senator's point, that there will be a state benefit regardless of what we do. >> 26 weeks in michigan 20 weeks. >> on average. and the house bill will re-enact and extend federal support. and -- >> and the question is whether that would happen, and i thought it should make clear. >> mr. barrasso? >> when we talk about the professori proffering of an offer, will it be how we deal with unemployment benefits or simply addresses part of what we need to do on unemployment benefits? >> my understanding, if i can answer, is the latter. >> so we'll have to deal with other aspects of unemployment? >> clearly.

>> got to crawl before you can walk. congressman walden? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate the discussion and the senate's openness to provide us with an offer. i think that's very good faith and we look forward to receiving it. i think it's important to remind people that the house did approve a full one-year extension of unemployment. the house did approve a full one-year extension of the middle class payroll tax cut. and a two-year fix of the physician payment schedule so that seniors could have access to their doctors. that is what went to the senate. what came back was the two month proposal that has us together here as a 20-member family trying to work out how we go forward. on the issue of helping, people on unemployment have a better chance of getting a job. that's how i look at this and the reforms that the house passed. having been a small business owner since 1986, in my little

company we didn't do drug screening or testing, i know in talking to bigger employers they do. if you can't pass a drug screening when you go to get a job, something's wrong. and i think mr. brady made a very good comment that those who are working day in and day out, a couple of jobs in this economy are subsidizing those who couldn't get a job if it was offered because they couldn't pass the drug test. we need to get beyond that by allowing the states the flexibility to manage their situation. i had a gentleman from pineville, call my office. he's been unemployed since last year. he said, i fully support drug testing. i'd be happy to comply. what he really wants of course is a job. and this recovery, the 11 recessions we have had since world war ii, none has been bad coming ought of than this one. we can attribute why that is the

case, whether you believe it's the president's policy, something else, but the long and the short of it is is it's the worst we have ever faced. that's 99 weeks of total unemployment available, the most that america has ever offered and that's lasted 42 months. 42 months. and so what we're saying here with these modest reforms in the legislation that the house has passed is, we know that if you have a ged or a high school diploma you have a better chance to get a job. so let us extend the helping hand to encourage you to do that with exceptions for older workers and if it might be unduly burdensome including a class schedule problem. that's all outlined in the legislation. we know according to the bureau of labor statistics without a high school degree, experience -- people without the

unemployment rate is 50% greater than those with only a high school degree and those without a high school degree have been particularly hard hit over the last few years. a couple of my colleagues in the senate reflected on that and continued to have a far lower labor force rate compared to other educated levels that ranged from 60% to 70%. if we can help people get a degree, they have a better chance of getting a job. and if we can work with them so that they can pass a drug screening then if they get offer a job, they get a chance to get that job. because that's really the heart of the matter here, is getting people back to work. now, i have heard that just today that if extending unemployment is some sort of economic growth model, putting money into the pockets of those who are unemployed they'll spend it. it will help. but i have heard a ratio of $1 to $2. and everybody who spoke it got

less and less. so i think we have to agree this recovery stinks. we can do better. we need the safety net in place of unemployment insurance with proper reforms. and the payroll tax reduction properly paid for. i would yield to my friend from new york. >> thank you, chairman. and thank you, congressman walden. i'd just like to point out at the evidentiary level, one of the exemplars we can use, this is sadly regrettably a record breaking recession and very unspectacular and anemic recovery. we are dealing with taxpayers' dollars here and we have to

respect the taxpayers whose dollars should be going to grow the economy, and so there's jobs that the folks decembsperately . if you look at the laws that were passed by president clinton and with the congress in the mid 1990s, there's good evidence that enhancing the requirements for welfare recipients could be credited with a decline in the number o people on welfare rolls. it was sal youtory for the welfare recipient population and there's a great study out at kato. we can provide that to you. and cato is quite an objective analytic body when it comes to

this evidence, but i think that arks strong -- that it argues strongly on the evidentiary level to enhance the requirements for receiving unemployment insurance or unemployment benefits will motivate people to even further to search for jobs in a more effective way. respectfully submitted. thank you, mr. charge. >> thank you. senator baucus we have time to go one more round or given that there will be some proposal coming forward, we could move on to the -- >> i appreciate it. sure. i think senator reed would -- >> let's do one more round. >> it's such an important issue. >> quickly, mr. chairman, i thought it was interesting that this is a very productive discussion. i think we all have sort of agreement and sincere agreement

on the value of education. we'd like to see everyone get as much education as possible. but i think it's interesting when you take mr. levin's points about the proposed cuts to basic state training workers, worker investment, worker training, access to geds, we're sort of saying two things. we're saying we want people to qualify for workers unemployment insurance by signing up for the ged, but doesn't look like we're going to put a lot of money into the states to support the efforts to get everyone so that they could automatically sign up. and get the program. no waiting list, no nothing. we're not making that commitment. so essentially the point i would make is that this becomes maybe a well intentioned but a barrier for people to collect what they assume they were eligible for many, many years. of -- and unless we're willing

to fund the support system necessary to get everyone who wants -- and if they're required to get -- sign up for the ged, it puts a lot of people in the difficult position. then you have to ask practical questions too about signing up for a ged and taking the two or three years to finish the ged, is that going to get you the job and we'd like to see people in the work force not two or three years later, but immediately. i guess the other point i want to make, a similar point about drug testing. there's been some studies in texas for example, if they were able to implement the program, that's $30 million, where's that coming from? is that coming out of the benefits that we're paying people? i think it goes back to this particular recession which everyone has noted has been long term, has affected i think disproportionately, this is more anecdotal than anything else,

middle-aged workers. and again, if we've got resources and we're trying to apply them to help people, someone who's worked for 30 years, someone who's coming in and applying for unemployment compensation because they have a work record, you know, i think that doesn't sort of automatically sort of suggest to me that they have serious problems with drug abuse. that they don't have skills in the workplace that they can use. it's this issue that the demand is so slack that the job is not out there. i think we have got to focus on sort of the main point here, which is to provide the kind of support -- financial support that they expected. they expected it to last 20 years. and points have been made about people working hard. i think mr. brady said they're

working three jobs and a lot of people who are without a job today, they were supporting people a year ago who are collecting the benefits and they thought they'd be eligible if that sad day came when they were told, sorry, no more work for you. so we have to be very practical, very pragmatic because we are dealing i think with programs that have cost. no one around this table is going to argue against the efficacy of education. in fact, if you want to look at the biggest payoff, the people doing the best are not ged recipients. they're people with advanced degrees. i don't think anyone would suggest you have to have a master's edegree, but if you tae the argument out that's where we have to go. i think there's some areas of common agreement that we can

reach quickly tomorrow as far as an offer and then build on that. >> i'd ask a question of my house colleagues. does the house bill require the completion and the obtaining of a ged degree or does it merely require that you enroll in a program? so you could get a job one week after you enrolled in the program theoretically, is that correct? >> yes. it's simply making progress. and with regard to the waiting list, that could be part of the hardship exception that if there's a waiting list, the states would have the authority to suspend that proposal if it's not available. but that's not every state. again, i go back to this $17 billion a year in overpayments. we have to find a way to make sure that the benefits are getting to those people who are truly deserving. >> would the gentleman from arizona yield? >> yeah. >> but i appreciate -- i think it's the senator from arizona's time. but -- >> i just had a question.

>> all right. >> well, then it's really congressman levin's time right now. >> this is totally unheard of. i yield -- i was going to yield a minute to a senator. >> okay. i'll take it. but like other senators i know he has to take a phone call. >> just quickly and senator baucus, you had mentioned making an offer tomorrow, i haven't seen -- i assume that's a democrat offer? >> senate offer. >> okay. i'll take a look at that. the other issue is that we talk about the ged. it's my understanding if you give the states the flexibility, the focus is to get younger people into getting geds where they can do the most good over the entire length of their career. that's the other component of the ged. referenced as giving states flexibility. >> but others and then i'll say a few words. >> all right.

i'm sorry? >> i was going to make the point to clarify on senator kyl's, if you go to page 29 of the bill, section 2122 it spells out pretty clearly for purposes of the paragraph an individual shall be considered to have met the minimum requiren'ts unless they have earned the ged credential include big meeting recognized alternative standards for individuals with disabilities or three is enrolled in making satisfactory progress in classes leading to satisfaction of clause one or two and then "c" the requirements of sub paragraph "b" may be waived for an individual to the extent that charged with the state law deems such requirements to be unduly burdensome. we were trying to strike a

balance here to bring the states in and have them evaluate the programs as it relates to their individuals and help people move forward and get the ged which is the first step or high school diploma which is the first step up. if you look at one of these charts in the packet, and this is difficult to see, i know, but this is nonelderly households receiving unemployment insurance, food stamps under medicaid, if you have no high school diploma, it's really -- you're hurting. you're hurting. so what we need to do is provide some incentive and help, so people get that basic education so when they go in to apply for a job, you at least have that on your resume thank you. >> i believe senator levin has the time. time gets away from us once in a while. >> it does. i was going to yield the time now. let me just say a few words on the drug testing.

now employers can require drug test if someone refuses to take it. the state can disqualify the person from unemployment. in terms of high school education, i think you simply need to put your shoes if you can -- put yourself in the shoes of many of the unemployed. for example, in the construction industry, i don't know how many of them have geds and how many don't. they have learned a lot of skills. these are skilled workers. many of these are 40, 50 years old. and essentially what you're saying is enroll in a program when 160,000 people are in line. this isn't -- this isn't a welfare program.

this is a traditional program in this country and every other industrial country where people who are laid off through no fall of their own, who are looking for work receive some subsistence amount so that they can eat, so that maybe they can getinue it, and maybe pay the mortgage for $300 a month -- a week on the average. and i just say to you, mr. brady, it may be in texas that you can go a year and a half and not be in touch with any employment service entity. that's the problem with the state. that's the problem of the state.

states now have every ability to insist that people come in or some other way register for re-employment. and states have the ability to follow through with that in terms of prerequisites. now, if we want to make a federal standard instead of having the state apply its standards, we can discuss that. but i think it is a mistake to assume that for the vast, vast, vast majority of people who are out of work that they're not looking for work. by definition, they were unemployed through no fault of their own. otherwise, they're not entitled to unemployment insurance. they are also required to be

looking for work. in the vast, vast majority of people that at least i know of, and i hope everybody will check this out back home, are people who are desperately looking for work and who need a bit of help so that their desperate search doesn't result in a desperate economic situation for them. that's really what this is all about. and if we can find some ways to improve the program, we're all in favor of it. in terms of work sharing, these ideas, but we have to sustain the basic program and i'd just close with this. you keep on saying this is a unique crisis. so you need uniquely to sustain the unemployment insurance system that is the basis for

subsistence in times of crisis. that's basically what this is all about. and we can look at so-called second tier issues as long as it's understood that what is really most at stake here are the first tier issues of the sustaining of a program in a unique time in this country. i agree with whoever said it. don't let's talk about in quotes who is to blame. one of these charts shows how job loss went up in '07-'08 dramatically. but let's not argue about that. what we know is the result. there has been some improvement, but you've got 5, 6 million people long-term unemployed. and we can't shirk our

responsibility. thank you. >> all right. i'm going to go to mr. brady for a brief comment and then to congresswoman ellmers. >> i would just say -- say, mr. chairman, scarf your microphone. you know, these are tough economic times. and in the house proposal, we continue a record level of unemployment help with those seeking jobs. and that's critical to remember. i will say that texas does require people who get unemployment help to actually go look for a job. and in this bill in some states don't at all. so you can receive dollar and help from your neighbors and taxpayers and not aggressively search for a job. i'm not talking about calling an employer just to get a no, or asking someone to sign your paper that you actually tried to look for a job. i'm talking about aggressively looking for that next job. that's what we're all seeking. yield back.

>> okay. i think i got it there. you got to get the right touch. i would just like to follow off of congressman brady and say that the house bill that we passed for a year extension of ui is a reemployment plan. it's what i was out there saying. it's what many of my colleagues are out saying when we were vote on it. the president himself in his state of the union speech said that he wanted a reemployment plan. and that is exactly what we put forward. you know, the numbers -- interestingly enough, i'm looking at the charts. and just the points that have been made to the argument, we can also make. we aren't coming out of the recession as we normally would have by this point. and we're not going to point fingers, because that's not going to help our situation. but we're still stuck here. but it does prove that in 2009, we were in a crisis situation

when unemployment was extended for the 99 weeks. maybe that was appropriate now we're in a better situation. the chart which has been still hurting and there are many out there looking for jobs, even last week, i'm reminded of the stark opening statements where we were talking today it's two million jobs were last week it was three million jobs created with the stimulus plan and moving forward. we still needhe need to improve the system, because the red chart does show that this unemployment plan, th effective. the american taxpayers, the hard-working american taxp look efficient, something improved. there is nothing wrong with improving the system, yet helping those who need it.

and actually empowering them. what an awesome thought that what they'll be getting is assistance from the federal government to be reemployed rather than just a constant reminder that they are unemployed. we can do better than this. and to the argument of not addressing those issues at this point and just continuing on, absolutely not. that's not what the americ to d. the american people are telling us we have got to do our job better. and this is a perfect example of one way to do that. and i yield back my time. thank you. >> thank you. i think it's been a productive discussion. we clearly need to continue these talks on the unemployment program. i think at this point i'm prepared to begin to toward discussing the doc fix and the medicare extenders which would give us up to 45 minutes of

debate. senator baucus, i recognize you. new issue. >> yeah. somhing we all know we need to address. frustrated we always have to continue the doc fix year after year after year as it gets more and more and ed to find a way to solve it. i would like to turn to senator kyl. he's got some ideas. we talked some length the last four or f finding a solution here. and the lead person here is senator kyl. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and colleagues. i think there is pretty broad agreement on the thingatdo, and beginning of a consensus on something that would be good to do if we can. first of all we have to decide how much of a so-called update physicians will receive, if any, and how long we will fund the medicare physicians. the hobi

two-year funding level. my guess is that if we can find the right offsets, thd all appreciate the desirability of having the longer period of time rather than something shorter than that to provide for .ram the other thing we need to make a decision on is which if any of the extenders, the so-called medicare extenders need to be extended.ird thing, which i thi there has already been some expression about that would be desirable to do if we could is to decide to repeal the so-called sgr, the flawed 1997 formula which hasn't worked ever since 1999. and i think as a recognition doesn't work and doesn't need to be fixed to work. and then the question do we need to supply the replacement for that immediately, or can that evolve over the next two or three or four years. in the meantime, having congress set the level each year or two for reimbursement. and finally, how do we deal with

the cbo accounting of the elimination of the sgr and the theoretical debt that would exist in that situation. and there had been some conversation about that. let me, though, get to the question of how long we should try to provide this update for and what it should be. i think some statistics here are useful to set the stage. in 2010, total expenditures for medicare a, b, and d were $522.8 billion. of that expenditures on physician fees scheduled services are about $64.5 billion. so you can see they're a relative amount of money. every year we provide this update, and it's an increase in spending. and what is it for? it's because there are more patients being added to the patient load, and the patients already existing are living longer, and they are requiring more expensive services. that creates a need to raise the amount each year. sometimes we also increase the

amount that we will reimburse physicians for, an update of 1% as the house recommended or a half a percent. sometimes we haven't updated it at all. and i'll get back to that in a moment. cbo estimates the number of people age 65 or older will increase by about 1/3 just nd 2o 17% of the population. so we're facing a 1/3 increase in medicare enrollment over the next decade. that's going to be a lot of money that we're going to have to supply. and that doesn't even begin to account for whatever amount of update or inflation adjust wed provide for the physicians. now we all know that our seniors are complaining a lot about the difficulty of getting in to see medicare patients. just a couple data points. in 2011, the texas medical association found that only 67% of surveyed practices accepted new medicare patients. we all have anecdotal evidence i

think to support this as well. that same survey found that as a result of the looming sgr cuts, 41% of surveyed doctors are considering not taking new medicare patients. another 22% have definitely decided they're not going to take new patients. at the same time, we know that costs for physicians are rising. and i didn't realize the extent that we have b to the current law the significant increase to costs for physician. maybe some of you are aware of this. but it's a good reminder for the remainder of us. starting in 2013, of course, unless we find a solution to the automatic across-the-board sequester that is built into our budget act, that's an additional 2% cut. starting in 2012, there is a potential 1% penalty for failure of physicians to adopt e-prescribing. and if you do it, it's going to cost you money, obviously. estimated to be about $2500 per phia