our ideas. all seeds should be of equal size so that puts it have an equal value. other parties have constructive proposals to put forward as well. i believe we will be an all party committee the negotiations would involve compromise. that is why we are working together in the national interest. no government will be in the national interest and messages of the biggest threat to our national interest. that is the deficit. we remain completely convinced that starting to do with the deficit this year is essential. this has been more than confirmed by recent events and other european countries, recent instability in the markets, in recent conversations that liptak

with both the treasury and the bank of england. the national interest is clear. the world is looking to britain for decisive action. we will find further ways in which liberal democrats can be involved in making this happen the of left this country with terrible problems. an economic and financial crisis, deep social problems, its political system in which people have lost faith. the new government will face the worst inheritance of any incoming government.

it had the support of the government that are needed. we will put it on the right track for a stronger future. there is one further point i want to make. i believe is not just important for the public to have a strong government. it is important to get that government honestly. i hope we can reach an agreement quickly. as i argue in this campaign, i think this is a great country. we could be doing so much better. we do not have to settle for the debt and taxes left. we can put behind this economic social breakdown and the mistrust that has evolved from

30 years of labour. we could have started today making the changes that i believe our country needs. i know how much the conservative party itself, all my colleagues in parliament and activists, what did that, too. i also know they wanted something more than that. they'd want the best for britain. the conservative party has been a party that put the national interest first. the best thing, the best thing for britain now, is a new government that works together in that national interest. i hope with all my heart that is this something we can achieve. that is all i have to say for now. i hope you understand. i will not be taking questions. urgent work must begin produce the seabed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow, remarks by robert

bennett and his convention. he will address the 3500 delegates and seven other candidates vying for his seat. what did it 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> this weekend, john paul stevens and elena kagan on the life and legacy. america and the courts, on c- span. >> the president got on the phone and said to me, " judge, i would like to announce you as mine selection to be the next census justice of the united states supreme court." i said to him, i caught my breath and started to cry and said, "thank you, mr. president."

>> the supreme court, but changes in history, photos, and interviews with all the justices to do the supreme court, available now in hard cover and as an e-book. >> next, and that the increasing number of diseases that are becoming resistant to antibiotic drugs. this is 45 minutes. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from the campus of the national institutes of health is dr. anthony fauci, the director of natural diseases. today we are talking about antibiotic resistance. do americans use tooany antibiotics? >> unfortunately the answer to that is yes. there certainly is a lot of appropriate use of antibiotics but very often a patient will come i to a doctor's office

really withot a bacterial infection or not an infection at all and would really almost mand of the physician to be put on antibiotics. that is what is referred to as inappropriate use of antibiotics. that one that leads to the bacteria ultimately developing resistance to antibiotics so that when you really do need them for a serious infection in some cases you start to develop a certain percentage of those microbes that are resistant to the antibiotics. we are facing a very challging situation because this is an increasing problem. host: but it is also increasing worldwide, isn't it? because in traveling around the world i have seen penicillin. you can purchase it or the counter as regular medicine. >> yes, it goes well beyond the patient-physician interaction. it is much more flexible, unfortunately more flexible in other countries where you can

walk into a pharmacy and ask for an antibiotic and get it without the prescription of a physician, which just naturally leads to inappropriate use because patients feel they will take an antibiotic for feeling badly and it may have nothing to do with an infection. that is big problem. host: in the last year or so this has become a very popular product, hand sanitizer. we have it all over the office. everybody has it at home. everybody uses antibacterial washes and stuff like this. ishis also creating a problem? guest: i could potentially. some of the hand sanitizers, the pure alcohol ones is not a problem because that is directly toxic to the bacteria. so, when you heard us talk about hand hygiene during periods of time when there were a lot of infections going around we were talking mostly about the

alcohol. when you talk about an an antimicrobial substance in a hand sanitizer that potentially could lead to the development of resistance of microbes particularly those that inhabit the skin. some of the organisms that could be spread. host: we will put the numbers up on the screen if you want to talk about antiantibiotic resistance and use of theand us. host: you can also sen us a tweet or e-mail. there was a hearing this week on capitol hill on antibiotic use in animals, in meat products. what is the problem there if there is one? guest: the situation is that in

the agriculture industry paicularly among livestock, if the livestock are sick with an infection it is very appropriate to give that herd or individual animal a antibiotic. and sometimes when there is spread of infection that is clear you want to use tproef lacks cyst meaning gosh prophylaxis. those are well-defined. but what is a practice that goes on widely is to put antibiotics in the feed of animals to help enhance their growth so that you have animals that are bigger, that have more meat on them, into really have very littl to do with them being sick with an infection. there is the potential risk therehat if you give antibiotics to those animals the normal bacterial flora that are in every living animal will ultimately evolve to have org organisms that could be resistant and be passed on to

humans so if you haveomething that infects somebody that might be a problem getting the right antibiotic. so there is the potential sk. it is very interesting the numbers that a large percentage of allhe antibiotics that are manufactured are actually used in the fd of animals so theblg have -- they can have growth enhancing capabilities. host: should they be restricted? . that is hotly debated because there's a thin line between tting it for animals that are sick versus for growth enhancing possibilities. when we as health officials get called before a hearing, for example, the f.d.a. isushing towards using antibiotics appropriately for animals that are sick but gradually phasing it out of just putting it into

the feed normally for growth enhancing. so, when officials from the f.d.a. were testifyingt various arings, they made it clear that the appropriate use of antibiotics in animals is the way to go but we should be phasing out of just normally putting it into feed. but that has created a considerable amount of controversy particularly among the animal growers, the people responsible for the an halls who feel -- amals who feel rongly that is positive even though it has the potential danger of reducing resistance. host: what is your personal opinion? guest: well, as a infectious sease person the fundamental mechanisms that lead to resistance are giving antibiots in situations when they are not needed for infection. so on pure infectious disease principles i'm concerned about that practice because even thgh they may not have definitive data to show the link, the scenario of giving

antibiotics when the animal is not really sick is a set-up potentially for that. host: how many -- do you know how many prescriptions for penicillin have been written in the last year or how much stronger the penicillin is than it used to be because of resistance issues? guest: i can't give you an exact number. it must be in the hundreds of millions the last several yes. and it is not just penicillin. we think of the prototype antibiotic aspen sillenen -- as penicillin but there are others that are widely us. that story is a ver interesting story. when penicillin was fst introduced widely in the 1940's and 1950's virtually all the microbes that we used it for, all the common infections, were highly sensitive to penicillin. as we used it over the years certain organisms, particularly

staph infections became resistant to penicillin. then we substited another drug and we saw resistance to that with staph diseases which is worrisome because that means it is going in the direction of being more resistant. so there is a gradual evolution. and if you use penicillin as the prototype there are more microbes that years ago used to be highly sensitive to penicillin that are no longer sensitive to it. host: let's take some calls. first up is dr. stokes a democrat from reston, virgia. please go ahead with your estion for dr. fauci. caller: i'm a ob-gyn and what i find the two biggest problems are, one, marketing drugs, unsophisticated doctors that use high powered drugs. secondly, primary care docrs who have yet -- family practice

people are taught to use high-powered drugs on simple drugs and now i can't treat gonorrhea with cypro and others are going away because too damn many doctorsre having marketed high-powered drugs when the simple ones will work so you need to something about marketing drugs to doctors. you should not have people saying you should use my -- host: we got the point. let's get an answer. guest: the point is well taken. what he is referring to is it is almost like using a cannon when you could use a pistol. if someby comes in with an infection that is likely sensitive to an antibiotic that is not a real blockbuster that can knock virtually any microbe out, if you use your heavy weons against thing that

don't need happy weapons, at the end of a period of time those heavy weapons will not be as effective against the microbes that you need them for. so what dr. stokes is referring to is sometimes the drug companies comen and market a really god drug, one -- a really good drug that is good for serious infections but they market it so the physicians who rely on that information might use it for something that is really what we call overkill. you don't really need that antibiotic. host: next call for dr. fauci is new york city, annette. caller: good morng, c-span, and dr. fai. i work in a public hospita in new york and i'm a nurse at home. the patients are swamped for mrsa. is it true most healthcare workers carry these organisms because they are exposed? guest: i'm not sure that is the reason why they may not.

itarieses from hospital to hospital. some are tested pticularly when there is the suspicion or history of outbreaks in a particular facility like a nursing home. but you are correct. when you have hospitals, nursing homes and long-term care facilities, that is one of the post problematic areas in the sense that we have seen outbreaks of resistant microbes in those particular facilities. there's been a history the past couple of years of outbreaks in nursing homes of an antibiotic that can cause serus gastrointestinrobls and can be resistant to the usual antibiotic. so the point is well taken. if people don't practice the hygiene that they should be practi practicing, they can often get the microbes on their own hands and person. health care workers, we have strict rules that you can lose accreditation if you don't do it. you have to wash your hand with

a sanitize are before you go into a room with the patient and after you come out. if you do that religiously you are certain to cut down on the carriage by healthcare workers of microbes. host: next call is farmingtop, maine. caller: what i wanted to know is as an individual who dsn't use antibiotic unless necessary is that any advantage to that person taking it or is it not an advantage to bei healthy and not doing antibiotics? guest: when you say advantage, that means when you need it, it will work on you. is that what you are saying? what do you mean by advantage? caller: is there any advantage to doing everything that you are saying as a health care worker and not to prescribe antibiotics if you get somebody that is health conscious and doesn't use antibiotics is, there any advantage to them as far as the diseas

diseases? guest: let me answer the question quickly and in two parts. if you are a person who has not inappropriately used antibiotics, the chances of your evolving within yourself a resistant micro to common antibiotics is less than someone who uses antibiotics even though it is not particularly necessary. so, there is something that you can do by not demanding of your physician to put you on an antibiotic when you really don't need one. that is one thing. the other thing is that there is the evolution now and this is very troublesome of what is called community acquired resistant microbes. we used to get staph only if you went into a hospital and got it from the environment of the hospital. we are seeing how up to 50% of the staph are community acquired, that you might just get it being outside in the community. we see that among hletes, direction, wrestlers and football players who can get a resistant microbe by contact with somebody who has it and it

has nothing to do with their on antibiotic history. dr. fauci, your next call is from vista, california, jules. caller: good morning. i was just wondering and want to health you know a little secret that has been around a long time. 1957 i made my first cruise to the pacific in the navy. at that time what they would do, there was so much gone raorrheay would put a whole big bottle of penicillin tablets on the quarter deck. the way it was posed to work was if you had contact on t beach you were supposed to take one of these penicillin tablets whe you came back off the beach. instead of doing that, what a lot of guys would do because if you got gonorrhea you got

restricted so they would pick up these tablets and hang on to them. then if they came down with gone reia, thewould take the tablets on their own. and that --he next thick you hear is, well, penicillin don't work no more. guest: well, that is not a secret. that is well known that that happen. that is unfortunate. that is just an example. you don't want to fault what the navy did. there was so much -- that is another story. on some of those cruises and locations where our armed forces had to be involved there was such a high degree of gonorrhea that it was almost a factory type of giving penicillin to individuals. if you get infected you should be treated for the intpefrpblgts you shouldn't just take it because you think you might have gotten ineffected.

the best way to prevent it is to use a condom. host: where do we stand now on antibiotics? do we have the correct formulas to fight any disease? do we just keep making them stronger? guest: we mostly do. the challenge we face -- and this is what the congressional hearing that i and tom friedan, the director of the c.d.c., we both testified a week and a half ago at a hearing that was directed exactly at your question, namely what about the pipeline of antibiotics tha we have to meet this challenge of antimicrobial resistance evolution. we still have very god boots but -- very good antibiotics but we are running out of some of the first line ones. the real challenge is how to stop it and in addition to stopping it, if it is such that

you can't stop it, you have to have a pipeline of new antibiotics to replace the ones to which the micbe is resistant to. and we need to develop partnerships with the farm suit companies to -- pharmaceutical companies to get new and better antibiotics. and there really isn't that incentive. if you look at the new products that have come out the past couple of decades, very, very few of them are brand-new antibiotics. so

it's there is potential danger about giving antibiotics and to livestock even though they are not sick. whenever you given antibiotic in the situation, there is always the potential for the evolution of resistance. >> this product, the hand sanitizer, is 62% at full of hope. is that pure enough? with that

caller: i am allergic to penicillin. i got really sick and went to the hospital. my question is, for somebody like me, is it better to not go after something that is a substitute for that court just not take anything at all? host: -- guest: there are a lot of people that are allergic to penicillin. it is a common allergy among people in the u.s., particularly where we use a lot of antibiotics. if you have an infection and need an antibiotic, you absolutely should be on one, one that substitutes for penicillin. there are several different class of antibiotics that work by mechanisms different from penicillin. they are equally as effective against the microbes that you would use penicillin for. inginginginginginging guest: if you get an infection just because you are allergic to

penicillin doesn't mn you should not take antibiotics. you should take them at the advice of a physician that would avoid the allergy of penicillin. host: palm beach, county, florida. rachel, you are on with anthony fauci of n.i.h. caller: thank you for taking this call. i have been practicing chinese medicine for 0 years now and -- 30 years now and one of the first things we learned was that if there were four people in a room and one of them has a cold and the next day two of the others have the cold, inestern% medicine we would try to find out what the germ was to try to attack the germ. in eastern medicine we would say how come that other guy didn't get the cold. what does he have that the other two didn't have? what we try to do is raise the immune system. i wonder why there isn't more going on to teach how to raise

your immune system and for western medicine to move in tha direction. guest: well, the certainly is a lot of work about -- that is going on -- about appropriate scenarios in which you would want to boost the body's immune system. certainly the many municipal system -- what she is referri to is the natural defenses is the body's immune system. the only problem is there are certain scenarios in which an infection thatou get exposed to you are still going to get infected. so the person in the room who didn't get fected, that is just really the natural distribution of what we call attack rates of infection. it is extremely unusual that you will get an infection in a community that everybody will get infected.

that is a scenario that probably has never happened. however, the ones that don't get infected, there may be a variety of complicated reasons why they didn't get infected. so to say if you just boost up the immune system, that is not necessarily the case. having said that, it is important to understand the mechanisms of the immun system and where to boost it. tkpwhr is this -- hostis this all a personal position or does it carry over in your genes? guest: it doesn carry over in the genes but what we call a propensity to allergic responses certainly is inherited and can be seen in families. if you have a family history of allergy it could be hay fever, it could be allergy to a variety of substances. it could be drug allergy. if you have a family history, the chances of yr being allergic is greater than someone who doesn't have a family history.

but it is not an all or none phenomenon. there are some that have no family histo of allergies who get a very serious drug reaction. and there are people who have a heavy family history of allergy who never get a drug reaction. so, it is not an allr none phenomenon, but there is a contribution of hereditary. host: an article that says the use of antibiotics has possibly le tohe increase in allergies in this country, have you seen that article? guest: yes, but that is really confusing. so, if you use drugs a lotnd expose somebody to any substance, after a period of time in a population there will be more allergic responses to t it. whethe that is just the fact there are people who inherently

will be allergic and the support you treat you will notice more who are allergic, but there is no real evidence if you give a lot of antibiotics in aiven person that person will get an allergy. host: jim from manatau beach, michigan. caller: thank you for c-span. it is a wonder we don't get this news coverage on the commercial networks and that is sad. i guess they are just all being bought off. my question, doctor, i have a fact ary farm -- factory farm, a dairy farm a few miles from my home and they are constantly spreading millions of gallons of their waste fertilizer and stuff all over the local farm fields here. and this bacteria -- not bacteria -- the antibiotics that they are pting in these things, they went from like 1le 800 -- they went from 1800 goes to almost 7,000.

and antibiotics that are in that manure are being spread on the fields and you have runoff from this. now, i have a pitch pond. -- i have a fish pond. do i have to worry about that and stuff breeding in that? guest: it depends on the concentration. the point you make is something that is being actively discussed about one of the real dange of the widespread use of fd is when you have waste from the animal particularly manure that runs off into the ground or streams that you will wind up getting the antibiotics themselves or even some of the resisting mike roebgs. i don't think it necessarily means a direct threat to the fish in your pond because it i going to depend on the concentration. and even if there is antibiotics it may not have an effect so i wouldn't say it is an absolute danger. i think you would have to check that and see what the concentrations of bacteria and antibiotics are in the runoff

into your stream. i don't think it is an absolute sin kwa none that you have a danger to your fish. host: why do they call the antibiotics in animals a growth rmone? guest: there are certain mechanisms that are not well understood. it alters the bacterial flora of the animal's intestine that allows it -- and this is speculative but likely a contribution that allows the animal to greatly absorb more efficiently nutrients that makes it bigger, stronger and bulkier with more muscle. that is what they mean. it is not just growth hormone, it likely works by altering the bacterial flora. host: do you personally eat meat that has growth hormone? guest: a-i don't eat much meat at all. i'm not a pure vegetarian but

close. when i do i have no idea whether the meat came from an animal that was given tibiotics. host: next call is a democrat from long island. caller: there is no disrespect from you but the problem and this is similar to [inaudible]. when you are in front of congress and you talk to tse people, give tell medical answers. this is wrong, this is right. don't give political answers because it has a tendency to let you agree with them. so stay away from the politics of medicine and gave tell straightforward medical answers. host: caller, are you suggesting that dr. fauci doesn't give that, he giv political answers? caller: there is a 10 enof deny seu -- for a long time i have

been observant. i almost literature to c-span -- listen to c-span every morning and there are too my political answers when the leaders are in front of congress. guest: so, let me for the record i have been testifying befo conggess for about 26 or 27 years and i have never, ever given a political ly corrected answer. they rely on me andrust me because i give a completely scientifically based answer. so i can understand his concern that some people with the aura of the congress feel they have to give a political acorrect answer. host: why are you still in publicservice? guest: becausi love it. it is the most important thing i can do with my ability, energy and talents. my way of getting the greatest impact of the things i do is in public service. and i wouldn't trade it for anything. host: with antiotic resistanc what are some of your other

fields you oversee at n.i.h.? guest: robably the most visible i'm in charge of the aids research program of n.i.h. and we do all of the research that is involved with devoping the drugs that have been so successful in transforming lives of people with h.i.v. i'm responsible for the malaria, tuberculis, tphepged tropic-- neglected tropical diseases. as well as a variety of other issues so there is a very robust portfolio that i'm responsible for. host: would you like to see d.d. used again to prevent malaria? guest: that is a broad question. you have to be more specific. i think that the iue o completely banning d.d.t. resulted unfortunately in a re surpb resurge generals of the mosquito -- resurgence of the mosquito populations in certain rions of the world.

i don't think you should haphazardly use d. it d.t. but most healt officials feel completely dropping its use for insect control was not the right choice. host: when it comes to aids and h. ep h.i.v. drugs are you finding th generations are getting resistant to the earlier ones? guest: as we discussed earlier in the show, whenever you use widely an antibiotic or antiviral you will have the natural evolution of resistance. certainly a certain perntage of the h.i.v. are resistant to some of the drugs. fortunately, we have such a robust menu of antiviral drugs for h.i.v., more than 30 individual drugs have been approved by the f.d.a. in this country, that even though you have resistance, you very often, in fact almost always you can find anotherombination of

anti-h.i.v.rugs that would suppress it. so resistance is something you don't want to take lightly we have been able to circumvent that because we have so many good drugs. host: 15 minutes left with our guest dr. anthony fauci. boca raton, florida. caller: my kquestion, i read a recent article that said it is now becoming an infectious disease and that the h-pylore is resistant to first line drug treatment and many people are having second and third treatments because it is coming back. host: what is h-pylori? >> it is a bacteria that affects the g.i.tract. guest: it is a fascinating

medical story in that forever, for decades and decades, people thought that alwaulcers were du stress and a variety of other facts when in fact the overwhelming majority of gastric ulcers are due to a microbe referred to as h-pylori which inhacketts the -- inhabits the upper attract of people. when that was discovered which one a nobel prize for that, when that was discovered antibiotics clearly were used to get rid of the h-pylori and dramatically decreased the you willers. and -- ulcers. and the more you use antibiotics, microbes will find a way to survive that and mutate and develop resistance. that has happened with some strains. but fortunately we have alternative drugs for it. so what you need to do if you

have h-pylori you have to make sure you are deem with an organi that is sensitive to the antibiotics that the physician chooses to use for the treatment of that person. . -- to end the epidemic. rather than treat it. the way to do that, you can read about that eradicatelymedis ease.org.

there is information about seven or eight towns in new england that have ended their lime disease. >> thank you. lyme disease is problematic. we did not have a really good vaccine that can be widely used. there is a real issue we're acutely, it is eminently treatable with antibiotics. you can cure almost everybody with it. there is a syndrome that some people doubt actually exists in the sense of the number of diseases that are chronic lyme disease to which some physicians prescribe months and months of antibiotics and there is a lot of controversy and debate about that and recommendations of infections diseases of societies, with great experience that you should not use long- term antibiotic treatment for what is considered chronic lyme disease. there has been a lot of debate and controversy about that.

>> our antibiotics used in the h1n1 shot? used in the h1n1 shot? guest: not at all. it is a virus. you do not used antibiotics against the virus. if you get a shot of the h1n1, that is a vacce that is used to prevent infection. if you happen to get infected to -- infected with h1n1, then you fall into a high risk category or you get a significantly hill, there are anti-viral drugs, tamiflu and others that can be used for h1n1 and other influences, but you would not want to give an antibacterial drug, an antibiotic, that is done, for iluenza, that is a very common and -- for influenza. is it a common illness. st: call comes in from new jersey. caller: i wanted to know about

the study that you did in 1991 when i was up there. the medication was bactram and folic acid. is there anything new on that? guest: yes, there is. the study that we did in the 70's and 80's -- i the 1970's and 1980's was for serious diseases, particularly kidney disease. guest: this is completely

unrelated but i thought you might be interested. you can go to politico.com caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching a program for over four months and taking notes. i have been interested in alternatiie medicine all my life. i am almost 63 years old. what i have learned from this doctor, it is called "your help at a glance,"he talks about the importance of taking pro by august when you take an antibiotic and yet they have evidence to support that you need to do that but most doctors do not do that. they do not use the probiotic.

guest: what is that, host: doctor -- host: it essentially populates your body, you're genital tract, your nasal passages. if you take one, it counters the effects of the antibiotic that you are giving for a specific infection and it will also knockout a bunch of other bacteria that there probably causing you no harm because although it is specific for the one given to a problem, it will likely kill off and repopulate the good -- the harmless bacter. you repopulate the harmless, or good, and bacteria. most people do not necessarily feel that you have to give that and the overwhelming majority of physicians do not do that.

host: what about yogurt and other things? guest: yogurt is good and there are some harmless bacteria and there are microbes that are harmless and symbiotic and work well in your body without calling disease. host: mass., your honor. caller: thank you for your long public service to all of us. is there an aibiotic better than most to treat pediatric your infections? -- your infectionear infections? i am hearing a amoxicillin, d it repeats itself. guest: let's break it up