we can stop forcing nd cities to lay people off. we can continue the kind of policies that will help put some people back to work in the construction industry, such as in highways. we can also help get the people at the housing finance administration to stop resisting the administration with public housing. if there is cooperation. if we learn the lessons of the past we can make this economy work. and i will include one final point, and i'll be talking about this some more, one of the great successes we have seen in the past few years has been the policies under a bush appointee, benjamin bernanke, george w. bush's chief economic advisor, chairman of the federal reserve, chairman bernanke has pushed hard to have the federal reserve be a constructive force in our economy. people on the right in particular were saying it's going to cause terrible inflation. rarely in american history has a flat prediction been more wrong. the quantitative easing, the innovation of the fed has

produced no inflation. it has made money for the federal government. it hasn't cost us anything. it has been very helpful. . the fed has been setting a good example for europe. one of the best things that happened by europe lately is that people see the central bank was beginning to take some of the lessons from the u.s. federal reserve and work more like them. so if we stop trying to harass the federal reserve from the reasonable policies it's been following, if we stop forcing state and local governments to fire people who perform useful services and unfortunately added to the unemployment figures, if we would produce federal funding not to try to mediate a dispute in iraq but to build highways here and to clean up our water systems, and if we would ask the wealthiest people in america to give a little bit more, which they won't miss, but which will help us, then the good day we had today, it was a very good day in the economic news, i

notice even fox news begrungingly had to say -- 250,000 private sector jobs today. we can keep that up. maybe the 257,000 private sector jobs will become 3hand,000 and maybe we'll add 5,000 or 10,000 of those private sector jobs that we lost. and we are if this congress through an ideological rigidity that has been proven wrong by the facts does not interfere if we are supportive of the very sensible program that the president has laid out, independent appointed by the bush appointee, mr. bernanke, at the federal reserve. america will continue to have the best developed economy in the world. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 12:00 noon on monday next for morning hour

the senate will take up that agreement on monday with a final passage scheduled for 5:00 p.m. eastern. watch for live coverage of the senate on c-span2. [cheering] [applause] [laughter] >> this weekend, booktv and

american history tv explore the history of beaumont, where the texas oil industry got its start. author john robert on beaumont's's literary culture and the challenge of running an independent bookstore. and on american history tv, sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, january 11, 1901. the lucas gusher helped usher in the petroleum age. through the dixie hotel, an infamous brothel on crockets st.. beaumont, texas. this weekend on c-span2 and c- span3.

>> a house committee yesterday continue negotiations on continuing medicare payments to doctors. the tax cuts and expire at the end of this month. both sides agree on the need for an extension, but not on how to pay for it. as part of the package, air pollution regulations by the epa. they met for about one hour and 50 minutes. >> the meeting will come to order. good morning, everyone. i want to thank everyone for really good discussion yesterday. hopefully we can build on that this morning. for today's purposes, there are other issues we have yet to discuss. i do want to with knowledge that last night we received some proposals and we will get to those in a few minutes. it today's purposes,

includes reforms to the nation's primary welfare program. we have a provision in the house bill that includes federal regulations and cost jobs and honest appreciation, another jobs appropriation in the house bill. we have allowed about 30 minutes of time for discussion there. there will be 45 minutes of discussion, and 45 minutes on bonus depreciation. we will follow the same order as yesterday's. senate democrats followed by senate republicans. then house democrats followed by house republicans. i would like to open on the first topic. this is a policy i think we can come too fast agreement on. i want to know that last night

the house overwhelmingly passed legislation that would implement some of these important reforms with 395 house members voting yes, including all the house conferees on this conference. with that, i will turn this over to senator baucus to begin the discussion today. >> thank you. i think you love pretty much summarized it, chairman -- i think you have pretty much summarized, chairman. we agree with the changes that are unique to the program. that is for another day. here, we will extend for another year. we have implemented a couple of

minor changes, which i think are acceptable. those are minor changes for your. it does not cost taxpayers anything. it is pretty much a no-brainer to meet. -- to me. i think senator casey was going to say a few words? >> thank you, senator baucus, mr. chairman. i think this is a positive development that we are developing consensus. mr. chairman, you started this morning by reading what the words say, which is important. it is temporary assistance to needy families. i think it is about two issues are really. one is trying to achieve self- sufficiency in the lives of people who struggle, and also

getting people back to work, which is vital. that is the kind of consensus we are. this kind of program is a lifeline for families, especially those so devastated in the aftermath of this recession. i know there are a lot of florence b. committees of jurisdiction -- a lot of forums the committees of jurisdiction can deal with and will deal with. the democratic staff put together a report entitled "assessing the impact of the great recession on income and poverty across the state." obviously, it outlined the poverty, the poverty increases for all americans. but i thought it was unfortunately emblematic to highlight one or two of the points. 1 in -- one, in the report did

talk about children living in poverty. "the percentage of children living in poverty increased in 42 states." and that was measuring starting in 2007. so, this is really about families that lead lives of struggle and real pain. @ think it is important that we recognize that. i also think it is important that as we focus on the needs of this population, that we come together in a bipartisan way to extend this. i am happy to be part of this effort on behalf of the conference committee to extend this assistance for needy families, especially as it relates to children who were suffering in this recession. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. do you want to say anything? >> we may have a word to say

later, mr. chairman. >> we have quite a bit of time left. mr. 11? -- mr. levin? >> thank you. by the way, congressman van hollen is in a budget hearing and mr. bernanke is testifying. he decided to stay there for a little bit. he will be here as soon as possible. we need to extend this program. i will pick up, senator casey, with your comments. last year, only one in five poor children were receiving assistance. that is one in five.

i think it all shows should be mentioned -- it also should be mentioned, these are the figures that i have. since december 2008, the caseload has increased only rather lightly. from 2008, july, through 2011, june, the caseload increased by 15%, roughly 250,000 families. this is a time of exceptionally high unemployment. we are now trying to gather the figures. we do not have them. as to how many people have exhausted their unemployment insurance.

but it is far larger in number than those who have become part of the program. this underlines the absolute importance of our continuing the unemployment insurance program in this country. and that is why we very much voted against and criticized the house republican bill which would eliminate 40 weeks of unemployment insurance and would lead to almost 3 million people losing benefits compared to the extension of the present program. almost 3 million. so, it is an important program. it has not been the safety net

or the subsistence base for hundreds and hundreds of thousands people -- it has been the safety net for the subsistence hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who lost work through no fault of the rahm. the expense -- we need to realize is not the program -- the vast majority of the unemployed are not eligible. and the need to look elsewhere. and the only places they look for jobs that they can look to is the unemployment insurance program of this country. i think that is a sobering fact. let me mention a second point. it relates to the supplemental grants program.

in 1996, during the welfare reform debate, congress decided -- and i think wisely -- to establish what was called a supplemental program to provide some additional funding, staged in two categories. one was those days with very low benefits. so, some additional assistance was provided. and secondly, states that had a very high rate of growth, between 1990 and 1994. which on one of the conference committees i have been on -- and none of us here have been on very many. there of not been very many. i remembered somewhat. there were some groups that worked through these issues with some effectiveness.

there were some issues left unresolved, which some of us were unhappy about. part of the discussion related to the supplemental program, and that program has been continued, and it provides assistance to 17 states. let me just read them off. alabama, alaska, arizona, arkansas, colorado, florida, georgia, idaho, louisiana, mississippi, montana, nevada, new mexico, north carolina, tennessee, texas, and you talk. -- and utah. essentially those of us from states that had higher benefit said to ourselves "poor kids are a matter of concern, no matter

what state you represent." there had to be some additional provision to make sure that in those states where there are very, very low levels of assistance, that the kids did not go hungry. the program has been continued until mid-2011. as we look at this program and the extension, i think it would be wise to discuss whether the supplemental program should be continued. we need to look at the state's that would receive inadequate

assistance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will just say i appreciate the consensus i heard around the table this morning i ran extending the program. i think we are finding an area of agreement here. i think it is outside the -- i do want to point out those programs, the democratic majority passed, and president obama signed legislation in december to terminate the supplemental grants. i think we should bring those into this conference, which would include additional spending, given that we have yet to address the funding of the issues.

again, i think we have broad agreement on the concept of extending tanf. obviously, the data standardization has been identical to other legislation moving through congress. this is something that's bipartisan support has existed for, making sure that we get accurate information as it affects children and families. this legislation will do that. we will extend that safety net that was created in the 1990's. welfare reform legislation. with that, senator baucus, the time is yours. >> thank you. these are interesting microphones. they are very like to touch. it is also true, but the red light is the domestic red light i have ever seen in my life. -- dimmest read like i have ever

seen in my life. [laughter] i appreciate the comments. i think we should look at supplemental grants. we are probably going to need 60 days and in the senate anyway. the house rules committee can do what it wants. if we agree here, i have a hunch it will prevail. second, there is not a lot of money here. it is in the neighborhood of $100 million. it is also true, as congressman levin pointed out, some kids in some states are in much worse condition than kids in other states. i think we could work our way through that. i think now according to the program we are going to change the subject. >> if we are in agreement.

terminate. vote to what we did was to extend it through a certain period. that is number one. number two, in terms of scope, the tanf program is before us. the entire program is before us. i think it is unwise to say we cannot consider it. look, i just want to close with this. those of us who were here in years continued and reforms and changed the program -- and reforms and changed the program remember the debate very well. i do not think we want to go back over all of the details

there were some major issues that were resolved and some major issues that were not resolved, and there were some later changes to improve the program. and some of us who supported the welfare program were in phatic -- were emphatic about those additional changes. for people who are here legally, but the citizens. the supplemental program was an effort to look at the program in a national way. to acknowledge there are some states that have very low benefit levels. there are other states where the levels were higher.

and so, we made a decision not to simply say that those states that had inadequate benefits, clearly inadequate -- taxpayers in some states were decided it was a national need here. and senator baucus has said it did not involve a huge amount of money nationally, but in terms of the needed to protect the children, it was a substantial need. in the effort to find some balance. -- in the effort to find some balance, there were problems in

the final legislation. we had to judge john ballance -- we had to judge on balance for the kids of america. i do not think it is an issue of scope. it is an issue of need and of national commitment to the kids everywhere. thank you. >> very quickly, this is a provision that is not in either bill. we also want to point out that as part of the stimulus bill, the 17 states received almost $1 billion in additional funds for this, which represents about three years of spending through the program. there was a supplemental amount.

i think to repeat that amount -- it would be difficult given the financial problems that we face. and think we agree on the extension of the tanf program and i would like to work with staff on any technical issues to extend that. senator baucus, unless there are further comments, i would like to move to the regulatory provision which we have scheduled, for 45 minutes. >> that is right. >> i think it is important to keep this -- >> i am sorry. go ahead. >> i think it is important to keep it -- to keep it in

context. we are here to extend for one year the cut in the payroll tax. that is why we are here. as well as fixing the sgr. that is the primary reason we are here. and i think we have all been around here. most of us have not been around here long enough to know -- sometimes side issues reached an importance that is disproportionate for the issue at hand. we have five members of congress, each with their own point of view. some are held perry strongly. we have said that. need to keep in mind the principle for why we are here. so, let me turn to senator

carver. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with senator baucus of's initial comments. -- senator baucus's initial comments. let me talk about this for a moment. mac is the maximum allowable concentration. it seems any time there is a regulation proposed to deal with cleaning up the air from our polluters, there are those who say they cannot afford it and it will result in job loss. i think that is a big question. you can have clean air, and you can have job growth. the results of clean-air are

well-known. is a requirement of the regulatory structure. there is a peer review that gives us an overview of the cost and the benefit to society. last year, it was credited with preventing 86,00086,000 hospitae aborted because of the clean air regulations. 13 million days lost by employment was avoided because of the clean air act. the cost-benefit analysis we required to be done showed a 40-one cost benefit analysis. that is, 40 times more savings to society, than the cost of reducing the pollution. so let me dispel some of the mets, as it were -- pertains to boiler mact. first, there is this point that

last year the administration requested a delay from the courts, coming forward with regulations. they were required to come forward with regulations, and they did. they wanted more time to talk to the industry, so they took that time and did talk to the industry, and as a result, modified the regulation, and are now prepared to move forward with no need for additional delay. modifications are estimated to cost the industry about one half of what it would cost otherwise. they modified their original proposal. less than 1% of all the industrial boilers in america will have to take action under this regulation. 99%-plus will either be exempt or simply need to perform routine maintenance and tuneups. the administration changed the effective date of deregulation from 2014 to 2015 to give the

industry adequate time. there are those that say the cost of compliance will be in the tens of billions, that is not the case. the review process shows the implementation of boiler mact will save and help benefits alone somewhere between $27 billion to $67 billion, the cost of compliance, $2 billion, consistent with other regulatory issues regarding clean air. in 2015, the review indicates it will save 8100 premature deaths, 5100 heart attacks, 52,000 asthma attacks, by getting the pollution out of the air. mr. chairman, if i might, brandi lawson, the ceo of the american boilers' manufacturers association. he said, this holds a strong

promise to create additional, high paying skilled and unskilled domestic manufacturing jobs in boiler and associated industries. so, despite the attacks being made, clean air and getting the pollution out of the air will help our economy, it will keep us healthy, it is good for the economy, and it is good for help. i would urge us to remove this provision from the conference. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator cardin and i both serve on the dpw committee, discussed these issues in the past and we fundamentally disagree. to me, the epa continues to underestimate cost and overestimate benefits. the costs are real, both in

dollars and in terms of jobs. listen carefully to what he has said. i want to go back to what he said about this agreement. mact stands for maximum achievable control technology. this really ought to be a part of this. if we are talking about extending unemployment benefits, the number of people that will lose their jobs because of this regulation, which has now been evaluated three different times with the epa, in march 2011, december 2011, the second final regulation, and then the third version coming out, supposedly in april. then the court got involved. it is very difficult for anyone to try to comply with the confusing regulations coming out of this environment protection agency. the epa came up with a standard for each of the regulated emissions come in my opinion, a

jury picked what would be best for each of the different emissions, but the technology does not exist for all of the different emissions to the point where this has been talked about as a hypothetical boiler, because no boiler exists that complies with all of the maximum achievable control technologies for each of the admissions. the epa regulators come in my opinion, lacked a thorough understanding of boilers and mission technology when drafting the rules, which is why they had to go through different iterations. so we have a private sector expected to comply with these complex and costly rules by 2014. it is an unachievable, and by industry standards. the proper amount of time is probably five years, at the least, not two years into current rules proposed. to me, this is an economy-wide issue.

schools in our communities, hospitals, municipalities, apartment buildings, over 200,000 boilers will have to comply with the red tape. the provision simply provides the epa an additional 15 months. and this is not a partisan issue. this is something that has passed the house, 41 democrats co-sponsored. currently, 12 democrats sponsoring in the senate. the piece of legislation is identical with susan collins is working on. the economy cannot afford the rule either. the epa says that it will cost $5.4 billion. the epa says it will cost 3000 jobs. other private analysts come up with a number of over 230,000 jobs. i do not know what the right number is, but the epa says 3000, but the commerce department says it will be

between 40,000 and 60,000 jobs. if we're going to be extending unemployment, we have to do something that will put 60,000, by the administration's own numbers, onto the unemployment rolls. there are things we need to be doing today. as a doctor, the issue came up about as much, the index. it care is greater today than it was 30 years ago. -- that there -- the air is cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. i care about those patients i have taken care of. the impact of long-term unemployment has huge health costs as well, in terms of high blood pressure, heart disease, depression, spousal abuse. you can go through all the different impacts when someone is out of work for a long period of time. i think if we want to get people

back to work, we have to include this boiler mact proposal that the house has passed and there is bipartisan support of the senate and anything comes out of the committee. >> mr. levin? >> mr. waxman would like to lead off for us. >> mr. chairman, we are considering an extraneous provisions. it is not part of the major concerns before this group, and what it would do, it would allow our children to continue to be harmed by toxic mercury pollution. mercury pollution is more serious than asthma, although it is related to this as well. this is known as the boiler mact rule, and i do not think it has any place in the bill. i want to review one of the untold stories of this congress. over the past year, the house of representatives has relentlessly pursued the most anti-

environmental agenda in history. we voted 191 times to weaken environmental protections, more than one in five recorded votes in the house in 2011 undermine the nation's environmental protections. these votes attacked the laws that american families depend on. the house even voted to deny the climate change is occurring, as if congress has the power to determine the laws of nature. the house voted to exempt industrial mining operations and emissions of the asbestos and other toxic particles from regulation under the clean air act. the list goes on and on. the boiler mact provision is one of the worst of these anti- environmental measures, and has no place in this conference. in 1990, congress directed the

epa to control toxic air pollution's. we have a clear act in effect to deal with the police said that cause smog related issues and asthma, but this was an issue to deal with toxic air pollution. those pollutants that cause birth defects, cancer, neurological problems. solid-waste incinerators and industrial boilers should reduce their mercury, lead, and arsenic. that is when we adopted in 1990 and the epa is taking steps to address this life-threatening air pollution. public health standards will prevent up to 8100 premature deaths, 5100 heart attacks every year, pollution reduction required by the rules will yield up to $30 in health benefits for every dollar spent

to keep the standards. that is a pretty good deal. by reducing emissions of the potent neurotoxin mercury, the epa standards will protect our children from prenatal exposure that damages their ability to think and learn. the provision in the house bill that is before us would nullify and indefinitely delay these critically important health protections. we have been told -- and i suppose every book continue to be told -- these are job-killing regulations, but this creates jobs. crete's manufacturing jobs at factories that make the pollution control. it creates jobs across the country, installing and operating these controls. it means fewer people have to miss work because they have gotten sick from breeding in polluted air. you do not need to take my word for this. the american boy the

manufacturers' association told us new epa rules will be it " clearly job generators or those businesses across the country that install, repair, and tune up boilers and boiler systems." we do not need to choose between economic growth and environmental protection. 40 years of experience under the clean air act has proven we can have both a strong economy and clean air to breathe. considering this provision in this conference puts our primary task in jeopardy. the tracks as from the job the american people expect us to do, allowing incinerators and factories to emit more mercury pollution has nothing to do with extending a payroll tax relief to american families. it has nothing to do with extending unemployment insurance to millions of people of work. if they are out of work now and these rules are not even in a fact, -- a fact, we think it

will create jobs rather than decrease jobs. and that nothing to do with ensuring seniors on medicare can find a doctor they can afford. i hope we can put this provision aside and get on with the task before us. i just want to clarify one thing. this is really telling. epa has put up this rule in number of times. they have done it because they are talking to the industry. they continue to talk to the industry. they are taking those considerations into their judgment. this rule does not require anyone to install pollution control for a least three, four years. the thing i wanted to point out, what this provision in the house bill does, it nullifies

all of the epa rules that address air pollution and from solid waste incinerators, industrial boilers. the provision states, ", these rules are of no force or effect, shall be treated as those rules had never taken effect. that is the first in the house bill does. the second thing the provision says, compliance with the new rules cannot be required earlier than the five years after the effective date of such rules. they do not even specify there is ever a deadline for compliance. it is beating these rules to death and making sure you never have anything to control the toxic pollution that affects our kids and can do such charm. i think it is inappropriate to adopt this role at all. certainly in the context of this conference, if it causes a great deal of problems. i do not think we should add to

our burdens. urge that we reject it. >> chairman upton. >> i appreciate participating in the hearing. i want to add a couple of new things that have not been said. it is important, in the house, i remind our senate colleagues, that we move this legislation through regular hearings, house floor debate, though, lots of amendments, passed 275-142, in october. there was mention of a bipartisan bill in the senate. i want to list the democratic sponsors, co-sponsors of the bill. it is virtually the same as the house bill. they have co-sponsored most rigid legislation within the

republicans. we believe this vote, if allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines, maybe two-one, as it has in the house. yesterday, i received a letter signed by 360 different organizations. i have to imagine, every member's home state that asked us to include this epa regulatory relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. they cite jeopardizing critically needed jobs and have it could cost billions of dollars without delay and that the epa asked for themselves. it talks about serious legal uncertainties, particularly with the january 9, 2012 decision overturning epa's rules. yet another example of the

continuing morass of uncertainty surrounding the rules. inadequate capital planning time, biomass material still not listed as fuels, and adequate time for epa to finalize a the rules, let alone even read the thsands of comments coming in. this is about jobs, billions of dollars, certainly in terms of the impact on lots of industries. we even heard from notre dame university, who came to testify on their millions in expenses. under these rules and regulations, they would probably be out of compliance and are wondering how they will find the money for their campus buildings in northern indiana. our belief is this ought to be included as part of the bill. again, we did regular order in the house, something that has strong bipartisan support. i yelled back. >> senator baucus?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me just point out a couple of things. the legislation you are referring to was filed prior to the and ministration's request where they were asking for additional time to meet with the industry and make modifications. since that was filed, they did meet with the industry, did make modifications, and we are prepared to move forward. university boilers are no longer in the regulation, so we need to update where we are today rather than going back to where we were one year ago. let me point out to senator barrasso, the number -- again, you are referring to some of the provisions in the original regulation that had been modified. the numbers are nowhere near 200,000. it is about 1700 that are

estimated will need to make modifications in order to comply with the regulation. the major point i would argue -- i understand we all have our own views -- but i thing we should base our decisions on best science. we asked the epa to do a 40-year look back to the effects of the clean air act, something we all wanted to see. the scientific advisory committee was the one that did that. scientists, not us, who may have philosophical views. that is where the numbers come on the premature deaths that have been avoided, as the text avoided. i understand your numbers. when a mother has to leave were to pick up their job because of an asthma attack, that has an impact on our economy. that is what the scientific advisory committee based their cost analysis, and we're saving in hospitalizations, premature death, loss of work days, and

their number has consistently been -- this is not looking forward. i remember the debate on acid rain. it did not cost any jobs. it kept people healthy. i would like to have a lot of programs that give us a 40-1 return. $40 for every dollar that we spend. that is what the experts are telling us. i do not think we have to get into much more of the substance here. it should not be in this legislation, and i hope we do not pass -- i hope we pass legislation that prevents this from occurring. >> i think, to be honest, the point is, these rules create jobs and also take away jobs. certainly, it is a tough rule. it will create a lot of new jobs in technologies, it will also hurt some companies. no question about that.

it is up to us to think through all of this, see what is going on. in my judgment, the new rules that the epa has promulgated make a lot more sense than the first rules. the new rules are not nearly as burdensome. the rules were promulgated in 2011 which cost $2.9 billion on an annual basis. the subsequent rules, 2012, that the agency is considering, about half that. about $1.4 billion. in the state of montana, there are several particle board and plywood plants. they tell us, under the first

version, it would cost about $11 million to put in. in the second set of rules, $1 million. in the first act, more than their annual payroll, capital costs would be more than annual payroll. it would be extremely difficult to deal with. they are not wild about the second set of rules, but they can live with them. i believe, frankly, has most issues, there is truth in both sides. i want to cut through and get the facts to do something in this hearing. for me, looking at the facts, because epa will promulgate this new rule in may of this year, we

do want to tighten up standards. under the law, we all know requ, to come up with the top 12% of technologies across the country in the certain category. it is hard to keep on coming up with the top 12% every year. pretty soon, you get to zero. it is an interesting law that we wrote back then. my sense is, based upon my experience in my state, with the epa over the years, this new rule will probably go into effect in may of this year, and is the better of many choices.

i do not know why we do not have a provision in the bill which changes that. basically, we are here to deal with the payroll tax issue and not take on something that can be handled in other venues more appropriately. >> i think one of the republican senators have something to say. >> if they have to go to the top 12% year after year, -- every eight years -- the costs continue, become more, the benefits become less and more theoretical. >> exactly, and that is why this needs to be in here. the costs are real and the benefits are less and less. >> we can do another round.

i thought we would keep moving and then go to senator levin, mr. brady, and then come back. >> i will leave my comments for the third round. i know mr. basara has some comments. >> the two are going to put the second round? >> is this on? chairman, to me, i am going to keep this drumbeat going. we have work to do and we are on clock. today is the second of february. we have 27 days before our authority expires, to extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million

working taxpaying americans, to extend the insurance benefits for up to 5 million americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and to make sure 48 million seniors in our country continue to have access to the doctor they have come to count on under medicare. the little secret that all of us know in this room, that most americans do not know, is we do not have 27 days. in the house, we have no more than 13 legislative days left before the end of the month. on the house side, and i suspect the senate is similar in terms of the number of legislative working days you have, we are down to about 13 days of actual work to be done before the clock runs out, not on us. i daresay 20 of us will not feel the effects of failure, but the 160 million working, taxpaying

americans will not get the payroll tax credit extension. 5 million americans desperately looking for work lost their jobs ternopol of their own, 40 million seniors who expect to be able to go to their doctor. as i said at the beginning, there are some areas where i think we have found the sweet spot. those three items we mentioned, there seems to be clear agreement that we should extend those. there are some areas where there is clear controversy. we touched on those yesterday with regard to these changes to the unemployment insurance programs with the short time we have when some of these ideas have been out there for quite some time. we should do those that are common sense, the improvements we can all agree on. we should not let controversial items put at risk a lifeline that 160 million american working families are counting on, the lifeline that some 5

million americans are desperate for, so they continue to search for a job. 48 billion seniors wondering, what did i do to be caught in a situation where i may not be able to go to my doctor anymore? i would encourage us that we have no more than 13 legislative days left before the clock runs out on us, that we focus on the sweet spot, and that is getting work done that most americans expect of us. i know there are issues both ways, and it is a bipartisan issue in some respects, but i do not think we are going to resolve it easily, the 20 of us. this has been going on for quite some time. i would urge us to refocus on the three things that most americans expect us to get done by the end of the month. i would really urge that. >> thank you. mr. brady? we will go to the third round.

>> thank you. let me talk about some of those extraneous workers. there is a small town in texas, population 1480. i checked this morning. the major employer there is a paper mill. 700 union workers, steel workers. they produced paper products. if he stopped by starbucks this morning or you put a deuced bug in your kids' lunch, you're probably familiar with what they produce. they compete internationally, very tight margins. for many years, they were barely breaking even, but their plan manager worked with the unions, they streamlined themselves, they are as productive as anywhere in the country. now they are profitable. not only are they profitable, almost half of everything they produce, they are competing and selling, and winning in china. one out of every two union workers at the mill is competing

and winning in china. one of the ways it became competitive was becoming self- sufficient. the use of renewable energy, biomass, from the forest floor, which keeps it help a, a byproduct of what they produce. completely self-sufficient. but this rule, so rushed through, jeopardize is that plant and the jobs because it put a timetable in a timeframe that they cannot afford. about $20 million to update these two boilers. secondly, the regulation is so poorly written that those wood chips are considered to be incinerator waste and not biofuel and renewable fuel. so that waste will either go to a landfill or it will stay on at

the forest floor where it either becomes -- provides the forest a risk of fire or more disease. it makes no sense to move forward with this rule. the house provision is pretty common cents. let's take a little more time to get the rule right and then a little more time for plants like this -- in this case, it allows them to update the first one, evaluate the results and to a partial upgrade. they will get the standard but they will do it without becoming un competitive in this global market and they will be able to keep using renewable energy. these workers are not extraneous to this discussion. they are concerned about the payroll tax because they want to have a payroll. they want to stay competitive worldwide. my thought is we have had so

many speeches in congress, committing to american manufacturing here at home. here we have a common-sense opportunity to protect those types of jobs and about 20,000 of them here in the u.s. with thoughtful regulation, the time to get it right, and give these companies an inch more time to do this. i think this is a critical part of this provision. >> mr. chairman, one of the issues i think here is what role are we talking about. the original rule as proposed or the rule that has been revised with collaboration from industry and is much more focused? as a subcommittee chairman for the appropriations committee, i had the occasion to listen to

lots of proposals last year. with respect to this issue, we concluded, and this is the language from the final consolidation appropriation acts, "the conferees are encouraged by the outcome of the consideration of the boiler mact rule and offer no director for boiler mact standards. including additional flexibility for biomass exemption." the last time we took up this issue, the conclusion was epa was making progress. i think we should continue to .heallow them to make progress i yield my time back. >> we have about three minutes left. i will give it to senator cardin.

>> i just want to reinforce what was said. we were in agreement that we wanted more time to get that rule right. well, we got the time in consultation with the industry. the biomass issue in the revised rule. >> i think we have a little time left. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have gone through the rules from december. i know what gm mccarthy had to say. the rules continue to be poorly written and rushed through which is what congressman brady said. the new december rules are more complex, and they have added more categories. the costs overall when you total up the whole thing is actually go up. there is about 1.5 million

boilers in the in united states, and 14% of them are going to be covered by the new rules. and the job losses are the biggest thing that i continue to look for. all of the letters that members of congress got with lists of companies that are going to lose jobs or have to close down just like the story we heard about the small company in a small town in mr. brady's district. this is the real issue. if we talk about extending unemployment insurance -- to add to that list, it is going to make our job even more difficult and make the cost of this proposal order to deal with and cost american families in terms of jobs and income. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have agreed we will give

everybody a chance to say a few words. we do not have this formal allocation of time. >> we have about seven minutes left on the clock on this issue. >> we will be brief. there are a few of us who wanted to speak. do you want to go first? >> hearing this conversation, i come into this debate as someone who believes very strongly that we can have a strong economy and strong environmental protections. there are jobs created to prepare these boilers and bring them up to grade. those are real jobs as well. there have been modifications made by the epa. they have tried to work to cut costs and increase flexibility.

i think they responded to some of the concerns that were raised. in this particular moment in time, this debate should be taken place somewhere else. it has already taken place in the house. the senate has not had an opportunity to go through those closed rules and they could. again, we are really should be focused right now. we should be focused on the major issues before us. i think we have talked about that. the payroll tax made a commitment to continue that tax cut for 160 million americans. the millions of americans that are on extended unemployment who want to get back to work but are struggling right now are counting on us. we only have a couple of weeks to get this done. and access to doctors for 40

million seniors is a major issue. it is a huge amount of work for us to get done and to pay for it. right now, given the debate, given the response from the epa, given the difference of opinion about whether you can have a strong economy and a strong environmental protection, i think history shows that we can have both and we should. i believe that we should not even be having this discussion and including the boiler mact legislation as written in this legislation. >> i'd still think there are some issues outstanding on this matter. especially in my part of the world in the northwest, we use a lot of biomass in our boilers. in a document from february 1, after the revised rules, the

biomass materials are still not listed as a fuel. if you are a plywood manufacturing plants, they have three boilers. they use the scraps in a very efficient system to help generate the power that they use. they told me when i was there that because of the uncertainty, they may have to retool and these boilers at a cost of a million or two apiece. the way they run their plant is not at the peak efficiency which is how epa measures their emissions. they go up and down as the material goes through. they are not convinced they can meet the correct rules on the books. now with the revised rules not including biomass materials, those could be regulated under the incinerator rules. we are here about extending the

unemployment benefits. the house passed a bill. we are here to make sure seniors can see their physicians. we are here to deal with the middle-class tax cut. but we are also fundamentally sent here to figure out how not to send more manufacturing jobs overseas. manufacturing employment has dropped to the lowest level in the united states since 1941. we have shed 600,000 jobs in the last three years in the manufacturing sector. a lot of the pollution we are talking about comes across from countries that we are trying to compete with like china. that is where a lot of the airborne mercury and others come from. if i were in the boiler manufacturing installation business, i would love to have the government picked me as a

winner. i would have loved if the government said to everybody out there that you have to buy a certain number of radio ads. that would have created a number of jobs for me. having been a small business owner for 22 years and having dealt with rules and regulations, it is hard to sign this payroll checks every month and keep the business going. i am glad we are addressing this important issue. we all want clean air and health. you cannot keep shifting these jobs overseas. i yield back. >> all right. we do not have a lot of time left. i am prepared to move forward on to the next issue. our positions are pretty clear here unless there is some objection. closing t we do quick from the house democrats and

house senators? why don't we do one last round of quick closing comments? senator baucus. >> i think most everything has been said. >> i would agree. >> i did not hear "uncle." >> i have nothing else to. >> all right. mr. waxman, if you want to come up briefly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in 1990, we passed a law saying the deal with these toxic air pollutants. it took 21 years for the epa to come up with a world bank and 2011. there was a lot of controversy about this rule. epa is hearing from the industries and the members of congress are hearing from the industry's. a lot of what the members are hearing about are no longer

valid. mr. brady talked about woodchips. that has been changed. senator baucus and senator barrasso talked about standards being changed. this is the first time that this is being scheduled. we have never had any standard. that epa wrote to the senate on january 18 that the epa can and will use legally available and tools to address compliance concerns that boilers and incinerators subject to the rules subject to the result of a court decision and they are still talking to the industry. the rules will only be finalized until april or may so the industry cannot comply to these rules does not make sense because we do not know what the final rules are going to be. i do not think congress should take the action now to say that

you cannot adopt rules. the problem is not choosing winners or losers, the boiler manufacturers or the operators. it is to protect children, children who are exposed pre- made early to neurotoxic mercury. let the senate hold a hearing on it and get the final information and then see if the people who are co-sponsors believe the bill is necessary because i think a lot of people will say the bill is no longer necessary. i do not think we should adopt it in this conference. >> a letter that we received this past week. the bottom line is existing rules do not allow adequate time to review in compliance.

the time is limited, giving businesses a five years to comply with rules preventing the closure of several of these facilities that would serve as cornerstones of rural communities. in a study released last week, they still claim that the cost is going to be over $14 billion, and that a bit less with the revised rules and then itan it was before. this is not something we should turn our backs on. >> let's turn to our final topic of the day. the house provision to extend 100%, a provision that permits employers to write off investments and qualifying capital expenditures during the year for purchase rather than overtime. with the economy continuing to

struggle, too many americans are looking for work, so it is provisions like this that can help businesses invest and grow their businesses and create jobs. this provision in the house has been supported by the president and maintains strong support from many employers and businesses. why don't we start on this discussion with senator baucus? >> i will defer to senator crapo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will try to be briefed. this hopefully is one of the provisions that we will be able to develop early and strong support and a consensus. a number of times during the past decade, congress has responded to difficult economic times by allowing capital formation to be given a strong boost through changing the

depreciation provisions in our tax code, allowing small businesses and businesses to depreciate on a more rapid basis of their investments in equipment and machinery that will enable them not only to maintain their production but to grow and develop more jobs. just as a reminder, the current law developed during the december 2010 compromises enacted 100% bonus depreciation for the year 2011 and a 50% bonus depreciation for 2012. what the house bill does which is what i am supporting and hopefully we reach agreement on is to extend that bonus depreciation through the entire year of 2012. as you have indicated, this is something that the president has proposed in his american jobs at. although the senate bill is silent on this issue, i think

there has been expressed support on this significantly. this is one of the win-win solutions that we can enact that will help across the board. businesses can invest in more capital assets. the formation is one of the critical things we need in our efforts to strengthen our economy and boost the number of jobs that are available. also, in october 2010, a study estimated that 100% expensing would lower the cost for average capital for new investments by 75%. that is the kind of incentive we need to be providing for the private sector to be able to engage in capital formation and generate the jobs that we are trying to address. it is also cost effective. the depreciation will ultimately be recovered, allowing businesses to take larger

deductions for their expenses which means they will not be taking deductions in the future which means we will recover most of this. the cost of this proposal if we look at the cumulative effect through 2020 to to look at what will be happening as the businesses depreciate their equipment through out the entire time, the revenue drops from $6 billion down to $5 billion. we will be recovering much, not all, but much of the revenue lost in this provision. we will be allowing a strong be boost to capital formation. i encourage us to quickly agree to it. thank you. >> colleagues, i think it makes sense.

i do not know the degree to which companies will use it. we always hear about the $1 trillion to $2 trillion in cash that american companies have. maybe they will spend some of it with this provision. it is hard to tell. there are some estimates that this provision is used much more when the economy is prosperous and unemployment is low, when consumers are buying goods and companies are hiring and making money. expenses at work best when your company is profitable and you have taxes to pay. when the economy is not doing quite as well, 100% expense and is not as important, there is not as much bang for the buck. but it probably helps. i think we should adopt it. i might add parenthetically that

there are estimates from organizations that, dollar for dollar, the greater bang for the buck is the payroll tax. it is important. no doubt about it. there are a few other provisions that have a greater positive impact on the margin. i think it is important for us to extend this so-called extenders. it is an embarrassment, mr. chairman, -- i think it is 130 of them. they are either a one-year or 18-months that congress considers this question. any american business person or any american wonders whether or not this is going to be extended

next year is wondering why in the world are these not permanent or eliminated. say nothing of the banks and turmoil and frustration. nevertheless, they are here. there are some that are very, very important. they should clearly be extended. these help the economy. let's take the tax credit for example. very, very important to our country's competitiveness. i think it should be extended. there are others. what about equity? some states have income taxes. other states do not have income taxes. they have sales taxes. for the sake of fairness, we should adopt that provision. not too long ago, states had the option.

taxpayers could decide based upon your state. clearly, that is extremely important to those states where there is no income tax but just sales tax so people can have that option available. education expenses. my gosh. the number of americans who are suffering trying to meet education costs these days. there are provisions that help americans send their kids to college. in 2009, there were 2.4 million families receiving tax relief from one of these extenders. i mention the state and local deduction. we have to find a way to continue these extenders' now. we are coming out of a recession.

if we suddenly cut them off, it will leave a lot of people high and dry. they are good policy. there are some in here that are a little shaky. maybe we should shake them out of the code. let's be smart about this. let's keep our heads screwed on straight and are feed on the ground. i think that means extending these extenders. most of them should be extended. >> thank you. i do want to comment on that. i am sympathetic to what you have to say about the extenders have been worked on them for a number of years and knowing the importance of some many of them. some are more controversial than others. my view is these are outside the

conference. we have heard from a number of speakers today about how we should not be expanding our scope, that we should stay focused on the issues of importance. but i would be interested, of those few imported ones that you suggested, discussing further with you what you think those are. i do want to say there has been a change in the way we deal with these. our house budget rules now require that all extenders' the offset. we know we have identified in terms of trying to find -- we know the difficulties ahead in trying to find ways to pay for the issues at hand and the issues we have identified. i know this would further complicate our charge.

i would be interested in discussing further with you what -- >> i think that is a good idea. this sped up to a significant degree the tax reforms that you and i are taking this year. i think it is the wiser alternative at this point to continue those discussions. >> all right. mr. levin. >> mr. van hollen is going to comment. >> thank you, mr. levin. i just want to start by emphasizing a point where i hope we will eventually have consensus, where our priorities should be on the three items that were mentioned. extending the payroll tax cut, extending unemployment insurance for folks who are out of work, and it deals with the doc fix.

it seems to me that the next round of issues, if there are to be any, should be those that we have consensus so we are not slowing down the priority work and focus on the other 3. we just had a conversation on the boiler mact rules. clearly there is a difference of opinion that that would slow the process down. with respect to bonus depreciation, i agree. i think there is a very strong argument to be made for bonus depreciation especially as the economy remains in a fragile state. you laid out some statistics from the treasury department. it makes sense. there may be some extenders with a -- where there could be a consensus. we have been focused here on the policy issues.

there is a very important question about whether, to what extent we offset some of these things and where we do offset them, how we do it. i think it is easy for all of us to agree that bonus depreciation is a good thing, it will raise other issues if there is an insistence on paying for that with something that may hurt the economy in another place or may have-of fax and other areas. -- may have negative effects in other areas. i say, yes, let's go for. i qualify by circling back to what i said. our focus needs to be on the payroll tax cut unemployment compensation, and the doc fix. slow down those priorities that

i think we may have different answers to our questions. >> mr. reed. >> thank you for those comments. what i would like to say on this issue as a new member of congress coming at this from a small business perspective, this makes good sense. i can tell you as i sat in my office, and i would put my capital budget together about making the decision to make big investments in your business, this makes a difference. with that investment, we are talking about new jobs, bringing in new people, the people who have to build those acquisitions that will go into the operation, and it also strengthens the operation long- term because these are not assets that will be used up in the short term. they will strengthen the business or my business when we

improved them which meant i could compete on a longer-term and stronger basis. this makes great sense. i am glad to see bipartisan support on this. i am glad to see that maybe this can be an example of us becoming stronger through this committee, having some success like this. i look forward to a conclusion in the ultimate product that we get to. the focus needs to be on the three, but at the same time we are achieving those three items, i think this is another success story that can mean the start of an agreement, bipartisan, and working together. this could be the door opener that we are looking for. >> listening to the speaker, i think we have a lot of consensus on this issue. i am prepared at this point to move forward.

another round? all right. senator baucus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. there is a great deal of consensus, and certainly agree with my colleague fro. i agree on the priorities. i certainly support the bonus depreciation. i am somewhat confused about the house rules. i thought your house rules allowed to extend the tax breaks for the highest income people without any offsets. maybe i was wrong about that. now you have longstanding tax policies so you have to have offsets. i know that is for a different day, but i would think that there would be a different standard used when we are talking about extending current

policies that have been longstanding. i think that is an issue that has to be coupled with this discussion. i know we are trying to get the policy did day. i agree that how we offset this is very much affecting our decisions on some of these determinations. i want to speak in support of senator baucus' point, that there are text extender policies that we need to take up now. the lack of predictability cost us our economy. so if you are a business owner, and there was one that i was with yesterday when we brought in some of our small business leaders, the ceo of a small steel company that makes steel products. 100% american, including the operating machinery that they use. they produce a product that is a high-quality product that is sold in america and around the

world. this is what we want, to expand manufacturing. the first thing that the ceo said to me that would be important to have predictability on the credit. they are high quality. they invest money in research. the failure to extend this is affecting their business. i am all for the discussions of tax reform. but realistically, we are not going to get that done this month. i think we should look at those expiring tax provisions to see what we can do. i worked with senator levin and i was in the house on that particular issue. it is important for those people finding it difficult to find jobs. i want to talk about the green energy extenders' because this is an issue i hope we could include in our package.

we are still trying to catch up to have a level playing field on all sources of energy. we are not. the gas and oil industries have incredible incentives. we are trying to make this country energy secure. the opportunity now to invest in renewable energies is it very much compromised by the expiration of the tax incentives that help produce alternative, renewable energy sources. this is an issue i have heard from more members of the senate, both democrats and republicans, telling me please bring this up, that it is affecting their manufacturing, that they are starting to pull back on commitments of wind energy. that nisei a couple of things that may not become obvious then that -- let me say a couple of things that may not become

obvious. we have an opportunity in maryland to move forward with a facility. it cannot be put into service until the first quarter of 2014. therefore, the tax credit has expired. we need to give predictability if we want investors to go into that field. wind expires in 2012. you cannot move forward with a project to date because you cannot put in the service until 2014. i urge us to give predictability to the industry. the wind industry is already announcing layoffs. $60 billion was invested in wind projects since 2005. the amount of wind turbine production -- it is now 60%. we are talking about manufacturing jobs as well as

the energy sources. lastly, let me mention the transit extension which affects all of our communities. until january of this year, a person who used transit to commute rather than bringing their cars and parking were able to deduct up to $230 a month. now, some people say we will fix this retroactively. if you live next to chris van hollen in montgomery county, md., and you commute to the capital, it costs you about $200 a month. you can only deduct now only $125. people are making decisions now to drive their cars into the seat that is going to have a cost factor on our infrastructure. we need to take of those types of issues now for the sake of

our environment and for the sake of our economy. i would just urge us to understand the penalty that we pay when we have a lapse in these provisions. we pay a cost for 8. i hope that we would have an opportunity to take of these issues in a responsible way and not lose focus of the three principal objectives that we have to get done. >> all right. i think it is the republicans' turn at this opportunity. we will continue to move around. >> i have a question. do any of you here want to tackle the text extenders before we have completed our work?

>> i would like to summarize the discussion in relating to our focus. i think we have to keep our eye on the bal. -- ball. the three major issues need to resolved and resolved wisely. and policy will very much be related to pay for us. and trying to separate them out i think will turn out to be artificial. and that is why we need to keep our eye on the ball on the three major issues before us. and one of them -- senator barrasso, you're here. i want to say something to you. as to unemployment and the tradition of considering it an

emergency, as you were talking as a member and a physician, the impact of long-term unemployment on families, you said it passionately from your own experience. it has to do with health. it has to do with the spirit within a family and all that is related to it. it just struck me that we should very much, as we consider this issue, remember those words. we have an historical the high number, high percentage of long- term unemployed in this country. as we look at the 5 million people to 6 million people, almost 50% long term unemployed, we need to remember they are not numbers. they our families.

to talk about eliminating weeks starting right away from long- term unemployed i think is a serious blow not only to the national economy but to millions of individuals and their families. and so we have with that an absolute need to keep our eye on the ball, as we do on the payroll tax and sgr. you and i have worked on extenders it seemed like forever - it seems like forever. i do not think the main issue should be scope. conference committees have usually found ways to handle critical issues before them. but i do think our first order of business is to address

affectively effectively the three issues before us. then we can discuss other issues on how we pay for things, what our priorities are, and how we fit things together. as javier said, we have to remind ourselves of the urgency here and the time limits because there is no one around this table who wants us to fail. no one. thank you. >> i appreciate those comments. this time frame is really about peronist depreciation. i realize there are a lot of things that we want to -- about bonus depreciation. i realize there are a lot of things that we want to talk about. we know what those issues are.

this is a strict scope of conference because we have so little time to resolve these issues. it is not in the house bill, in the senate bill, or before this conference. >> thank you. i wanted to respond to the comment about what has changed in regards to the tax policy and planning for things that we do in this conference. as a member of the freshman class and as a member of all of us here, we are now operating in a different time. there is a fiscal crisis looming on our horizon. i do not think anyone disagrees with the threat of national debt to our nation and what is coming down the pipeline. i am proud to be part of a new group of members of congress and as members who used to be there are not talking the language that we talk and we now have to pay for our decisions in

washington. if it is refreshing to having to answer the question as to why the policy shifted from yesterday to today. i think there is a new mentality in the house that we have to pay for our decisions out of washington. i think that is what the american people expect us to do. that is a significant change in the culture of b.c. that i am hearing from some many people. i think if we continue down that vein, we will be able to accomplish great things for america and prevent that fiscal crisis. >> again, on bonus depreciation, i think i have heard a fair amount of consensus on that issue. i am prepared to move forward on any other items that senator baucus would like to discuss. senator casey. >> i have less than a minute so

it will be quick. it is not 100% expensing. i just wanted to cite a real person in the real world. on december 22, a bloomberg reporter wrote the following. she talked about campbell fittings, a maker of couplings using a tax break to buy equipment that allowed the business 50 miles northwest of philadelphia to offer more innovative products at a lower cost to be able to compete with its rivals'. here is what the executive vice president said. "is putting people to work right now." that is all i need to say about this. is it is a great idea. >> i think senator baucus is a

senate republican. >> i wanted to make a comment on a difference [inaudible] i have noted the size of the water bottles. i want the record to reflect that the senate is going big. [applause] [laughter] >> some of you have not taken a step. >> we will go to mr. levin. if there is no one else, i think we have concluded in this round of discussion on bonus depreciation. i think there may be some other items that you want to discuss. >> i would like to submit a senate offer and pass it out. there have been a lot of discussions about redeployment,

work sharing, self-employment assistance. it is my suggestion that the house offer a consideration to see if perhaps the house agrees in the next session or to work on some way of getting these provisions passed. this is just a good-faith effort to get the ball rolling here. so we are actually doing something on one of the three major issues. >> thank you. oh, i am sorry. >> mr. chairman, very quickly.

i want to commend you and senator baucus for setting the tone and directing us to accomplish principal conclusions. by i again thank you for that. -- i again thank you for that. the offer submitted represents proposals made by the house that are very constructive. some proposal that we have made in the senate which i think also will lead to it. i think it represents a balance of constructive improvements. in terms of the scope, the extent of what it is paid for or how to pay for it not at all in terms of spending, but i think this is a good way to begin what you have indicated as your goal in coming to a principle the resolution of critical issues.

this is the most top issues. i just wanted to -- i know you will -- ask for your thoughtful consideration. >> this is a bipartisan offer. >> i thank you very much for the offer. thank you for the proposal and the spirit in which it was made. i think this begins to bridge the gap. some of the bigger issues are on the technical terms. i think if we can commit our staff to do some additional work, i think we can come to a conclusion on these technical items. i realize the immediate describes them as second-tier, but i know we still have outstanding some of this bigger issues -- unemployment, benefits -- do you need to get a ged to

enroll in that process, and the drug screening and benefits. we did spend some time on those issues yesterday. i think if it is possible, what i would like to ask the senate as staff works on these issues, if we could work on a proposal in the senate on these bigger issues contained in the house bill sometime tomorrow we could begin to review not only these technical items but also these bigger issues. i would say that these would move us significantly forward. we know the cost bill costs about $26 billion going forward. i know just glancing at some of these items in here, there would be additional spending included in those. as we look at the number of weeks, if we looked at the

president's proposal, that is roughly another 10 billion additional dollars. i know there are more that would like to go more than that. if we could no a senate position beginning on these tier-one issues, i think that would be a necessary step to help us move forward. i would like to direct the staffs to work on this proposal that has been made. i think it's a positive step forward, and i think there are some cosmetic -- some common areas in it. i do see some potential there. so, thank you. >> i do not know if i heard you correctly. your thought was what? >> we direct the staffs -- >yes, that we direct the staffs

to work on what you presented to us. i think we can begin to have them prepare that so we could have a dialogue on the proposal and then move forward on some of these, for the lack of a better word, thes tier-one issues and have a senate proposal. the house has a statement on this issues. we had a good discussion on these issues, but at least begin a proposal on this tier one issues that we could -- >> i will consult it with my senate colleagues. >> yes, not today. >> i understand that. i think it is not a bad idea. you can expect that you will see that at an appropriate time --

>> i understand. >> because we are going to have to confirm. you will get that offer. >> first of all, on these proposals here, these provisions, i do hope the stats will work together on them. i have ask our staff to begin to these. at some of for example, what the states are now doing. i think the fact that virtually every state is now undertaking assistance for work search, and one of the issues is whether the provisions should relate to the state benefits as well as the federal program. i think the states now have -- are doing this in terms of

unemployment insurance. the same is true for redeployment services. although i think they have been very much handicapped by the lack of funding. as was mentioned here, funding remains open on several of the other proposals. in terms of the larger issues, let me express my hope that we will set a pattern of the house and senate working together. the only way we are going to succeed here is by having an effort that involves democrats and republicans in the senate and in the house. and i hope on these big three issues that that will be the pattern. i mentioned the welfare reform issue some years ago. that was what was done on some

of the issues that i remembered. it was very controversial. if it was not easy. there were differences in opinion. but we sat down and talk through these issues -- democrats, republicans, house and senate together. i hope as we proceed here is that there will be the full list back and forth between the house and the senate democrats and republicans. i hope everybody, whether they are democrats or republicans, will proceed with that spirit. this is the only way we will resolve those issues and do so this month. >> i want to thank the senate for this proposal and taking this step. again, i think we can begin to work on these issues as we look for the development of the

others. >> just quickly, mr. chairman. i think we have a basis here with these issues. in good faith, i think we can come to an agreement. that may be a predicate to other larger issues with there is less consensus. in terms of the three larger issues, they are so interrelated in terms of how much we will have to spend, how long programs are in effect. it might be very difficult to sort of put one before the other in terms of final resolutions because they are so closely related. my suggestion is let's see if we can make real progress on this first set of issues. then we will have to deal with issues ine u.i. terms of what we are going to do

on the payroll tax, the doc fix, etc. >> we have to work on them concurrently because time is limited. one is at a staff level. the other is at the member level. hopefully those can be going on at the same time. because the senate bill was silent on some many of these issues, we can begin to talk about how we resolve what we know our differences. we heard yesterday and today on these issues. >> these are all member issues. all three of these big subjects are member issues. i think the staff should work, but we need to find a way to find the full list exchange among members. >> i think there is an

understanding of what is going on. i will be prepared to adjourn this meeting. we are now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> temporary extensions agreed to in december expire at the end of the month. an agreement on spending cuts and revenue increases to pay for

the extension has not been reached. c-span will continue to bring you coverage of future meetings of this conference committee, and you can watch any of the coverage online at our video library at c-span.org. c-span's wrote to the white house political coverage takes you to the events. >> over 1800 vitos. we balanced the budget every single year and we kept our schools first in the nation. my leadership will begin a new era of american prosperity. >> there>> there is a mess in washington. they have given us a lousy recession. people are beginning to realize

we need more personal liberties. >> if you are prepared to do what it takes to make sure we change direction, not just the presidency, but the congress, the bureaucracy, the policies, so the entire system gets on the right track so that america can give our children and grandchildren a more prosperous, safer, and better future. >> follow the candidates as they meet with voters. >> thank you so much. >> go ahead. >> use our website to see recent video and read the latest postings from soci media sites. >> we have a responsibility.

you have a responsibility. can you create anything you want in literature and feel comfortable with the creation? or do you decide you cannot offend anybody? >> professor foster on saturday night. he changed the reading habits of americans. a look at the life of henry luce. the gusher quickly makes texas the leading oil-producing state. american history tv this weekend

on c-span3. >> the january jobs numbers show the economy added 233,000 jobs. the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, the lowest since 2009. house republican leaders spoke with reporters on the numbers earlier this morning. >> >> we had three bills that came through the natural resources committee. these are common sense bills as far as i am concerned. we live in south dakota. it is a long way to get anywhere there. you have families that are hard-

working taxpayers trying to stretch their dollars to make everything work. they need to pay for gasoline to drive. they need to pay for diesel fuel and energy to heat their homes. that is what these bills will do. they will solve two problems at once. they will deal with our infrastructure needs as a country. they will also lower our energy costs as well. it is common sense. by accessing the offshore drilling resources, by utilizing our oil shale resources, and making sure we can use other resources available makes sense to it every day americans who are hard-working taxpayers who really want to get the job done. the benefits are that it will create jobs, drive down energy costs, and give them consistency in the economy which we have been lacking since this administration has taken office. gas prices have doubled since this president has gone into

office. it is a shame for those people really struggling. the over-spending has to stop. we can do a lot to fix our funding issues and drive down costs. what is so unique about these bills double come together with the transportation bill's is that there will not be any earmarks attached. there will be no more borrowed stimulus dollars when it comes to transportation bill. i hope when you are writing about these bills that is what your focus on. this is fundamental reform that will be great for america. >> the president is going to try out happy faces today. the american people will say not so fast. we feel worse than we did four years ago. 5 million more americans are unemployed than one year ago. the economy is still under- performing.

this economy -- if this economy or performing the way it did in the reagan economy, we would have 7 million more americans working than we do right now. if the reagan recovery model were followed, we would have almost $5,700 per capita in greater gdp than today. the president's policies have failed. they are holding back the economic recovery. instead of trying to focus on real-world solutions like the gop jobs plan that is bipartisan, he is relying on the politics of division. i started a company in late 2005. that company was sold early last year. if i sat down to start the company today, i would not do it because of the uncertainty of this president's policies. i do not know what my taxes will

be at this time next year. what newnknow regulations will get in my way. i do not know the next waste of taxpayer dollars on a solyndra- type project. because of that, i will wait until the president start paying attention to real-world solutions to put americans back to work. thank you. >> good morning. three years ago this month, president obama came to congress and said you must pass my stimulus package. it was a $787 billion spending program. he promised america that if we passed this plan, unemployment will not exceed 8%. we know this month this is the 36 months in a row that 8% has been exceeded. it did not have to be this way. there is a different approach we could have taken. president reagan to be very different approach.

he took an approach focused on growth, free-market solutions. president reagan had a more difficult, a deeper recession. unemployment was higher. inflation was rampant. he took an approach that in the third year of his term resulted in the economy booming by then. president obama has taken the approach of borrowing and spending. those are policies that failed. they make it worse. house republicans stand here today looking forward to a pro- growth agenda, a jobs package that would get people back to work and get americans back to work. >> on monday, the american people were reminded again that this president's policies have failed. when the congressional budget announced that this president is on track to deliver a $1 trillion plus deficit every year he is in office.

today is an indication of another failure of this , 36 months policies in a row of 8% plus unemployment. we're all encouraged that the unemployment rate has come down. as my colleagues said, we were told if we passed his stimulus plan, we would never see unemployment above 8%. by technical definition of a professional economist, this economy is in recovery. by historic standards, it is the slowest, weakest recovery in the post-depression era. there are millions of americans that do not feel the recovery. tell that to the one in seven who have to rely on food stamps. tell it to the 50%, almost half of americans, who are now either low income or in poverty.

tell it to them, that we have a great recovery. the president's policies have failed. it is one of the reasons we see the politics of division. american people do not want division. they want more jobs. had this recovery followed the pattern of other recoveries in the post-war era, americans would have thousands of dollars more in their family budgets and millions more would be employed. that is why i am proud the once again, house republicans continue to pass jobs bills. just this week, we repealed again a portion of the president's health care program, one of the greatest impediments to small business. insuring that our congressional budget office will give us a macro-economic views of job

impact statement. after the president's health care plan was passed, we finally got the report from the congressional budget office that it would cost us almost 1 million jobs. i wonder what would have happened if that information had been available to the american people ahead of time. another week, another indication of a failed presidential policies, another week more of republican jobs bills passed in the house. >> good morning. the jobs numbers today are welcome news. all of us want to see more americans get back to work. as my colleagues have laid out, we could do a lot better. that is the kind of policies we're talking about an hour job creators plan. the president this week has indicated that perhaps he may now join us in focusing on the backbone of the american economy, american small businesses. we know every business at one

point was a small business. small-business startups and the number of jobs created are still locally low. if we want to get more people back to work and reflect the kind of growth rate we have seen in the reagan recovery and beyond, we can do that by focusing on small business. we will bring a bill to the floor of the house prior to tax day that provides small business a 20% tax cut. that is the kind of measure that will help inspire our entrepreneurs, small businessmen and women to invest and create more jobs. they need a signal from washington that there is not an adversary here, that we believe in the aspirational sense of america and small business entrepreneurs. >> good morning, everyone. the american people have seen the same story now for 36 straight months. there are flickers of hope in our recovery. they are welcome.

but the american people were promised by the president that unemployment would not exceed 8%. we've had 36 straight months of unemployment over 8%. three years ago when the president asked us to vote for his stimulus bill, they said unemployment at this point would be at 6%. we welcome the positive news today, but our point is very simple. we can do better. the way we do better is for the senate to take the 27 jobs bills sitting in the united states senate. the president asked us to work with them. we have worked with them. these bills in supports and his jobs council supports. they passed with bipartisan support in the house. the president wants to get the economy moving and improve his own chances for reelection, maybe he will pick up the phone and call senator reid and ask the senate democrats to get off their rear ends.

>> later in the day, president obama was an arlington, virginia, to unveil his plan to hire veterans. he responded to today's unemployment numbers as a sign the economy is getting stronger and recovery is speeding up. during his remarks, he called on congress to increase funding for programs that help communities hire veterans as police and firefighters. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for that introduction. thank you for your extraordinary service to our country. i want to acknowledge outstanding members of my cabinet who are here today. the secretary of veterans. -- the secretary of veterans affairs, secretary shinseki, is in the house. he is an extraordinary leader, as he was in our army. i also want to acknowledge

interior secretary can salazar who is in the house. [applause] >> we're joined by another president, the international firefighters association president is here. this is a fire station that holds some special significance for our country. on september 11, the firefighters of this house were among the first to respond to the attack on the pentagon. you guys answer this nation's call during its hour of need. in the years that followed, as americans went to work, some of you answered the call as well. nine/11th generation of veterans, you have already earned a special place in our history. our veterans and all the brave

men and women who serve our country are the reason why america's military is the greatest in the history of the world. in the face of great odds and great danger, they get the job done. they work as a team. they personify the very best american has to offer a. that is true battlefront. we're here today because it is also true on the home front. after a decade of war, our nation needs to do some building right here in the united states of america. this morning, we received more good news about our economy. in january, american businesses added another 257,000 jobs. the unemployment rate came down because more people found work.

altogether, we have added 3.7 million new jobs over the past 23 months. these numbers will go up and down in the coming months. there are still far too many americans who need a job or need a job that pays better than the one they have now. but the economy is growing stronger and. the recovery is speeding up. we have got to do everything in our power to keep it going. we cannot go back to the policies that led to the recession. we cannot let washington stand in the way of our recovery. we want washington to be helping with the recovery, not making it tougher. the most important thing congress needs to do now is to stop the taxes from going out on 160 million americans at the end of this month.

they've got to renew the payroll tax cuts they extended only for a couple months. they need to pass an extension of the payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance -- and do it without drama, without delay, without linking it to some ideological side issues. they just need to get it done. it should not be that complicated. now is not the time for self- interested wounds to our economy. now is the time for action. i want to send a message to congress, do not slow down the recovery we're on. keep it moving in the right direction. [applause] beyond preventing a tax hike, we need to do more to create an economy built to last, to restore american manufacturing. we need to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship

jobs overseas and give them to companies investing in plants and equipment and hiring in america. that makes sense. we need to stop subsidizing oil companies that are already making record profits and double down on clean energy that creates jobs, opportunities, new industries, and also improves our security because we are not so dependent on foreign oil. we need to make sure our businesses do not need to move overseas to find skilled workers. we need to invest in education to make crop -- make college affordable for every hardworking american. we need to make sure that as our troops returned from battles, they can find a job when they get home. that is what i want to talk about today [applause]

the war in iraq is over. the war in afghanistan is moving into a new phase. we are transitioning. over the past decade, nearly 3 million service members have transitioned back to civilian life. more are joining them every day. when these men and women come home, they bring unparalleled skills and experience. folks like jacob have saved lives in some of the toughest conditions imaginable. they have managed convoys and moved tons of equipment over dangerous terrain. they attract militants -- millions of dollars of military action. they have used equipment worth millions of dollars. they do incredible work. nobody is more skilled, more precise, more diligent, more

disciplined. our veterans are some of the most highly trained, highly educated, highly skilled workers we have got. these are americans that every business should be competing to attract. these are americans who want to keep serving here at home as we rebuild this country. we will do everything we can to make sure that when our troops come home, they come home to new jobs, new opportunities, and new ways to serve their country. this has been a top priority of mine since i came into office. we have felt 600,000 veterans and their family members go back to school on the post-9/11 gi bill. we have hired over 120,000 veterans to serve in the federal government. we have made it easier veterans texas employment services. we have set up online tools to connect veterans with job openings that match their

skills. michelle and joe biden have worked with the private sector, with businesses, to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. with the support of democrats and republicans, we put in place two in new tax credits for companies that hire veterans. these are all important steps. we have made progress. we have got to do more. there is more we can do. in my state of the union address, a proposed a new initiative called the veteran's ps to put veterans back to work rebuilding america. today we're laying out the details of the proposal. first, we want to help communities hire more veterans as cops and firefighters. you have seen what a great job

jacob is doing. there are a bunch of folks like that who could be doing the same outstanding work across the country. it is not that easy to get a job at a firehouse these days. over the past few years, tight budgets have forced a lot of states and communities to lay off a lot of first responders. when i first came into office, one of the first things we did was through the recovery act to make sure states and local governments got the help they needed to prevent some of these layoffs. thousands of jobs were saved across the country. thousands of firefighter jobs were saved because of the actions we took. budgets are still tight. that is a problem we need to face. jobs to protect our families and communities should not be the first on the chopping block. they should be one of our highest priorities as a nation.

over the past three years, my administration has made it possible for states to keep thousands of first responders on the job. communities that make it a priority to recruit veterans will be among the first in line when it comes to getting help from the federal government. that is one thing you have been doing here in arlington. we want to prioritize veterans. we want to help states and local communities hire veterans through firehouses and police stations across the country. we want to connect up to 20,000 veterans with jobs that involve rebuilding local communities or national parks. that is why can salazar -- ken salazar is here as the interior secretary. our veterans are highly qualified to help. they have risked their lives defending america. they should have the opportunity to rebuild america.

we have roads and bridges in and around our national parks in need of repair. let's fix them. congress needs to fund these projects. congress should take the money we're no longer spending on war and use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building at home, to improve the quality of life in the united states of america, and put our veterans to work. [applause] let's get more cops on the beat. let's get more rangers in the parks. let's get more firefighters on call. in the process, we will put more veterans back to work. it is good for our communities, our economy, and our country. for veterans who want to do something else, maybe put their leadership skills to you starting a small business, we will start offering entrepreneurial training to our

veterans. we want service members prepared for battle and for professional success when they come home. we should do all we can to support our troops and veterans in helping them start a business, get a foothold in the fire station like this one, start moving up the ranks, doing outstanding work we jacob has been doing. we also need to follow their lead. we want to help them but we should learn from them. we should remember that no matter what the circumstances, those men and women in uniform, a lot like the firefighters in this station, work together, act as a team, finished the job -- finish the job. that is what we have to do when it comes to our economy. these are challenging times.

we have based challenging times before. on the grounds here community stone from the pentagon and a beam from the world trade center. that reminds us of our resolve as a people. when we come together as one people and one community, one nation, we prevail. that is who we are. this nation exists because generations of americans worked together to build it. this is a nation where out of many we come together as one. those are the values that every veteran understands. those are values that this fire station understands. we have to make sure we return to those values. if we do, i guarantee you we will remind everybody around the world why the united states is the greatest country on earth. [applause] thank you very much. god bless you. god bless america. [applause]

♪

♪ ["stars adnd stripes forever"] ♪

♪

>> this morning, the joint economic committee met to discuss the jobs numbers. the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%. the economy added 243,000 jobs. this comes on the heels of the congressional budget office release of their 2012 economic

outlook earlier this week. the report forecast unemployment around 8.9% by the end of the year. -- their report forecast unemployment around 8.9% by the end of the year and slow economic growth. >> chairman casey cannot be here today. i am pleased to stand in for him this morning. but like to welcome the acting commissioner john galvin -- i would like to welcome the acting commissioner john galvin and dr. michael horrigan. i want to make a couple of overall comments about the economic recovery before diving into this month's anunemployment numbers. in the second half of 2011, economic momentum picked up. the labor market continued to strengthen, adding 100,000 or

more jobs for four straight months. we learned last week the gdp grew at a to 0.8% annual rate in the fourth quarter, an improvement over the previous three quarters of 2011. inventory rebuilding accounted for much of that growth. there are other encouraging signs. the manufacturing sector continues to show strength. of the manufacturing index reading of 54.1% in january marked the 30th consecutive month of expansion in the manufacturing sector. the unemployment rate has been moving in the right direction. in 2011, the unemployment rate fell from 9.4% to 8.5%. workers who have been out of work for long periods continue

to struggle to find new jobs. more than 42% of the unemployed have been jobless for six months or more. need to help workers regain their footing and bolster the recovery by extending the payroll tax cut for the remainder of the year and continuing unemployment insurance for workers counting on the benefits to make ends meet. both policies put money in people's pockets, boosting demand, creating jobs, and strengthening our economy. the january jobs report shows that we're making progress. this report was positive. we must continue to invest in education, infrastructure, and our workers. we must also take on the housing crisis. without a sensible path toward

in housing, we cannot sustain this economic recovery. today's unemployment report shows jobs gains. the private sector added jobs for the 23rd straight month. the economy gained 237,000 private-sector jobs. due to the loss of government jobs, the economy added to the 43,000 jobs during the month. the manufacturing sector added 2 to 37,000 jobs in 2011. it gained 50,000 jobs in january. that is always good news. professional and business services sectors added 37,000 jobs and have not lost jobs since march 2010. employment in state and local government was basically unchanged in january. in 2011, state and local governments shed 235,000 jobs

and continued to face the budget challenges presented and wind for the economy. -- headwind for the economy. the overall unemployment rate is the lowest since the glory of 2009. even with this progress, more than 12.7 million people are looking for work and cannot find it. the unemployment rate in the african-american community was 13.6%. among hispanic workers committee on employment rate was 10.5%. -- among hispanic workers, the unemployment rate was 10.5%. veterans face an unemployment rate of 9.1%. today's employment report shows the labor market continues to recover. the jobs gain in january continue the momentum from the fourth quarter of 2011.

however, unemployment remains too high, unacceptably high, and we need to stay focused on creating jobs. i look forward to your testimony. it gives me pleasure to yield to mr. brady. >> we welcome you in your new capacity to the joint economic committee hearing on the employment numbers. we know you well. you have had appearances it. the figure about appearances at prior hearings. we appreciate your service and look forward to your testimony. we also welcome the members of your staff. these jobs numbers are encouraging. they are long overdue but encouraging. the unemployment rate going down slightly is as well. it masks underlying weakness in the economy. fewer americans are participating in the workforce

than in 28 years. the labor force participation rate has not been this low since march of 1983. the labor market is not recovering fast enough considering how the press it has been. by comparison, we had already added 8.7 million new payroll jobs. today the u.s. economy at best is uncertain, stopping and starting. we're still 6 million jobs short of what we were before the recession began. labor force participation is the lowest in decades. unemployed workers still account for more than 8% in the shrunken work force. whatever claims the president has made about how much worse the recession has been, his policies have not stimulated the economy. we have a huge federal debt, large deficits, and uncertain job growth.

more than 2.5 years passed since the recession formally ended, it real gdp growth is expected to decline this year. we averaged over 6% economic growth during the first 10 quarters of the reagan recovery. business in america is still awarding cash. they still hold investment below where it was before the recession began. it is not stepping up hiring despite what the new payroll numbers say. consider the chart behind me. the green line shows hires and the bottom line shows layoffs. over 4 million hires compared to the layoffs. the key observation is that the hires remains where it was

during the middle of the recession. with all the money the white house and members of congress have spent to stimulate employment, hires are still down from before the recession. the jobs gain today are not that impressive. the magnitude of benchmark revisions only underscores this problem. low hires helps to explain why labor force participation is down. if hiring has not risen in three years, there is a huge pool of unemployed competing for jobs. why stay in the labour force question mark there simply dropping out. the unemployment rate in payroll jobs numbers are important statistics but do not reveal the full extent of the problem that america faces. the president's current actions and proposals are feeble attempts to lift a $15 trillion

economy. at the same time, it is tightening regulations and imposing an avalanche of new regulations. he threatens to raise taxes while adding to our national debt with and disciplined deficit spending. strong private investment in job creation requires a balanced regulatory environment that encourages operation in a free- market economy. it engenders expansion and not retrenchment. the president is working against the free market economy with his policies, undermining it was subsidies and special favors in some areas, and harsh the constraining and punishing in others. that will cause anemic growth as the labor chart shows. slowing economic growth will cause the and implement rate to rise this year and next. the congressional budget office

projects the unemployment rate will hit 9.8% -- 8.9% in the fourth quarter. americans are eager for work, but the economic policies of this president have failed. we need to change course. hard-working taxpayers deserve better. the federal government needs to get out of the way some hiring can accelerate. i look forward to hearing your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you very much. now i yield to ms. maloney. >> congratulations on your interim appointment. thank you for your many years of hard work of the joint economic committee in testimony. we welcome you. we have continuing good news. for the fifth month, there has been a drop in the unemployment rate to 8.3%.

for the 23rd month, we have been gaining jobs to 243,000 jobs. i fail to understand the doomsday testimony of my good friend mr. brady with unemployment numbers falling in the number of jobs gaining. that shows we're making steady progress. that shows we're making steady progress in covering recovering from the great recession. we have more work to do, including extending the payroll tax cuts for all of 2012, which is a priority of president obama and the democrats. i am hopeful the house will approve that before the current extension expires at the end of the month. i look forward to your testimony. i hope it contains even more good news than these very encouraging numbers in employment and job growth.

i yield back. >> welcome to our committee. we will all miss dr. hall. he had a great deal of candor. he was the epitome of non- partisanship in his office. i tried to bait him but was never successful. we certainly look forward to your service here. the jobs numbers today,. news. it almost feels like i am in a charles dickens novel, the best of times, the worst of times. the economy is in the american economy is hard to keep down. -- the american economy is hard to keep down. it has a unique ability to recover. i was in the private sector during the savings-and-loan crashed in texas in the late

1980's. no government action seemed to be responsible for the recovery that eventually recurred. it lasted for the next 25 years with unparalleled prosperity in our state. our state continues to enjoy prosperity. people move to texas because of the low regulation environment, the lack of income tax. texas has added four new congressional districts, a population size of arkansas has moved to texas in the last 10 years. it is possible for the public to do the right thing as far as job creation is concerned. it is not always possible that the government does the right thing. i would align myself closely with mr. brady's comments. it is the private sector, the

real economy, the real folks who decide they're going to create something of their own. that is what drives our economy. i do not have a lot of faith in the administration's ability. we have been hearing various people from the administration testified. i cannot tell you the number of times we were told by christina romer that the economy was recovering only to find that those were weeds proliferating in the parking lot because no one was showing up for work because there were no jobs. they have the ability to make decisions and have made the wrong decisions. german brady referenced the keystone pipeline. no government spending required, just an international boundary crossed. the president's office was involved and he made the wrong decision. the president is barnstorming

around the country talking about how he is creating jobs. here was something at his fingertips that would have created thousands of jobs with no government spending to put people back to work to restore dignity and self-worth and he turned his back on it. the cross-state pollution laws, there was no inclination prior to the issuance of the rules that the epa was even considering texas, and now we may have rolling brownouts during the hot summer months. the war on natural gas continues. domestic energy production will be part of the economic recovery whether this administration likes it or not. it is high time they stopped interfering with that. the affordable care act, i could go on and on about that. employers say they do not know

what is ahead, what is the court going to do? people are so uncertain about what they're going to have to be providing in terms of employee benefits. they are genuinely frightened to grab and employees. the president goes around the country talking about jobs proposal. they all involve more government. let the private sector do what it does best. we are america. we have a history of doing this over and over. we need to decrease regulations and taxes to let our economy grow. i have faith in the american people. they can create jobs. what congress does is an impediment. i know what the of administration -- what the administration does is counterproductive. i look forward to your testimony. i am certain we will learn a great deal. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i want to let mr. burgess know that one of mr. mccain's

advisers said the business community is starting to engage. he said this report was unambiguoulsy positive. >> of is going to say that marc sandy was 3 million jobs off -- mark zandie was 3 million jobs of. >> they have besieged the president to remove regulations. that was something they distinctly referenced in report before this committee. it is time for the administration to get out of the way. >> we're going in the right direction. you would think this was a doomsday reports. we are going in the right direction, thank god.

>> when president obama took office, this country was losing 700,000 jobs a month. the first four months before president obama took office, this country lost 4 million jobs. the president put in a recovery package that is moving us in the right direction. can we at least agree is good news that for five months the unemployment has fallen and that for 23 months, we have been gaining jobs in this country? we should be pleased with this news. >> we do think these numbers are encouraging. our concern is the seventh when the rate is going down because people are giving up because they are not getting jobs. we think that is the wrong reason. >> the unemployment rate is 8.3%. last month it was 8.5%. ms. sanchez. >> i do not have a statement.

i came this morning to figure out where we really are and get some ideas from people about how the continue the good trend we have seen in the last five months with respect to unemployment going down. i did not come here to hear political posturing. i am struck by the fact that is toommittee's job contemplate and think about, suggest and move forward ideas for other committees to implement. this going back and forth is

degrading of this committee. is it frustrating thing for somebody who understands that when we see good numbers, all of the economists i saw this morning were saying that this is good. this is good. what can we do to make it better? that is what this committee is charged with. i am looking forward to hearing from the three gentlemen before us to try to figure out where we go from here. how do we go from here? how do we make this a positive thing for the american people? i am hoping to hear from my friends on the other side. >> we do apologize. >> let's work together on this.

>> mr. campbell. mr. galvin, thank you for being here. we welcome you. >> thank you for the warm welcome this morning and for the opportunity to discuss the unemployment data released this morning. the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3% in january. >> a little louder, please. the green light should come on. >> it is on. the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3% in january. non-farm payroll employment rose by 243,000. in 2011, it increased by an average of 152,000 per month.

job growth was widespread in the private sector in january with the largest gains occurring in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. professional and business services added 70,000 jobs over the month compared with an average monthly gain of 48,000 in 2011. nearly half of the january increase occurred in employment services as a temporary help employment continue to trend up. employment rose in accounting and bookkeeping and architectural and engineering services. employment in leisure and hospitality increased by 44,000, mostly in food services. health care employment rose by 31,000 with job gains in hospitals and ambulatory care services. employment in wholesale and retail trade continue to trend up over the month. the goods producing sector,

manufacturing increased by 50,000 in january. it was nearly all in durable goods manufacturing. fabricated metal products, machinery, and motor vehicles each added jobs. over the past eight months, construction employment rose by 52,000, mainly among specialty trade contractors. mining employment continue to expand in january. there was a recent low point in october of 2009. since then, they added 72,000 jobs. government employment was unchanged in january. over the past two months, employment in that sector has decreased by 276,000 with declines in local government, state government, excluding education, and the u.s. postal service. the average hourly earnings of all employees on private non- farm payrolls increased by 4 cents in january. over the past 12 months, the average hourly earnings have risen by 1.9%.

from december 2010 to december 2011, the consumer price index for consumers increased by 3%. in accordance with annual practice, the data released today reflecting benchmark revisions, each year we reanchor the estimates to full council employment derived from the unemployment tax system. the non-farm unemployment was revised up by 162,000 or 0.1%. this compares to an average benchmark revision over the past 10 years of plus or minus 0.3%. before discussing the data from our survey of households, i would note that we have incorporated new population controls into the january

estimates. the beginning in january of 2012 reflects population controls based on the census of 2010 as well as updates on migration and some adjustments in the estimation process. official estimates for december of 2011 and earlier months will not be revised to incorporate census 2010 base controls. the impact is negligible. two important household survey measures are lowered by the change in the composition of the population has seen in the new controls. the new controls rate populations of persons 55 and older and persons 16 years of age. both of these are less likely to be in the labour force than the general population.

the unemployment rate continued to decline over the month. since august of 2011, the jobless rate has fallen from 9.1% to 8.3%. the number of unemployed persons has declined by about 1.2 million. in january, the number of persons unemployed for 27 weeks or more was little changed at 5.5 million. that made up 42.9% of the total. the labor force partition rate was unchanged after accounting for the impact of the bass population controls. to summarize, non-farm payroll employment increased by 243,000. the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3%. my colleagues and i would be glad to answer questions. >> thank you very much.

i wanted to clarify one point. how much of the drop in the and on the rate was due to people finding jobs and how much was due to people dropping out of the labour force? >> the level of unemployment was down about 381,000 in january. since august, while it has been declining, the level of unemployment is down about 1.2 million. employment measured by the household surveys is up about 1.7 million. the numbers add up to a story of the unemployed finding jobs over these five months. the labor force has risen a little bit. >> the economic momentum that has occurred over the past few months seemed to have carried into the labour market, in addition to the jobs being

created each month, weekly applications for initial unemployment benefits fell last week to three and 67,000 and remained below 400,000 for 10 of the last 12 weeks. the and implement rate last month fell to 8.3%, -- the off of limit rate last month fell to 8.3%. -- the unemployment rate last month fell to 8.3%. some have said increase hiring always occurs during the winter holidays. what, in your perspective regarding the accuracy of the job creation numbers and the extent to which they are attributable to the winter holiday shopping season or other factors --

>> i am confident in the accuracy of the numbers. we have just the numbers to remove normal recurring seasonal variation from things like winter christmas time hiring. >> the overall unemployment rate has fallen. all are -- are all demographic groups facing the same thing? how are african-american and hispanics doing? >> i of easily accessible -- the overall african american unemployment rate dropped down to 13.6%. >> is that significant? >> kias. >> what do you attribute that to? >> the numbers add up to african-americans finding jobs. >> ok.

hispanics? >> hispanic rates was 10.5% in january. it was down about half a point, but not a significant difference. >> now, one of the challenges since 2007 is the issue of long- term unemployment. as i mentioned, or than 50% of the people who are unemployed have been jobless for six months or more and 70% have been out of work for a year or longer. what long-term unemployment trends are you seeing? >> the number of people looking for work for 27 weeks or more has fallen over the last year by about 700,000. just as unemployment has fallen over the last year. in percentage terms, the longtime unemployed represent a large share of the unemployed. about 42.9% this month. if little different from 43.9% a

year earlier. >> right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. galvin, we are all encouraged by new jobs numbers. we have seen the unemployment rate going down, but again, we wanted to go down because people are getting jobs, not just getting out of the workforce. when the recession began, the labor participation rate was 66%. today, it is 63.7%. that is the lowest since 1983. are fewer workers in the work force indicative of a healthy economy? >> well, honestly -- >> is that a sign of a healthy

economy, that fewer people are working in the workforce? >> some of the decline in the labor force since the recession is due to demographic reasons. overall, the upper deck did capacity of the economy is hire -- the productive capacity of the economy is higher related to the workforce. >> it was indicated that unemployment will rise. at this pace of job growth, we -- america will not give back to -- get back to its level before the recession until 2015. do you have any reason to disagree with those projections? >> we avoid forecasting like that. it is an exercise that requires a lot of assumptions and

judgments. we try to stick to the facts of describing the current labor market. in the -- taking a look at the numbers this month, in the jobs report numbers you report each month, it could go up if businesses lay off fewer people than before or even though they may not be hiring more, i do not know if that factor is why we recognize -- can you comment on job creation? it does not mean that everyone keeps their job, does it? let us correct. -- >> correct. the number we report is a net number reflecting the difference between the additions to payroll or hiring and separations. >> in the chart, we are still looking at the bigger picture. what does it take to have a

healthy recovery? here we are years after the recession officially ended and we are still in this stop and start mode. clearly, the new hires continue to be about where they were in the middle of the recession. can you comment -- we get these reports not as frequently as we get your employment situation reports. how can we get more insight into critical numbers like this before the next report comes out? how can we look more quickly and important indicators like this? >> the jolt numbers are lagging about a month and a half behind the payroll survey numbers. we do not have any data that is more timely than jolt to tell you about what is going on

beneath the net change from the payroll survey. >> going back, we are looking for indicators of a healthy economy. the new jobs numbers are good. the number of people working is the key indicator. my numbers show that if we actually had accounted those to have given up or are not in the workforce today, this month their unemployment for? so we would have gone up from 11.6% -- this month their unemployment would have actually gone up from 11.6%. i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for this report. it is good news. especially in the number of unemployment rate dropping for five straight months. that is very good news. we are trending in the right direction with 23 months of job gains. 243,004 this month alone.

can you point out other bright spots in this report? any other good news that the country is trending in the right direction? >> the rise in pay moral unemployment of 243,000 -- payroll employment of 243,000 is better than last year, which averaged monthly gains of 152,000. some of the gains this month in the private sector were widespread. notably, we saw large gains in professional and business services. leisure and hospitality. health-care employment. manufacturing. that gave 50,000 jobs. and in construction, which has not gone flat since 2008. we have recorded a couple of increases, totaling 52,000 in

non-residential special trade contractors. >> often january numbers do not show this kind of game. is this unusual for january numbers? >> no. we adjust the numbers for normal recurring seasonal variation in january and in any month. we take that normal variation out of there so what you are looking at is the underlying trend in the labor market. >> mr. galvin, i am interested in making sure the economy improves for all sectors. can you tell me whether the unemployment rate has been dropping for women or just man -- men? >> we will get right with you on that. we have seen the unemployment

rate for men has dropped more than for women. it was more during the recession. both went up -- they are both lower than they were. they were not as low as the start of the recession. >> we know that many state and local governments have been laying off workers. women worked in state and local governments. do you think that is part of the cause that the women's unemployment rate -- >> i think the fact that the men's rate has come-on more -- come down more than the women is a reflection of the flak that men are more affected -- the fact that men are more affected in areas like manufacturing. >> when you were talking about the long-term unemployed and you said earlier that the long-term unemployed was continuing, do

you have a breakdown in age of the people that are saying -- giving up? is a predominantly in the 55 dead or older -- 55 and older? >> -- >> was there a trend in that sector? >> one second. we do have that. let us move on and mr. nardone will find that. >> also, do you break down areas? are there certain areas that are blooming or doing better with the unemployment and the dropping of the unemployed rate? do you see this self, the east, the west, or in the area -- or any areas?

do you have any trends in geography? >> we will have to get back to you on the breakdown of the long-term unemployed. we did not bring it today. we can get back to you on the geographic differentials in the drop in the unemployment rate. >> thank you for your work. my time is expired part. -- my time has expired. >> sometimes, we get the statistics. this happens with cpi and the feel on the ground is different than the statistic. recently, cpi was low but the things on the -- the things people were buying were going up faster than cpi. i come from california, one of the highest unemployment states. the seal on the ground, as much as the statistics -- the field

on the ground is not quite as good as this. one of the things i wanted to ask about and correct me if i am wrong, but where is the drop from 8.5% to 8.3% that the widest measure of unemployment, which includes part-time people who would prefer to be full- time actually increase? it increases to 23.8%, if i have my number is correct. what does that mean? how does that happen? the headline number went down, but the broader number went up? >> the widest measure that we produced we refer to as u-6, which includes the marginally attached and a part-time -- the part time. that is 15.1% as compared to

8.3% for the unemployment rate. that was unchanged over the month. the widest measure. >> ok. the other went down, so that means that maybe some of these people who became employed became employed as part time? is that what that means? what does marginally attached mean? what that means workers to -- >> that means workers who are available for work. they have looked in the last year for jobs but not in the last month. >> they have looked in the last year, but not in the last month? >> they need to be having looked in the last month to be counted for unemployed. >> i see. they're not employed, but you do not count in the 8.3% number. >> right. >> on a broader number -- the

15.1% of the population is the broad number that is unemployed or underemployed with a part- time and that did not change from last -- >> correct. it has declined pretty much in step with the decline in the regular unemployment rate over the last five months. >> ok. then the total workforce, a civilian labor force, that was actually up? >> yes. >> so, the total labor force was up? is that right? i am trying to understand -- sometimes, the numerator and denominator of all unemployment

drop when people drop out of the workforce. it makes it look like we are doing better, but we are actually not employing more people. >> over these five months where the unemployment rate has come down, the level of unemployed has declined by 1.2 million. at the same time, the level of employment is up 1.7 million. to some of those is the labor force. -- the sum of those is the labor force. it is about half a million. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being here today. i want to go along with the discussion points as to my colleague from orange canny was talking about.

i am interested in -- because you mentioned population in your report or a population group, i am trying to understand what that means. in particular, when you look at the overall numbers, there is this thing called the baby boomers. a lot of them are getting to retirement age. supposedly, that was the largest group of people in a particular time frame that the u.s. had seen. my question to you is, are we seeing the baby boomers retire and therefore be out of the workforce and is that having an impact on the numbers? are we graduating or are we seeing enough young people entering into the workforce that is making up those numbers? what is the relationship between the two ends of the employment line? my next question is, could you

in some way characterize what is going on with the used in particular? those with a college degree and those with that because it does seem that on a -- in the weeds, where we are when we go home, children are not getting employment this by getting an education. >> i will have my colleague, mr. nardone, handle that. >> in terms of looking -- one thing that will be looking is looking -- will be worth looking at is looking at labor participation rates. one thing that has been happening is the labor force participation rates for people age 55 and over, which would include the baby boomers, has actually been going up a little bit over time. labor force participation rates for younger people over a longer. have been trending down -- over a longer period have been

trending down. young people who are in school can be in the labor force, obviously. they could be looking for work. in general, people who are in school are less likely to be in the labor force than those who are not in school. >> ok. what you are telling me is -- do you think that might be attributed to the fact that maybe people who thought they had a retirement lost their retirement or they do not feel as comfortable about having enough money? maybe they are living longer and they are going back and doing the mcdonald shop for a part- time consultant or what have you. -- mcdonald's job or a part-time job or what have you. >> we do not know. we know that the increase in labor force participation rate for people 55 and over actually predated the recession. it had been going on since the

1990's, really. >> interesting. ok. i know that someone asked about this. this is about geography. it seems to me -- can we tell where the jobs are being created because it seems to me that a lot of these jobs that are being created may be moving south or southwest in the country. can you get us number so we can look at where jobs are really being created and where we are losing them? >> i do have some numbers on that with me today. our state numbers have led to a month. -- lagged a month. looking at the december numbers, the states with the largest gain since the national employment trough in early 2010,

on a job basis, have been texas, california, florida, the largest aids. on a percentage basis, percentage growth -- texas, quarter -- texas, california, florida, the largest states. >> my last question. when we talk about the underemployed or searching for the job you want, do we have -- i know that you gave us a particular average per wage of $23 or $24. does that include benefit and are we seeing changes in the type of jobs we are getting and what type -- is there a smaller benefit package going with those steps? are there numbers available? >> those numbers i gave you our wages only. -- are wages only.

we issued a report earlier this week which showed the continuation of the trend of the cost of benefits to employers growing faster than the cost of wages. i do not have any information about the nature of the benefit packages of jobs that are being created right now. >> let me just rephrase that. if i am an average employer and i am getting an average position on the play a role for the first time, -- on the payroll for the first time, i am paying $24 but the benefit package to them is actually costing me more than it used to per employee? correct -- >> correct. >> i am going to stay away from the policy issues and i am going to make sure i understand the data. i want to make sure i am reading it correctly. the labor force participation rate dropped from 64% to 62.7%?

>> correct. >> the number of discouraged workers was up to 1.0 5 million people. >> correct. >> the number of other marginally attached workers grew from 1.59 5 million to 1.7 5 million last month? >> yes. i have to do the math. that looks right. >> the number of folks who are employed for economic reasons grew from 8 million people to 8.2 million people last month? >> correct. the unemployed by the widest measure grew then from 23.7 million people to 23.8 million people last month? >> yes. i have to dig for that level. the rate went from 15.2 to 15.1. >> the% of total long-term

unemployed -- the percentage of unemployed rose? >> yes. >> the graph that chairman brady offered behind us shows that the number of total hires is roughly the same now on a monthly basis as it was in late 2008, would you agree? >> if those numbers are correct, yes, i would. i have some data from our jolt survey that shows that hiring has increased some sense the end of the recession. it does not appear that that line is going up. >> that is correct. there were new hires last month. if you go back to late 2008,

which is the blue dotted vertical line there, current tires are below that of all -- current hires are below that level. >> folks who are unemployed, part-time, the unemployment rate in this country is 15.1% if you add them all together? correct. -- >> correct. >> you mention the labor force has crown's lightly and it looks like it has from 153 million people to 154 million people. given the population group over the same. of time, is that the growth that you would have expected? >> that depends on the growth of the population -- which percentage participates in the

labor force. >> i am sorry. say that again. you would expect the number of jobs to grow $150,000 -- 150,000 jobs? >> you expect the labor force -- you need about 150,000 jobs per month to keep up with the growth in the labor force. >> if we add 150,000 jobs per month, all other things being equal, the unemployment rate will not come down? >> correct. all other things being equal. the participation rate will stay the same and the jobs being south will go to the new folks coming into the labor force. >> the rate of job creation last month, all of the things being a -- =, how long will it take to get unemployment down to 6%? >> that require speculation.

i cannot predict a rate at which people will enter the labor force. i can tell you that the job growth we have seen since employment turned around as measured by the payroll survey. it is still about 5.6 million below -- there is a 5.6 million drop or a boss from -- there are still 5.6 million jobs to be gained in order to regain all the jobs lost. >> on page three, you indicated that government jobs are down considerably since -- over the course of the last 12 months. 276,000 jobs lost. this is good education and the u.s. postal service. -- this excludes education and the u.s. postal service. if you add education back in, what does the job loss look like? >> i will get that for you.

that is the total of the year. >> yes, sir. >> 276,000 jobs were lost in government over 2011. that is the total federal, state, education and the non- education components. >> i am sorry. i am looking at your notes and it says that state government, excluding education -- any gains in education were excluded? what's that is a way of breaking down the state government total. -- >> that is a way of breaking down the state government total. some people are interested in that. >> i apologize for going along. where are the education jobs contained on page -- the list on page 3? >> -- >> it looks like we have added

education jobs since the beginning of the recession. on the list on page three, if we hire a teacher, what category does it go into? >> in terms of local government education, looking over the year, currently there are 7.8 million in local government education. that is down from 7.9000001 year ago. state government education -- is about 2.4 million. private education may have gone up. >> ok. education is roughly flat over the course of the last year. >> if you are looking at government education, state and local, 8 is done mainly in local areas. state government education -- it is down mainly in local areas.

>> to lead, mr. chairman. we look at -- thank you, mr. chairman. we've looked at the previous recessions and the recovery. everyone understands that the recovery has been slower and much more prolonged than other recessions that have occurred during my lifetime and the years preceding that. can you give us reasons why the recovery has been so painfully slow? >> i do not know that i have their reasons. i certainly can confirm that as s inared to the recession' the 1970's, it is much lower. as compared to the 2003 recession, job recovery after

this recession is somewhat slower. >> well, i took the liberty of preparing some economic data and i realize that is not my forte. i decided to plot the unemployment rates of the last 10 years. i put on the graph also, since it has been the subject of some national discussion, the minimum rate increases that have recently occurred -- minimum wage increases that have recently occurred. i realize there is a risk in relating two things that made not be related, but do you have a comment on the association between the lines? what we do not engage in that policy and that -- analysis. -- >> we do not engage in that policy analysis. >> this changes the unemployment rate. there's some things the administration has done, but there are other things that congress has done. there are some things that

congress has done when speaker policy took over as speaker of the house. -- speaker pelosi took over as speaker of the house. what i see in looking at this is a period of stability. perhaps we are achieving a new equilibrium at the other end of the craft. if you index the minimum wage to inflation, would it have this effect that occurred during the 2007 --? >> i can comment on policy questions like that. >> let me ask you this, did the size of the labor force change this past month? >> yes. >> the civilian labor force? >> is.

-- yes. after adjustment for the population controls, it was up 250,000. that is a small change. >> another way of looking at is not in the labor force increased from 86.7 million to 87.9 million -- is that accurate? >> there is an issue with this month's numbers that was mentioned in the testimony. we incorporated new population estimates that are based on the census 2010. this makes the difference between december and january not particularly comparable. of those new population controls show that there were more people over the age of 55 and between the ages of 16 to 24 groups that are less likely to be in the labor force than the general population. you have what looks like a big bump up in the number of people not in the labor force if you

adjust for the low -- those population controls -- is down by 75,000. the size of the population that is not in the labor force. >> this may fall into the category of statistics, but still 1.2 million people lost from the labor force -- that is a big chunk of people. we have made it look not so bad, but you have to worry if we are losing people from the labor force at that rate, it -- you have made your numbers better as far as the unemployment rate if your goal post is november 2012, but people are feeling in the country -- people say, do not talk to be about the economic recovery because even in texas, we are not talking about it. if i was visiting california, i would hear those same sentiments, perhaps even more strongly. let me just ask you in the time

i have remaining, the fact that there are fewer payroll jobs than there were pre-recession and this month you have gained 200,000, so coming back at a rate of 200,000 per month -- say this month is the new normal and this is the new benchmark. every month will be just like this month. when do we get back to the pre- recession level? >> it will take 23 more months of growth at this pace -- to one of 43,000 per month. >> if than -- 243,000 per month. >> the length of time is going to extend -- what do you looked to -- let me ask you this. you referenced in your figures in mining and -- is that oil and

gas development? we did see a positive reflection there. even with the price of natural gas being low and the price of oil has maintained a high level. the overall outlook for that sector -- is it something positive or negative? >> we avoid forecasting, but mining has been growing recently due to support activities for oil and gas mining. >> again, i reemphasize that the administration can go a long way towards the economic growth of this country. i do not know whether i am yielding back time or if i am running over. >> u.n. two minutes over. >> i yield back. -- you have to went over two minutes. >> i yield back. >> let me pick up on something that we were talking about

earlier. the public sector jobs -- we have lost a lot of jobs. 276,000? >> correct. that was a loss -- that is correct. 276,000 government jobs lost over the year. >> do you see a re- -- do you see a trend? is that a steady trend? we see a lot of complaints about public service workers and making government smaller. i know we are talking about -- state local and federal -- state, local, and federal? >> correct. the government has been losing since -- pretty steadily since near the end of 2010. >> all right. the question that i always ask is, somebody is watching this

today and they were trying to find employment based upon what you see it there. what are the areas they would tell them -- not you would be giving advice, but he would tell them what seems to be growing. the jury reaching the geographic areas? somebody who is really desperate for a job and trying to get something out of the hearing as to where they might go to get a job. >> we just published our projections for 2020. they provide a job outlook for occupations. to summarize, these projections show allows -- the largest number of jobs are in three classes of occupations. office and in ministered support

occupations -- things like customer service representatives -- office and administration support occupations -- things like customer service from presented this -- representatives. jobs like registered nurses, which we project to grow by 700,000 jobs by 2020. physicians and surgeons are in that group, too. the group that the third trade of increase for projected growth in sales and related occupations. jobs like sales representatives and cashiers. >> what about geographic areas? if somebody wants to move from a state that has a very high unemployment rate -- i think you mentioned earlier a few states that were doing pretty good. what states would you tell them that they might want to look at? >> --

>> i new taxes would be one. >> we do not -- i new taxes would be one. >> regarding unemployment rate, states with the lowest unemployment rate in our most recent release, december 2011, were north dakota, south dakota, new hampshire, nebraska, vermont, iowa, minnesota. >> all right. three minutes -- >> i will not need that much time. >> just to follow up on a question the chairman s. the 276,000 government jobs that were lost, what percentage does that number represents? >> i will have to look that up. >> i had thought i had seen 22 million government jobs as of

last month. >> is this state, local, and federal? >> yes, sir. i believe it to be. >> that would be a decline of -- 1.2% of the level in january 2011. >> for all of 200811, the size of the government workforce -- 2011, the size of the government work force shrank by one to an -- 1.2%? >> yes. >> we are still 5.6 million jobs short in the overall economy from the beginning of the recession. what percentage does that represent of the overall work force? >> it is about 4% of the current

work force. i do not really have where it was from the start. >> it would be a little bit hire. >> thank you, a gentleman. -- thank you, chairman. >> typically, in your experience, purely from a statistical perspective and not from a policy prospective, will unemployment benefits run out -- when they do, what happens to the unemployment rate? >> that is a policy question. >> from a statistical analysis, you have looked at it from previous years. is there a trend or is this a non sequitur? what we have not looked at the relationship between -- >> we

have not looked at the relationship between unemployment insurance and the rise of the unemployment rate. >> could you look at that and respond to me between this month and next month? that holds a lot of interest for a lot of us. >> we can certainly looked round at what other studies are out there and bring them to your attention. >> the bureau clearly tracks the length of time that folks are on unemployment. is there data available that would or could show us when folks on the average come off of unemployment and go back to the work force whether it be in workweek two or eight or 27? >> and we do not actually track when people are on unemployment insurance. we have some statistics for people who are unemployed. how long they are unemployed before they either find employment or go out. we develop that over the past year and we have provided an

article that we wrote about that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> i want to thank you very much. it does appear that we are moving in the right direction. not moving as fast as all of us would like because there are so many people unemployed. i see it every day and i live amongst it. the fact is, we are moving in the right direction. thank you very much. >> thank you. host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> woo!

[applause] [laughter] >> this weekend, the american history tv explores the history and literary culture of beaumont, where the texas oil industry got its start. saturday beginning at noon, on c-span2, john roberts on the literary culture. also beaumont author on teddy roosevelt's post presidential exposition -- expedition. january 11, 1901, the lucas gusher at spindle top help change the economy of texas and helped usher in the petroleum age. with the oil, came the roughnecks. with them, lace.

-- mice. decades of gambling and other crimes thrived until the 1950 commission crackdown. beaumont, texas, this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. >> at 2020, at least half of all energy will come from non fossil fuel sources. >> from coal to oil and the first to use nuclear power for transportation, and the navy secretary on the reasons for a new energy standard for the fleet. >> uighurs too dependent on either potentially or actually -- we are too dependent on the other sources to get energy. we are susceptible to price shocks. when the libya situation started and the price of oil went up $40 per barrel, that was almost a $1 billion additional fuel bill for that date -- for the navy.

the only place we have to get the money is operations or training. our ships steamed less and our planes fly less. more with the 75th navy secretary sunday night at 8:00 &a."rn on c-span's "q >> earlier today, they brought a bill that would ban insider trading. democrats have initiated a petition to bring the bill to the floor after the senate passed a similar measure yesterday. this is 20 minutes. >> >> good morning. >> good morning. >> it is afternoon. it is morning in california. good morning.

it is a great morning. the jobs numbers coming out being so significant. the decision by the susan g. komen foundation to reverse their decisions about planned parenthood just goes to show you when women speak out, women win. women's health has a big victory. we are here to talk about jobs. -- stock. i am happy to be here with so leaders -- with the learders -- leaders. we do not need any deductions beyond that. -- introductions be on that. last week, in the state of the union, the president said that

he will sign the bill. since the president said that, when we came back at the beginning of this week, congresswoman -- , as when walz -- congressman walz got a lot more co-sponsors on the republican side. within a matter of hours, a huge number of people signed the discharge petition for the house on the stock act. that is a remarkable legislative achievement for them to advance the ball down the field that much. as you know, last night, the senate passed this version of the stock act. we are here today to call on our republican leadership to bring the stock at -- the house stopgap to the floor. our colleagues will tell you the support and the purpose of sending it to conference with

the senate bill. i am here to congratulate them on their work yesterday at our press event. i mentioned at the stock back in my comments with the idea -- the stock act in my comments with the idea that the broke -- the bill needs to be brought up. it has passed the senate. they should bring up the house version. we have a discharge petition and nearly 300 code-sponsors. i want to congratulate everyone for the leadership. >> thank you. i think that every american, from the president to the rest of us, wants the bill passed. it is gratifying to me to see the kind of action that it has gotten. i am pleased that the senate passed their bill last night. i was pleased that they put political intelligence back in

because i said many times that it is my belief that that is the most important part of the bill. everybody knows where we are going except those of us in the house. our leadership is the one question remaining. what are they going to do? we are telling them that it requires a number of people who have signed on the bill in a bipartisan manner -- the speaker mentioned how many signatures we thought. 167 in less than two days. that by itself is fairly remarkable. we are asking our leadership at once to please bring up the stock act. heaven knows it has been very well vetted. everybody knows about it. everybody understands how critical it is that we get it passed. we could build it this week as easy as all get out. we are already to do our part and vote.

this restored the integrity of the house and the congress. i want to thank the leaders who have been strong supporters of this from the very beginning. i really appreciate very much of the great work that is going on. i appreciate my republican cosigners. i appreciate the bipartisan support to the discharge petition. i believe that two of us are going to be pretty upset if we cannot get the bill that we have to go through.se7 we want to give a clear message to the leadership that this cannot go on another year or another week. we would like very much to see action on it. thank you.

>> thank you for being here. thank you leader policy -- pelosi. thank you for making sure this institution gains the respect from the american people that the democracy deserves. i have to tell you, five years ago, the first time i walked in this building i was a high- school teacher. after i saw for a while how things were done, i felt like i needed to explain to them everything i talked about how a bill -- talked about how a bill becomes law. you have the american people asking for the government to look up to the ideals they do. playing fairly and making sure there is an accountability. when i was told, you came here to make government different and more accountable, we have got something that will help do it. i liked -- i could not believe that a loophole -- of course, we

are responsible to our constituents. it does not include the knowledge we've gained. that trust that was undermined as we see it in our approval ratings, it is hard to get the nation's business done if they do not trust us. i am proud of members on both sides of the aisle. walter jones has been a champion on this as our republican lead sponsor. the senate did something -- they took up a call from the president in a bipartisan manner in an open fashion, contain themselves on their amendments and took our base built and improve it to make it better. the bill has been vetted for six years. the government has weighed in on this asking us to make us more accountable. i am very pleased for the american public that they can believe that the system can work and we can do something. we are this close -- we sit on the edge of making this work.

i implore speaker gainer not to write something behind closed doors and bring this here. -- speaker boehner not to write something behind closed doors and bring it here. we need to do the will of the american public. this bill is ready to go. the president said tomorrow, i wish we would have stayed today and take it of. -- up. i want to cross his everyone for standing with us to make this a priority. -- i want to thank everyone for standing with us to make this a priority. let us keep this trust and the momentum going for it. >> thank you very much. i want to thank leader pelosi and my two colleagues for their tremendous work on this effort.

i think that short of a suspension bill, you are not going to get much more bipartisanship on a piece of legislation then you have got on this one. 282 co-sponsors in 1.5 days. we were able to get 167. it may be a little more than that now. now, 169. [laughter] i think this is indicative of the fact that people raised to join hands, especially when the president makes a call and so many of the circle once -- has weighed in on this piece of legislation. i think it would be great to start next week.

have the 23rd consecutive month of private sector job growth. to see unemployment drop to 8.3%. those two things were outstanding. today, the president is announcing the job effort that we -- [inaudible] we would like to see our returning men and women from iraq and afghanistan. we need to move into a 21st century civilian conservation program. this is the kind of stuff that

american tenacity is made of. i am pleased to be here and join with my colleagues in calling for the speaker to bring this bill to the floor. let us keep this momentum going. thank you. >> majority leader cantor -- why do you need to ask him when he said he was going to do it? >> we are asking him to bring the house bill tohe floor so it can go to conference. i did not hear he was bringing the senate bill up. if you say that, i believe you. we think this is a bipartisan project, developed in the house of representatives. overwhelming support. we would like to go to the conference table to a conference on this bill so we can have the best possible bill if we go forward. if they bring up the senate

bill, that would be good, too. it is better to bring up the house bill. >> is the susan g. komen foundation going to have long- term problems based on this debacle this week? do you think you will be able to support them in the ways you have in the past? >> we will support them as we have in the past. that is a question of what other people in the country think about it. it was an unfortunate set to nation, but it was dealt with in a short time. i commend the cement -- susan g. komen foundation for seeing the light on this. i salute the women who spoke out on behalf of women's health. they showed their power and make a difference. women will be healthier. >> -- >> same subject. >> --

[laughter] >> we are excited about the women's issues today. [inaudible] >> people have said this is politically motivated. do you think it was a politically motivated decision? what is behind with the susan g. komen foundation did? >> i have not seen those letters that characterized it that way. have not seen the letters that have characterized it that way, that there were strong feelings and thinking on the subject. i can only take the komen foundation at its word, that it was changing its policy toward s planned parenthood because it was under investigation, and if that is their standard, everything they do should be the

same standard. then made a decision, they reversed yet. they should just go forward with that out, and focus on improving women's health. >> on the discharge, if mr. brings up wanting to change it, [inaudible] d think the fundamental bill you have created is the best bill? .> we don't intend to give up it will stay with that and we believe sincerely that our bill is the best. it is very close to the senate bill, the senate bill that passed 96-3, it's practically unanimous over here.

not getting it to the floor is absolutely disturbing to the people we serve. >> what is your concern that mr. cantor and others might do? >> that that might dilute it or do away with enforcement. they have not told us anything they are going to do, but as you know, we had a hearing 60 days ago. we are asking them now, in the face of 282 members, not to do that. we are looking for some bipartisan vote here that every american from the president to the rest of us can look forward to this passage.

there are 98 republican sponsors. and the last one to sign on was michele bachmann. thank you. >> by 2016, according to the imf, the world's leading economy will be a communist dictatorship. think about that. if the imf is right, the guy you elect last november will be the last president to preside over the world's leading economy. >> his latest book is the new york times best seller. he also writes the happy warrior

column for the national review and is a frequent host on rush limbaugh's radio show. live at noon eastern on but tv on c-span - -book -- booktv on cspan2. >> next, remarks from mitt early inwho spoke nevada. this is half an hour. i will answer that question, but i appreciate from your perspective. the policies of the administration have been real helpful to you? i believe the economy will come back. it always does. it has taken a lot longer than

it should have to come back in part because of the policies of this administration. they have not been helpful, they have been harmful and slow down the recovery. american families have suffered, businesses have laid off people. for that, the president deserves the blame that he will receive in this campaign. i think there is a disadvantage that he had upon being elected, a democrat house and a democrat said that that did not think he needed to work with the opposition party. he did not realize that he had to bring people together. the role of the leader is not just to take the people that agree with you, but to bring americans together, and he violated that premise. he pushed through a number of pieces of legislation that his base voters wanted and made it very hard for enterprises to

recover. whether it was obamacare, dodd- frank, we talk about banks, not al not loaning. there are over 2000 pages of dodd-frank, they don't know what will happen to them. if the regulators and inspectors will come anin. they have pulled back. there is a difference in working with home owners to renegotiate mortgages, they want to put them in the foreclosure. it has become less flexible and a lot more flexible. -- and not more flexible. i was with the head of the big money-center bank in new york and they said they have literally hundreds of workers working on implementing dodd- frank.

community banks don't have hundreds of lawyers, so they tend to freeze. part one is ote, the president never let anything before and he came into a setting where he didn't have to work and made it harder for business to regroup to get the economy on the right track. i listened to the state of the union address the other night, and he laid out what he thought you had to do to get in the economy to grow. i was listening very carefully, probably more carefully than you all were. there were four or five things. o lower corporate taxes, he has raised them. he said less regulation, he has increased them. he has made it almost impossible to get coal, oil, and gas on the

ground. he said we need to crack down on cheaters like china, and he hasn't. it simply proves the point that what he has done is not getting this economy going. i like to do -- look to do the things i have described. president obama has hired over 200,000 new regular regulators -- government regulators. add a time where we need to speed up the process, get banks lending, get the drillers for oil and gas, people want to build new facilities and roads, it should speed up and not slowed down. this recovery has been slower than it should have been, people are suffering longer than they should have to suffer. i don't know how long it is going to take.

i hope job creation continues and we get people back to work. that is the antidote for falling home prices. it is the antidote for what is going on right here in the supply business. people able to buy new things, by a home, remodel and get back to work. this president has not helped the process, he has heard it. -- hurt it. you don't think you have a friend in washington, and if i am the president, i will see what you do as being a very good thing. a patriotic and good thing, which is employing people. i want businesses to hire, grow, and expand. sure if i am president i will work tirelessly to listen to you and people like you across the country to encourage business to

invest and grow, to make the hard decisions that it is to hire somebody. i am concerned about what you have described, and we'll look at that. i have not begun making promises that suggest spending lots and lots of money. some politicians promise everything people want to hear, and clearly, if investment and infrastructure will yield greater returns on people willing to invest in business and hire more people that will pay more taxes, that is the kind of investment i will make. i like spending money which is associated with jobs and returns and people going back to work. what i don't like is spending money where there is no prospect

of return. and the investment will be lost. that is the worry he has about his kids and his grandkids. i have very much identified with your comment in that regard. my kids are not old enough, and i were in not so much about the short-term economic rebound, it will have been slowly. -- have been slowly. wppen slowly. we will hit degrease wall, the italy wall, the spain wall, at some point. there is no entity in the world a large enough to bail out the united states of america.

we will have to get -- not mean, but at least lean. it is placing a greater burden on coming generations, and i will look at the budget line by line. if i see programs that are not critical, i will ask if this program is so essential that it is worth of borrowing money from china to pay for it. if not, i will eliminate the program. we simply have to say, and even some things we like, we have to stop paying for it with government. i have a long list, obama care is number one. there are others. we spend money on amtrak, we subsidize them. they have to learn to stay on their own. we can't keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars to

subsidize its. pbs. we like pbs and big bird, but the idea of spending taxpayer money to pay for something as opposed to letting them get advertising like everybody else, big bird can afford to be on tv with corn flakes. [laughter] exactly right. not mean, but lean and thoughtful on how to scale back on government, scale back on borrowing, have an administration that likes business to hire people and to grow. i spent 25 years in business. i know what it is like to add jobs and lose jobs. it is painful. it is a tragedy. i know how hard it is for you and i appreciate your effort to

try to get people back to work. i will do everything in my power to make it easier for you to a higher and to grow and get projects done faster. after i heard that story, we came to state agencies and learn to get permits out in 180 days. you have to say yes or no, and agreed to make the same commitment. we said to the city, if you want to be part of the business development that the state carries out, you have to commit to 180. we will do the same thing at the federal government level. it will take as long as it takes, hall of the consultant get paid, all of the bureaucrats

get paid. [applause] i think people back here nervously telling me we have folks in the other room that want to get a chance to say hi, so we'll speak with them. ♪

>> good morning. what a great day in northern nevada, what a great day in america. how long have we looked across the country and seen as going on? it is right here in northern nevada. i am not supposed to talk long and i am not going to. i will introduce a good friend, i want to make one comment. before i introduce our lieutenant governor, i want everybody to think about one thing. do we want a businessman who knows how to lead, or do we want a politician?

i think that is what america has to ask themselves. i will introduce a good friend, our lieutenant governor of the united states of nevada -- one of these days. >> thanks for the promotion. thank you for opening up the shot today, it is tremendous and fun, and i don't know if you had a chance to hear the round table. it was bought on, this is exactly the president we need. romney has been a familiar face to nevada, he knows our issues and he understands how nevada has been hurting. he knows the struggling and that has been happening, his policies

hi, his vision, these are the things the country needs to turn this around. if you turn around businesses in the private life and create 100,000 jobs. he has taken of the big games and turned them into profitable enterprises had a magnificent spectacle that we can be proud of. it is a $2 billion deficit, this is the kind of man we need in washington d.c.. i am planning to caucus with all my friends and families. i hope you are, too. if you are inclined otherwise, it should be a beautiful weekend. [laughter] thank you for being here and it is my great pleasure to introduce the man that i believe will be the next president of governord states, a governor

mitt romney. >> it is good to be here this morning, and it is kind of you to open up your shop. i see members of the western nevada supply operation and i appreciate their work, i am sure they appreciate the fact that they have a job right now. these are tough times. mayor, could have you here. he went back to work and is getting ahead of you. mayor sparks is trying to get ahead of the mayor of reno but it won't work, will it? i spoke with the number of the business people who employ votes in the community and listen to their concerns. what i heard was very familiar. i have had the chance to go around the country and talk to business people at folks that work for various types of businesses and asked them how they feel about things.

people are worried right now. it has been a tough three years. people are hurting in nevada and across the country. i was with a barber in new hampshire that was thinking of retiring. i asked him why, he said that i can't. his retirement funds are not what he expected to be and he has had to cut back. now they are trying to figure out how to make ends meet. ony're trying to keep food the table. i talked to a lot of college kids. soldiers can't find work. it has been a tough time. i know the president did not cause this downturn. but he did not make it better,

he made it worse. instead of focusing his energy on the economy and getting people back to work, he used it to put through a series of programs that he and his base and his friends thought were important. it made it harder for the economy to recover. for three years, american families have been unemployed or underemployed. we have 24 million americans that are out of work or can only get part-time jobs. i don't have to tell you what happened to home values. the number of people that wonder if they're going to have at home at the end of the day. i was with one man that said this was heard to date, she was going to have her second child. they did not know of the home would be available to them or not. this is the nature of what was

going on in america. people have suffered unnecessarily. i have spent my life in business. i have the experience of starting a business. it became one of the most successful of its kind in the world. i once went into business that got into real trouble, they asked me to come in and help lead a, i was able to turn it around. because of the turnaround experiences, i was asked to come out to you got and run the olympic winter games. and after that, we came back to massachusetts. we were looking at a big deficit. we did not want to raise taxes because we knew it would hurt working families.

i have learned through those experiences something about leadership and something about business and jobs. and why businesses lose jobs, how and why we are able to grow. but first about leadership. a leader does not work with the people just in his party or the people that agree with him, he has to convince people across the aisle, people that disagree with them. right now, in our country, they are highly divided. you have republicans and democrats battling back and forth. but we don't have the leadership of a president that is willing to work and point out that the crisis that we face must be addressed by people in both parties. i was lucky enough to be collected in a state with a legislature that is slightly democrat.

85% democrat. i worked with people across the aisle to get things done with the people of my state. i also learned something in my business career and why jobs come and go. i learned that business can handle bad news, but what it can't handle is uncertainty. i have learned that what this president has done has made it harder and harder for businesses to be able to grow and invest in people and hire people. almost every step the president has taken has unfortunately made it harder for businesses to understand the future and decide to grow and invest. it has permeated the entire economy. we talked this morning and one mentioned how hard it is to get a loan. i have talked to bankers, why aren't you giving loans to small business? why are you scared? this new legislation, to

thousand pages, they are frightened to make loans. for fear the regulators will write them off and the bank will come and solvent. it didn't help give businesses loans. can you imagine wanting to invest in the health care product right now with obama care hanging over you? are you thinking about hiring more people? is this going to raise my cost? so you pull back. there is the national labor relations board. you have the labour bodies, and they are doing what the bidding is. if my employees will be unionized. i will not hire as many as i would have wanted to in the past. how about deficits?

the government spends $1 trillion more that cake tin. -- than you take in. you can't spend more money than you take in. you get to a point where you become like greece. you lose the potential to continue to provide for ourselves. if i become president of the united states, i commit to being a friend of working people, employers, and to print your is, and evaders. i commit to making america the best place in the world for investment, hiring, job growth, and come growth. i will do everything i know how to make our economy the fastest job-creating machine in the world. i will make sure that the tax rates are not higher than the

tax rate to around the world. we want to make sure we are competitive. i want the government regulators to do their job on accelerated basis in get out of the way, let businesses get back to building things like highways, bridges, schools, homes. we overwhelm our businesses with regulations that are unnecessary. i also want to take advantage of energy resources. we have a president that has pushed off coal by virtue of regulations and burning it. i want to get natural gas out of the ground and energy resources, we are acting like an energy-poor nation. and goods and so we can sell products around the world. i will crack down on cheaters like china that manipulate

currencies that make it harder for us to compete. and i will stop something out as crony capitalism. everyone has an idea of what that means, but it has been interesting to watch. solyndra was one example, they got $500 million of your money. it is now gone, evaporated. there are car companies, electric car companies, friends of the democratic party that get money from government at the list goes on. people get money from government because the government thinks it is a good place to invest. someone talked about green jobs, the new definition is people that gave the green now get government money. i want to make sure that we have a comment -- a government that

does not pick winners and losers. those are just five of the things i will do to get this economy going again. [applause] and let me mention another one, i will listen. i will listen to business people and working people, and for folks to understand what is going on in their lives. the president was on a google town hall kind of feature and the woman said that her husband that was an engineer was out of work and had been out of work for a long time. he said he was surprised to hear that, he thought people, engineers were able to get jobs pretty easily. how can he be that detached from what is going on? the president of the united

states needs to hear what the people of the united states are seeing and feeling. i will listen if i am president of the united states. [applause] i am running because i love america. i love the land of america and the people of america. i am worried about the future for my kids and grandkids. the oldest, are you the oldest? he is 11. we have 11 down. rich kids? they will do ok, they have a dad. i am worried about the grand kids of america. i want to make sure their future is bright and promising. i am convinced there is nothing that keeps america from leading the world. i don't accept the idea that

america is in decline. this is believe that we ar america's destiny, it is just a region or -- a detour. we will have great jobs with rising incomes for our families. i love the hymns of america. america the beautiful. i got put up a nice place, is a culpeper mail? -- pepper mill? i saw the mountains, this is a beautiful city. mountains around, snow on the top of the peaks, and this is a nice spot. oh beautiful, for spacious skies, you have them. amber waves of grain, you don't have those.

the purple mountains' majesty, you have those, too. i love america. those are the verses i love. oh beautiful for heroes approved in liberating strife, for more themselves their country love and mercy more than life. raise your hand hi, thank you. [applause] appreciate your service. another verse, o beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years. the idea is that the patriots, the founders of this country, and writing the founding documents were riding not just for their time, but beyond their years. i happen to believe the right course for america is to return to those principles. the declaration of independence and said the creator had endowed us with certain unalienable rights.

among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in this country, we are free to pursue happiness as we choose, not as government tells us. we are not limited by the circumstances of our birth, we are free to pursue happiness of our own way. that freedom brought some of the pioneers and innovators from all over the world, that is what made this nation the most powerful economic engine and the world. and the strongest nation to be able to defend our freedoms. i will take america a lot of very different course than this president. he is turning us into a european-style social welfare state. i will get america working again and keep us the power house that we are destined to be. thank you so much, great to be with you this morning. thank you. ♪

>> we have a responsibility. for those of you stuck in the creation of literature, you have a responsibility. how can you create anything you want, protecting history or not and feeling comfortable with the creation? or would you center yourself to decide that i can't offend anybody or i can't write this thing. this weekend, professor william inter on then-wor n-word

american literature and culture. a look at the influence of time inc. founder, publisher of time, fortune, and life magazines. january 1901, the oil boom and the lucas gusher quickly makes texas in leading oil-producing state. these of the infamous streets of beaumont, texas. american history tv on c-span 3. >> next, eric cantor joins steny hoyer on the floor to discuss next week's legislative agenda. lawmakers passed a measure that changes the federal budgeting process while also improving conference reports that said federal aviation programs for the next four years. this is 35 minutes. back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman fohis information. would ask him on the timing, the

conference committee has met twice on the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance, and the so-called doc fix to ensure the fact that doctorsre compensated and will be available for medicare patients. conference committee, mr. leader, has met twice since december 23. we adopted a motion to instruct overwhelmingly through the house to make sure that they reported back by february 17. i think you may have read my comments in the press that if we do not do it by the 17th, then we are off for a week and we will be back, 27, 28, 29, come back the night of the 27th will be jammed at the end on wednesday the 29th. we on have six full days left before the february break. that does not include our 6:30

start times. house democrats, mr. leader, stand ready to, frankly, i think work through the weekend if that was necessary, but i'm very concerned that something that we all want to get done, and i have made the suggestion to my democratic conferees, and they were equally amused as you are, i understand that. but i will tell you, that i have great concern that we are going to get tthe 27th, 28th, and 29th and be in the same kind of confrontation and debacle we found ourselves in in december. that's not good for your party. my opinion it's not good for our party. it's not good for e house and senate, but it is certainly not good for the 160 million people who are going to be concerned about whether or not their tax cut will continue or medicare people who are going to be concerned about whether their doc's going to be available or

thenempyed who are going to be concerned. now, of cour, the unemployed we had some very good news. i'm sure you didn't mention it in your opening comments, but i'm sure you were as excited as i was about the 257,000 new private sector jobs that were created last month. showed real progress. but i will tell you that i'm very concerned about the timing and would be delighted to hear the gentleman's thoughts on the success and progress of the conference committee. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, what i would say is the republicans on the house side led by chairman camp have been and are ready to make sure we resolve the issue of the payroll tax holiday extension right now. the issue has been the reluctance on the gentleman's side of the aisle on the unfunded capital. if i thought that working seven days a week through weekends and all hours of the day and night

would ke a difference, i would be all for that as well. but the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, this use continues to act. this house passed a year-long extension that also did not have the effect of raiding the social security trust fund. something the gentleman and i both want to make sure happens. that we restore the integrity of that fund for the people who are counting on it. but, mr. speaker, i would say the house also this week acted on several measures that frankly are very relevant to the work of the conference committee yet no action by the senate. one of those things as the gentleman knows was passed out of the house this week. it was a measure calling for a pay freeze. at the federal level for federal employees, including members of the house and senate. and this was a vote, a bipartisan vote, 309 members voted for that. and it allowed for about $26

billion in savings that could be easily included in the conference committee deliberation. something that our side continues to want to include, but yet no answer from the senate majority leader and his conferees. so again i would tell the gentleman, please, we are as anxious as you are to try a resolve these issue we had another vote today on this week, mr. speaker, which garnered 400 votes in the house, a bipartisan bill, which called for some necessary reforms to the tanf program. these were reforms which preclude the use of the moneys that beneficiaries receive for purchases of services at casinos and other types of establishments that perhaps those moneys could be better spent not in those places, but again no response from the

senate. and i would ask the gentleman if he could please direct his urgency towards the majority leader in the senate to see if we can get this off the dime and resolve the issue of the payroll tax so that we can, as the gentleman suggests, send a very certain signal to the people who are struggling out there working day in and day out that their taxes will not go up. and as for the gentleman's suggestion about the job numbers, i don't know if you saw my public statement this morning, but i said that was welcomed news. that when you have job creation like that, welcomed news. but i also think we can do a lot better. i was pleased to see that the president came out this week and said he now, too, wants to be a champion of small business. and we say we are happy to work with this white house so that we can provide the help to small businesses. we will be bringing to the floor before tax day a small business tax cut bill that goes right at

the issue of helping small businesspeople -- small business people, allowing them more incentive to invest their capital so they can create jobs and we can see this economy really take off. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. we have long been a supporter of small business. we believe small business is the engine of our economy. we believe we need to grow entrepreneurs. we need to expand, frankly, small business and the middle class. it was interesting what the gentleman referred to in response to my question. yes, we understand that cutting the pay of average working americans who happen to be federal employees, but they are average working mens is the way you want to pay for what we do. we of course want to pay for it with some of the wealthiest people in our country just contributing a little bit more, just a little bit more, as opposed to average working people who are struggling by,

and by the way the sponsor of that piece of legislation to which you referred indicated he was having a tough time getting by supporting his family on the salary that he makes here in congress. now, frankly we offered, as you know, to have a vote on freezing members of congress salary straight up. not hidden in another bill, but straight up. which i would have supported. and my side would have supported overwhelmingly. i presume your side would have supported overwhelmingly. we of course didn't get that opportunity because frankly our priorities do in fact differ. average working people as opposed to the best off in america. that was -- that's the choice in this conference committee, apparently, because you want to pay for it with the average working people taking a hit. and we want to pay for it by just asking just a little more from the wlthiest in america to help us through this tough patch that we are i

things are getting better. the gentleman -- i haven't seen his release but i will certainly look at his release, he says we ought to do better. i will tell the gentleman we are doing a lot better. the gentleman knows during the last five months of the bush administration we lost 3,192,000 jobs. the gentleman smiles because that's history. it is history and we learn from it. we were following the economic policies the the gentleman sll continues to press upon the american people. we lost 3,19 ,000 jobs in five months. in the last five months, however, we have gained now over a million jobs. that's progress. and in fact over the last 22 months we have gained over three million jobs. so that we are making significant progress. not enough. we dug a very, very deep hole

and we arerying to get out of it. but the fact of the matter is long three million jobs in five months and gaining a million jobs in five months is about a four million job difference. so i tell my friend both in terms of who ought to pay for the investments that we have agreed we need to make, we don't want to raise taxes on these folks as the economy is still coming backment obviously still showing great progress, but we don't want to pay for it with average working people having to pay the price. and i will tell my friend i was disappointed that we dew point have a separate vote so -- that we were disappointed we haven't a separate vote so members of congress could vote straight up on their being frozen. i will tell my friend i will work with him perhaps towards that end. . now, having said that, is the

gentleman expecting, i'm sure he's been in conversations with mr. camp, is the gentleman expecting a relatively early report back from the conference committee, hopefully prior to the 18th of february that we might be voting on this? mr. cantor: let me respond, mr. speaker, do you yield? mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, first of all, i do hope that we can act in an expeditious manner to accomplish the same goal he stated, that i agree with. he we need to let the people of this country out there working so hard to know they're not going to have their taxes go up on them and we should allow for certainty for a full year. the position the house has taken from the very beginning. i would say to the gentleman, about his assertions of our policies and those under the last president and perhaps their effect on job creation or job loss, the issue is, right

now, and my question to the gentleman is, as far as that's concerned, doesn't he agree that we could be doing better? and that'my point, mr. speaker. we can do better. we can do better by focusi on the private sector, small business men and women, so that we can empower them to invest and create jobs again. we can do better. that's what we intend to do, straight up, through policies that affect reduction of red tape in this town, to make it easier for small business men anwomen to operate, as i indicated before, a bill to be brought forward to provide for 20% tax cut for small businesses. i hope if the gentleman says he's for small businesses he'll join nuss a bipartisan way to support a bl that provides far 20% tax cut for small businesses. i ask the gentleman as well, he continues to advocate higher taxes for people.

higher taxes. that's what we hear. higher taxes on people who make a lot of money. well, the fact is, the result of that is putting more money into this town, putting more money into the hands of washington so that washington can decide where people's money is spent. now we all know we've got a spending problem, and we all know that raising taxes does not.gov -- dig us out of the hole. i ask the gentleman, does he think that's going to fix the problem? it's not as if we're saying we don't want to help the people out there struggling, that's what we're trying to do. i'm looking forward to working with him in a bipartisan way and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we look forward to work -- workg in a bipartisan way. we have found fficulty doing it, because we have trouble having a meeting of the minds. i will tell my friend, what i advocate over and over and over again is paying for what we buy.

that's what i advocate. and if -- and if you don't want it, don't buy it. you controled this town for eight years from an economic standpoint. we were in -- were in charge for two years but we couldn't pass anything over george bush's veto. we went from surplus to deficit, from a debt of $5.6 -- -- from a debt of 5.6 to a debt of 11. have we added to the debt? yes. why? because we went into the deepest depression, starting in 2007, that this country has been in in your lifetime and my lifetime -- and i'm a lot older than you. that's why i advocate paying for what we buy and have the colonel to make decisions on doing exactly that. frkly, on your side of the aisle, when you go and say, look, we need to pay for elections, who do you go to? yogo to members d go to

people who have se resources they can contribute to an effort you think is very important. i think america's efforts are very important. i think those of us who have done better ought to pay a little more than those who are struggling as the gentleman refers to. yes, that's the difference. i believe it's the difference. i will continue to advocate paying for what we buy. that's why i was for pay-go which george bush abandoned and which essentially is not being followed today as i think all of us should do. so i will tell my friend that i think we ought to do better. i agree with him. and we did do better. we did do better under policies that i supported. 22 million jobs in the 1990's. we last jobs in the 2000's. we went backwards. the stock rket went up 216% in the 1990's. under george bush, it went down

26%. yes, i think we can do better. and we ought to do better. and we ought to do better by investing. now i talked about investing. let me talk a little bit about the bill that the speaker has talked about, you've talked about, infrastructure and jobs. the transportation infrastructure committee marked up a controversial highway bill. the gentleman says we want to work together, he and i tried to do that. we don't always succeed but we try to do it. they marked up yesterday 17 hours. finished around 3:00 a.m. at the start of that debate, i don't know whether the gentleman knows this, mr. rahall, the rankin mber, asked all the memrs of the transportation committee, when the bill was put on torque raise their hand if they read the bill. do you know how many people raised their hand? that's a rhetorical question, because the gentleman probably hasn't inquired of this, none. 800-page bill. not a person raised their hand. that they had read the bl.

there was a lot discussion about reading the bill. reading the bill. now if they had read this bill, there was, of course, as you know a bipartisan no vote, one of the senior members voted against it, this is in stark contrast to the unanimous vote that occurred in the united states senate. on the bill. the committee on natural resources also completed a controversial markup on opening anwr to drilling. as i understand, you're going to p that in the infrastructure bill. with the clear knowledge that at is a very controversial item that will not pass the united states senate. you may have the votes here, that is similar to what happened on the payroll tax cut just last december. if you're going to work in a -- on a bipartin basis, we ought to understand that we're going to have to try to not push on one party or the other things that are unacceptable -- unacceptable and won't pass and n't have the votes.

the reason george bush sign sod many bills we passed in the congress in 2009 and 2010 is cause we worked with the administration and worked with the senate. the senate and the house controlled by democrats, president bush in office, he signed more than twice as many bills that we passed. why? because we worked with him. we would urge you to do the same. is the gentleman planning to bring up the infrastructure bill to the floor soon and can he tell the members it will be considered urn an open process? furthermore is the majority leader expecting there to be bipartisan cooperation on the infrastructure package so we don't have to go up against another deadlin as the gentleman knows, march 31, the highway bill authorization ends. we temporarily conclude it. let me endith this before you answer the question, because ray lahood was a leader in this congress. ray lahood was a leader on your side of the aisle. ray lahood served together for

a long time. i don't know if you've seen his quote, i think it bears consideration of your side of the aisle from a republican, from middle america, peoria, who, your leader, your minority leader, bob michael, had as his chief of staff. here's what he said about the infrastructure bill that was marked up. this is the most partisan transportation bill that i have ever seen. and it is also the most anti-safety ll i have ever seen. this is a direct quote from ray lahood, republican, former member of this house for many years and former chief of staff to the minority leader bob michael. it hollows out our number one priority, which is safety. and ray lahood went on to say this. frankly it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts we have been about for the last three years. it's the worst transportation bill i've ever seen during my

35 years of public service. ray lahood, politico, february 3, just a few days ago, actually, that's today. he said it today. in realtime. this is real, breaking news from the majority leader. the worst transportation bill he has seen in 35 years. that does not, i tell my friend, bode well for bipartisan cooperation on a piece of legislation. that nobody in the committee had read. so i ask my friend, do we expect to bring that bill up under those conditions in the near term? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. first of all, we expect to vote on the bill the week of the 13th. i think there will be adequate time for members to review the bill and the text to the gentleman's concern about mr. hall's inquiry last night in

committee. that's why we're allowing for the time so members can review such a big bill. a bill that means so many jobs to so many americans. i hope the gentleman will work with us. this american infrastructure, energy, and jobs act is this just -- is st that. isa jobs bill. it can provide certainty to contractors torque our community, so we can start to grow again and see jobs proliferate. but i find it ironic that the gentleman complained about ying for it. because he talks about the ways of our wanting to open up our resources. our resourcesffshore. our resourc in anwr. as number one, an attempt to allow america to develop, finally, a national energy policy, but to also promote jobs. the gentleman knows, as do,

the energy sector provides an awful lot of jobs in plenty of parts of this country and can do a lot more, a is willing. private capital. willing to deploy to create jobs. but i find it also ironic, mr. speaker, that the gentleman complains that there's no bipartisanship. because somehow we're not working with the administration. the administration's been absent on all of this. they're not interested in working with us. -- with us to create a product where we can see jobs created. as you can see, the secretary sits in his office and opines and attkshe bill. saying it is all the negative things he said. now that'sot a way to collaborate and work together. and the gentleman knows that as well. the gentleman knows that that is certainly not how things have worked in this town if you want to produce a result. so the gentleman can claim the mantle of wanting to work together an the administration,

oh, the poor administration is being trampled by some action here, he knows good and well, mr. speaker, that this administration has been absent in so many of the disssions on so many important issues and the fact that we differ on policy, yeah. but i think the gentleman also kns that reasonable people can disagree. but we -- that doesn't mean we can't work together to find some things that we agree on. and certainly we agree on jobs. the gentleman says we agree on small business. i'm looking for his support of that small business tax credit bill. and we agree on infrastructure spending being an important part of our economy. i'm looking forward to the next week or so as the bill works its way to the floor to hopefully garner his support. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the ntleman. wonderful, wonderful logic. a republican leader in this house is appointed to include

bipartisan, as we have been on transportation and infrastructure, as secretary of transportation, who was a leadern this house and the chief of staff of the minority leader of this house, says that the bill you have drafted, that your members didn't read before they passed out of committee, the public i'm sure is glad they're going to read it before we pass it, i've heard a lot of talk about reading the bills, nobody read it before they passed it out of committee. and a republican secretary of transportation, former chief of staff of the minority leader, says, my friend, it's the most partisan bill he h ever en in 35 years. and then you say, well, i know we pasd the most partisan bill in 35 years but gee, the administration won'tork with us. you don't accept that premise, i understand that. but it's ironic that you say the administration won't work

with you. you and i both know ray lahood happens to be one of the more bipartisan people you and i have served. i have worked frequently with congressman he lahood when he worked -- represented peoria in the house of representatives. we worked together on a lot of somebodies. why? he wanted to get things done. he wasn't simply interested in making political points. noyou bring up anwr in terms of pay-for. i'm for paying for this. you didn't hear me say anything about offshore drilling. i did about anwr because you and i both know, in a bipartisan way, many of your members ve voted against opening up anwr and we have, as the gentleman knows, millions of acres, millions of achers currently available for drilling in alaska right now, as we speak. so that we want to have a bipartisan -- but putting an 800-page bill on the table, no chance to read it, passing it

in a 17-hour marathon session and then having clearly no -- having not worked at all with ray lahood andf you're telling me ray lahood won't work with republicans, i do not accept that premise. i think that's an absolute -- i think that's a disservice toray lahood. if that's what you're saying. he is the secretary of transportation and i'm -- there is no doubt in my mind, none, zero, that if mr. micah wants to work with ray lahood on a bipartisan bill, ray lahood will be here as many hours, days and weeks that mr. micah needs him here and i think you would hopefully agree with that proposition. ray lahood is a republican but he is a bipartisan american who wants to get things done for our country and create those jobs of which you speak, which all of us want to do. we have a jobs bill, by the way, that you have not brought to the floor. what's one of the aspts of that jobs bill?

infrastructure. investing in infrastructure. that bill has languished for five months now not brought to the floor by the majority leader who has the authority to bring it to the floor and i of course have been urging him to do so. i'll yield. mr. cantor: absolutely, mr. speaker. i join the gentleman in thinking secretary lahood is a fine gentleman but i have to say is actions speak louder than words. what i have to say about the request of the president's jobs bill and whether we are bringinghe whole bill up for a vot i ask the geneman, how many on his side of the aisle actually sponsored that bill. and i think there is certainly many elements of that bill that we can all agree on. and in fac we have voted on four separate elements, big elements of the president's small business agenda that he announced this week that was part of that bill. crowd funning, mini offerings

to help small business access financing. a bill to provide for 100% depreciation, the provisions that will allow for more ability for small businesses to see money to go to the bottom line so they can grow, and a bill that we pasd out of this house to eliminate country caps for immigration, for the highly skilled workers. all these are part of the president's proposals. all these the house has passed and they sit and they sit on the otheride of the capitol. so i would say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i do that this -- that more stimus spending as a part of that president's -- the president's proposal is something we don't accept but there is plenty in there that we can agree on. back to the notion of bipartisanship, let's set aside differences and find what we can agree. these are areas we can agree on, and so i would say to the gentleman, please, work with us. please ask the leader on the

other side of the capitol, bring these bills up. i yield back. mrhoyer: the gentleman knows a number of those proposals had bipartisan support in this house. i think had biptisan support over in the senate. they need to be paid for and that's where the contention comes, as the gentleman knows. let me ask you on another subject, if i might, the stock act. the -- and -- well, before i do that, i appreciate the gentleman's observation with respect to those bills that the president has suggested we do, that we have done. mr. cantor: if the gentleman could just yield for a correction. there is no need for pay-fors on the bills. these bills are something that were cleared out of the house in a revenue-neutral way. mr. hoyer: the individual bills, right. mr. cantor: again, the gentleman is correct in saying there's bipartisan support for these bills. the president supports them.

where the problem is aoss the llway here and we could actually get e majority leader there to help move these bills we can make some progress. mr. hoyer: we could make some progress if frankly the majority leader could get 60 votes to enact legislation and transact business on the floor of the senate. unfortunately, as the gentleman very well knows, the majority leader, harry reid, has h great difficulty getting 60 votes to proceed with business on the floor of the united ates senate. i think that's unfortunate. but let me move on because the gentleman went from infrastructure bill, which secretary lahood, that was the most partisan bill he's seen in 35 years, shifting to jobs which we agree. the fact of the matter is i want to talk about another piece of legislation that the senate has worked on. we have a bill here, we asked that it be taken from the floor from the desk, put on the flr and that's the stock act.

the gentleman has expressed support for the stock act. i'm hopeful we could pass a house bill and then go to conference with the senate on a bill in the near future. can the gentlen comment on that? mr. cantor: if the gentleman yields. it has always been my intention to act on this very important issue and to get the president a billhat he can sign as quickly as possible. again, the underlying notion is, as the gentleman believes, we need to make sure that the people that send us here know that we are acting and abiding by the trust that they place in us. that's what the stock act is about. and so what we're going to do next week, mr. speaker, as i indicated earlier, is we are going to act with dispatch. we are going to take up the senate bill. we are currently reviewing the actions the senate took on that bill and we intend to strengthen that bill. again, to do so in a way that

can get a bill to the president's desk as quickly as possible so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the people here that they can trust this institution and the members and there is no preanticipation whatsoever that anyone here -- preanticipation whatsoever that anyone here misuses information for their own personal use. i yield. mr. hoyer: tim walz of minnesota has had a bill, as the gentleman probably knows, the stock act, also louise slaughter, ranking member on the rules committee, has worked on for literally a decade or more. so we have legislation which is available to take frankly from the desk, pass that and go immediately to conference with the senate. the gentleman indicates he wants to ange the senate ll. i think that that may be appropriate, but if he does we are going to have to go to

conference in any event so my thought is take tim walz's bill and we go to conference on that bill. it seems to the most expeditious way in a way the gentleman wants to accomplish in a very quick fashion. i think tim walz of minnesota would be happy to hr that and available to work towards that end along with louise slaughter. i thank the gentleman. i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, i know the gentleman likes to talk about past congrses. when he was house majority leader he did not bring the stock act to the floor and it was a submitted bill. so let set the record straight. this majority leader igoing to bring the bill, a stock act bill to the floor next week. and i would also say, mr. speaker, that mr. walz's bill actually would weaken the senate bill. and it is our intention to pass

and get to the president a workable, strong bill that makes sure we're delivering on the promise th we made to the people that sent us here. i know the gentleman wants to join me in theffort to reinstill the confidence in the public that we are abiding by that trust. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i think certainly that all of us hopefully agree with what the leader has just said. we clearly want to make sure the american public has confidence and trust in the actions we take and are not driven by personal interests but by public interest, by a concern of the welfare of the >> earlier today, lawmakers passed a measure that changes the federal budgeting process. also approving a conference report that sets federal

aviation programs for the next four years. follow the house live as always here on c-span. >> nevada's gop caucuses are tomorrow. watch the road for the white house coverage live tomorrow night and throughout the day. live reports on the individual caucuses and their results to we party -- ande gop their results tweeted. >> next, nato officials meet in the brussels in which to finance the afghan security forces after the transfer of power. all partners are still committed to the 2014 transfer of power timetable set for that country. this is 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon. >> today has been a busy and productive day. we discussed our operations adapter afghanistan and cause a vote with all the partner ministers. let me start with afghanistan. all 50 countries contributed to the mission. despite the congress to have made and what we still need to make. 2011 was clearly a turning point. we saw a decrease in the number of enemy initiated attacks. we started the transition to leave afghan responsibility to their security. we agree we are on track, and we

will all keep up our efforts so it stays on track. our goal is for the afghan forces to have a full responsibility for security across their country by the end of 2014. that bowl stands for every single one of us. we agree that as the afghan forces continue to take the lead in more and more areas, the main focus of our mission will also continue to evolve from combat to training advice and assistance. how and when that happens is something we will continue to discuss in the nato summit in chicago. transition is an evolving process. it is happening in close coordination between nato, our

partners, and the afghan authorities. it depends on the security realities on the ground, and it takes time to complete. even after transition has begun across the whole of the country, we will continue to support afghans to make it happen. that means training the. it means assistance. and when necessary, it also means fighting alongside our afghan partners. we have a common goal. that goal is clear. a sovereign afghanistan in which afghans are in charge of their own security. so is the long term funding of

the afghan forces. a secure afghanistan and a stable region is and all of our interests. we also discussed costco. 2011 was a challenging year for our mission there. -- our troops did their job when it mattered the most. they acted in full accordance with our united nations mandate. across kosovo the security situation is stable. but it is still for agile and freedom of movement remains limited. our goal remains unchanged. a safe and secure environment for all of the people in kosovo

and the complete restoration of freedom of movement. before that we need to maintain our current presence. we will reduce it only as the circumstances allow, when the time is right. it is clear that the current situation in no. kosovo cannot be solved by military means a lot. we encourage both to engage at the negotiating table for a long-term solution. nobody will benefit from a return to the penn -- the tensions of pass. our discussions yesterday and today have made -- have laid the

foundation for our chicago summit. the good news is we also found a way a head on a practical funding solution for nato alliance surveillance system. this means that global allies will acquire five reconnaissance drones. nato will maintain and operate them for all of our allies. this will give our commanders the ability to see what is happening on the ground at long range and over periods of time around the clock and in any weather. in our lisbon summit in 2010, we agreed this is a priority. it showed how important such a capability is in libya.

today we are delivering on our commitments. we are demonstrating that our priorities are the right ones, and that we are determined to learn the lessons from our operations. with that, i will take your questions. >> please introduce yourself. >> they insist this is just a technical dialogue. kosovo government says no issue of the north should be discussed in this dialogue. now you call for the political dialogue to resolve an issue of the north. is this correct understanding, or do you think in this dialogue that is ongoing they should discuss the north or there should be another political process or political

negotiations to resolve the issues to the north? >> i do not subject a parallel or another political process. i strongly support the eu sponsored dialogue. we should not be surprised that such dialogues and very often start with technical questions that are important to consult. then gradually more technical discussions will evolves into a more political dialogue. that is quite natural based on my experience. >> so much of our time is spent looking at the post conflict state of afghanistan. can i ask you to share with us your views on who will pay the earnings of more than $4 billion of supporting afghan assistant -- afghan security forces ?uestio

>> let me stress that no decision has been made yet. the long-term size of the afghan security forces and consequently knows -- no decision has been made with regards as how to pay. having said that, i think it is a responsibility for the whole of the international community. actually, the international community committed itself to such financing of the afghan security forces at a recent conference. it goes beyond nato and isaf and includes other parts of the international community. actually, i think it is very easy to make the case that for the whole international community it is a very good deal to finance a credible afghan security force.

militarily and politically, it is much better in a longer-term perspective that the afghans take responsibility for the security themselves. economically, it is less expensive to finance afghan security forces then to deploy international forces in afghanistan. >> the french defense minister said that 20,000 or 30,000 would be an appropriate number for a long-term afghan force. also, france forces have asked for nato to come up with a plan to counter the alteration of taliban in the afghan security forces. could you give details on that? what's i am pleased to inform you --

>> i am pleased to inform you that all isaf have agreed to develop a plan to counter -- i should rather say strengthen countering such infiltration. we have already taken a lot of steps, but in the light of recent events we agreed to strengthen those efforts. based on the proposal, a they have tasked authorities to develop a counter and filtration plant and to do it rapidly, that is before the end of february. with regards to the first part of your question, we have of course today discussed what

could be a long-term sustainable size of the afghan security forces. no decision has been made it. we agreed today that we will now engage in a confrontation process leading up to the chicago summoned. >> mr. secretary general, you said isfa forces will fight along with the afghans where necessary through the transition. how is that impacted by the french plan to withdraw next year and the american plan to withdraw from combat next year? >> let me stress i have not heard of any american plan to disengage from combat. on the contrary, we have decided to stick to the lisbon

roadmap which would leave afghan responsibility until the end of 2014 where we expect the afghans to take full responsibility all over afghanistan. as i have said on several locations, securing that transition you will see a gradual change of the role of our forces from combat to support. you might say that the focus achieved from combat to support. combat operations will still be needed during that period of transition. there would be no disengagement from combat operations during the periods of transition. as far as france is concerned,

it is a french do how france will calibrate or configure its force presence. what we have heard is france will stay committed to training activities in afghanistan during this period of transition. so i can report to you today that all 50 isaf partners stay committed to the lisbon roadmap and our mission throughout the period described in the lisbon roadmap until the end of 2014. that is a fact. >> regarding the financing of post 2014 afghan security forces, and you expect other major nations with an interest

in afghans stability specifically china, india, and russia to make a significant contribution? >> to the financing? >> yes. >> it is a call on the entire international community to contribute to financing the afghan security forces. i think it is also in the interest of countries in the region to see a stable and secure afghanistan. the stronger the afghan security forces, the more stable and more secure not only afghanistan, but the whole region is. my call also includes countries in the region. >> thank you very much. i am afraid that is all the time we have. thank you and have a good weekend.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this weekend "booktv" looks at the history of the beaumont, texas, where the oil history got its start. the challenges of running an independent bookstore. also teddy roosevelt's year long expedition to africa and europe. and on american history tv, sunday at 5:00 eastern, january 11, 1901, the lucas gusher

change the economy of texas. with the oil came the roughnecks. with the roughnecks -- vice. and infamous a brothel where crime thrived until a 1960 james commission crackdown. beaumont, texas this weekend on c-span to and c-span 3. >> at least half of all energy that navy uses will come from non of fossil fuel sources. >> from coral to oil and the first to use nuclear power,ray mabus on the reasons for a new energy standard for the fleet. >> we are too dependent on potential or actual volatile places on earth to get our energy. even if we got enough, we are susceptible to price shocks. when the the libya situation

started and the price of oil went up to $40 -- went up $40 a barrel, that was almost $1 billion additional bill for the u.s. navy. the only place we have to get that money is operations or training. our ships steam laws, our planes fly less. we train less. >> more with ray mabus sunday night on c-span "q &a." >> airforce secretary michael donley and norton schwartz talk about the proposed reduction of aircraft personnel and how they will maintain their capabilities with a budget reductions. from the pentagon this is half an hour. >> thank you.

good afternoon and thank you for joining us. i wanted to take a few minutes to outline the the year force priorities and the choices that we make in response to the new strategic guidance and also in response to the air force pieces of the budget control act and the work that has been done over the past several months undersecretary panetta and chairman dempsey's leadership with a lot of direct input from the president along the way. as you may know, we issued a white paper on wednesday that summarized. there is a longer paper that has been published today that describes structure changes by the air force in more detail. we have made some hard choices to closely look at the new

strategic guidance in our 2013 budget submission. our decision for the air force was that we were better off -- the best course of action is to become smaller in order to protect high quality and ready force that will modernize and grow more capable in the future. we had to balance for structure , readiness, and our support for airmen in that mix. that was the balancing that we did and the choices we made. we have taken a long the way a number of steps to protect the distinctive capabilities that the air force brings to the table. capabilities that joint and coalition partners have come to depend upon from the air force,

air and space control in particular, global intelligence and reconnaissance, global mobility and a strike, all enabled by effective c2 and recognition of the growing importance of cyber. we have also protected the bomber force, our remotely piloted aircraft. plans are set at 65 caps with the capability to surge to 85. we have resized our mobility forces to match up with the changes in the overall size of the joint force. we have protected space. we have protected cyber capabilities. also nuclear forces along the way. the president has a noted there is a possibility -- the potential to fulfill our nuclear

deterrent mission and at smaller numbers. those issues are still spending at the white house. we have made no changes in the nuclear forces. we will let the president decide the way forward in that area later. our force structure changes with 286 aircraft over the future years defense plan including 123 fighters, 133 mobility aircraft. our smaller force structure has led us to favor give the sting smaller fleets that sustained or costly sustainment. retaining multi role

capabilities that will provide for operational flexibility across the spectrum of conflict. all of those structure changes yield to the reduction of 9900 personnel. that is 39 active duty, 5100 guard personnel, and a 900 reserve personnel. we have carefully balanced our active and reserve component changes to make sure that we can meet in the demanding and sustainable tempos that are part of the strategic environment going forward. so we can meet the search capabilities in the new strategic guidance. we can also meet the sustain

operations at a deployment rate that will not overstress the active force, will not overstress the reserve components as we go forward. we are fully committed to our total force capability. we cannot do what we do without our guard and reserve and active components all working together. we will get smaller together. as we get smaller, we will get more integrated together. the number of associations between the active and reserve components will go up from about 100-115. we expect that number to grow higher as we get into f why 14 and beyond. -- fy14 and beyond. just about every state will be affected by the aircraft and or

the manpower adjustments that go with these changes. in a number of cases we have taken mitigating action by reissuing units from aircraft to remotely piloted aircraft. we have moved some aircraft from the active forces into the guard or reserve. in some cases, unit size will increase as well. in general we are getting smaller. the medications and backfills will not cover whole units at all locations. our intention is to protect readiness at any force level. we are still working through the negative and fax of over a decade of sustained high operational tempo and its impact on the force in terms of aging

equipment, lost training opportunities and the stress on personnel. we're still working through those issues. we are recovering through that. we put the funds where we think they are necessary. this bears watching going forward. we are committed -- i think all the service secretary chiefs is committed not to allow this forced to go hollow. we are slowly and modernization, but we are protecting programs that are critical to future air force capabilities. you heard the deputy secretary address some of those. we projected -- protected the long-range strike and in particular the bomber program. obviously the tanker program.

as a part of a management decision on the f 35 program, we have determined we are not ready to wrap up to full rate production. the depressed in the rate of the procurement for a few years. we work through the concurrency issues still present in that program. we remain fully committed to the f-35. this is a must it be for our armed forces, it is the future of the fighter force not only for the air force, navy, and marine corps but also about 12 other international partners as well. we continue to support our airmen in this endeavor. i will not go into detail on the personnel adjustments. i think the deputy and vice chairman have already covered those matters adequately at the

d o d level. we do rely on our ability to recruit and retain a high quality force. this is extremely important to the air force. the technical nature of the work that our airmen do, we need an experienced forced to do what we do. we need to remember that they are the ones that bring this all together for us. they make it all happened for our air force and for our nation's defense. tough choices in the middle of this. this is hard but manageable. there is increased risk as the chief can better articulate than me. this is manageable provided there are no further reductions. i think the deputy has been articular, the secretary as well, and that further

reductions beyond what the department is facing currently and has addressed here, the $487 billion, would cause us to have to go back and revisit the strategy. we would not be able to execute the new strategic guidance levels lower than are now programmed. so with that, let me open up for questions. >> you mentioned this will affect all 50 states. are you worried about hitting resistance in congress or in state governments? if so, what will you do about it? >> will work through those issues with each of the affected delegations. the chief and i along with a whole lot of other chiefs. the air force team has been up speaking to congressional staff today. we will be talking with affected delegations in the weeks ahead.

today general mckinley and our director of the international guard were briefing the state generals on our plans. we are being as transparent as we can about all of the changes we have made. our partners have been interval to this work. they have helped identify the locations and worked through the medications and remission in of units affected by these changes. we will all go forward together as one airforce in this process. >> i have a question for both of you. in terms of the slowdown and how it will affect the f. common -- f-35, you said you will be working on a detailed plan that you have not determined a for a production yet.

it does that mean you are coming off of the targeted number your planning? >> first, the key thing is we have committed to the service life extension on about 360 of our multi role 3 sixteens. some early structures and improvements on the more modern airplanes. those will populate to both the active-duty and reserve your components. with respect to the f-35, obviously the planes are not delivering as quickly as we originally anticipated. thus the requirement to make sure we retain the capabilities of these until the f-35 delivers their numbers. with respect to the question of

total inventory, 1763 is the program of record. please recall that by 2017 we will probably have a delivery of around 160 or 170 f-35. that goes well into the future. >> when you talk about how the air force plans to turn their men in 2015, that is causing a lot of among our readers. i know we are early in this process, but we owe them an answer as to how the cuts will be made. how the plan on trimming 10 dozen people next year? the you expect in voluntary measures to be taken? >> i do not think we will need a voluntary separation measures. we are in pretty decent shape in

terms of our active duty force management. we will see what happens. right now we do not anticipate riffs if that is the nature of your question. on the guard side, there are significant reductions involved here. we will be asking congress for legislative authorities before forced management tools like those that we use for the active duty to help the guard work through the for shaping under way inside the international art as part of this process. >> good afternoon, gentlemen. every time the air force has faced difficult choices like this, i know you have seen and heard all the arguments there.

as you look at the operational need for close air support, can you explain to us how he will bridge this and perhaps tell us why you are not going to have 2 in 18 months if some other situation pops up he will not have to roll them out again and moved up folks back? >> there are still going to be 2468 tends less than the inventory. please recall we are doing close air support with b-52. with the-ones. --b-1s. the bottom line is, as remarkable an airplane as the a- 10 is, it is not the only machine that does close air support. the united states army and marine corps can rely on having

plenty of close air support provided by the united states air force from above. >> are there relying you in part to get around this? >> certainly. both gps guided and otherwise unable that without a doubt. >> are wanted to follow up on the a-10 question in regard to close air support. you were mentioning the be-twos and the be-ones. generally can you talk a little bit why you did it choose the a- 10's to go along with that forer than a b-52 or b-1's example. >> the question is how many

roles can a weapon system support. as you get to a smaller force, one of the imperatives in our view is to maintain versatility. in order to do so, that implies if you have airplanes with a narrower range of capabilities that you defer to the more multi role range of capabilities, that is what we have done. we are not talking about eliminating a-10 capabilities. there will still be well over 200 aircraft in the inventory. >> protecting the bomber force, can you elaborate what that means? how big of a force to you envision for bombers? does that mean current bombers? when will the future bombers be started? >> in this year in the 2013

proposal, there is no reductions in bomber force. there is a recognition in the strategy that as you make the shift from the focus on the gulf area in iraq bank and afghanistan to a more maritime focus in the asian-pacific requirement long-range strike becomes increasingly important. so the department came to the conclusion that it was best to retain the existing bomber force structure. also, to emphasize the new program, the long-range strike systems -- one component which is the bomber -- and i think you saw a very compelling he quit -- equipment to that capability and

one that we intend to fulfil and deliver in the mid 20's. >> if i could get a quick follow up. could we get a number associated with the cost to get the f- sixteens up and running and operating for the number of years to expect? also, on a larger scale, i interviewed about the aircraft reductions. he said back then they were going from low to moderate risk to moderate risk of accomplishing certain missions like protecting against encroachments into u.s. air space. has the risk scenario changed? are we increasing the risk from two years ago? can you put a little more information on what the risk means? >> i think the bottom line is

there is some additional risk relative to the 250 aircraft we retired in 2010. there are also adjustments in the joint force structure that allows you to make some of those reductions. i think the bottom line is again the and that what we have done is responded to a new strategy, you were briefed on a qdr footprint. this is a new defense strategic guidance that gives us a difference set of requirements. what we are doing is not without risk. i would categorize it as a corporate risk. >> if i could added just to build so there is a broader sense for this, the strategy shift a little toward the asia

specific -- asian pacific, the chief mentioned the distances and that favored the longer- range aircraft, bomber like aircraft, long-range strike capability to be protected. inside the fighter force structure going forward, the need for more multi role aircraft as we go forward. all of these things mixed together in helping shape the decisions we made about which kind of aircraft to retire. >> there is still moderate risk, or is it higher than moderate? >> it is marginally higher than it was when we talked. >> but the requirements also changed a little bit in the requirement process. >> with the short-term reduction of f-35, will you have to delay ioc? are you going to be getting f-35

flying any time soon? >> we have six airplanes as we speak -- we will undertake a decision to start flying the appropriate authorities in the air force will make that call based upon a number of the factors including the statices -- status of test platforms. the plan will be to start flying with test qualified aviators initially to do what we call local area orientation -- local area operations. we will build to a threshold that will allow training leadership to declare ready to train with other than test qualified aviators. with respect to f-35 a again,

the situation is that we are managing, currency on this program. we are eager to bring f-35 aboard when they are ready. clearly the management and this is hitting the sweet spot that l allows you to acquire airplanes but not so many that you have to go back and modify them because of what you learn in subsequent tests. >> you described the cancellation of the camp program. can you describe what capability you're giving up in the new program and how it will affect the fleet going forward?

>> the reality is that the camp program was a very extensive modification, certainly revamped the cockpit and introduced our nation and communications and navigation equipment and so on and so forth. in a different era it was an attractive approach. in a more austere era and now knowing many of our european partners have pursued less ambitious but sufficient cockpit modifications on their see-one '30's, this simply became an affordability -- c-130's. we will pursue navigation that we can comply with the international civil aviation organization requirements. >> i wanted to ask about the

massive ordinance and a traitor. secretary panetta has acknowledged there are shortcomings. if you have the conventional firepower to strike iran nuclear facility if needed? >> i will not speculate on hypothetical missions. again, i do not think it should be a surprise that we seek to have in our weapon inventory capability to defeat burry and deeply buried targets. >> can you tell us why you need 85 million more in this program? >> take for example the a 120. over time we have approved it through several versions, c-5, c-7, and so on.

this is true even where we did improvements on the guidance kid over time. this is what i would call a achieving the right level of capability so that you can use weapons like this or others wear either technology has become available or techniques to improve their rialto -- reliability, for example. the bottom line is this is not like any other weapon in our inventory. >> you're not ready to tie these upgrades to a need in iraq it? >> i do not think i am ready to, to put it bluntly. >> chairman dempsey has talked about having the force in such a way that if they guessed wrongly can rebuild it fairly quickly. could both of you please talk about how you would rebuild the

air force or expanded the air force if you needed to? >> a couple of areas where we are putting additional focus -- i talked about the importance of the total force going forward. as we go forward, we are going to get smaller across all three components. we need to give more closely integrated. to be more ready for the contingencies right in front of us. libya is an excellent example in terms of readiness and in terms of how quickly requirements for air force capabilities can emerge. we did not have months to prepare for that. we did not really have weeks. it was more like days and hours. we were able to bring the total force together quickly to produce combat capability over libya within hours. to generate that capability with our nato partners as well as

sustain that for nine months. you cannot do that if you are not ready. in this strategic context, a smaller force means we have to be even more integrated and more ready. the associations we are developing and continue to push forward between the active and reserve component forces is an extremely important part of making sure that we can access and make total full use of the total force. >> just a second, if i can add one thing with your permission. in a major organization like the air force or the navy is, that it typically takes a while to deliver these capital and items. it is important to have modernization programs in place that one could expand if you

needed to to serve the notion of irreversibility. that is what the new tankers are for. that is with the f-35 is four. and that is with the bomber is about. >> the army and marines have talked a lot about getting back to doing what they do best. how have the budget reductions affected what you had a planned to do in terms of the balance between manned and unmanned systems in the air force? >> frankly, we did not look at the issue of manned and unmanned the balance. we have focused in the i s are area of making sure with the 65 capital we have established, our ability to surge to 85 caps -- our goals have been to consolidate the gains we had made over the past 10 years or

so, not necessarily just by adding more airplanes but the by filling out the training, the education, the sustainment, the communication system that goes with the capability to make sure it will be full and robust going forward as the budgets start to come down. that is an example of where we had set the force structure and we are focused on filling out all of the details of the capability underneath to make sure it is healthy going forward. >> we are not going back to the 2001 isr footprint. the bottom line is, if you want to know what we are good at, we are good at airspace control, global mobility, global strike. we will continue to be good at that in the future. that in the future.