politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend american history tv. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. get our schedules and see past programs on our web site. join in on the conversation on these social media sites. coming up, we will spend several hours looking at senate and house lawmakers on cutting the payroll tax. now, an update on the ongoing house and senate conference committee negotiations on the payroll tax cut. >> over the past couple of weeks, the house and senate conference committee negotiating a long-term extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits and doctor's reimbursements rates.

three more meetings are being held. steven sloan, what is the status of the negotiations? >> we have not seen a lot of progress. the big issues is the unemployment insurance program and how you will cover the $100 billion cost is extending this package through the rest of the year. that hasn't been discussed. both sides seem to be at pretty big odds to address those issues. >> let's take unemployment insurance. what are the specific areas where there is no agreement with that? >> there is no agreement on the reforms that republicans are seeking. republicans are seeking changes to the unemployment system that would require a recipient of unemployment insurance or a

g.e.d. it would allow states to conduct drug tests on recipients of unemployment insurance. these are things that democrats have not been willing to go along with. republicans are seeking to scale back the number of weeks to be on unemployment insurance. right now in the hardest hit states, you can be on for up to 99 weeks. republicans want to scale that back to 59 weeks. we need to see if there is middle ground or agreement to extend it to see if there is any effort between both sides to come to the middle. >> on the flip side, what does the panel agree on? >> they agree on the need to cut the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year. that is pretty much it. >> the price tag for the bill is reportedly to be $160 billion over ten years. how likely are they to reach agreement by friday, february 29th, when a two month extension

of the tax cut expires? >> it is a really tough deadline. it is not impossible. anything can happen, especially in congress, once you get closer to a deadline. there has been no agreement at all on exactly how that comes yet. >> what happens if there is no agreement? >> if that expires, the 2% tax cut that most workers around the country have seen over the past year. that would expire. unemployment benefits would go back to 26 weeks. that is the amount that states provide in normal times. the reimbursement rates that are paid to physicians that work with medicare patients, those rates would be cut back. >> what have you heard about a possibility of another short-term extension? >> that is all the talk right now.

to find out if that is feasible. in one of the meetings last week. max baucus said if they could not agree on the issues, they should agree to something more short-term. what short-term means is up for deba debate. is that a one-month extension or a nine-month extension to get through the election and doesn't pay for december? that is unclear. >> steven sloan, i appreciate your time. >> thank you. our coverage of the payroll tax cut extension continues with the conference committee from last wednesday. the tax cut expires at the end of the month. both parties agree it should be extended, but not how to pay for it. it includes unemployment benefits and payments to doctors who treat medicare patients. this is almost three hours.

>> good morning. this meeting of the conference committee will come to order. as i noted at the end of the last meeting, we are here to narrow the differences between the house and senate bills. we will discuss the extension of the payroll tax holiday. an extension of the unemployment reform insurance program and medicare doctor fix. i have spoken with chairman baucus and senator kyl. we have agreed to speak about those in order. we will switch between democrats and republicans to provide for more open discourse. we have also agreed to set aside specific amounts of time for debate on each issue, but we'll not be timing each member. i ask all members be direct in

their statements and mindful of their colleague's ability to be heard. chairman baucus will begin and i will turn to levin. i will yield to republicans who seek recognition. given the limited time we have today, but the limited time we have to reach an agreement, we will discuss the payroll tax for up to 30 minutes. we will then discuss unemployment insurance for up to 90 minutes. we will discuss the medicare for up to 90 minutes. it is one that i share with max baucus that we share progress. i don't think we will resolve all of our differences today, although that is hopeful. we will start to build a foundation upon which we can build a resolution. the more quickly we get through

the questions, the more quickly we can get to the answer. i want to show the american people that the progress on these policies is being made. it is what they demand and deserve. none of us will get everything we want. our time is limited. i urge members to stick to their agenda and make the most of our team here today. one thing i learned from the so-called super committee, and i expect kyl and baucus and others to share and agree with me that it is impossible to make head way on anything when everything is on the table. by narrowing the focus today, i hope to get agreement. i want to recognize mr. baucus and then senator kyl. >> thank you.

>> try it again. >> can you hear me now? thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very happy that we're here rolling up our sleeves getting to work. i'm good that the first subject is the payroll tax cut. it is so important to so many americans. millions of americans. individually along with you and i. it is a big boost to the gdp. i urge us to quickly wrap up this portion. i don't think there are many issues with respect to the payroll tax cut. we can get that agreed to here

and get on to helping seniors get doctors that they want to see through sgr. thank you very much. let's move right ahead. >> all right. senator kyl. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm sure i can get this on. great. just following in senator baucus' message. we need to get to the point where we are starting negotiations and not just laying down negotiating positions. we have done negotiations before. it is at that point that we feel the goodwill of each other and reaching a conclusion. i hope we can get to that point very soon, too. in light of that, i'll not lay down any positions, but say i'm ready to talk. >> thank you. congress member levin. >> i very much share the sentiments expressed so far. i just want to add a couple of

thoughts. we must act and act wisely with the clear understanding of the significance of the issues we face. because the three large subject matters, those are the three we are considering today, we must address as a conference committee which involve the daily lives of millions and millions of americans. the taxes they pay, 160 million americans are impacted by the work we do here. the unemployment insurance that more than 5 million americans are receiving as a vital lifeline during this period of the highest long-term unemployment on record. an average weekly benefit of $300 to help them and their families with the basics of living while they look for work. and the effective access to

physician care for more than 46 million seniors and disabled. and beyond the well being of families throughout our country, the payroll tax reduction and unemployment insurance affects the continued economic recovery and the well being of our entire nation. there are hardly three issues and i think that motivates us all today that have a greater impact on people's lives on the issues in front of us today. therefore, it should not be surprising if the resolution involves some policy issues where there are differences where the resolution is neither easy nor only technical. that means they will require us as legislators to work extra hard and to work together as

colleagues. and all of us are committed to do all that we can to succeed as indeed we must. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. levin. as we all heard the opening statements last week, i did hear pretty much broad support for extending the payroll tax holiday through the end of the year. we have 30 minutes set aside for the debate. as senator baucus said, i hope we can resolve a timely fashion. senator baucus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a few remarks and pass it over to senator casey. senator casey will lead off a bit on payroll. i think senator kyl will be our lead off on sgr.

it's back to the payroll tax. just a couple of numbers here to help confirm its importance. it expires and it will be a tax increase on 160 million american workers. i don't think we want that. i think that would include 600,000 employees in the state of montana. clearly, expiration would hamper economic recovery. we all want unemployment down. we want to do what we can to help boost the economy. extending the payroll tax will help in that regard. economists that i have seen are pretty much in agreement that gdp growth would decline by about 1.3% or about $200 billion if it were to expire. i think americans who

experienced the tax cut need it for one more year. that will give it a little certainty d confidence that congress is not a yo-yo in acting up and down. i think certainty and predictability is very important here. i urge us to work together to extend it. it does help our economy. i wo casey now. senator casey is our lead person here on payroll tax cut extension for a year.casey, it'. >> i'm trying to my mic on. mr. chairman, thank you. mr. vice chair, thank you. on the payroll tax, one is a

goal and the other two would be reasons to support the goal. the goal, obviously, and i believe this is bipartisan that we need to extend the payroll tax cut not just for a short period of time, but the rest of the year. the reminder of 2012. i think that is the basic goal that we are operating under. it is very important for two basic reasons. one is to provide a measure of certainty for families and businesses so they know it is in place. senator kyl mentioned this in some of our discussions about what a small business owner has to deal with payroll every day. giving them the simplicity that they know it will be in place for the rest of the year. i also think the fact that we can come together and agree on something so important 160

million families provides in addition to the policy benefit and provides an opportunity for people to see us working together. democrats and republicans on a very tough issue. the second reason to make sure that we extend it for the whole year is, i think, more urgent. and senator baucus referred to this. that is the job or gross domestic product impact. we've got vice chairman of the joint economic committee representative brady knows we have a lot of great reports. on the democratic side and the republican side. both new reports. i'll highlight these for reference and folks can get copies later. the report yesterday was a county-by-county and state-by-state break down of the payroll tax impact on an

individual worker on individual counties for the remaining ten months of the year. i will not go through all of it for pennsylvania, but what struck me was the similarity was the worker impact from the big city of philadelphia, a place that representative schwartz represents, to a small county in north central pennsylvania, potter county. philadelphia, the per worker would be for ten months would be $457. in potter county, $408. you go from one end, $421 per worker in northeastern pennsylvania in wyoming county to weiay out west to cameron county, $420 per worker. this is real. it is real for workers if they are in small towns or in rural cities. that is the report. we can share that with you later. the other report we put out is

how -- and this is the title. the report from last week. how continuing the payroll tax cut will help americans. one sentence would suffice for my opening comments. i'm quoting from the report here. quote, failure to reauthorize federal ui in the remaining ten minutes of the year would have a significant impact on the disposable income and could sub extract 1.7% of the gdp growth in the current calendar year. one final way to say it, in pennsylvania on the payroll tax cut, one economist said that failure to extend that cut for the entire year for 2012 would have an adverse impact, job impact that amounts to less than 20,000 jobs in pennsylvania.

i think folks know what is at stake on jobs and gdp growth and the certainty we can provide our families and businesses. finally, i think it is good to remind ourselves that we still have more than 13 million people out of work and as it relates to the payroll tax cut, 160 million workers that are depending upon us to come together to work together and to get a bipartisan agreement on cutting the payroll tax. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. it is interesting to me and it is a very positive development as i see it that the first issue we are taking up appears to be one on which we are going to be able to get broad consensus. for all of the reasons that have been stated already. the impact on jobs, the gdp and frankly the individual impact on

families, 160 million people receiving this tax relief is critical. i think it is very positive that we can apparently see this kind of consensus early on the deliberations on the process. with our economy continuing to struggle and the congressional budget office report telling us we have a projected unemployment rate of 8% until 2015, now is not the time to be raising taxes on anybody in the united states. particularly those who are getting this relief from the social security payroll tax cut. that being said, i think we also need to pay very close attention to our national debt and the impact of this decision if we don't offset these costs. right now, these taxes, if they were not collect -- if they were collected, would go to the social security trust fund.

we don't want to do anything to diminish the social security trust fund. if we use general fund dollars to shore up the social security trust fund, this will mean literally billions of new dollars of spending at the federal level that needs to be offset. the same cbo report that was put out yesterday indicated that we had just a phenomenal $1 trillion deficit problem now moving forward and an explosion of our national debt. frankly, probably the biggest threat to our nation now, in my opinion, the debt crisis that we face. so i believe that it is incredibly important as we move forward and implementing the agreed policy of extending the social security payroll tax cut that we do so in a way that is fiscally responsible and help to continue to address our major

debt issues in the country. thank you. >> congress member levin. >> mr. van hellen just left the committee in one piece. >> thank you, mr. levin. mr. chairman, i apologize for being late. i was at the opening session of the house budget commission with dr. elmendorf, the head of the congressional budget office. i'm pleased there seems to be consensus that we need to move ahead to extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans through the end of this year. i think that is a very important step to make sure people have a little bit more money in their pockets so they can go out and purchase more goods and services so small businesses can sell those goods and services and hire more people. i think that makes sense. i do think that as we pursue this conversation, we should

look at a different standard set by certain members of congress with respect to what we pay for and don't pay for. because it has been the position of the republicans in congress that we don't pay for tax cuts for folks at the very top. permanent tax cuts. it is curious to apply a standard when we are talking about a ten month tax cut for 160 million people as opposed to a permanent tax cut for the disproportionate benefits for the folks at the top. senator crapo, you were mentioning the impact of the lost revenue with respect to the deficit. you are right. this was a chart that came up with dr. elmendorf. it shows that the cost of extending all of 2001/2003 tax cuts and fixing emt$4.5

trillion. that more than doubles the deficit under current law. it is just an indication of the magnitude of this issue and something we will all have to tackle. now, putside one issue because if we do not fill that hole, it doesn't have any impact on the social security trust fund. senator kyl knows this and others know this. after 2010, we also had a payroll tax cut for a year. that was not paid for. it did not take one penny out of the social security trust fund. the social security trust fund trustee has made that very clear because we are transferring dollar for dollar money from the general fund into the social security trust fund has zero impact. with respect to the general fund, the issue is the same with the payroll tax cut as it is for

any tax cut. including tax cuts for the folks at the very top, which gets back to my original point. i just ask if we are going to apply a different standard on the 160 million and fully offset it that we not o way that hurts people who are trying to help through the payroll tax cut. that we not take it out on struggling families around the country when we look for different ways to make an offset if we are going to move forward. senate democrats are originally proposed a surcharge. asking folks at the top to share the responsibility. there are other ways of addressing it as well. but, it seems to me that we should keep all of those points in mind as we discuss. number one, whether how much we offset it and, if so, how we will do that as we move forward.

some, with that, chairman, i my time if i have any. >> thank you. obviously, we will have a lot of time to talk about it. our time is not that long. what we are really trying to do is agree on the policies today and then we will have to address the issues that you raised. we want to begin, at least, to find areas where there is agreement. speaking on behalf of the house republicans, we clearly the payroll tax for the remainder of the year. i'm here broad agreement on the first issue. unless i hear anyone object, we all agree that we should extend the payroll tax through the end of the year. with that. >> mr. chairman? i want to may make sure we are clear. if we are taking a vote on that, that's fine. >> we will not take a vote. >> the consensus to be able to move forward. on point that mr. van hollen

raised and mr. crapo raised as well. we can dispose the issue of the social security trust fund at the same time. >> i heard his comment. we are trying to stay focused on the issues right now. because of that, i don't feel a need to give a long speech. obviously being from michigan, i understand the importance of unemployment insurance. i hear that we see broad agreeme agreement. i would like to move forward and address the next issue. the issue of unemployment. >> mr. chairman. it is only fair. we are all in agreement. both sides. both bodies. ten more months for the payroll tax for the end of the year. i think in the air, there is a sense that will need to be paid for. >> yes. >> but that raises the next

question. will we find enough money that we can agree on to pay for it? i think you appropriately said that it is an issue we will deal with a little later. work on the substance first. if we cannot agree how to pay for it or to the degree we cannot, we may have to look at other options on the payroll tax. that is maybe it is a shorter period of time. not a full ten months for the rest of the year. i just raise that because it will have some affect on policy. at least on the duration of policy. >> we will have that discussion when we get there. i appreciate you raising that point. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> briefly, i would like to follow-up on senator baucus' comments. i think it is progress that we move beyond december. i just want to say that

separating policy from pay for is somewhat problematic because the pay for involves policy. so, i think we should not assume that there will be no reference to whether we pay for and how we pay for while we accept the notion that we're going to try today to focus on policies and not address or resolve the issue of pay for. there is a relationship in terms of policy whether we pay for and how. >> that will be -- when we know all of the policies we have, we will know all of the pay for. we don't know all of the policies. i'm glad to see that at least for this part of it, i r