set up. it's just fundamentally i think flawed, the ged requirement. and let me give you my reasons why. the average person going on unemployment is over 40 years of age. the typical person has worked for 20 to 30 years, they have lost their job. and a ged is not going to make a different for them getting their job back. it's not the age group where it makes the most sense to be targeting. you recognize that with the waiver process, but the problem is that the majority fall into the category. so it would make no sense to add this as an additional burden. senator reed has pointed out, we have waiting lists today in state programs. where's the capacity here which brings me to my second point, which is senator barrasso's issue of the waiver authority, the locals to give the type of employment services that we all think are valuable. we do. democrats, republicans believe that we should be offering greater employment. we do believe that government

has more of a responsibility than just giving a check to somebody who is unemployed. they should be able to get training, et cetera. the problem is that the amendment that came over from the house is a substitute for local governments fixing their budget at the cost of benefits for those who are unemployed. you didn't provide the money. you should be doing this to compliment the unemployment benefits. it's $300 a week, one half of the replacement of an individual's income. as i understand the house proposal the likely results is that the individual is going to get less cash ben if it which is going to make that person suffer more. i don't understand why you didn't couple that with the resources and why you're using the benefits for the most vulnerable that are unemployed

right now to fund the programs. so i just want to go on -- i have serious questions with both the waiver issues and the ged issues from the point of view that i think it's fundamentally shouldn't be in this bill and secondly it is being used for funding rather than looking at the ways that these programs should be funded. >> i don't want to get too technical here. is someone keeping time here? >> yeah, it would be senate republicans' opportunity to make a comment. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i'll make a quick point. i think senator reed -- excuse me -- >> your microphone. >> okay. i'm going to sound like strom thurmond in a moment, cursing the machine. >> it's a light touch on the button. don't hold it. just tap it. >> ask your grandkids. >> you're about to make my

point, senator levin. senator cardin made two points which i think are interesting and need response. the first is that a ged isn't going to help the older workers. first of all, if the state believes it would be a burden some requirement it can waive it. secondly, i think it would. the type of jobs needed are different from the jobs 40 years ago. part of the problem is that as firms have downsized, they have removed jobs that didn't require skill. and the type of jobs that are going to be able more and more are those that require more skills. and, you know, there's a saying you can't teach old dogs new tricks but that's not true with a head of a household who wants to get back to work and earn a living for his family. he's willing to learn how to use a blackberry or a computer in order to be able to be a more useful employee. so i think that even for those who have been in the work force for a while, they may have had the kind of job that's going out

of style and they may need to -- in order to get good employment to sharpen up their work skills. secondly, i think it -- we will need to do some research on the question of whether or not there are adequate resources for the job training that would be inferred in the house bill. there are 47 different job training programs. just by the federal government itself. and i'm not sure i buy the proposition that we need more money for job training.ed. >> congressman levin? >> if i might, i'd like to spend a little time on the ged, but go back to the more general set of issues here. you know, i can start by summing

up. i think this is not the time to weaken the unemployment insurance structure in this country. if we can strengthen it, fine. to weaken it at this time ask -- is a resounding no. and i just want to emphasize we have some charts. and we're passing out charts, i'd like to refer to them in terms of a situation that the unemployed in this country and their families now face. the first chart and we're now distributing them, i'll just wait a minute. i want everybody to have a copy, too. just do it quickly if you could.

okay. the first chart shows that the long-term unemployment is at record levels. and you have a small version of it. the large version is there. this is a striking statistic and what we need to do is to remember the people who are represented by this statistic. you compare it with previous recessions. this is the highest by far on record of long-term unemployed, close to 45% of the people who are unemployed have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. so i think that's why jack reed and ben and others and myself,

ben cardin and myself think this is clearly an emergency. the second chart relates to the lack of jobs. and this comes from the san francisco federal reserve bank that jack reed has cited. this is historically different than previous recessions. in terms of the job loss and when we move back from that job loss. this chart begins in 2007. and i think more or less the first 18 to 24 weeks occurred before 2009. and then you see what's happened since 2009. and the third chart relates

to -- and this has been mentioned by javier and others, as to what has been the increase in total private employment in this country. you can see how it deeply dipped and now we're moving back. but we have a long ways to go. and the fourth chart compares the bill that was passed by the house essentially on a partisan vote. with the present law -- current law continuation of that. and there would be close to 3 million people who would lose unemployment benefits if we were to -- to the house bill. i don't think we can do that in good conscience.

because what the house bill essentially does is to really hurt workers in states with the highest level of unemployment. that's what it does. while it doesn't hurt as much people in states with the lowest. in fact, workers in the states with the highest level of unemployment would lose nearly three times as many weeks as workers in the states with the lowest rate. and i think targeting high unemployment states is unfair. so we've begun to discuss some of the barriers that are in the house bill. where things that we can improve, fine. but to create new barriers at this time i think would be a very serious mistake.

for example, to allow states giving them essentially a waiver to divert funds for other purposes i think is a terrible mistake. we have discussed the ged and look, the taa program provides help for a ged, provides help for other training, retraining. while people receive their benefits. while they receive their benefits. it isn't common sense to say to somebody who doesn't have a ged you're going to lose your benefits if you don't go into the program. the program combines the two.

if you want to provide unemployment benefits while people go for the ged, that's a continuation of sound policy. and let me just mention senator kyl you talked about available funds. i just want to review what's in the house gop proposal for 2012 in terms of the most important training and retraining programs. there would be a proposed 73% cut in the work force investment act for addout activates. 73% cut over 200 million. for dislocated work activities there would be a 90% cut. and for employment service grants to states, a 50% cut. so let me just say a word about that is someone who over the years has worked with and seen

the activities of the employment service in our states. we have been cutting the employment service programs in the states in federal funding for it. it used to be the people that went into offices and there were employment services there in the unemployment comp office. now they're very, very minimal. and let me just -- we're talking about 160,000 people that was referred to by you, senator reed, i think. and by senator cardin. 160,000 people who are on waiting lists for adult education classes in our states. let me just say a final word about the proposal for drug tests. look, right now, if you're fired from a job because of a substance abuse problem, under

state laws in most cases you no longer have a u.i. benefit and where a employer requires a drug test and someone refuses to do so, also a state can disqualify someone from a u.i. benefit. so my main point is this. we need to find common ground if we can improve programs let's do it. but this is not the time of historic, long-term unemployment to essentially pull the rug out from under people who are in need, who on average are receiving $300 a week. we should not basically blame the unemployed in this country. we should not be blaming them. there are four people on average

looking for every job. and when employers -- look, there are some jobs for which there aren't adequately trained people. this is a minority. boost the training programs. don't punish the people. half of whom have been out of work, looking for work for 26 weeks. we never had a situation on record in this country like that. never. never. and that red chart there i just finished by urging people to talk to the unemployed. thank you. >> thank you. before i yield to mr. brady, i would look at this chart of red ink and also say that the program is designed obviously isn't working. it's not getting people re-employed. it's not just about

unemployment, it's about re-employment and job readiness. and those are some of the issues that we're going to discuss. i yield to mr. brady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think there is agreement around the table on extending unemployment benefits. clearly, we're in tough economic times. here we are 2 1/2 years after the recession officially ended. 27 million people can't find a full-time job. we have a lower unemployment rate because people have given up looking for work. we also i think agree that an unemployment check is no substitute for a paycheck. we also know that the longer people stay unemployed the harder it is for them to get back in the work force. in most -- and most studies show us after two years of unemployment which is by the way what we're extending current law today, your chances of getting

back to work are very slim. so i think there's agreement the sooner we can get people back to work the better. i think my belief is what we're doing isn't working. that chart is a good example of it. and in the house, i think some common sense reforms are in order. one, you know, as unemployment goes down, we begin to phase out the highest level of unemployment. and ending the last 20 weeks of unemployment as the president proposed in the american jobs act. but keeping the benefits high in the states with the toughest unemployment rates. we require workers to actually look aggressively for a job. you would think that's common sense, but under the law today you can go almost a year and a half of getting unemployment checks without really having to go look for a job. and that's not acceptable. we are requiring that those who have the lowest education, whose chances of getting a job are the

slimmest, who actually get laid off first and get hired last. those without a ged, we put together the programs to actually get them the education. if you're 40 years old and you don't have the ged, the truth is you have a quarter century of work history in front of you, you'll be a better applicant. you're going to have a better future if we can get you that ged. we also give states the ability to tailor the job training programs to get people back to work. this is what the president proposed. in georgia works, let the states put together the programs to put the people back to work. finally, i think it is time to stop subsidizing drug use through federal benefits. i wonder how many people went to work today in the dark, how many single moms struggled to get their kids dressed and off to school before they went to work.

how many people will not get home today to their kids' practice because of their work. and they won't be at the boy scouts campout because of working this weekend. we take money from their paycheck to help people who are unemployed. and it seems to me that those -- after listening to so many of my local workers who are begging for workers who can't pass the simple drug test, that the workers choose to use drugs seems to me they're not going to be ready and willing to work. they're not going to have much of a future for themselves or their children. simply removing the block that prohibits states from doing common sense drug screening, by requiring people to actually be ready and willing to work and in some cases to be able to use dollars to get people off that drug habit, to me makes perfect sense.

seems to me if you're using drugs, you're unemployed an need some help doing it, you know, go door to door and knock on your neighbors and ask for their help for your drug use. don't use federal benefits to do that. we want you ready and willing to work. maybe some states won't do that and that is their decision, but at least we allow states to make that decision on drug screening, to get people ready and willing to work. i think it's an area long overdue for change. i yield back. >> senator baucus? >> mr. chairman, i think this has been a pretty good discussion. we're not going to today resolve the ged, i don't believe, drug testing, i don't believe. the number of weeks, i don't believe. but on the other hand, there are some areas that -- where there has been discussion. not so much here in this room, but both sides trying to figure out how it makes some progress.

they resolve around the job search. and taking some provisions in the house bill that i think are good, it makes sense that we n can -- hopefully peek favorably about putting off the other ones. the job search in the house bill is a good one. i think we should try to find some way to encourage more job search. reassessment of eligibility. and re-employment services. that is a second look. i think that's an important provision too. i think the strength of the program. i think we also talked about some enhanced re-employment services. to help people have the qualifications, go to work, overpayments.

i saw a figure, a few years ago i was amazed at the amount of the payment. it was pretty high. $17 billion. and it seems to me that we can strengthen the overpayment provisions here in this legislation. and finally, work share, that's something that's been discussed here. i think work share is something else we can maybe tentatively if not totally agree on. these are provisions which -- on which there's a lot of discussion, both the house and the senate. and i would hope that we can reach as much agreement on those provisions as possible. to show progress. show we're making some headway here. something that's, you know, probably makes some sense. to my understanding, it's that the senate sent some ideas over. and the house has looked at

them, sent them back to our side. you tweaked them. we tweaked them back and forth. also includes a self-employment assistance. i think that was one of the revisions that we talked about. senator reed is pretty closely involved in this. sorry? senator carper has been involved in the self-employment, and chairman i just suggest how far we can go on those. i apologize, not -- before all the members of the conference here, but we have both sides of the aisle as well as both bodies talked about these. i would suggest that -- we'll see what we can do. >> i appreciate those comments, and i know you mentioned the overpayment issue of $17 billion and that's in one year. and so part of where we're coming from is also a program integrity approach that we want

to make sure that the dollars are there given the debt and deficits that we have, that they're going to the people who are in need. but i do think we have had some certainly staff discussions and on the issues you mentioned in re-employment services and enhanced re-employment. i would like to have an opportunity to share those with the members of the conference to see whether we can make some progress at least initially and those -- in those areas. i realize we can see there's some difference on certainly the ged issue and the drug screening issue, but we want to continue to try to work on those as well. and i think for reasons that were very articulately stated, those are important too. i think if we can move forward on that that would be a positive first step.

i do think a uniform standard for job search at the state and federal level is important. but we can continue to try to discuss that issue as we move ahead. but -- and again, just to close, on drug screening it really is allowing states if they choose, they're blocked from doing it because of the department of labor regulation that's decades old. we do think it's time to relook at these things in a new light under current budget circumstances, under current economic circumstances. and under the fact that now compared to when that regulation was passed, employers demanded drug screening as an employment. you don't want someone to get to the period of unemployment they have and then find that they're not able to qualify for the job of which they have applied. you really want to have that

identification of that problem as mr. brady articulately said up front so that states can then design resources. but in terms of -- at least in terms of these job search requirements at a federal level i would like to pursue that with you very much so. >> mr. charirman, i have a suggestion. hopefully tomorrow, that in the meantime the senate as -- prepares an offer on the second tier issues, not drugs, not ged and so forth, which we could then share with the house. it would be my hope we meet tomorrow, that the house is in a position to accept it or with modifications or what not. at least there's some -- make some headway here on the off er. >> that would be a positive first step and we look forward to seeing that proposal.

>> we're about to vote over here, but i think the vote has not been called. not yet. but just -- about to go. anyway, i make that suggestion. we are prepared to make an offer for the house and you have it before tomorrow's meeting if we meet tomorrow. and have a timetable. >> okay. >> we're glad to look at them. there are some issues on some of them we need to talk them over. >> well, i think it's -- to make headway we'll prepare a good faith offer. >> we look forward to receiving the senate's offer. we can continue to discuss this issue or we can move on to another issue at this point. i think it's been a productive discussion and in light of the offer coming.

>> i think senator would like to speak. >> i'll be brief, because i think there was an impression created what the house proposal would do was to eliminate unemployment benefits and certainly it does adjust the benefit program. but under current law, we have the state component of unemployment insurance support. we have a federal component that has been added in and then an extended federal component that has been added in. and if after february 29th of this month, if we take no action, then what will we see is that unemployment benefits will drop from a maximum of 99 weeks to just 26 weeks of state only benefits. and that's what we are trying to deal with here. and the house proposal essentially continues to pay the

federal portion of the benefit and the federal extended benefits through 2013 and provides up to 79 weeks in january of 2012. essentially adjusting some. now, that is a -- an adjustment to the current state of the benefits but i think it needed to be clarified that right now, there is a cliff that we are going to go over and the house proposal puts back into place a significant majority of the benefits that we are talking about. secondly, the house proposal has reforms included in it that are going to significantly improve in my opinion the performance of unemployment insurance and reduce the need for the high extended benefits that we have been dealing with over the last year or so. so i thought it ought to be clarified that we are not talking about ending unemployment benefits. we are talking about continuing

the federal portion and the federal extended benefits. >> yeah. mr. chairman, can i clarify? mr. levin? >> the chair -- >> let me just say there's a cliff on all three programs. so i don't think it's fair to say, well, we're ending the cliff for u.i. i think we're facing a cliff for all three and if we don't act, that cliff goes into effect. >> correct. >> and the question is whether when we address the cliff we're going to leave a substantial part of the cliff. >> i'm not aware that the state benefits will expire. >> that what? >> the state unemployment -- >> no, but the cliff is -- >>