we currently have in the implementation programs that we are developing. and maybe i'll direct this question to mr. bromwich and i would be happy to have the secretary weigh in as well. one of the things that has been of great frustration to us is the technology that we're using right now to deal with this, bill. and the fact that we've had a fairly slow pace of innovation within the industry in developing new technologies to address spills. maybe it's moving a lot faster right now as we speak, but over a long period of time it's been relatively slow given the threat. can you talk a little bit about how you foresee either within your agency or -- or in putting pressure on the industry. how do we more quickly do we mo oil spill disaster technology going forward? >> yes, it is a very good question. i think one of the things that

this disaster has foecused people's attentions on is oil spill response technologies. it has been recognized by us and players in the industry. i think that is one of the reasons why yesterday we saw the four largest majors come forward with the outlibrarines of a pla deal with oil spill containment in the gulf of mexico. i think that this disaster has focused people's energies and it will stimulate innovation. we will be directly involved in that process. the proposal that was made yesterday is an interesting intriguing one. but we will want to review and study it carefully. it is one that we, and you and the american public is going to need to have confidence in. >> mr. isa for five minutes.

>> thank you, madam chair. just one quick question, you know mr. secretary that your decision was arbitrary. in light of what you said earlier today, would you say that resources that are freed up at the time of the kill of this well could just as easy be the end of the moratorium? as you said earlier, clearly there were resources that you didn't want to have not available as one in 50,000 wells happened a second time. but wouldn't a target of the killing of this well be just as appropriate for considering limited well-super viwell-super back into exploration of the existing 22 rigs? >> congressman, i appreciate your observation and i

appreciate the sense of urgency that you have that these issues be addressed. but there is a tremendous amount of work that will be unfolding. i will have a report back from the oversight safety board which includes great work from the in specker general and her staff that are focused in on these issues which is due on i believe on august the 15th. the academy will have a report more knme by october 31st. so, if there is a point in time between now and november 30th, where the three questions that i have already addressed are addressed to our satisfaction, we will revisit that timeline. >> i appreciate that. i yield the balance of time to mr. fortenberry. >> thank you for joining us today. this oil spill is an

environmental ca tkcatastrophe. we must work together to make thur that the leak is continuing to be stopped and that the environment is cleaned up and that we work with the resources we have to make sure that this never happens again, in that regard, your reasoning for the moratorium is that our resources are currently deployed and depleted and in case there was a second spill like this we would not have the resources to work against it. but given that there is the potential for this leak to be permanently stopped in the near term, your consideration of that factor in terms of the moratorium deadlines i think is reasonable. the second point being given that the resources that are applied are under intense pressure to move overseas and that this would cause more

imported oil to come into our waters, mortane tankers that ar more dangerous than the drilling itself. is the moratorium timeline more risky? a related point is that all drill something not the same. bp was engaged in the riskiest type of drilling. is there a krarconsideration th those may be excepted as well given that the profile is lower? >> congressman, the answer to that is yes. and that is part of what the director will be gathering information on. there may be different activities and different zones of risk that might be allowed to go forward. we have made one of those findings with respect to the sha

shallow water drilling and there may be others as we move forward. >> seg men station of risk based on the actual hhistorical past,s of risk rather than a blanket moratorium? >> there may be for example, differentiation between the expiration wells in the deep water and wells that are being drilled into already develop ed reservoirs that you know exactly what it is that you are drilling into as opposed to the exploratory type of wells. so those are the distinctions that we will be taking a look at in the months ahead. >> i think the last thing that we want to do is increase pressures for more water. with that said, i want to point out that i visited the area recently. these people are exhausting

themselves to save their way of life and the environment -- >> i think you are heard. >> your time has expired. >> i had a good video for you, but we'll have to do it at another time. >> miss maloney. >> thank you madam chair and i thank you both for your testimony the devastation of the bp oil spill has highlighted many problems in worker's safety and containment and oversight. but it has especially highlighted the missmanagement of the mms, the minerals and management service agency which if managed appropriately could bring in millions if not billions to our treasury from oil extracted from land owns by the american people. under the current structure, the general accounting offices found that the mms should do a great

deal more to improve the accuracy of the data used to collect and verify the oil royalties, and i have a bill in hr-1462, which would require the national academy of engineering to study and come forward with impro improvements and rem decisions of ways that we could more accurately collect the royalties on the production of oil. i would like mr. secretary, if you would review it and this could be helpful in defining it in a way that we could be more successful in giving the american people the taxpayers their just reward or their just tax revenues or revenues from this oil. according to the general accounting office report, that was given to this committee, the revenue share that the government collects from oil and gas produced in the gulf ranks

93rd among the lowest of the 104 revenue collection regimes around the world. are we 93rd in collection? >> i have not -- i cannot comment on that statistic. but we have been collecting recommendations from the accounting office as well as recommendations that came forth from the kerry-garns commission that addressed many of these issues. at the end of the day, what we are looking at is to achieve the objective to make sure that we are getting a fair return back. >> did you testify earlier that this has not been updated since the 1920s? in your statement? >> no, dinod not.

that is something which we have been reviewing and do believe it should be changed. >> so that has not been updated since the 1920s. we certainly should look at that and bring it into the 21st century. also the gao reported that mms does not audit oil and gas company royalty numbers, is that correct at this point? that was the gao report. >> there are auditting functions that do occur. we do collections from companies where they have under paid and that does happen on an ongoing basis. we are in the process of implementing numerous recommendations from gao as well as those from our inspector general.

>> but is it fair to say that we could be under collecting by mill ions possibly billions in this royalty program? >> i think it is fair to say that there is under collection that is taking place and it really revolves around two key issues one is the measurements relative to the oil and gas that is being produced against which the royalties are being leveed and secondly, the royalty level itself and whether or not that is the appropriate royalty level. >> and that is what my bill would look at to look at more accurate measurements and compare with other countries. also -- in the -- they are call me to a vote. this is an important area and we need to move into the 21st century. why in the world are we rated

solo 93rd in the world in the royalty payments coming from the gulf? and did you tef eastify earliert you had written bp for royalty payments of $5 billion, is that what you said? >> no, there was an underpayment by bp with respect to on-shore activities in the best. the royalty program now in effect -- >> how much was their under payment? >> your time has expired. >> can he answer that question? >> as i recall, it has been several weeks ago, for that particular issue it was about $5 million. >> thank you. >> mr. salazar i announced that you had to leave at noon and i will abide by that and not even ask my own question. i know that you understand as a

former member of congress when bells ring, i speak for the chairman when i thank you both for very important testimony here today. the hearing is in recess until after the vote. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> here at c-span we recently made the switch to high- definition television. on "washington journal", we spoke with the franklin plan board, the first cable system to carry c-span in hd. morning i want to tell you about a new step in c-sp growth and development. c-span is transmitting all of s programming in hd. we are welcoming our very first high-definition affiliate's this morning in frankfurt, ky. we want to introduce you to the gentleman who runs the cable system, john higginbothom, who joins us from on board the digital bus. nice to see you again.

guest: good morning, susan. host: we figured state capitals are full of polical junkies like those in wasngton there why did you make the decision to launch c-span hd there? guest: that is exactly why. a lotf things that happen in washington, back to frankfurt, kentucky, and the people in this community pushed out to the state and implement all of the programs. we have 17,000 subscribers. not every single one is a political junkie but a lot are. host: tell us a little bit about the frankfort system because it >> an actor, water, cable, telecom be visible utility. the cable system started in 1952. we offered the exact same services the big guys do, time warner and cox. voice, video, data, a lot of

high-definition over the next couple of months. host: is the legislature on television in kentucky? guest: they are. kentucky educational television, our state-one pbs the house and senate. and we have had a longstanding relationship with them. they only meet a couple of months out of the year so most of the viewers. host: you have been a great if elliott, the first in the nation to launch c-span hd. we thank you for being on today because c-span hd will be available to subscribers of the country. you just need to tell your cable system you are interested. if they know you are interested they will certainly consir it. mr. hignbothom, the digital bus -- tell us what you did at the state capitol? guest: we will move the bus and a couple of minutes and it will

be open to the community the remainder of the morning and afternoon and we hope to have quite if you stop by. we appreciate the bus coming here. host: we appreciate our state capital affiliate's and we appreciate that you are our very first hd affiliate and we hope to more signing on soon. john h higginbothom with us from >> tomorrow's "washington journal," charles drevna. the federal worker hired then rehired -- fired and rehired by the agricultural department. >> this weekend, clark hoyt on

the changing world of the newspaper industry. >> i worry about some of the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one meal world to another. >> sunday night -- from one of media world to another. >> sunday night on c-span. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you washington your way. >> senate majority leader harry reid outlined an energy bill that he says will receive bipartisan support. he is joined at this event by senator john kerry and carol browner, the head of the white house office of energy and climate change. this is 15 minutes. >> we have a responsibility, not only to our constituents and our children and grandchildren to

take on the energy giant's we have an america, not once, -- energy challenge we have in america, not once, not twice, but more. we need a comprehensive bill that creates jobs, fix our addiction to foreign oil, and curb pollution. at this time, we do not have a single republican to work with in achieving this goal. for me, it is terribly disappointing. it is also very dangerous. the president, senator kerry, and i and others, large numbers of my caucus, will continue to reach out to republicans and work with and permanent the date work with environmental and energy committees. -- and work with environmental

and energy committees. it is to lay the foundation for a state for -- for a safer and stronger future. we will hold bp accountable to ensure that the clean up their mess and things like this that happen in the future and stop them from happening. if they do, there will be a process to move forward. number two, we need to lessen their dependence on foreign oil current that is very important. our country is blessed with abundant resources and we must tap into natural gas. that is why we will invest in the manufacturing of natural gas vehicles, mainly the big trucks. no. 3, we need to do something

to create jobs. whole story is something that has been talked about and now we're going -- home star is something that has been talked about and now we're going to regulate it. this, like the menendez hatch legislation, is bipartisan. finally, the fourth provision of this bill will be something that many have worked on in congress for a long time. that is to put some money back in the land and water conservation fund, which is essential to the future environment of this country. senator kerry. >> i want to thank senator reid for his cigna vitter leadership of the last several years -- for

his significant leadership over the last several years. over the past year-and-a-half, working with senator reid, we have had hundreds of meetings and negotiations. we have built on an unprecedented coalition of support, which has moved us further along in this process than at any time in this effort. today, we have support from industries and stakeholders that have opposed previous bills. that is a very important achievement. but we have always known, from day one, that, in order to pass comprehensive energy legislation, you have to reach 60 votes. to reach those 60 votes, you have to have some republicans. as we stand here today, we do not have one republican.

i think it is possible to get there. this morning, senator lieberman and i had a meeting with one republican who has indicated a willingness to begin working toward something. harry reid, today, is committed to giving us the opportunity, that open door, if you will, over the next weeks, days, months, whatever it takes to find those 60 votes. the work will continue every single day. in the meantime, as senator reid has just said, we have an obligation to the american people. we have an obligation to our country. that is to respond to the oil spill in the gulf. that is why senator reid is going to bring this admittedly narrow, limited bill to the four because he is determined to do what we can in the timeframe

that we have before the august break. that will address some of our energy independence -- some of our energy dependence and some of the oil spill issues. but maybe crystal clear. as senator reid said, this legislation that he has proposed does not replace climate legislation. it does not replace comprehensive energy legislation. president obama called me before this meeting and said point blank that he is committed to working in these next days at a more intensive pace, together with carol browner and other members of the administration, to find the 60 votes for the comprehensive legislation. the leader is committed to getting that comprehensive legislation to the floor as soon as possible. senator lieberman and i will

continue to work with their colleagues and the stakeholders in order to carve a path to 60 votes for comprehensive legislation of that appropriately targets carbon so that we can send signals to a market place and change the direction and create jobs for america and improve our security. the work we have done over the past year-and-a-half will remain the foundation for all of this effort. i want to say to all of you, on a personal level, i watched ted kennedy over 26 years fight to get tough things past. in 1970, he began that effort to pass health care reform. we just got it this year. this is not good to take that long. this is not going to take close to that long. i'm absolutely confident that, as the american people make their voices heard and their colleagues go home and listen to them, we're going to grow in our

ability to be able to pass this. i just want to thank those who have helped bring this issue a long way. we have had remarkable caucus of 20 senators plus who have made -- who have met week after week. in the 26 years have been here, i have never seen as many senators from is made from pieces come together consistently to move legislation forward. that effort designed to continue and i am grateful to senator reid and to the president for their commitment to put this country on the right path. >> thank you. let me start by thanking senator kerry and all of the members that we have worked with to craft a comprehensive energy legislation. we appreciate your commitment and your leadership. the president has made clear throughout his campaign and since coming to office that we need to have a comprehensive energy policy for this country,

and a policy that will break our dependence on foreign oil, that will create a new hat in generation of energy calves and that will put a limit to pollution. the president has taken steps to address this problem. we are addressing -- we are investing $80 billion toward creating new clean energy jobs and technology. we have set tough new energy efficiency standards for cars. we will continue to use our existing tools to address these problems. obviously, everyone is disappointed that we do not have agreement on comprehensive legislation. we will continue to work with the senators to craft important legislation. in the meantime, the leader has suggested that there are steps we can do today, important steps, and we support his decision to move forward and to

take those steps so that we can begin this process. we will work with him in the coming week to see if we cannot achieve passage of the chief legislation while we continue to work to secure a comprehensive energy and climate change in legislation. thank you. crux questions -- >> questions? >> [unintelligible] >> each provision we have is bipartisan. of course, the second provision night talk about is menendez- hatch. the third one, home star, there are a number of public statements from republicans who say they like the program. i personally talked to a number of republicans. so the answer is yes. >> [unintelligible] >> i would not be moving on this if i did not think that. >> are you committed to [unintelligible] >> i am committed to taking this

up now. this is going to move to the floor before this week goes out. make sure that we all understand that this is not the only energy legislation we're going to do. this is what we can do now. we are running out of time because of all the delays we have had on the senate floor over the last year. we're much to continue to work on energy legislation. thus speak about this briefly. the one thing that corn biggest agreement -- they agreed on batteries and natural gas. on batteries, we have technology going on. did a great job in reactivating battery energy and

our country. the life span of the truck is not very long. during the good times, three years ago, i saw one major trucking company buying 175 new 18-wheel trucks every week. this legislation allows the conversion of those trucks from diesel fuel to natural gas. this will lessen our dependence on foreign oil. as far as jobs, we are doing everything we can to increase employment. this home star bill will increase employment in every state of the union by a significant amount. with the money that we have with home star, we're talking about -- we could have as many

as 350,000 to 400,000 jobs. i am very satisfied with what we have. this is something that we need to do. it is a number of steps to it. every senator can do a snap quiz and there are 25 different ways other than the way i did it. i had to make a decision. here is the decision i made. i appreciate the president very much. i appreciate all of my chairmen who have worked hard on this. we have had meetings, many meetings. they have all been extremely understanding of where we are today. it is easy to count to 60.

we learned to do that -- i could do it by the time i was in eighth grade. [laughter] my point is this. we know where we're. we know that we do not have the votes. this is a step forward. no one has worked harder on any piece of legislation in my entire career then senator kerry has worked on this. but does not take away from senator boxer, senator lincoln, and others who have jurisdiction in this matter. this is a step forward, a small one, but very important. >> what about the black farmers so many? republicans say they do not like is paid for. [unintelligible] >> this is an interesting game we're playing around here. first of all, when we pay for

it, do want to know how we pay for it. there is a judgment against our country on the pickford matter, the black farmers. for the republicans to say that we want it paid for, we pay for it. we thought it had been around long enough. now they do not like to pay for it. this is a stall. when we get to the supplemental bill, which is there, is it paid for not, this is the proverbial stola have had for 18 months. >> [unintelligible]

>> we will see what is in it. >> [unintelligible] >> what do you mean the legislative all? >> [unintelligible] >> i am happy to answer that question, carol. president obama personally has talked to me many times of the energy legislation moving forward. he started this back in the campaign and did not stop after elected president. he has people, from a manual, messina, the secretary of continue -- run them down the ill -- rahm emanuel, messina, the secretariat of interior.

>> [unintelligible] >> you cannot make that statement. it is not a black-and-white issue. that is why it has been hard to through the needle. with some of the work that john has done, we have all of the course state senators agree with what we're doing. >> [unintelligible] >> what was your camp? [laughter] >> one quick question. [unintelligible] >> i do not know.

we will take a look at that. >> on c-span 2 night, the and ceo of massey energy talks about the -- on c-span tonight, the ceo of massey energy talks about the company. >> as the senate prepares to debate the energy bill, find out about previous bills with c-span is video library. look up a bill with our new bill search feature and what congressional hearings and previous debates on the house and senate floor. it is all on line and free. it is washington norway. -- washington your way >> are content is available --

washington norway. -- keith pipewashington your wa. >> content is available as podcast and nine tins. >> this ceo of massey energy. this is about an hour.

>> on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and attendees of today's event. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. i would like to introduce our head table guests. from your right, rodgers robert benjamin sunlansarlan, morkiver, dana wolbank, thomas cook, andrew schneider, maryland

to >> -- marilyn, del loveless, jim offstra, and a labor reporter for bloomberg news. [applause] don blankenship is one of the country's most talked-about co's because of his extensive involvement in local and state politics. but in recent months, he has been at the center of news stories and congressional investigations related to a disaster at his company's other big french mine in moscow, was virginia -- montcoal, west

virginia. before the mine explosion, he was the subject of a book, "cold river." as a child in deaf west virginia, he had no indoor plumbing. as a young man, you work in a coal mine to put himself through college. he became an accountant and which is way up to head the country's fourth largest coal company. with current legislation making its way through congress and investigations continuing, mr. blankenship continue to be a figure in the news this year. he is here to discuss his views on the need for more surface mining. please welcome don blankenship.

>> i want to thank everyone for being here. i want to give some protection -- perspective on three things. i want to give you my background and how of the world works in terms of energy and then i will speak a little bit about surface mining and hopefully leave most of airtime to questions and answers. it is true that my at bringing was in southern west virginia. i managed to get through college in three years by working in the coal mines. was i got my accounting degree, i was forced to leave the area for 10 years because of lack of employment the opportunities.

i return in 1982 only to find out that massey had decided to withdraw from the co operators association, a national group of coal companies. withdraw from the organization did not sit too well with the unions. we ended up on a very ballast track. at that time, richard trumka was president of the united mine workers. cecil roberts is now the president. 91 people were parked in the hospital. one was shot. -- three people were shot. one person was killed by had bodyguards for about three months. before that, i had been involved with stories of the union as a kid. i have a background of

working with them. my brother-in-law is a lifetime umw a member. i have been a member. my brother was a call minor. my it boggles local miners. -- my brother was a coal miner. miners -- myr coal uncles are coal miners. when i returned into -- when i returned in 1986, the unemployment was about 26%. that gives you a little bit about my background. before i go on, i do not normally give at the talks. i usually give factual talks. if you have problems, you have

to first recognize them and then deal with them. we live in a country that has $13 trillion of debt. it gets worse every day. the number is far worse than people generally and a stand because the municipalities, the cities, the states, all the pension fanfunds are bankrupt. the country is physically falling far behind our asian competitors. americans are losing their jobs to not americans at an alarming rate. just to show you that i will try to be fair in my criticisms and my thoughts, when you look at three things, you look at the 18th century or 19th century sleighs and do look at the trade policy. businesses have always looked to have low-cost labor. that is one of the things that we'll have to be aware of.

sometimes the things that they thirst for is a competitive advantage to making money. but the fact is, if you do not know numbers, and then you cannot talk meaningfully about anything. members have to be the foundation for our thoughts. -- numbers have to be the foundation for our thoughts. people will say that the banks are too big to fail. they are not too big to fail. no matter how big you are, you will fail. this entire government in this country can fail if it continues to bleed cash at that rate. the other thing that we have to understand is that, however you get there, you have to have affordable energy or electricity to move mankind forward. we can be for or against a different types of energy or

certain types of environmental regulations or a lot of things. but fundamentally, it you do not have affordable electricity in your country or in your household, you will not have a very environmentally friendly life. you will be hot. you will be called. you will be underfed. -- you will be cold. you will be underfed. almost 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. for those of us who are privileged and live in nice homes or arrive on private forget those people because they're not in front of us every day. we know that other people in the world, their health has to be in the foremost of their objectives. many of people die of preventable disease every day.

the fact of the matter is that cold prevented that from being ale case in america -- col prevented that from being the case in america. coal is now feeling the chinese industrial revolution. physics and science and math and not determined by the majority or by political views or by surveys. the physics and math of mining, the physics and math of the economy, the physics and math of the unemployed and so forth is what is regardless of what spin is put on it. it is unfortunate that, over the last 35 years or 40 years, green jobs have trumped american jobs. we have not had a surplus trade in this country in 35 years. we're not likely to have one for another 35 years.

when our trade deficit is a billion dollars a day, if you have to figure that there is a neighborhood of 2000 jobs a day you do not have, 7.3 million or so jobs is not too far on how many jobs we have lost. we have lost more jobs in the manufacture of computers and electronic equipment than we have in any other business, except textiles. you would not think that. guess that?et other facts that you have to consider when you take the depositions -- morgan massey said to me when i first became president that one of the things i would learn is that everyone has an opinion without the discomfort of many thought. [laughter] i would tell you that there's a lot of that in this world. but 53% of the mercury emissions

in the world come from asia, not the united states. only 1% of the mercury emissions in the world come from the united states. 18% come from africa, even though it lives in abject poverty. if you believe that mercury emissions should be reduced, would you spend billions of dollars chasing 1% or tens of millions chasing 53%? over 100% of the increase in co2 emissions in the world since 1990 have been outside of the united states. the u.s. industry since 1990 has actually complied with the ku treaty, but not in a manner that would be -- the kyoto treaty, but not in a manner that would be optimal. facts should matter on the hill. it should also matter that every

3.6 seconds, a person in the world dies of starvation. when we hold ourselves up as being saviors of mankind by trying to reduce co2, we need to worry about the 3.6 seconds that a person cannot be said because they have died. in west virginia, the epa is constantly after things like conductivity when 40% of the sewage goes directly in the stream. there are no sanitation systems in many of the small rural towns. about 1.5 million people die each year from just indoor pollution in their own home. in many cases, they are burning menorah to fry their food. manure to forthe newe

their food. with prosperity comes life expectancy. in the united states, healthcare, coal, electricity, and they have increased the life span by about 31 years. it is fundamentally important living 31 years longer. china and india are experiencing the same type of increase in life expectancy despite various emissions. they have heating and cooling and food and economy. that is very important. one thing we need to be asking american business -- we need to

understand, when we cannot figure out by wall street and the stock exchanges not attracting, why that is? you have to wonder how much of the profit that is on the new york stock exchange is made in america versus outside america. what is the payroll inside america versus outside america? what is the wage benefit versus cost per hour? how many american jobs have been created by these corporations in the last several years vs. non american jobs? those types of questions, how much u.s. tax dollars are paid vs. foreign tax dollars, how much subsidy these companies receive to produce jobs overseas -- i have not read the bill, but i ended stand that the energy bill -- but i've understand that the energy bill provides tax credits for creating renewable energy sources in parts of asia.

i know that subsidies are paid for in pakistan to develop coal mines. there are things out there that you have to wonder whether the american worker is getting a fair deal or not. as far as surface mining, central the pollution has been surface mining for about 80 years. in the last 40 years, the industry has probably moved 60 billion yards of rock. despite all that activity and mining and a lot of it being done before the 19707 surface mining act, the environmental extremists still consider that area to be pristine environment that meets their protection. so we have moved billions and billions of yards of rock. there is not a lot left to mine the coal. it is amazing how track -- have protected it needs to be today. it used to be that it was real. it meant putting dirt back in a way that allowed it to be

revegetated. it is about sitting trees and so forth. now it is about things like conductivity. if you're in a room, you need to be careful. it may not meet the epa standards for water. we have a situation where there is no longer any low hanging fruit in many of the u.s. industry efforts, whether it is mercury, water quality, or whatever. we discharge water back into the streams that is cleaner than the stress we took it out of only to get violations. there is enough surface mine coal produced in the abolition to provide enough energy to fuel 80 million people's house calls. those 80 million people need their $60 power bills. they do not need their windmill $4 power bills. they deny needed their taxes to

subsidize a windmill to be less. whenever the -- however the energy is produced, there will be others that stand in the way of it. you already see resistance to solar panels and windmills. i was debating robert kennedy a few months ago. he was making a big deal about how his solar panel investment should displace coal only to find out that a total is endangered by a solar panels. in summary, i am from central appalachia. i was born in west -- yet. -- west virginia. i always look forward to going home. we're proud of what we do. i have been going into coal mines in five different decades. we do like everything perfectly right, but we do feel very much that coal and electricity and this country's economy and national security and a request

-- and our qwest to wean ourselves from other countries and the extremism that we are subjected to on a routine basis, that should stirrups some questions. thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] >> we already have numerous questions. i am sure there will be more. the first question, appellation is very tough to mind, given that we have been doing this for almost two centuries. the matter how sick companies operate, has the risk -- no matter how safe companies operate, has the risk increases? >> you can mine coal by a deep- mining method, but there are some energy reserves that cannot be mined in that manner.

if you want low-cost energy, you need low-cost coal production. >> excuse me, if we could continue with their program, please. thank you. >> thank you. >> as you can see, there are people that have their opinions without the discomfort of thought. they sometimes tie themselves to our trees and tie themselves to our equipment. it is destructive. having civil disobedience is fine, but we do need to be

respectful. as to the question on safety and so forth in the coal mines, the fact that we had the tragedy that resulted in 29 deaths, which is the largest tragedy in the last 40 years, it certainly would bring into question whether that is the right question to ask me. on the other hand, i should report to you that we reduced the number of accidents over the last 20 years by 90%. the things we have tons in the area of safety are second to none in the industry. we have 120 rules at massey that exceed the requirements of federal law. we're very frustrated that many times the technical competence of the government inspectors are far less than the technical competence of our engineers. many times, our engineers are overruled by the engineers of other places. we have had a policy for the last 30 years of recovery in the

top engineers credit rating from top senate -- top universities. many times, these people are local. coal mining does not rank at the top 12 of the most dangerous occupations in america. it is more dangerous to drive a cab in new york or to work at 7- 11. if you said you want to create a factory and make it safe, you wanted to be well lit, the floor to be nonskid, the roof to be good. all of those things you want existing in a coal mine from the start. the industry unless he has done a good job at doing that over the last several decades. >> reporters have interviewed more than a dozen former and current messy employees and the state fear you. they're afraid of criticizing

massey safety for fear of their jobs. >> it would not surprise me that you can find two dozen that would say that or feel that. however, we did uphold -- 92% of our people say they feel safer than our competitors coal mines. that our rules make them safer than the federal law. 94% or so are aware of the 100 number that allows them to report accidents or unsafe hazards. it is difficult to get 90 something% of the people to agree on anything. .

>> what is called scrubbers that remove the dust from the air and the methane from the face, only to be effective to turn half of

them off. we have situation that is we believe that the air that has been used in the mining process needs to be taken outside of the mine as quick as possible. but they often disagree with that. what we need is independent, pragmatic, scientific determinations to put in place of laws to improve the safety of mini mining as opposed to others. the idea of having self rescue every 500 feet, as opposed to removing the oxygen in times of an explosion, that's a misplaced priority. there are hundreds of examples of trying to improve mine safety, and many times we feel we are going backwards. >> part of the act will

strengthen top violators and for violations that lead to deaths. do you think that top management should be held accountable to the law? >> i think that anyone that actually causes someone death or serious injury needs to be subject to the law. i think that we need to be careful of eliminating due process as a fundamental processing right. 40% of the time in have violations that get turned with the government. you have to worry about the consistency of the government and the ability of the

>> we need to have interaction with our customers, that's what fundamentally supports our business and jobs. and we do entertainment like other companies, much less expensively than new york. certainly if you wanted to pay up to to $1,000 and i live in same house that i lived in, as i raised, reared my children, to use the proper word. and i have had all the experiences of life there, including divorce and then the

death of ex-wife and the death of my mother, it's home. and i live in the middle of t it's a house that is worth $250,000, we live modestly. i live four-wheelers on the property, and picked raspberries from the hills. and we are comfortable and no shame of how we interact with the people. and most my massey managers are community members or member of appalachia. >> why you are no longer on the board of the chamber commerce? >> you probably have to ask them, they rotate people off and

i have talked with tom donahue about america and the jobs. thomas jefferson said in 1776 that merchants only pay loyalty to the countries that they make their money in. i do think that american businesses need to be honest as opposed to politically correct. it's real important in my opinion that people understand

as you know it's not always easy to speak out.

you get a lot of criticism for it and a lot of bad press and a lot of people that stand up in front of the podium with signs and stuff. but the issue is if you are productive to the society, we produce a lot of energy that is fundamentally important. the greatest thing you with do in a charitable way is to produce something. at the end of the day, the production of the population is providing quality of life. and we are helping the world to have a prosperous life. >> many in the environmental community would say that along with the dollar cost of the productivity, there are other costs not reflected in dollars and cents but do take a toll. the price of the environment and

air that is not clean. is that a factor that is easily factored or a myth? >> i think it's overfactored and we all know about al gore's extrainality cost, that's a good word. and we have a budget to partially keep the seas open for oil. we have a situation where we subsidize winds with taxpayers expense for people that can hardly afford to pay. and we have people losing their jobs because of extrainality extremism. should it be considered? yes, it should be considered. the question is not to be good stewards of the environment or

productive, and it's how you find that balance. what i suggest to you when you eliminate so much of the mercury emissions and sulfur emissions in this country, it makes no sense to transfer those jobs offshore where you don't have that same stewardship. some studies show that for every job you transfer offshores you emit those emissions. and what extrainality costs do you address if you are worried about those in the ocean. i say form your opinion, there is a book out called "power hungry," it's an interesting book about the facts of these energy issues.

>> if you would follow your assumption that there is an extrainality extremism, why would it exist? if acid rain is not a big deal as you say, why wasn't it a big deal if harmful consequences? >> the big issue is co 2, you have an environmental movement that is a business competing against other businesses. again, i don't know whether the world is warming or cooling. but i know that you can eliminate the industry and eliminate all the people and all that, it wouldn't make that much difference. there is 7.8 billions of tons of coal burned in the world. that number will increase. every 36 months the increase

burning of coal will increase by the production. that's a fact of life. and that's how the people will get out of poverty and how we stop the child dying every three 3.7 seconds. you have to look at things pragmatically. environmentalism should be no different than business, a cost difference ratio. >> speaking on facts and metric, one clear metric in the mining industry is the number of deaths. even before the tragedy massey had the highest fatality number and you said that they averaged in fatalities, and how can you say that when other companies have less over that period? >> the thing that coal mining in appalachia is more difficult.

i don't know if those statistics are right, one thing about massey, it's been around for years and it's still massey. and other companies are made up of properties, and how that would look, i don't know. but we are the largest producer in central appalachia and one of the most difficult areas. i know that we spend tens of millions of dollars on safety improvements. i know that i personally look at every accident and attempt to figure out what would avoid it. again the tragedy is something we have our views about, what caused it and so forth. but when you have mining in central appalachia, you have a risky business. we know that we do it better than others have done in the last 10-20 years, fatalities are

way down. but let me give you a comparable statistic, there are 42,000 people killed on the highways in the united states. and the safety aspects that could be introduced into industry and life, if they tried as hard as the coal industry, they would clearly save thousands of lives. >> this spring 29 people who worked for you died on the job, how did that experience affect you? and what you are doing now to prevent this from others dying? >> the biggest thing is you are heart broken, i was perturbed by the press, i was with the families and i was there when they were told that their loved ones perished.

i met individually with the 25 of the 29 and spent time explaining how their loved one perish. where he was at. explained any question i could of what they wanted to know. didn't sleep for two or three days dealing with the issue surrounding the aftermath. again the tragedy occurred is something i am not sure yet how to avoid. but the thing that is most disruptive in the press is the idea that we as appalachians or coal miners or executives or business people don't value life. because we would never put profits above safety, never will. and no one would want to experience the feeling of informing 29 families they had lost their loved ones. >> on a personal level, do you feel guilty about the 29 deaths

at upper big branch? >> i think that the word guilty is not the right word. i feel that i don't want to experience it again. i feel sorry for the families. i feel concern for our current workers. i feel motivated to figure out what happened and prevent it again. as i noted in my commentary at the front, i am a realist. the politicians say we will do this so it won't happen again. you won't hear me say that, because i think that the physics of natural law and god trump what man tries to do. whether you get earthquakes or broken floors or roof falls, often are unavoidable as accidents in society. so to say that we won't have it

happen again, i am cautious about that but there is no one more intent to prevent it from happening again. >> the mind safety department has gone back and forth, is the department effective in preventing accidents? should the u.s. create a new arm? >> i don't like to say what they say about us, we said that massey had more fateals this year. but the bottom line is that the physics have to be the focus. you can't focus on surviving an explosion. because a human body can't survive an explosion. and that's what i speak out about being focused on problems. and when they had the creek

about the problem of mapping. the government could do more about mapping, the state has better rules. there are things we can do with gas wells, and the mapping of the gas wells is what cooperation between the gas companies and the coal companies. it's not something that is gps gas wells. sometimes they are in there because of gps. there are a lot of things that can be done and we are dedicated to doing that. as far as how i feel about it is not as important as what would do as an industry and government going forward. >> was the ventilation at upper branch proper? >> the ventilation was that there be public air before the

explosion and 60,000 cubic feet of air. and we run our long walls at 100,000 if we can, because of the safety factor. on a normal day, years and years, and 30,000 or 60,000 is enough. but when you have somethingab normal happen, you want more. and the things that the scrubbers or others are doing we think are counter productive. but it's hard to get true dialogue about that, and we hope as we speak out we will get some attention to ventilation. >> when you were seeing the readings and the ventilation was less than ideal. why did you not shut the mine? >> again we didn't see the readings and know that the ventilation was less than ideal. what we had was a two-day shut

down as we argued and discussed that we didn't like the ventilation plan. we ultimately decided that the ventilation plan would be safe, even though we didn't think it was the safest. and didn't like the gas that appeared that we had. we thought that the mine was safe, but liked more protection and higher areas of air. we like to rub our scrapers and get out of the mine once they are used in the face of the miners. we like to use bleeders and don't believe in checking air when you can check in and out. there is a long list of things that you couldn't follow nothing else you were a coal miner. but the thing is that law of physics pay no attention to that of politicians. only to the science and math. >> with the benefit of hindsight

what could you have done and have done to minimize the explosion of the one that claimed 29 lives? >> what i could have done is do what i normally am is sue them than to wait for them to shut off a scrubber. it's a situation where we live in a situation with the rules and laws. and we believe in the rule of law and the constitution and so forth. so it's a big step for a big corporation to resist what a government is requiring them to do. you know when you sue e.p.a. or take those kinds off actions, they are extremely bold and get you a terrible reputation.

but actually that is anybodyibe more and more necessary, the more that the country goes in that direction, i think you will see the coal companies and many who resist the epa and impede their business and careers and happiness, i guess. >> since the explosion in the spring, there is recent news report that is massey had a monitor shut down on a machine, is that what happened? >> there is two methane monitors on the long wall. massey experts have had access to that long wall now for a couple of months. if someone believed that the methane monitors were bridged up, they should take the lid off

and check. but we aren't allowed them. and a large number of people get discharged at massey over safety violations. my check was that the bridge out for the methane monitors was not disabled. we don't believe in bridging out methane monitors and i personally are confident that bridging out methane monitors is not a method at massey. and i am equally confident that people do things they are not supposed to do. >> there are safety violations

at areas of a union. for example, there was one killed at a union location and none killed this year are union. given the fact of those killed, and how do you account for this. and how do you oppose union miners? >> there are not a lot of union miners around, but a lot of union mines in play in the past had major explosions. i am not sure but i suspect that farmington was union. and it's dangerous for the mine workers to suggest that union mines are safer than non-union mines, because you don't know what will happen next. how i explain that most mines are non-union, i don't know any

other explanation than these things tend to run in cycles. like at massey we went a year-and-a-half without a single fatality. and then had a rash of fatalities and hope to go on a streak and not have one for years. >> a research factor found that a fraction of mining was reclaimed for economic development, given this why should

if you come to appalachia in 25 years, i doubt you can find the sight of the surface mines active today. >> how big of a customer is china for your coal? >> not big, asia is big, and india is big. and not a lot of people realize

that china and india are greater different in respect to coal. the chinese have tremendous coal reserves to meet their need. india has little to no coal by high quality standards and have to import. china is pretty well self-contained and india is the primary customer in asia. >> this questioner writes, i am concerned that we may be running out of coal, in virginia, the largest producer in the state. >> you have to divide virginia in the southern and northern part, but in central appalachia we estimate there is six to

seven tons and you could go for 40 years. that number will probably grow as technology improves. but u.s. has 250 billion tons of coal. it's our greatest resource for having a strong economy and homeland security, and it's one that we should cherish than vulify. >> how important is the energy and (inaudible) and clean coal? >> clean coal can be called to describe a lot of things, it's important to remember that coal is 70% cleaner than it was 20-30 years ago. all the sulfur removalals. the big difference between co 2

and other pollutants, there is no known technology to remove co 2. ccs is not a proven technology. and pumping co 2 takes tremendous effort to pump in. and you go fwook pragmatism and i think that's what has to drive every effort of our political thought, or environmental thought or national security thought. is just common sense and thinking through the issues and looking at the facts. >> are efforts to regulate co 2 in the united states completely misguided? >> i think that we are misguided if you regulate them in the united states. you can't solve the co 2 in the atmosphere or cap it at parts per million.

so it's misguided to regulate. people think that regulation means green. regulation doesn't mean green if all you do is transfer six times the pollution outside the country. so you shouldn't think of yourself as an environmentalist if you want to cause the u.s. economy to get weaker and weaker because you are actually a polluter. >> if one is an environmentalist of the type you speak, and one can only affect the environment in the united states and not china. what is the most effective approach to limit co 2 emissions worldwide? >> first of all you can impact chinese and anywhere in the world, co 2 emissions. it depends on what sacrifice you want to make. i don't want get into influencing your buying habits. but the bottom line is that it all comes back to the facts.

these questions and words, what would you do if you want to reduce mercury in numbers, would you go to where there is 5,000 tons or 50 tons? would you continue to loan money to countrys to put in coal while you drive out coal miners in this country. would you transfer your industry to other countries that don't have the environmental internship we have. i don't know what you do, i consider myself a competitionist. i believe if you support free trade, you have to be a competitionist. you have to let the american worker going on the playing field. you can't put him on the playing field and put regulations and employment standards and litigation and expect him to keep his job in competition with

countries that don't have that. we need to consider and ask ourselves what environmental impact

ago, was less regulation. you have to get somewhere between the chinese approach and the american approach. in china they built a high hi dro electric dam, and if they close the gates, you better move. and here it's nonsensical as well. we need reasonable regulation and understand the cost benefit of what regulation we have. and need to have businesses function as businesses. the government can't run all the businesses and private business and corporate business is what

built america, in my opinion. we need to let it thrive, in a sense by leaving it alone. >> we are almost out of time, but before we ask the last question, first to remind our guests of future speakers, next week secretary arne duncan of the u.s. department of education will address the national press club. and on september 13th, mr. beckman will speak on eliminating hunger, people and congress. second i would like to present our guests with the traditional gifts we give all, the treasured national press club mug. thank you for coming today. we have one final question for you. this is not been the best year in news headlines for energy

extraction. the massey coal company explosion in april was dominating headlines. but even then was another story getting headlines was the bp oil spill. and that's still underway and as you watched that and what lessons does this spill hold for your industry? >> that's a tough question, i have been a little busy in the bp oil spill as well. i think that the lesson that we need to remember is to rely on truth and fact. if it's more dangerous and safety wise to drill in 500 feet of water and can drill in 200 water, you should push back on drilling in 500 feet of water. if you are working in a manner

that is not safety, you need to push back. we need to operate in free press and approximate -- speech, and those are the things that we have to learn to do. we are allowing a small group of people to dictate what we do in the field of energy. and many times the industry is falling in line to avoid the criticism and press and to avoid being called something more than green. we need not to do that. we need to be compelled to speak out, and the knowledge and vantage point we have is we owe it to our workers and the company. >> thank you to the c.e.o. of

massey, don blankenship. [applause] >> and thank you to the staff for organizing today's event. for more and how to acquire today's program, go to our website, thank you. this meeting is adjourned.

>> on c-span tonight, u.s. health debate on extending unemployment benefits. the house oversight committee looks at federal regulation of offshore oil drilling. and the c.e.o. of massey energy talks about his company's coal mining operations in west virginia. here is what we are covering tomorrow on c-span, house majority leader talks about the economy. and a look at the package from the american institute. you can watch both live on c-span. >> as the energy authority looks to expand the bill, look at c-span library, look up a bill. it's all online and free.

the c-span video library, it's washington your way. >> president obama today signed a bill extending long-term unemployment benefits by six months. this happened shortly after the house voted the legislation. this is some debate before that house vote. colleagues, this action should have occurred two months ago. this house acted to extend unemployment insurance on may 28 . for six weeks, for six weeks republicans in the senate blocked unemployment insurance. they stood not on the side but in the way of millions of americans. and during those six weeks over 2.5 million unemployed americans

exhausted their benefits and they struggled to stay afloat while continuing to look for work in this difficult economy. americans like this person from grand rapids, michigan, who wrote me, and i quote, i worked 22 years in automotive. 60 to 70 hours a week. supporting my family, paying my taxes, and working in my community. every single day i send my resume out to no avail. i have lost my home, one week, and my sense of the ability to take care of my family. or this individual from madison heights, michigan. my family is not living large. we are surviving. cutting unemployment insurance will take us out of survival

mode and put us into homeless mode. after working 20-plus years, this is e first time that we have asked for unemployment. and to add insulto injury, after their filibuster was broken, senate republicans insisted on running out the clock and delaying the full 30 hours before they would let a final vote occur in the other body. 30 hours for nothing. no excuse otheirs worked for working americans out of work. out of work through no fault of their own and looking for work. we have acted to extend unemployment insurance in republican congresses under republican presidts. so today we put this sad chapter

behind us and now we move forward to continue our efforts to support job creation and to continue to dig out of the jobs ditch inherited by this administration. and by this congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, my state of louisiana has placed four hurricanes, a recession, and now an oil spill. and every one of us in this body has faced and looked into the eyes of those who have lost their homes and lost their jobs. and every one of us in this body feels deep compassion for those who are in those dire straits and we all want to help.

but republicans want to help those looking for work. we want to help those who are struggling with this current economic slowdown. buwe also agree with the american people that new spending must be paid for. this latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the american people want us to do. instead, the democratic approach adds another $34 billion in an already staggering $13 trillion of national debt. and that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective, inefficient wasteful spending that we could cut to offset which is needed to pay for this. we want to do this but we want to do what the american people want us to do and that is to pay for it. republicans have repeatedly called for the cutting of unspent stimulus spending to offset this new stream of spending. the majority leader himself, mr.

hoyer, said on june 13, there is spending fatigue across this country and that if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act, that they should be redirected for new spending such as this. mr. speaker, 18 months ago the administration told the american people that their trillion dollar stimulus plan would create millions of jobs and keep unemployment below 8%. instead two million jobs more ha been lost, unemployment surged to nearly 10%. overall 47 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the democrats' february, 2009, stimulus bill including my home state of louisiana. instead of supporting this economy and getting americans back to work, jobs have been lost. our debt continues to spiral out of control. and the only solution we have here without an ability t amend, without an ability to offer some alternative approach is to add another $34 billion in

new spending without offsetting it. new spending is unnecessary and republicans have been calling for this wasted stimulus money to be put to better use by supporting the long-term unemployed. i suggest the best way to create jobs is to stop destroying good-paying jobs that already exist. let me explain what i mean by that. this is a single most important issue in my home state of louisiana, the people of louisiana are facing job loss. in addition to a failed economic policy, a failed stimulus, president obama's ill-conceived and unwarranted and in the words of a federal judge, arbitrary and capricious ban on offshoring drilling is galvanizing residents along the gulf coast like i have never seen before. the long-term implications of this, mr. speaker, are real. real leaves are affected by this. because of this policy,

thousands, tens of thousands of good paying jobs along the gulf coast are immediately at risk. it doesn't have to be this way. unfortunately, the elites in this administration and the president himself refuse to understand this. six weeks ago the louisiana delegation, entire delegation, democrats and republicans, house and senate, requested a meeting with the president in writing. and we have not even gotten a response back. frankly, mr. speaker, that's just unacceptable and irresponsible. already three gulf rigs have left american waters heading to other ports of the world and the trend is going to continue at an accelerated rate. once a rig is gone it could be years before it returns, if it ever returns at all. each one of these deepwater riggs -- deep-water riggs employs 1,400 works, and multiply that by six and those are the immediate support workers. these are jobs that are being lost. and smallecompanies that

cannot afford to move are simply losing their workers. people are losing their jobs. costing thousands of jobs. i met recently with about 35 companies. these are all small companies affected by this. there was a african-american couple, and he got started doing janitorial work. d he worked very hard for years to do this. saved his money and started a small business, oil service company, he was so proud of. the american dream, by g. he started this company and grew it to 20 workers. and he had accelerating work until this ban on drilling. and now he has no work and he's seeing his life's savings go down the drain. why? because of an ill-founded government imposed moratorium that makes no sense.

these workers, these are rig workers and energy engineers, they are plumbers, electrician dock workers, they work in the maritime industry. and yet this is the kind of policy we are getting. this ban hurts everybody. we stand united on the gulf coast to support good-paying jobs. this stimulus has failed and it's time to direct these funds to more beneficial areas to help those who are chronically unemployed. the last time this house acted, mr. camp, the ranking member of our ways and means committee, offered a motion to extnd these benefits -- extend these benefits while paying for the spending while using unspent funds for the fail stimulus bill. the house could immediately act on that same type of provision today with the senate following suit to get these benefits to the long-term unemployed in a way that helps the economy, job creation, instead of hampering job creation even more. that is what we should be doing and what would most help the unemployed get benefits they need today and the jobs that they need tomorrow.

the american people want president obam and this congress to spur entrepreneurship and american competitiveness and create good-paying jobs. inead, the president and this congress continue on a path of an increasing uncertainty, leading to high unemployment and run away spending. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my very distinct pleasure and privilege to yield one minute to the most distinguished speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. the speaker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. indeed there is some good news in it, but there i some not so good news in it as well. i listened very attentively to the previous speaker talk about why these employment benefits had to be paid for, and i was

struck by the inconsistency in his remarks and that of the republicans in the ited states senate and in the house of representatives. it's important to note that while they demand that these benefits be paid for, $34 billion, in unemployment benefits going to those who have played by the rules, worked hard, who are unemployed, through no fault of their own, $34 billion which injected into the economy will indeed create jobs. while they have said that $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america shouldn't be paid for. inconsistent is the politest word i can use to dscribe that. $34 billion for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. last week the economic policy institute released a report making it clear that not only do

unemployment benefits protect those who are have lost their jobs through no fault of their own but would lead to more jobs, higher wages, and a stronger economy for all americans. and why is that so? that is so because these benefits are given to people who need them. the money will be spent immediately on necessity. injecting demand into the economy. creating jobs, in fact the american policinstitute figured that would be 1 million jobs relating to the unemployment benefits out there now. the congressional budget office, which is independent and nonpartisan, has confirmed that extending unemployment benefits is the most efficient way for the government to generate economic growth. now, i know why the gentleman may want to change the subject to other things. he mentions katrina. we all supported katrina. anybody talk about paying for that emergency?

no. it was an emergency. we have a compact with the american people in time of a natural disaster even though that disaster was exacerbated by cronyism in the bush administration. but let's not go there. let's just stay on this subject. and the subject at hand is when this bill was introduced today, this resolution, i'm sure you-all heard it was an amendment to an amendment. the senate amendment that we are vong on was an amendment that they put in took out the jobs initiative. and those initiatives were paid for. build america bonds. that was part of the original bill. to build the infrastructure of america as highways and infrastructure. a new, green way. creating new green jobs and new green technology. and to build america jobs that went beyond those investments.

stabilize our state economies. 30 states have written their budgets already on the basis of this funding being in the legislation. and paid for. not increasing the deficit. we passed it in december. the senate only now is sending it back to us because the republicans have objected to that and the amendment to the amendment eliminates that stability for states. summer jobs, it's too late. so youth jobs. in december we passed for summer jobs for america'south. the amendment to the amendment takes out those. they were paidor. because on the one hand they said everything has to be paid for. are they just plain opposed to jobs for summer jobs for youth? are they opposed to build america bonds to grow our economy and meet the needs of our country infrastructurewise?

the housing trust fund, very, very important initiative. concurrent receipt. i don't think there's any doubt that every person in this congress sports our verans. one issue that is a high priority for america's veterans when we meet with them on a regular basis is thessue of concurrent receipt. you may not be familiar with at term, it's a disability tax on our veterans. with so many verans returning home with disabilities from iraq and afghanistan, this is very, very important. it's in the bill. and was paid for. again, money given to people who need it for necessity to expend it, inject demand into economy and create jobs. so the amendment to the amendment that the senate republicans finally would let pass in the senate removed concurrent receipt paid for our veterans. the list goes on and on.

a list of paid for initiatives, that benefit our veterans, grow our economy, create jobs, help our workers, help our young people, stabilize our states, all paid for. the republican senators said no. . and they held up this particular amendment to the amendment for over six weeks because they said it had been paid for at the same time as they were saying, we must pay for those $34 billion for benefits, for the unemployment, but we don't have to pay for the $700 billion for the wealthiest people in america to have tax cuts. those same tax cuts during the eight years of the bush administration did not create jobs, they increased the deficit and the republicans have said they want to go back to the exact agenda of the bush administration.

they look with increased fondness on the bush agenda. and the bush administration. well, let me say this here toy, the good news about this is, finally our unemployed will get their benefits. it will be retroactive. it's really sad that it has to come to this. an unpaid for tax cuts for the rich, paid for benefits for our workers. but it's important to note, contrary to what you might hear from some in this chamber that in the first eight months --, that in the first eight months of the obama administration more jobs were created, by the time we finish august, more jobs will have been created than in the eight years of the bush administration. while they increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, while

they -- we lost jobs, where they took us to a brink of financial crisis of our financial industry, where they tk us deep into recession, where they took us deep into deficit they want to return to the exact same -- deficit, they want to return to the exact same agenda. we are not going back and our step forward into the future is one step into the future, it's being taken today. but we say to american workers, you have played by the rules, you have worked hard, you have lost your job through no fault of your own, you will have these benefits. but we must do more to create jobs, to create more jobs. and i urge our colleagues today to understand how important this is, the distinction between those who support our workers,

respect the contracts that we have with them about when the economy ebbs and flows and the cycle of employment and unemployment is not in their favor, that we will be there for them. and being there for them is not just about them. it's also about the entire economy, the entire ecomy. the economy cannot flourish and be entrepreneurial unless it knows that there's a safety net in case the economy comes down. the republicans are saying no to that. they've said no over and over and over again and they're saying no today unless it is paid for again while they still say we want tax cuts for the wealthiest, $700 billion worth, 20 times more than this bill for unemployment insurance. but don't forget what they took out of the bill.

and don't forget that that includes concurrent receipts for our veterans. i urge our colleagues to proudly vote for this legislation. i commend my colleague mr. levin for his hard work on this and other legislation and i know, because it's absolutely essential, that at some point we will get a jobs bill that will come back from the senate, we agree that it should be pa for, we've sent it over to them paid for and that they will recognize that we need to create jobs, good-paying jobs that take us into the future and most of all that we're not going bk to the failed economic policies of the bush administration. i urge a strong aye vote on both sides of the aisle. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, this is the eighth time this unemployment benefit insurance

is extended. i think that in and of itself speaks to the failure of the economic policies. secondly, a massive tax increase in the the face of economic uncertainty is only going to hurt economic growth and job creation. on our side of the aisle we're work to -- we'll work to find the offset to dealing with -- to avoiding these tax increases on the american people. and finally i want to point out that private sector growth in the year 2010, the rate of private sector growth has been slower than what we saw in the great depression. so with that i'm pleased now to yield four minutes to the gentleman from georgia, the ranking member of one of the subkest of ways and means, mr. linder. mr. linder: mr. speaker, we are here today to consider legislation paying another $34 billion in unemployment benefits. the other side says that these unemployment benefits stretching to almost two years are needed

and must be added to the $13 trillion debt. even as they claim their trillion-dollar stimulus plan has been a success at creating millions of jobs. it makes you wonder if they're looking at the same jobs data as the rest of us. 18 months ago this administration said the stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs. it hasn't. through june of 2010 the united states lost 2.6 million more prive sector jobs, leading millions of americans to ask, where are the jobs? the administration also promised that the stilus would keep unemployment below 8%. it hasn't. instead, unemployment reached 130rs and remains stuck near that level today -- 10% and remains stuck near that level today and thatting norse millions of miss -- that ignores millions of unemployed missing out of the statistics. the administration also said that the stimulus would create stly private sector jobs.

it didn't. managing all that spending helped government jobs grow by 201,000 since the stimulus was passed which has made washington, d.c., the nation's strongest job market. meanwhe in the rest of the country 47 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the democrats' february, 09, stimulus. while the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting worse, things are not getting much better. the trickle of private sector job creation in 2010 is so anemic that at the current rate it would take until 2017 to recover the jobs lost during the recession. that's longer than it took to recover the jobs lost during the depression of the 1930's. another estimate finds it will take until 2021 to get

unemployment back to prerecession levels. who knew that the administration's recovery summer would last a decade or more? the fact is, the only thing the democrats' stimulus has succeeded in creating is an enormous mountain of debt, which is already hurting job creation. the bill before us will only make that worse. unemployed workers want real jobs with real companies in a real economy, not two years of unemployment benefits. and all this congress offers is more debt and ultimately more pink slips. that's hardly what the unemployed need. i urge members to oppose this bill and insist that any further spending is actually paid for. if the speaker's right, that unemployment benefits are the most stimulative thing we can do, then it will help the economy to cut other les effective stimulus spending and use it to pay for benefits like

these. that is the sort of budgeting, if we were inclined to pass a budget, that we should have been doing all along. and it's the only hope for turning this economy around and actually creating jobs that all americans want and the unemployed need most of all. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yiel back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, our subcommittee chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for fo four minutes, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, when most of our republican colleagues vote no against extending unemployment benefits for americans toda these people have who have lost their job through no fault of their own, they're doing it and they'll say it's because of the deficit. but in reality they're simply trying to make the president

fail at any cost. we have precedent here for that. back in the 1990 when newt gingrich ruled this place, they thought the american people were stupid, but it didn't work then and it won't work now. in december, 1995, newt gingrich thought he could win the presidency for the republican party by shutting down the government. and proving that bill clinton was infective. you all remember that -- in effective. you remember that instead the american people overwhelmingly elected bill clinton to office in 1996. now they've got the same play book again, they're running it again. the republican leadership in congress has decided that th way for the republicans get the white house back is by denying unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, show them that this government doesn't work. for over six weeks they've held

displaced workers as hostages. now, you would think they would have learned from gingrich back in 1995, it doesn't work. he only held the country hostage for a few days and then he gave it up. because people need to look at what the senate republicans are doing in the other body to see exactly what they're doing again day. en after the senate broke the republican filibuster on restoring unemployment benefits two days ago, the republicans insisted on running out every minute of time left on the clock before allowing a final vote on this bill. they wanted to dangle those workers out there for yet one more day. they wanted them to sit at home and wonder, is it going to happen? how am i going to feed my kids? can i pay for my house? for families without income who

rely on unemployment benefits to make ends meet, every day counts. republicans cleay couldn't care less. and they forced these unemployed workers to twist in the wind for one more day. this is a slap in the face to millions of americans who are struggling to find work and rely on unemployment benefits as a lifeline. this effort to undermine the ineffectiveness of predent obama by denying unemployment benefits to workers and by denying the president the power to create jobs will ultimately fail. republicans have done nothing more than help assure that mr. obama will be elected a second time. good move, guys. the american people will remember and despite what the republicans think the voters are not stupid. they don't want the ghosts of newt gingrich running this country and they don't want a return to the failed economic

policies of president bush. they know that they want this government to help people when they need help and they know that -- they didn't lose their job because they did something wrong. greed on wall street got them. they are suffering because of that greed which we dealt with a couple of days ago. but they need a check to pay the rent and pay for food. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speer. the speaker pro tempore: ms. secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to h.j.res. 83, approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003 andor other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana.

mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. just to briefly respond to the previous speaker, we want to look forward, we don't want to look back. we don't want a cynical look t the past, we want a positive vision to the future for the american people which means we want to go along and promote growth in the economy and do an extension of unemployment benefits in a responsible way, by paying for it, by eliminating wasteful spending in the stimulus package. and with that i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. brown-waite, a member of the house ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown-waite: i thank the gentman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the 15% of my constituents who have lost their jobs. but i also rise in support of the 85% who are struggling to hold onto their jobs. . debt matters. what we have seen with the threat of default in greece and

what that did to the world economy and our own economy is similar to what we may be entering into. given our tremendous reliance on borrowing, a similar loss of confidence in the united states would be devastating. the administration may have his cheerleaders and spin masters out in front telling the cameras how swell everybody is going to be despite the work ahead, but businesses, those very entities that actually do the hiring, the innovating, and the investing aren't buying. they don't have a political motivation behind their analysis. it's simply reality as they see it. small businesses are not confident about where this country is headed and neither are their customers. presidents can actually have a huge influence on consumer confidence, but every time this president gives a speech threatening american entrepreneurs, he makes things worse. as for debt, i understand the very childish playground

tetation, point fingers, and names, and say, you borrowed, too. but i also understand that businesses and consumers don't care about that because it doesn't fix the problem. all we ask is that the unemployment, somethg we all agree on, be paid for using funds already obligated for the economic recovery. we and the american people point out and not so subtly at times that the way you are using the stimulus money is simply a waste of time, effort, and certainly money. borrowing more when it pushes us ever closer to the edge just to continue spending money on stimulus road signs is certainly unacceptable to them and is unacceptable to me. i'm sorry that you refuse a compromise, but that's where we are today. i would ask the gentleman if i could have another 20 seconds. mr. bhutanny --

mr. boustany: i yield 20 seconds. ms. brown-waite: that's where we are today. americans want us to pay for this bill and not borrow another $34 billion. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yield back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i first ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on my motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. speaker, after i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, i ask unanimous consent that mr. mcdermott, the subcommittee chair, be allowed to manage the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: thank you, chairman levin, for giving me this opportunity. and gun to congressman mcdermott for working so hard to try and protect those people who have lost their opportunity to take care of their families because they have lost their jobs. i think we are hearing too much about republican and democrat today. we certainly are hearing too much about oil drilling and the issues. but as we go home as members of congress, i don't ink people come up and y i'm a demrat and i need help or i'm a republican or i need help. they say i need a job. i'm willing to do anything. i'm losing my dignity and my self-esteem. my daughter was in college. i had to teller that she won't be able to go back. -- i had to tell her that she won't be able to go back. i keep ignoring my creditor's calls because i lost my job.

there were so many dreams and aspirations i had for me and my family. so many hopes that i thought that in this great country i could fulfill. ihought it because i thought i was on the road to economic success. i knew i was doing better than my parents and i hoped so daily that my kids would be able to say they would do better than me. those that have finished school can't find jobs. can't afford homes. familiesave consolidated the limited resources. and the greatest thing about this wonderful country is that you don't have to be successful if you really trust and hope that you can be successful. it's not like other countries wheryou are stuck where you are born and you can't aspire to do better. but we are reaching that point where americans have lost faith

in our financial centers, they have lost faith in terms of the insurance health providers. god knows they have lost faith in the congress. but when they start losing fth in themselves, that's when our country is in trouble. when they start believing that they cannot make it, that they are losing their dignity, that they are unable to put food on the table, provide shelter for their families, provide hope for their kids, america is losin something that we may not be able to recover. notwithstanding what happens from our economy. how can people talk about deficits and pay fors when a person is just asking for a little help? what difference does it make if we are able to take the $30 billion? it is not spending.

this is investment. it's an investment not in foreigners, not in protecting democracy, it's an investment of people who love and wt to wo. i think, mr. speaker, we ought to give them an opportunity because in taking care of their needs they take care of our small businesses, too. i yield back whatever time i have. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. yes, it is an investment, but it's one we can pay for and that's the sad state we are in today because we are being refused the abilit to even offer those kinds of amendments. with that, mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to my friend, member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nevada, mr. heller. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for four minutes. mr. heller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding time.

the answer to his statement is it's absolutely correct. this can be paid for. i come from a state, ste of nevada, that has 14.2% unemployment. these are very, very tough times. during the hearings i submitted legislation that would actually pay for this piece of legislation. we can pay for it. it's not that the majority can't pay for it. it's that they don't want to pay for it. in fact, if you take a look at november, 2009, with the facing the unemployment insurance extension bill, back then in 2009 it was fully paid for and the administration itself came out and supported a bill that was paid for. and at the time unemployment was higher than it is today nationwide. don't tell me the administration doesn't think this ought to be paid for. if they wanted to pay for it, 9.8%, why don't they want to pay for it today? i want to speak a little bit about the failed stimulus bill because i think some general questions reported by way of

earlier debate and that is whether or not the stimulus bill has actuallyorked. we have lost two million jobs in this country since the stimulus bill was passed. 47 of 50 states, 47 of 50 states have lost jobs since this democratic crafted stimulus bill. and it's no wonder in recent polls most americans think that elvis is alive. more people think elvis is alive than the stimulus bill has worked. that's failure. nevada's unemployment, clark county unemployment has gone up 40%. that's undisputable. take clark county alone. there are those who say the stimulus is working in las vegas. yet just last month almost 3,500 people filed for unemployment benefits. you take the stimulus down in las vegas, nearly 40,000 people have lost their jobs in las vegas. tell me the stimulus is working in las vegas. take nevada as a whole, just last month, 4,100 people filed for unemployment claims.

take the state since the stimulus. almost 50,000 people have lost their jobs in las vegas. tell me that the stimulus has worked in my district. i would debate anybody on this and i'll wait for my phone to ring. just talk a little bit about the fact that in nevada our employment level is 50% higher than the national average. if we had the national average in the state of nevada, there would be 60,000 fewer unemployed nevadans right now. however, there is one place in america where the stimulus has worked and i'll give the other side credit for this and that's washington, d.c. government jobs have grown by 201,000. 201,000 jobs have been created in washington d.c. since the stimulus has passed. i want to -- some believe there are unobligated stimulus funds and i don't agree with that.

we can use unobligated stimulus fund. go to www.recovery.gov. the administration's own website. take a look at it. they will show you that half of the stimulus funds at this point have not been spent. can we take $4 billion, more than $00 billion that's in unduesed stimulus funds, to pay for this unemployment extension? that would be the right thing to do. i think that our children and grandchildren's future are worth thdime on the dollar some apparently don't. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is cognized for two minutes. mr. neal: i thank mr. mcdermott. i stand in full support of this emergency legislation that will restore the safety net to millions of american families. those families have been waiting for this relief since june. their faith has been tested but today we are going to extend the help that they need. i have spoken many times on this floor of the legendary mayor of

boston, james michael curly, a great orator. he spoke with great empathy about the forgotten man. those who we are talking about today. the forgotten man and woman. those individuals who have worked hard and played by the rules and every reason to believe that america ought to provide them assistance in this difficult time. he also would have suggested in that simplestity that thereat ally of our civilization was a full stomach. we need to be reminded of that grim economic statistic for those who are outside the mainstream. let me also remind our friends he on the other side in record time, in october of 2008, this congress came to the aid of wall street. it didn't take us long to embrace the troubled asset relief program of george bush. to keep standing many of those

institutions that help create the problem that we currently find ourselves in. there are millions of people, those who have served in vietnam, those who have served in afghanistan and iraq and other theaters around the world who are struggling in this econy. america is about building a community. a place where no one wants to be abandoned and no one wants to be left behind. the great count bounty of god's work has been to ensure that people in america regardless of their political differences have enough to eat and shelter. this opportunity to extend unemployment benefits r the american people ought to meet this moment and i urge adoption of this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. ustany: thank you, mr. speaker. in addition to what mr. hoyer said about using the unused stimulus funds, mr. obey has hailed amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill

made on july 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus law. in the other body, the chairman of the senate finance committee, mr. baucus,as suggested -- bachus, has suggested the same. a fiscally responsible way to not only take care of the forgotten man and woman today, but to prevent even more from being forgotten in the future. and with that, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield time, three minutes, to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. mr. scalise and i have worked tother on american competitiveness, trying to achieve energy independence, to meet our national security needs, and to grow jobs. with that i yield three minutes to mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from louisiana for yielding time. mr. speaker, a year and a half ago the liberals running congress passed the stimulus bill claiming they needed to add

another $787 billion to the national debt in order to keep unemployment below 8 of course now a year and a half later, unemployment's approaching 10% so the first plan failed miserably. so they are coming with a plan to add another $34 billion to the national debt regarding unemployment that they don't want to work with us on to at least pay for, using some of that failed stimulus plan. in fact they are still trying to defend the stimulus plan that most americans recognize only grew the size of government and did noing to help stimulate the economy. and the sad irony of this is that millions of american people are unemployed as a direct result of the policies of this administration. in fact a very real example is occurring right now in south louisiana. just yesterday there was a rally in south louisiana where over 10,000 people showed up to oppose this arbitrary and capricious ban by president

obama on drilling in the gulf. . and they try to pit it as safety versus jobs and in fact the president's own safety commission, he appointed after the explosion of the deepwater horizon, said that the moratorium is a bad idea and in fact they went on to say that this moratorium wi decrease safety in e gulf. that's right. the moratorium that the present himself imposed that's costing our state thousands of jobs, thousands more people on unemployment that would much rather a job than the unemployment check than president obama's offering them, their job is taken away by the president not for scientific reasons, because the president's own scientists say the moratorium's a bad idea and will decrease safety, but for political reasons. and in fact as my colleague from louisiana pointed out our entire delegation has been trying for six weeks now to meet with e president to discuss this ill-conceived idea and he refuses to meet with us. and yet you still have hundreds of people each week being added

to the unemployment roll because of the president's policy. what the president needs to do is actually work with us to create jobs instead of continuing to push policies that are running people onto the unemployment rolls, putting more jobs overseas and putting our country at greater risk of energy independence because now our energy supply hasn't decreased but now you're going to actually have more oil imported from these middle eastern countries that don't like us, and by the way, 70% of all oil spills come from tankers importing oil. and now the president is just -- has just made our country more dependent on that imported oil with the addition of his ban on drilling that's creating more unemployment in our state. these policies are wrecking our economy. what we need is to creatjobs and part of that means you put good policies in place that help create jobs so that people don't continue to go on the unemployment roll because of the obama policy. that's what we need to do is get a different agenda. the american people are saying, where are the jobs? and all they get is more deficit spending from this

administration. they just don't get it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i can't help but respond to the change of subject from the gentleman from louisiana. i guess fishermen aren't worth anything. fishermen are worthless, all that sea stuff that comes up and they sell all over the place they don't care about that. all they want to do is drill for oil. that the president is careful and prudent and says, let's look at this drilling before we go with it, because we've just proved that the oil companies are reckless, they've proved it for 79 days in the gulf and if you can't learn from that and realize what it's doing to crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oyster beds then you have missed the point. mr. boustany: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcdermott: i yield to the

gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. people all over illinois and all over america are waiting with baited breath and they're waiting to pay utility bills, to pay house notes, to make mortgage payments, to catch up on their rent, to pay college tuition, to buy food for their children. but they're also waiting to say, thank you, nancy pelosi. they want to say, thank you, harry reid. they're waiting to say, thank you, united states congress. they want to say, thank you, barack obama. because the action that you just took this day means to us that you are working for us. you have rnforced our

confidence in our government. you have said to us that we do matter and i know that the people of illinois will be saying, thank you, our government. i urge passage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i have to respond to my friend from the state of washington. and i would say that i would not have the audacity to speak for the people of washington because i haven't had the chance to actually get to know them. and i can tell the gentleman that i do know the fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers and those who run boats down in my state of louisiana. and if they were here on the house floor today they would say, please do not kick us when we're down. lift this ban on drilling because it's going to kill our economy. the shame fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers who are

losing their jobs. that's why we need sensible policies. that'shy we need sensible policies, mr. speaker. we're all for extending the unemployment benefit insurance but we know we can do it in a responsible way by paying for it with unspent stimulus money. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves his time. the geleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the lady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. with almost half of the unemployed out of work for more than six months, i'm extremely disappointed that partisan bickering has delayed this important relief to american familyless. i want to share with you what one of my constituents wrote to and he said, i'll quote, i worked all my life and supported myself and didn't ask for any special treatment. there is pride, pride that comes from work. no one is ready and willing to work more than me. but there just isn't any. since the last thing of unemployment benefits, millions have lost benefits keeping their families in thr homes and food

on the table. but what we and people may not know or really appreciate is that this also includes tens of thousands of former service members and reservists who return home and find themselves without work. how, i ask you, mr. speaker, how does prohibiting them from being able to pay their electric and grocery bills help our economy recover? i urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this extension. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields the balance of the time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, thk you, mr. speaker, and let me thank the gentleman for yielding, for his steady and undying support for people who

ally have had -- whoave had a ve tough time and have not had any opportunities for many years now. thank you, mr. mcdermott, for your leadership. you know, we too are saying and i'm listening to the debate here about jobs, we're saying, where are the jobs? and from what i remember, mr. speaker, there are very few republican votes for the many job crtion bills which democrats have passed. so if you're not goingo support a real jobs initiative, i can't understand for the life of me why in the world won't you support just the basics for people, just the bit of help for those who have no jobs and for those who you won't help get a job? support for unemployment compensation speaks really to who we are as a country. this is a moral and anthical issue that those who really care about the least of these should

support. people have lost their jobs for a variety of reasons. primarily, yes, the economic policies of the previous administration. we know many people who have lost their jobs due to not being able to find work in this new economy. people have lost theirobs because their communities have been shut down as a result of the foreclosure crisis. they've lost their homes, they've lost their jobs, they have no health care. i mean, what in the world is going on in our country? i think,ou know, until we figure this out, i think some of us really get it in terms of the economic policies and what we need to do, but until we make the case in a way that republicans get it, the least we could do is just help people pay their rent and for those who still have mortgages, pay their mortgage. for those who, you know, don't have enough food, to basically buy food for their kids.

we can't even get the republicans to support a youth jobs initiative. my goodness, you know, we have over 40% minority youth, african-american and latino youth, who are unemployed and these young people need jobs. they need jobs not only to develop their work skills and work experience but they have to help their families put food on the table and pay the rent. so, for goodness sakes, just help these people survive and weather these storms right now because they need something to get through this. otherwise we're going to see a country that we all don't want to see, one that we don't recognize, one that does not care about the common good and this is about the common good. we all have a duty and responsibility to make sure everyone at least is able to survive through these very terrible times. thank you, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman fr louisiana. mr. boustany: mrspeaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, who serves on the

president's fiscal responsibility commission. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recoized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding and indeed this is the difference between the two parties here today. as i've listened carefully to the debate, i haven't heard anybody say we shouldn't be extending unemployment benefits. what i have heard is that one side wants to borrow 43 cents on the dollar mainly from the chinese and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. those are my friends on the democratic side of the aisle. on this side of the aisle we're saying, you know, all the trillions of stimulus money, the $1.2 trillion when you add in the interest factor, those unspent funds, maybe some of the unspent tarp funds, these programs that have helped continue to mire us in almost double-digit unemployment, maybe we could use some of those funds instead and not add to the single largest debt in ameca's

history that's only getting worse under their watch, mr. speaker. that's the primary difference here today. and we must show that we are a fiscally responsible congress today to create jobs. ultimately the people in america don't want more unemployment checks, they want more paychecks. and it's the policies of this president, the policies of this congress, brought about this by the federal takeover of health care, brought about by this huge permanent wall street bailout bill where the ink is barely dry, the threaten cap and tax bill, and the massive debt that we're drowning in, under the president's own budget we will be paying almost $1 trillion in interest alone on the national debt. i mean, that's the kind of policies that are -- our distguished democratic

majority leader likened to fiscal child abuse. i haven't heard that rhetoric recently, but i hope he still believes it. and because that's what we're engaged in. so i do not understand why my friends on the other side of t aisle refuse to pay for. this i certainly hear the phrase pay as -- pay for this. i certainly hear the phrase pay as you go frequently but i don't see it practiced. i serve on the president's fiscal responsibility commission. many people consider that title to be an objectiony moron. we will debate that -- oxymoron, we will debate that later. but the former chief of staff to president clinton had said that our debt is a cancer that can destroy us from within. this isn't republican is verbiage, this is democratic verbiage. so why, why do the democrats refuse to pay for this? why do they continue to engage in what the majority leader once termed fiscal child abuse?

again, that's where the debate is. the debate is, are you going to pay for the unemployment insurance or are you going to take the burden and put it on our children and grandchildren yet again? that is unconscionable, unsustainable anit ought to be immoral. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fr washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house of representatives, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. and the time when it's my oppounity to speak is sometimes good and i think this is one of them. mr. hensarling just spoke. i have great respect for mr. hensarling. he works hard and focuses. he's philosophically well grounded and he follows his philosophy. i disagree with his philosophy. his fiscal premises. and his fiscal premises that

were part of the last administration's approach to the finances of this country increased our deficit by 87%, from $5 trillion essentially to a lile over $10 trillion. didn't quite double it, but 87% more debt under the bush administration. , that i -- think a call fiscal child abuse. why? because it was not done at a time of fiscal crisis, with large unemployment. than you employment was caused -- that unemployment was caused by the picies of the last administration. why do i say that? because under the clinton administration we created 21 million jobs in the private sector, just a little short of 21 million jobs, 22.8 miion overall when you include public employment. and during the bush administration, how did it relate to that 21.1 million new

jobs in the private sector? one millionle. -- one million. how diit relate to job production, 265,000 under the clinton administration and 11,000 per month under the bush administration. that's what their economic policies brought. not $40 billion or $34 billion borrowed money but trillions with an s of borrowed money to fund tax cuts which they did not pay for. they weren't continuations of the tax code, as jon kyl, the second ranking republican leader in the senate, now argues ought not to be paid for. $687 billion we just ought to continue that for the wealthiest in our country, not the little children who are worried about whether their

parentare going to be able to afford the mortgage or afford to buy -put bread on the table. that's what we're talking in this bill. for literally millions of people who have run out of pport. now, will they run out of support in this moral country? they will not ultimately run out of support. they will be put on welfare and food stamps. and they won't be available to the insurance for which their employer and they participate and providing so that in the contingency that we ran the economy into the ditch, the worst economy in three quarters of a century wrought by the bush economic pocies to which mr. sessions, the chairman of their campaign committee, says they want to return to the exact agenda. i'm so pleased i had the opportunity to come and respond to my friend from texas. it does demonstrate the

difference between our two parties, absolutely. jon kyl who says we ought to borrow $686 billion from the chinese to give it to the wealthiest in america and democrats who say we want to borr $34 billion to give it to the children of america whose families are in need, yes, that is the difference, if my friend from texas wants to make that the difference this is about saying that we have an emergency, and historically from ronald reagan to today, ronald rean i, bush i and bush ii, what did you do when you were in charge? you borrowed during times of economic trouble to give unemployment insurance. we're doing the same thing. why did we do that? because we perceived it to be an emergency, an emergency that peop in the richest nation on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability

to keep their homes, buy their food, clothe their children, a moral and great country thinks that's an emergency. that's what this vote is all about. this vote is also about, as the gentleman from texas has said, expressing our values. i agree with that. and i'm going to express my values and i urge members of this house to express their values, this day on this vote as millions of people have lost their unemployment insurance because we couldn't get 60 votes in the senate. had almost every democrat saying we need help now. people are running out of the ability to support themselves now. we paid insurance for now. so i urge myolleagues to vote

for this legislation. a few weeks -- a few months ago we passed unemployment insurance through this house by unanimous consent. the election wasn't as approximate it is now. i just made a speech and i have been criticized by some on my side of the aisle and some others to say we need to put everything on the table. i reiterate that today, we need to putverything on the table, no sacred could you say. i have three children, three -- no sacred cows. i have three children, three great grandchild and one great grandchild. i say to them and others in the country, we have a moral responsibility to get a handle on this deficit. reporter was asking me did i

agree with mr. bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax cuts and i said to him this, at a time of fiscal crisis when our economy is struggling to getack from the ditch it was in when this administration took over, how much of a ditch? during the last year of the clinton administration we had a -- we added 1.9 million new jobs, i tell my friend from texas. 1.9 million new jobs in america, and it was a slowdown period. during the last year of the bush administration, after the economic policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through 2009, even though we took the congress we couldn't do anything because the president woulveto legislation and did in fact veto legislation, 3.8 million americans lost their jobs. that's a difference of 1 dch 9

million new -- 1.9 million new jobs during the last month of the clinton administration. is there any wonder why there is pain in america and families are in great distress and they are angry and they have angst and we share that? today does not solve the problem but today reaches out to those folks in distress and say in the short term on an emergency basis we are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families. in this the wealthiest nation on the face of this earth. you worked hard, you paid in and through no fault of your own you lost your job. maybe because of the fault of wall street that my friend believes we were too harsh on. we're imposing rules on so they can play by the rules and not squander and take risk that put wall street profits before main

street stability. yes. and also we're not going to apologize to the b.p. oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people to be in economic distress. we are not going to say sorry. some people want to say sorry, but the president of the united states suggested, hey, you need to help those people. maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. i don't necessarily think that. i don't want to say that. but if that's the difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote aye to help millions of americans in deep distress through no fault of their own. i urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that

you're on their side. and i yieldback the balae of my time. -- and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i remind my friend, the distinguished majority leader of the house, that in the 1990's during the clinton administration there was a great bipartisan effort that led to those balanced budgets because there was a reblican majority in -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield on thapoint? mr. boustany: i yield. mr. hoyer: it's a good point. i ask my friend, that is true. why couldn't you do it when you had the house, the senate and the presidency? mr. boustany: and i will reclaim my time, mr. speaker. i will reclaim my time and i will remind the majority leader that we have the opportunity to go forward now and not cast blame on the past so i would say that -- mr. hoyer: i missed the answer. mr. boustany: president obama got it right in november, 2009,

regarding unemployment benefit extension ich was fully paid for and he said, and i quote, fiscal responsibility is central the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the administration, therefore, supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill, end quote. all we're saying is there's a better way to do this and that is to pay for this extension. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two nutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, let me thank the gentleman for giving me a moment to speak. you know, the -- my friends from the party opposite referred to deficits and debts. deficits are important. the debts are important. all these things are critical. but i guess my question is, when the republican caucus

voted to give the most wealthy and most privileged members of american society $700--- $700-plus billion tax cut, why didn't they pay for it? when the prescription drug handout was giveo big pharma, no fiscal responsibility then. but when the poor, hardrking people of america find themselves without work and say, you know what, still looking for work, haven't found one and need some help from my fellow americans is like, no, no, no. we can't help you because we have to worry about the deficit. why so much concern, so much heart felt angst about what the wealthiest, most privileged americans need but nothing for a cold heartnd a closed purse for people who are in an emergency situation? mr. speaker, i ask, what about the debts of the people who are

unemployed? what about them having to go to family and borrow money? what about them being captured by the payday lenders and folks who take advantage of poor people who don't have any money and don't have unemployment insurance? what about their debt? the american people should respond. i don't want to say to the party opposite that this is heartless. it looks that way. i don't want my friends in the opposite show that they don't support poor people. this is the right time. i would say if i have a moment, the fact is for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits $1.60 goes not economy which means we begin to pull ourselves out of this situation and deal with this deficit. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the kind chairman, mr. mcdermott, for yielding me the two minutes. and sometimes when they say gentlewoman i don't feel so gentle on the subject of unemployment. and in fact i rise in strong pport of this bill which is long overdue because of the delays in the other chamber. and i want to thank chairman mcdermott for his extraordinary leadership and our speaker for bringing this bill forward. all the economic studies show that in fact direct consumer spending that results from the expenditure of unemployment checks on basics, paying for food, paying your mortgage so you don't lose your home, making your car payment on that old jalopy you used to go to work, this has the largest bang inside our economy to move it up than any investment we can make other than in

infrastructure investment, when we're employing people, building bridges, building roads, some people on the other side of the aisle are making fun of. it's no fun to go over a bridge that collapses we saw that in minnesota. we need issues in a great nation like america we take care of. we're one of the platforms that holds this country up. hundreds of thousands of them remain out of work and they will be affected by the extension of these benefits but we have between 600,000 and a million people who are working in part-time jobs or fallen out of the work force because of no fault of their own. the obama administration has added more jobs by the end of august than the whole bush administration did in eight years except create more wars, more unemployment and more outsourcing of jobs. i can't explain them. we don't live in the same world. i respect people who go to work every day. i respect those who get injured on the job.

i respect those farmers who are out in the fields right now harvesting crops. i respect those who work for them. i respect the people who work in our auto plants. i respect the people working in 100-degree weather on bridges in my district and trying to hold things together until a better day comes. the least we can do is return money to them that they already paid in, that their employers already paid in. they earned it. i say to the gentleman, i support this bill 1,000%. ohioans are waiting for their unemployment checks, but most of all, they want to go back to work. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i d not intended to speak yet again onhis subject but to heart last three speakers, clearly there appears to be -- hear the last three spke, clearly there appears to be confusion about unemployment checks and pay checks. what we've heard the speaker

said, i wish i had her exact quote in front of me, that essentially by putting out more unemployment checks that this is one of the best ways to create paychecks. i've never heard such circular logic in my life. now, clearly we need an extension unemployment. i mean, i must admit, i find it somewhat eye chronic thathe president of the united states brings -- iric that the president of t united states brings up three unemployed workers, to the best of my knowledge they've been unemployed during his president circumstances what a testament to his policies and the policies of this institution, again, between a national takeover of a health care plan, employers don't know how much their health care costs are going to be, they're not creating new jobs. threaten cap and trade, nobody knows what their energy costs are going to be. no new job creation. we have this financial regulatory bill. nobody know what is the cost of capital is going to be, particularly with a bureau that has the ability to ban and

ration credit for small businesses. you've got private business sitting on almost $2 trillion that could be employed for paychecks but instead once again due to the policies of my friends on the other side of the aisle we're having the debate on unemployment checks instead. and let me make sure that people aren't drowning from all the straw in the debate today. here's the debate. in the words of the democratic majority leader, are we going to engage in fiscal child abuse and borrow the money principal pli from the chy toes to pay for this, or are we not? that's the question. that is the on question that is before the house right now. are we going to borrow the money from our children and grandchildren, send them the bill, or are we going to pay for it today and quit using it on failed stimulus plans? that's the debate the american people -- debate, the ameran people are not confused and they want pay checks, not unemployment checks -- paychecks

and not unemployment check the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time -- or excuse me, i reserve the balance of my time and reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. for clarification sake, i assume the gentleman has no other members wishing to speak. then, mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. mr. speaker, this is about where we're going to pay for this or -- whether we're going to pay for this or not. consider that this is the eighth time this congress is going to extend these benefits. eighth time. that's an indication that the current economic policy this administration and this congress is a failure. i mentioned earlier the fact of the matter is we have a choice. we can do this in a fiscally responsible way or we can choose to run up additional debt on our children and grandchildren to the tune of $34 billion between now and november.

again, i think the president, president obama got it right in the statement of administration policy in november, 2009, when the unemployment benefit extension was actually paid for. gernings i'moing to quote what he said. fiscal responsibility is central to the medium term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill. now, if fiscal responsibility helps the economy and job creation, then fiscal irresponsibility of this bill before us will hurt the economy and job cation. i think the american people have spoken. they want us to do this but they want to us pay for it. let's do the right thing and actually pay for the spending we approve and help our economy grow, help job creation as the administrati said, a fiscally responsible approach is what's responsible approach is what's needed.