things that we want to talk about and we have to eat our vegetables before we have dessert and we know what those issues are. i do want to say that i have said from the beginning this is a strict scope of conference because we have so little time to resolve these issues. if it's not in the house bill and it's not in the senate bill, then it's not before this conference. mr. reed. >> thank you, chairman. i just wanted to respond to the comment about what has changed in regards to paying for tax policy, paying for things that we do in this conference. and what i would like to say is that as a member of the freshman class and i think as a member of all of us here, we are now operating in a different time.

there is a fiscal crisis looming on the horizon. i don't think anyone in this room disagrees with the threat of the national debt to our nation and what is coming down the pipeline. so i'm proud to be part of a class, to be part of a new group of members of congress and as members who used to be there now are talking the language that we talk and that we got to pay for our decisions in washington, it is refreshing to have to answer the question as to why did the policy shift from yesterday to today. and that is because i think there's a new mentality in the house in particular that we have to pay for our decisions out of washington. and i think that's what the american people, hard working taxpayers back at home expect us to do. and that is a significant change in the culture of d.c. that i'm hearing from so many people and i think if we continue down that vein of thought processes that we will be able to accomplish great things for america and prevent that fiscal crisis that's coming down the horizon. >> again, on bonus depreciation, i think i've heard a fair amount of consensus on that particular issue. i'm prepared to move forward on any other items that senator baucus may wish to discuss if that's the -- i guess senator casey. sorry. >> i have less than a minute so it will be quick and it's on 100% expensing. the key point here answered know there's a lot of agreement on this but i just wanted to say a real person in the real world on

december 22nd bloomberg reporter katherine dodge wrote the following -- she talked about campbell fittings, a maker of industrial host couple lings using this particular tax break to buy equipment that allowed the family-owned business about 50 miles northwest of philadelphia to offer more innovative products at a lower cost to better compete with overseas rivals. here what's joe mcguinn said, the executive vice president, quote, it's putting people to work right now, end of quote. that's all i need to say about the great idea. >> mr. chairman.

>> i think senator baucus is a senate republican -- >> no. >> i wanted to make a comment on a different subject if i could. as i've been look around the table -- >> no, we're in 100%. >> i've noted the size of the water bottles on the house side and the senate side -- >> i had the same observation. >> i want the record to reflect the senate's going big. >> and some of you haven't taken a sip. >> we'll go to mr. levin. if there's no one else, i think we're concluded in this round of discussion on bonus depreciation. i think there might be some other items you might want to discuss. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to submit a senate offering and pass it out. this is with respect to ui. there's been a lot of discussions about work surge requirements, reemployment, eligibility assessment, work sharing, self-employment assistance and it's my suggestion that the house take this offer under consideration and see if perhaps if it's the house position to either agree

next session or work out some way where we could at least get these provisions passed. the bigger ui issues of course are not yet being considered, that is number of weeks and not paying for it, et cetera. but this is just a good faith effort to get the ball rolling here. so we're actually doing something on one of the three major issues. >> senator reid? >> excuse me. i want to commend you for setting a tone on a vigorous debate but directing us to accomplish principled conclusions, and again, thank

you for that. and the offer that the chairman back as has presented represents proposals made by the house that are very constructive, and i think will improve the program of ui. some proposals we made in the senate, which i think will lead to it, it does represent a balance of constructive improvements to the ui program, it reserves some of the issues as the chairman alluded to in terms of the scope, the extent. what is paid for or not paid for or not at all in terms of emergency spending. i think this is a very good way to begin what have you indicated is your goal of coming to

principled resolution of critical issues. this is the most -- in many respects, one of the top three issues, i just wanted to ask your -- i know you will, your thoughtful consideration. >> i might add, chairman, this is a bipartisan full senate offer. >> well, i thank you very much for the offer, thank you for the proposal and the spirit in which it was made, i think this is something that begins to bridge the gap. as you mentioned this isn't some of the bigger issues, this is on some of the technical terms, i

think if we can commit our staffs to do some additional work, i believe we can come to some conclusion on some of these particular technical items, and i realize the media sort of described them as second tier. i know that we still have outstanding some of these bigger issues as you mentioned, unemployment benefits. -- do you need to get a ged as you're receiving unemployment benefits, at least enroll in that process? and the drug screening as well as benefits. we did spend time on those issues yesterday. i think if it's possible, what i would like to ask the senate, we have the staff work on these issues. if we could work on a proposal from the senate on the bigger issues that were contained in the house bill, we know where people are on these issues, sometime tomorrow we could begin to review not only these technical items but these bigger issues that were there, i would say these would move us

significantly forward. we know the house bill costs about $26 billion going-forward. and i know that just glancing at some of these items in here, there would be additional spending included in those. and as we look at the number of weeks, if we looked at the president's proposal of 79 weeks, that's roughly another 10 billion additional dollars, i know there are those who would like to go more than that, i heard the comments yesterday. but if we could know a senate position beginning on these tier one issues, i think that would be a necessary step to help us move forward. but i would like to direct the staffs to work on this proposal that's been made. i think it is a step forward, i think it is a positive step forward, and i think there are some common areas within that, having glanced at it, i haven't fully analyzed all of it. i don't want to fully commit, but i do see some potential there. thank you. >> yeah. i don't know if i heard you correctly. your thought was what? >> that we direct the staffs. >> with respect to an offer on any remaining issues? >> yes, that we direct the staffs to work on what you have

presented to us, and some of these issues are somewhat technical in nature, and i think we can begin to have them prepare that so we could have a dialogue on that proposal, and then move forward on some of these -- for the lack of a better word, big issues or tier one issues, and have a senate proposal. the house has a statement on those issues, and if we could hear, we had good discussion on these issues, but at least begin a proposal on those tier one issues that we could significantly move this conference forward. >> my senate colleagues -- >> not today. >> no, no, but not -- i understand that, i'm talking about the process. >> yes. and i think it's not a bad idea. unless you hear to the contrary you can expect that you will receive -- at the appropriate time, i can't say when that's going to happen, we're going to have to confer. >> i understand. >> and get that -- you will get that offer? >> all right.

>> could i say a word? >> yes. >> first of all, on the proposals here, the provisions, i hope the staffs will work together on them, i've asked our staff to begin to look at some of these. for example, terms of work search, what the states are now doing, i think the fact is that virtually every state is now undertaking assistance for work search. and one of the issues is whether the provisions should relate to the state benefits as well as the federal program. i think the states now have -- are doing this in terms of unemployment insurance. and the same is true of reemployment services, though i think they've been very much handicapped by the lack of funding, and is mentioned here, funding remains open on several of the other proposals. in terms of the larger issues.

let me express my hope that we will set a pattern of the house and senate working together. the only way we're going to succeed here is by having an effort that involves democrats and republicans in the senate and in the house. and i hope that on these big three issues that that will be the pattern. i mentioned the welfare reform issue of some years ago, that is what was done on these issues, on some of the issues that i remember. it was very controversial, wasn't easy, there were differences of opinion. but we sat down in subgroups and talked through these issues. democrats, republicans, house and senate together. and i hope that as we proceed here, that there will be the fullest back and forth between the house and senate democrats and republicans. i hope everybody, whether

they're democrats or republicans will proceed with that spirit. that's the only way we're going to resolve these issues and do this month. >> thank you. again, i want to thank the senate for this proposal and taking the step. and again, i think we can again to work on these issues as we look for department in the others, senator reed i know you wanted to comment as well. >> yes, very quickly, i think we

have a basis with these issues where in good faith we can sort of come to an agreement. and that might be the prelude to other larger issues which are -- there's less congress census, i think in terms of the three larger issues, they're so interrelated in terms of how much we will have to spend, how long programs are in effect. it might be very difficult to sort of put one before the other in terms of final resolution, since they are so closely related. my suggestion, i think it follows yours, let's see if we can make real progress on this first set of issues, and then we'll have to deal with some of the ui issues what are we going to do on payroll tax, the doctor's fix, et cetera, and i think -- >> well, the only thing i would

say,we really have to work on them concurrently. >> i agree. >> time is limited. >> that's my point. >> one is certainly at a staff level, the other is going to be member level as senator baucus said, and hopefully those can be going on at the same time. because the senate bill was silent on so many of these issues, we need to have some idea of where the senate is coming from so we can begin to talk about how we resolve -- we know our differences, we heard today and yesterday on those issues, so i -- >> these are all member issues, all three of these big subjects are member issues, and i think the staff should work, but we need to find a way to have the fullest exchange among members. >> i think we'll be able to take care of that issue. i think there's an understanding of what's going on, and senator baucus, unless you have something to add, i'll be

prepared to adjourn this meeting. >> thank you. >> we're now adjourned. tuesday you can watch the negotiations on extending the payroll tax cut. we'll have that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org. this past week, senate and house lawmakers continued negotiations to extend payroll tax cuts on workers. the cuts expires at the end of the month and all sides agree it should be extended.

the talks are focused on how to pay for it. >> i don't hear a fundamental disagreement in the philosophy that if people get a ged that enhances their lives and that enhances the ability for them to get a job down the road. i don't hear a disagreement with that. i hear an excuse as to why not to do it but rather the fundamental flog if i of tryi fundamental philosophy of trying to rearm people with an education so when they go in the workforce they have an additional tool. >> to link the social insurance program designed and for 70 plus years functioning to provide financial support when you lose your job to a requirement that you have to be in this training i think, first of all, won't work for some of the practical considerations. second, doinlt think it contradicts the notion that more education you have today the better off you'll be in this economy. >> watch the rest of this meeting or the two others they

held online at the c-span video library at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> now an update on the on going house and senate conference committee negotiations. on the payroll tax extension. over the past couple of weeks, the house and senate conference committee negotiating a long term extension of the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and doctors reimbursement rates held three meetings. three more are scheduled for this week. stephen sloan, what is the status of the negotiations? >> we haven't seen a lot of progress yet. we've seen a little agreement here and there on the small issues. the big issues that have to be decided, the fate of the unemployment insurance program and exactly how you're going to cover the $100 billion cost of extending this package through the rest of the year, that

hasn't been discussed. and both sides seem to be a pretty big odds over exactly how to address the issues. >> so let's talk unemployment insurance. where is -- or what are the specific areas where there's no agreement with that? >> there's no agreement on the reforms that republicans are seeking. they're seeking changes to the unemployment system that would rub, require a recipient of unemployment insurance to have a ged or if they don't have a high school diploma to be seeking a ged and it would also allow states to conduct drug tests on recipients of unemployment insurance. these are things that democrats have been willing to go along with. republicans are scaling back the number of weeks that someone can be on insurance, on unemployment insurance. right now in the heartest hit states you can be on unemployment for 99 weeks. republicans want to scale that back to 59 weeks. and so we need to see if there

is any middle ground. maybe, you know, come to agreement on the first 79 weeks or something to see if there is any effort between both sides to go to the middle. >> on the flip side, what does the panel agree on? >> they agree on the need to extend the payroll tax cut throughout rest of the year. that's pretty much it. >> okay. well, the pricetag for the bill is reportedly expected to be at least $160 billion over ten years. how likely are they to reach agreement on friday, february 29 rnlg, when a two-month extension expires? >> it's really tough deadline for them. it's not impossible. anything can happen once you get closer and closer to a deadline. but there's been no agreement at all on how that costs should be covered yet. >> what happens if there is no agreement by the end of the mow? >> then the payroll tax cut

expires. that means the tax cut that most workers have seen around the country over past year or so, that would expire. unemployment benefits would go back to 26 weeks. that's the amount that states provide in normal times. and the reimbursement rates paid to physicians that use medicare but work with medicare patients, those reimbursement rates would be cut back. >> what you have heard about a possibility of another short term extension? >> that's all the talk right now. to find out if that is something that is feasible. this is something that in one of the meetings last week the senate finance chairman raised saying if they couldn't agree on the big issues, they may have to agree to something more short term. what short term means, does that mean doing a one-month extension and people are talking about? or does that mean doing a nine-month extension that gets us through the lection but doesn't pay for december and maybe resolve all this in a lame

duck session later in the year. that's unclear. >> stephen sloan of bloomberg news. appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> i mean my friends, they knew america where freedom is made real for all without regard to race or belief or economic condition. i need a new america which ever lastingly attacks the ideas that men can solve their differences by killing each other. >> as candidates campaign this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video the contenders who had lasting impact on american politics.

>> the profits of the radical liberal left offer one solution to the problems which confronted. they tell us again and again and again we should spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. this is c-span3 and every weekend, american history tv, telling the american story. get our schedules and see past programs at our web sites and join in the conversation on these social media sites. >> now a house energy subcommittee hearing where lawmakers questioned the homeland xurlt department about a leaked memo detailing problems at the agency in charge of chemical facility security.

this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> this subcommittee will now come to order. i would like to welcome our panel. and i'd like to begin with an opening statement. in my time serving in congress, i have learned as oftentimes is the case that the initial problem isn't as big a deal to people as a poor explanation of a problem can be. further coverups are the best hope of people who know they are in the wrong and the worst move for those who get found out. people try to hide problems or minimize their existence usually face a swifter and ferocious corrective response from congress.

it is with disappointment i read about the division implementing the chemical facility and its program at the department of homeland security. i for one have historically been a strong supporter of this program. i believe the statute is sound and the regulations reasonable. in fact, the anderson memo calls for only one legislative change, long term extension of the program. the program was not meant to be another epa style program designed to find people or bureaucratic back door to overregulate chemicals. it was meant to be a collaborative effort to secure high risk facilities with facility appropriate measures based upon risk presented. congressional intent was that cooperation would get facilities into compliance. we did not intend to increase federal revenues through enforcement actions. i hope dhs is not looking to band on our original intent.

last month i acknowledged this was a work in progress. i felt security was being enhanced and significant public and private investments were being made to implement the program. i still believe security at facilities with klem calls is much better today than before congress gave dhs the first ever regulatory authority. unfortunately, my confidence in dhs and the substantial amount congress has given to it is not nearly as strong. someone compared this to an unmanned police car positioned at the site of a highway. it wards off speeders but not much else. we need to be assured that dhs' program has a plan and intends to focus on fixing the internal problems and not suggesting the program should take on any other additional responsibilities. i mean they better first do the responsibilities designed under law than to take on additional

ones such as drinking water or ist issues. it is an appropriate component of the subcommittee's jurisdiction and the days of mapped torre oversight are over. i urge all members of this committee to join me in that effort. as a fellow u.s. military officer, i have tremendous respect for undersecretary bureau of services to this country. that said, he and i have been taught that there are only three acceptable responses when questioned by an officer. yes, sir, no, sir, no excuse, sir. or, sir, i don't understand. four. i expect no less than that today. i want to welcome undersecretary and deputy director wolf who along with director penny anderson showed great courage with the franknessst internal memo. both of you should know that the committee takes very seriously any evidence of undue pressure, influence, intimidation or retaliation whatsoever because

of your testimony today while we continue to investigate these important issues. in other words, we really do appreciate this internal memo. i think it's been very, very helpful. we want to insure those who came forward are not penalized for that. please let my committee staff know right away if you have any concerns, retaliation, intimidation of congressional witnesses is illegal and will not be tolerated. mr. beers, i trust you will insure and you're in agreement with me that no retaliation should be tolerated and we hold you and any other white house officials accountable to that. with that, i now yield to the ranking member from texas, mr. green, for five minutes with the purpose of offering his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for ordering the hearing today. he requested an internal memo on the status of the program and recommendations for improvement in the summer of 2011. this memo was delivered to mr.

beers in november 2011 and it leaked to the media and detailed in a story on december 23rd, 2011. i must say when i read the memo irwas surprised and dismayed about it level of dysfunction and the lack of progress within the program. i'm also amazed that during this time the subcommittee discussed this program during our work and the full invitation of the chemical facility anti-standards act. the portion of the internal memo as related to challenges to implementing these priorities. i won't go into all the details. it seems to me the root of the problem lies with the fact that dhs hired people that are unqualified for their positions and prohibited from hiring appropriate and qualified individuals and they have no training program to help those folks who are unqualified. this inappropriate hires along with training of the employees forced dhs instead of reassigning and appropriate employees are allowing contractors to do work that

should be done by the agency. the memo outlines several priorities including the process for the review of the sights security plans. unfortunately, the time of the memo dhs received 4200 site security plans and not a single plan was approved. i know that dhs is working to clear up all the tier one facilities. it's been six years since the program was enacted. we haven't even cleared the low level facilities. if they conduct compliance inspections, dhs had done kukted not sang will compliance inspection. not that any of my trees that i represent along the houston ship channel are looking for an expe inspector to come knocking on the doorment but they are working to kbcomply in a privat compliance. but i must say that