>> nevada is holding its republican caucuses and we expect results of about 8:00 eastern time. mitt romney newt gingrich will be in las vegas and we will bring you their reactions live. we expect to hear from mitt romney at about 10:40 p.m. eastern and newt gingrich about 11:00. join the conversation on c- span's facebook page. we are getting feedback on whether you think any of the candidates will drop out after the caucuses. we have heard from tim, who says, no. she thinks candidates will wait he continues, it is too bad the

gop cannot come up with a worthy candidate. those are a couple of the candidates from the c-span.org facebook page. our campaign coverage continues tomorrow on "newsmakers" with steve israel of new york. we will talk about the party's goal to take 25 seats. that is tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can listen to the program on c-span radio or stream it on c- span.org, >> half of all energy will come from non-fossil fuel sources. >> they the secretary ray mabus on the reason for an energy

efficient fleets. >> we are successor -- susceptible to supply shocks. when the libyan situation started and the price of oil went up $40 a barrel, that was almost a $1 billion additional fuel bill. the only place we have to go get that money is operations and training. our ships -- our planes fly less. >> more with ray mabus sunday night on c-span's "q & a." >> the president's home financing plan would allow homeowners to take advantage of low interest rates. pennsylvania congressman pat meehan delivers the republican

address. he delivers the republican plan that includes plans for more domestic energy and a plan to build more bridges and roads. >> i have been traveling around the country talking to people about my blueprint for the economy to last. it is about restoring the things we have always done best. american manufacturing, american energy, the skills and education of american workers. most importantly, american values like fairness and responsibility. we know what happened when we trade -- strayed from those values. lenders sold houses to families who could not afford them. a package to those loans and drove them up for more profits. it created a unsustainable bubble -- an unsustainable

bubble. it was wrong. the housing crisis has been the single biggest drag on our recovery from the recession. it has left hundreds of thousands of construction workers without a job. there is something more important at stake. i have been saying this is a make or break moment for the middle class. housing prices struck at what it means to be the class in this country, owning a home, raising our kids, building our dreams. there are more than 10 million homeowners in this country who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. it is wrong for anyone to suggest that the only option for struggling home owners is to wait for the housing market to hit bottom. i do not accept that. we launched a plan to help 1 million responsible home owners to refinance their mortgages to

save an average of $300 on their mortgages every month. it did not help as many people as we hoped. that does not mean we should not keep trying. i am sending a plan to congress to give every homeowner to save $3,000 a year on their mortgages are be dancing -- refinancing at historically low rates. a small fee on the lawn this financial institutions will make sure it is not at- -- a small fee on the largest financial institutions will make sure it does not add a dollar to our deficit. it will help millions of responsible homeowners who make their payments every month who could not refinance because their home values kept dropping or they got wrapped up in too much red tape. in order to lower mortgage payments for millions of americans, we need congress to

act. they have to pass this plan. as anyone who has followed the news in the last six months can tell you, getting congress to do anything is not an easy job. i will keep the pressure on congress to do the right thing. i need your voice. i need everyone agrees with this plan to get on e-mail and remind your representatives in washington who they work for. tell them to pass this plan. tell them to help more families keep their homes and more neighborhoods stay vibrant and whole. it will take time for our housing market to recover and it will take time for our economy to bounce back. there are steps we can take to help this economy move forward. that is what i promised to do as your president. thanks and have a great weekend. >> hello. i am pat meehan.

the need for washington to act on jobs is as urgent as ever. the nation's on employment rate has exceeded 8% for the longest stretch since the great depression. workers want to end the gridlock and get our economy moving. house republicans have good ideas that will help create jobs. to execute them, we need leadership from president obama. we need help from his fellow democrats who controlled the senate. plan forof republicans' american job creators, the house has kept nearly 30 bipartisan house bills that the senate has not considered, proposals to help small businesses grow and create jobs. it was promising to see the president come out this week and endorsed several of our ideas. it would really be helpful for

him to urge the senate to actually vote on them. one of our jobs bills will extend the payroll tax cut for a full year, as the president requested. the republican-led house has passed this bill. the democrat-controlled senate hasn't. the bipartisan conference committee has been working to change that. time is running short. our democratic colleagues in washington have the responsibility to tell washington -- to tell the nation with the intent to do to extend the payroll tax cut for a full year and give middle-class families and small businesses much-needed certainty. another jobs bill in the work is an energy and infrastructure plan that will support the creation of more than 1 million private-sector jobs. not just by wasting your money on -- pork barrell projects, but

by removing barriers that are getting in the way of job growth. this marks a change from the way things were done in the past by both parties. earmarks only drained resources from the urgent projects that have a direct connection to economic growth. in 2005, the republican-led congress passed a highway bill that contained more than 6500 -- 6300 earmarks. john boehner was the only representative who voted against that bill. instead of earmarked or new taxes, our bill will remove barriers to job growth by expanding american energy production, which will help lower gas prices and use the revenue to repair and improve our roads and bridges.

repairing our roads and bridges is not just a safety issue. it is an economic one. pennsylvania has more structurally deficient bridges than any other state. 500,000 people in the commonwealth are out of work. our bill would remove barriers to job growth and and needless delays -- and remove needless delays. this will help put americans back to work. the president supports improving infrastructure and recently echoed our party's called for all the above -- an all of the above energy strategy. to learn more about the republican jobs plan, visit jobs.gop.gov.

our economy faces serious challenges right now. gridlock in washington does not have to be one of them. the house is acting on good ideas. with help from the president and democrats in the senate, we can get things done. the people we represent sent us here to get things done and move the country forward, not for the divided -- divide it. >> tonight, our""road to the "road to the- "ouour white house" coverage includes campaign begins.

>> we will have live events from alaska and north dakota and we will head to wyoming for the start of the five-day caucuses there. there will be primaries in oklahoma, tennessee, georgia, vermont, and massachusetts. next, a discussion about the january unemployment rate. the labor department reported that 243,000 new jobs or added to the economy in january which dropped the unemployment rate to 8.3%.

guest: basically, over long periods of time, the performance of the u.s. economy, or u.s. real gdp can be depicted as a trend line moving higher. the trend line represents real gdp growth averaging about 2- 2.5% per year. without getting into the technical ins and outs of macroeconomic, we call this full employment gdp. macroeconomic economists agree that fluctuations that occur around that trend line are the result of fluctuations in demand. we have the economy growing on

trends and we have fluctuations around that trend because of changes in aggregate demand. sometimes the economy is about full employment. when credit was really easy, housing prices were going up. the economy was booming. people could get home equity loans and increase demand to get above full employment gdp. it cannot be sustained, but you can do it for a period of time. incidentally, arms are competing for scarce resources and wages -- firms are competing against -- competing for scarce resources. host: these latest numbers have the unemployment rate at 8.3%. it dropped from 8.5% in

december. guest: sometimes we are below the trend line. that is below -- that is because of negative shocks in demand. businesses could not bar as much because there was no demand for goods and -- borrow as much because there was no demand for goods and services. unemployment went up. it has improved recently. people felt less secure about their jobs. that fall in demand led to the recession. we are well below by a substantial margin. the economy is about 7% below what full employment gdp -- where full employment gdp would come in. recently, we have had and

spirit period the time of private sector growth. -- an extended period of time of private sector growth. the expectation was that there would be 120,000 to 150,000 jobs created. it came in with 250,000 created. can it it to a decline in the unemployment rate. host: this is from the washington post. gains in inclement shift the landscape. this is from an economic professor -- we are taught in with robert feldman, an adjunct to economic -- adjunct economics professor.

why were these numbers such a surprise when projections or bowed 100,000 jobs --projections were for 100,000 jobs less? guest: on the upside, jobs -- numbers are better than expected. some of the contributing factors may have been that the weather was better in january. that helps with the construction industry. one of the surprises was that the services industry picked up as well. we had strong performances in the automobile industry, which was one of the components in why jobs increased. these were not built into people's projections before the numbers came out. host: where the can play into

jobs reports? guest: seasonal adjustments take into account certain seasonal aspects. during the winter, you would expect construction not to be as strong during the times when there is warmer weather. some areas have that as bad as it normally is. host: not everybody was still excited about these jobs numbers. some folks are expressing concern about these jobs numbers. this is a congressman from texas talking about the numbers from the joint economic committee yesterday. [video clip] >> these new jobs numbers are encouraging, long overdue, but the encouraging. the unemployment rate going down slightly is, as well. it masks an underlying weakness in our economy.

fewer americans are participating in the workforce in almost 20 years. labor markets are not recovering fast enough, considering how depressed they have been. host: your thoughts on the concerns raised? guest: there is some good news in the numbers and some bad news in the labor market. employment grew by more than expected. the rise in employment was broad based. it was not just limited to one or two sectors. the of the good news was that we saw the unemployment rate fall, going from 8.5% to 8.3%. the weaker aspects of the labor market are also there. one of those weaker aspects is

the number of people unemployed for an extended period bank of time is at an extended -- at a -- extended period of time is at an historical high. as people become more detached from the labor market, they lose their skills. it makes it harder to find a job and makes it more difficult for the economy when the skills of the labor force are deteriorating. that is one week. in the numbers we are seeing. host: let's take a few calls. tom is on the employed line from new jersey. caller: i am self-employed. when i saw all these numbers, especially with the private sector jobs, is the private

sector is left alone and left to grow, at last to take care of this problem, is this an indication that president obama can take the credit for this? or is his jobs bill -- is it that his jobs bill was never needed? guest: this is why i tried to highlight the broad outlines of the macroeconomic theory in the first place. when the government is trying to expand and trying to hire workers and is spending more money, it is essentially competing for resources with the private sector. in that circumstance, wages go up and you can get inflation and interest rates go up in that circumstance. that hurts investment and leads to crowding out of the private sector. in those circumstances, when you are close to full employment, government expansion can hurt

the economy because it is crowding out the private sector and not allowing it to grow as much as it otherwise might be. in the circumstances we are in now when the economy is 7% below full employment gdp, the government is not crowding out the private sector. the more restraint the government shows in the near term, that is causing a further reduction in demand, which can help keep us well below full employment gdp rather than help create jobs. let me make a couple of points that are relevant to this particular aspect of the analysis. you can look at surveys that are done by the federation of independent businesses where they ask the question, what is the single most important problem for you in your business? the most important problem they are facing is a lack of sales.

there is insufficient demand. the second point i would make is that, if the government is spending more money on projects -- let's say they are good projects like fixing roads and schools that would need to be repaired anyway and if they were not, it would be passing the cost on to future generations -- they hire a private firm. that firm earns more of a profit. the workers at that firm earned more income and they are going to spend money at restaurants, at other leisure activities that they otherwise would not. the government, by increasing its spending, is creating more private-sector jobs. it is not getting in the way of private sector jobs when we are so far below full employment gdp.

host: a graph from the washington post shows job growth for 23 straight months. it has the government jobs you were talking about. there were 14,000 jobs lost in the private -- the government sector in the last month. let's go to the employed line. jared is from wisconsin. good morning. caller: the gentleman describe the perfect economic theory of business. alan greenspan, the chairman of the federal reserve, kept interest rates low. he did this because he saw no wage pressure. wage pressure would have prevented the bubble from occurring in housing. however, what was not discussed was the fact that we had millions of undocumented workers coming across the border for

work in this country. at low wages. the cows are out of the barn. nothing can be done about that. we will get our way out of this mess slowly. we have to have a comprehensive immigration process to defend bubbles like this in the future. host: talk about his concerns about people coming across the border illegally to take u.s. jobs. guest: if somebody is doing something illegal lay, i am not a lawyer and not making a judgment on the legal side. in terms of the economics and the effect that will have on jobs in the united states and the unemployment rate in the united states, it depends on whether legal american workers would be willing to take those jobs that the legal immigrants are taking. if they are doing work that

other americans would not prefer to take, then it is not going to have such a big impact on job creation. if they are doing jobs that american workers arkwright's -- take, it willing to will have a big impact on unemployment. host: good morning, anthony. caller: this stops looking for work number, i do not know where they have come up with that. it means they have run out on a planet and you are unable to collect unemployment anymore. -- have run out of unemployment and are unable to collect unemployment anymore. i am a full-time student. i went back to school because the industry i am in requires a

degree. i have been in this industry for over 20 years. i never had to have a degree. i moved up to the position of systems analyst. i was laid off when my company moved the factory to mexico. host: did these numbers that came out yesterday encourage you were going back into the jobs market? calm smoke and mirrors. those numbers mean unothing. what the economists have been teaching for 20 years mean nothing now. they need to rethink the models they use and come up with something that works here in america and our economy. host: can you talk about the model and his concern about the way they come up with the numbers? guest: when they talk about the service workers and workers who have given up looking for jobs, where those numbers come from is

survey data or actual people were interviewed and they ended -- indicated whether they were unemployed, the unemployed and actively looking for a job, our unemployed and no longer looking for a job. -- or unemployed and no longer looking for a job. those people who are unemployed and no longer looking for a job are no longer entered into the unemployment numbers. i agree with you that the economy is looking difficult. gdp is roughly 7% below the level that would be acquired -- be required for full employment. we have gone through some incredible shocks with the financial crisis, the housing crisis that is well outside the norms we have seen in the united

states since the great depression. without some of the actions that have been taken, including the stimulus package, which economic studies show created anywhere from 2 million jobs to 3 million jobs, the situation could be worse. you see estimates that if the government had taken no action whatsoever in response to the crisis, it is possible the unemployment rate could have gone to 15% or 20%. it is a bad situation, but it could be worse without the actions host: we have about 25 minutes left with dr. robert feldman of georgetown university. he is formally with the international monetary fund. he held positions with the federal reserve in new york. he was heavily involved in work on exchange rates and the performance of the u.s. economy. let's go to ron, who is still looking for a job, in clarksville.

caller: a lot of jobs offer no full-time employment like walmart. everybody works 16 hours every two weeks. i was wondering how those figures figure in the 19,000 jobs. guest: people working part-time are counted as employed whether they are working four hours a day, they are counted as employed.

host: another helpful charts from yesterday's "washington post" shows the graph of the u.s. unemployment rate from 2000 onward. there is a large jump over several years. here we are today at about 8.3%. it also compares the u.s. unemployment rate to spain at 22.9%. greece is at 19.2%. ireland is at 14.5%. germany is up 5.5%. let's go to st. louis. joan is on the employed line.

caller: i am employed in the health care industry. i am in the "back office" type of job. how many of the jobs added were temporary? guest: whether people are working full-time or part-time, they are counted as employed. i do not have a breakdown on the health industry. i think employment increased 50,000. i do not have a breakdown on how much was full-time or part-time. host: are you skeptical of the numbers?

caller: yes, i am. in my area, we were downsized because of the expensive technology put in place. after the expensive implementation, we hired temps to dig u out f -- dig us out of the hole the implementation put us in. i guess we will crawl along at little productivity and eventually the temps will go away. guest: these numbers are net numbers. in the u.s. economy, there are always jobs being created and destroyed. if you see an increase of 30,000, that does not mean just an increase of 30,000 in jobs. it is a net increase. 80,000 jobs might have been lost with 50,000 added. europe is going heavily for fiscal austerity.

in the u.k., they're cutting back on government expenditures. we know what is going on in spain and other countries that have to cut back. when the government stops spending, that leads to a reduction in demand. it has an impact on the economy in the short run. it causes the economy to get further below the full employment line. i am not saying we do not have a debt problem in the united states and do not need to deal with the debt issues, but when we are so far below full employment and need to create jobs, the government can be a useful tool for creating jobs. we have seen a job loss of over half a million jobs.

that also means there is less income for spending. that has negative implications for the private sector. host: the bureau of labor statistics released numbers. the leisure and hospitality industry gained 40,000 jobs in january. retail trade gained 19,000 jobs. information was down 13,000 jobs. that is one of the few losers we have seen along with government workers. guest: i think it has to do with technology and computers. it is hard to read much into the month-to-month changes beginning to look at trends over long periods of time. you have circumstances where figures have been revised and new benchmarks were introduced. they raise the figures by

163,000. the revisions raised the figures for november and december. an additional 60,000 jobs were created more than thought. in january when you have introduced a new data series, it can be difficult to find in the seasonal adjustment factors. host: dean has stopped looking for work from michigan. caller: a lot of people just do not have a job. a lot are going to social services. they're picking up an income of something to pay their bills. i am going to retire.

i have to retire. i cannot get anything until march. when they say it is only 8.3%, it would probably be up to 14% if you look at all the people who do not have jobs and have to go to social security or social service. people do not have money coming in. host: what would make you start looking again? caller: i go down all the time and look. i am going to atlanta to see if i can find something down that way. host: your thoughts on his comments? guest: if you take into account those working part time who would like to be working full- time and the discouraged workers who stop looking so they're not counted, the unemployment rate would be more like 15%. although 8.2% represents an extremely significant improvement from where we were a couple of years ago and is very welcome news, it does not mean we are out of the woods yet.

it does not mean we do not have a long way to go until we get to full employment. the employment rate at full employment is roughly around 5%. to just take into account population growth, the economy needs to create about 100,000 jobs a month. then you do not have an effect on the unemployment rate at all. you are just dealing with the increase in population. the economy is 10,000 jobs or more in the hole. we have a long way to go. we need to be creating jobs at 250,000 or more for an extended amount of time until we would be able to get back to a gdp at full employment. it is tough out there.

host: cory is still looking for a job in manhattan. caller: you mentioned workers who have been out of the work place for more than a year off and begin to lose their skills. if i were a construction worker, i would not forget how to be a construction worker. these employers, when you are looking for work, you have so much experience they do not want to pay what it is worth. the employee looks for another job. the problem is the employers are sitting on profit. they will not pay the employees

how much their work. they will pay a freshman worker less money and have him work two or three positions you need an individual for. the employer is winning. guest: there certainly are firms sitting on a lot of profits. if i go back to the survey evidence and other analysis, one of the major problems firms are having is that there is a short fall in demand. sales are not high enough to cause them to want to demand more workers. if they had an increase in sales because demand was higher, that would contribute to an increase in hiring. host: robert is employed in greenbelt, maryland.

caller: why not just accept the numbers that have been increased and the employment rate? there are discussions about people not looking for work. the employment rate is increasing in this country. the figures bear that out. private industry and government have stimulated the economy to the point where things are picking up. this congress, their job is to slow the economy up. they do not want the economy to do better because it makes the president look better. they are doing everything to make the economy appear it is in trouble. we are in trouble, no doubt about it. guest: there are various risks and headwinds the economy faces. the united states has to be concerned with stability in the

middle east and the possible impact on oil prices, what is going on in europe, and whether that will negatively affect the united states. some of the difficulties that have happened in washington in trying to create more jobs, there seems to be a consensus in washington that we need to extend unemployment benefits. that helps the economy because people who get the unemployment benefits will spend the money. it will raise demand. it will increase sales. it will help with job creation. it will help people unemployed. also extending the payroll tax cuts, this enjoys bipartisan support. it is something that should be passed and put into effect immediately some people have

certainty to know these measures will go through rather than the uncertainty of whether they will get the money or not. another job creator would be to increase spending on infrastructure like roads, bridges, water treatment plants. this is the time to do it when the government can borrow inexpensively, the construction industry would be helped. if we do not fix it now, we're passing the cost on to future generations. it may add to the deficit, but it is imperative we put in place a framework that shows how the deficit will be reduced. this is consistent with the kind of recommendations that the fiscal commissions were making.

host: let's go to steven, who is still looking, from salzburg, maryland. caller: i retired from the state of maryland in may. i am looking but there's nothing out there for the most part. i called to give warning to people who are unemployed. i was in a supervisory position. i hired people in my position. i can tell you if you have been off for 99 weeks without a job, you are not getting a job. nobody is going to take you. they are going to ask what you been doing for 99 weeks. they will say they will get back to you. guest: that is the frustration i have definitely heard. for whatever reason, employers may think the skill match is not what they want because people have been detached from the labor market.

they think the skills have deteriorated so they are reluctant to hire them. the other aspect of concern is that you have a number of kids coming out of universities with bachelor's degrees in various majors. when we are at full employment, it does not take long to find a job. it helps to raise their future income. these days, finding a job is much more difficult. that can have an effect on their lifetime earnings as well. host: this is a question from twitter. i want to give you a chance to respond.

guest: i would refer the reader to the latest press release from the bureau of labor statistics. they are the ones who produced the numbers on the unemployment rate. their numbers show if you take into account the oscars workers and part-time workers that would like to work full time, the actual unemployment rate would be 15%. if you take into account workers who are part-time but would like to work longer hours, the unemployment rate is over 9%. it is only 8.3% for workers working full-time or part-time, divided by the labor force employed, plus the people actively looking for a job. let me give you a simple example that might help explain it. suppose you have an economy that has 10 workers.

five are employed. five are unemployed. the unemployment rate would be 50%. suppose one of the workers that is unemployed got discouraged and decided they no longer wanted to look for a job anymore. in that case, you would have four people counted as unemployed. you would have a labor force of nine. the unemployment rate would fall from 50%, even though the economy did not get stronger any fundamental way. the unemployment rate would fall simply because the number of discouraged workers went out. that comes into play in the numbers the bureau of labor statistics produces. host: let's get through a few more calls. denise is employed in missouri. caller: i had been unemployed for two years. i had been working in the field

for the health care industry in claims. i had been doing that for 30 years. i got unemployed. i went back to school. i am 55 years old. i had to go back to school because this was their deman to have some kind of education. i never had to have an education, but i went back to school. i thank god now that i am employed and make good money. i do not understand when you say people have stopped looking. i was unemployed for two years but kept looking. i went on back-to-school. i got my degree. i found me a job. i do not understand people who have stopped looking for work.

if you stop looking for work, you will starve to death. guest: congratulations you have the wherewithal to go back to school to get the skills he needed to find a job. when you were unemployed, whether or not he would have been counted as part of the unemployment rate would have depended on whether you would have been one of the people who participated in the survey done to measure the unemployment rate. they do not cover everybody in the united states. they take a representative sample of people to come up with the estimate of the unemployment rate. host: annette is still looking in florida. caller: the unemployment rate in florida is hovering at around 10%. i have been unemployed for 10 months, actively seeking work.

i am over 50 years old. this is the first time i have ever been unemployed in my life. it seems as though the employers are discriminating against people who have been unemployed for a long length of time, and i believe there's also discrimination for people over 50. when i am in the process of applying, it seems as though employers are taking two positions and making it one position. they are not fairly compensating people. host: she is talking about some of the frustrations out there. i just wanted to give you a

chance to respond. guest: i think there are frustrations out there when demand is below what would be necessary for the economy to get full employment, and that means that firms are not having the demand for their goods and services that they otherwise would want to have. that means they're not employing people. we have an unemployment rate of 8.2%. that does not mean that is the 8.2% for every sector of the a economy. one other very difficult part is the unemployment rate for youth that is running over 20%. >> nobody is holding its presidential caucuses today -- nevada is holding its presidential caucuses today. mitt romney and newt gingrich will both be in las vegas. we'll bring you their reactions

to the results. we expect to hear from mitt romney at about 10:40 and newt gingrich at about 11:00. on our facebook page, we are getting feedback on whether any of the candidates will drop out after the nevada caucuses. these are just a couple of the comments on facebook.com/cspan. our super tuesday coverage on march 6 will include gop elections in 11 states. we will have live coverage from alaska, idaho, and north dakota. we will head to wyoming for the start of the five-state caucuses there. in march, will of caucuses and oklahoma, georgia, ohio,

vermont, and massachusetts. >> house and senate lawmakers continued negotiations to extend the payroll tax cut for workers. it will continue their work on tuesday. the cuts expire at the end of the month and all sides agree it should be extended. i hear an excuse as to why not to do it. when they go into the workforce, they have an additional tool. >> to link the social insurance with both programs designed for 70 years functioning to derive financial support when you lose your job to a requirement that you have to be in this training,

i think it will not work. i do not think it contradicts the notion that the more education you have today, the better off you'll be in this economy. >> watch the rest of this meeting on line at the c-span video library. >> house majority leader eric cantor and minority leader talked about the legislative agenda and the house schedule for next week. from the house floor on friday, this is half an hour. e: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his 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 doctors are 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 to the 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 the 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 the unemployed who are going to be concerned. now, of course, 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 make a difference, i would be all for that as well. but the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, this house 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 and resolve these issues. 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 wealthiest in america to help us through this tough patch that we are in. 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 still 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 are trying to get out of it. but the fact of the matter is losing 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's my point, mr. speaker. we can do better. we can do better by focusing 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 and women 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 bill 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 -- working in a bipartisan way. we have found difficulty 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. frankly, on your side of the aisle, when you go and say, look, we need to pay for elections, who do you go to? you go to members and go to people who have some 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 market 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 ranking member, asked all the members 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 bill. there was a lot of 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 put that in the infrastructure bill. with the clear knowledge that that 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 bipartisan 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 don't have the votes. the reason george bush sign sod many bills we passed in the congress in 2009 and 2010 is because 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 deadline? as the gentleman knows, march 31, the highway bill authorization ends. we temporarily conclude it. let me end with 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 bill 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,ust 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. rahall'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 just that. it is a 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 paying for it. because he talks about the ways of our wanting to open up our resources. our resources offshore. our resources 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 i do, the energy sector provides an awful lot of jobs in plenty of parts of this country and can do a lot more, and 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 attacks the bill. saying it is all the negative things he said. now that's not 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 discussions on so many important issues and

the fact that we differ on policy, yeah. but i think the gentleman also knows 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 gentleman. 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 leader in 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 has ever seen in 35 years. and then you say, well, i know we passed the most partisan bill in 35 years but gee, the administration won't work 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. now you 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 have 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 and if 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 aspects 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 bringing the whole bill up for a vote, i ask the gentleman, 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 fact, 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 passed 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 other side of the capitol. so i would say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i do that this -- that more stimulus 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. mr. hoyer: the gentleman knows a number of those proposals had bipartisan support in this

house. i think had bipartisan 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 these 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 across the hallway here and we could actually get the 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 had great difficulty getting 60 votes to proceed with business on the floor of the united states 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 floor 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 gentleman 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 bill that 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 change the senate bill. 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 be 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 hear 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 congresses. when he was house majority leader he did not bring the stock act to the floor and it was a submitted bill. so let's set the record straight. this majority leader is going 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 that we made to the people that sent us here.

i know the gentleman wants to join me in the effort 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 >> nevada is holding its republican caucuses today. we expect to start hearing results that it o'clock eastern time. the ap reports that mitt romney looks heading for a second straight victory in a state that has been relatively quiet. they're unemployed married is the highest in the country. mitt romney and newt gingrich will be an las vegas and we

will bring you more tonight. so far on facebook we have heard from betty who thinks nobody will drop out but wishes mitt romney and ron paul would. kevin rights as a republican he is embarrassed by the field and it finds the lesser of two peoples to be the democratic candidate. >> by 2016 according to the imf, the world's leading the economy will be a communistic dictatorship here that is in five years' time. the guy you elect next november will be the last president of will be the last president of the united