[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 27 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H907-H927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3630, MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND JOB
CREATION ACT OF 2012
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 554 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 554
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of
jobs, and for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
conference report to its adoption without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to
recommit if applicable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from South
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 554
provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3630, a
bill to extend the payroll tax deduction, protect Medicare payments for
doctors, and begin responsible reform of the unemployment benefits
system.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. Today, we are
taking up legislation that does three things: extend the payroll tax
deduction, reform our unemployment benefits system, and protect
Medicare payments for doctors.
First, on the bright side, Republicans and Democrats were able to
find a compromise to pay for two very important things: much-needed
reforms to the unemployment benefits program and protecting Medicare
payments to the physicians who serve our seniors.
In regard to the payroll tax deduction, unfortunately our friends on
the left did not think it was important to pay for the extension.
Spending without making the proper adjustments is a notion I am not
fond of. My voting record makes no secret of that. This is what makes
this vote so difficult today. You cannot always get exactly what you
want; but, today, I applaud both sides for attempting to get fairly
close to it.
We cannot continue to pay unemployment benefits for 99 weeks
indefinitely. We cannot allow payments to our doctors to be affected,
as that will only turn around and affect the care available to those in
need.
{time} 0920
And we cannot raise taxes on American families. By voting for this
rule, we are signaling it is time to move forward, plain and simple.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I
encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from South Carolina for
yielding me time.
Millions of Americans all across this country are struggling, and
they need our help. What they don't need is more Republican
gamesmanship at their expense. The Democrats have literally forced the
Republicans to realize that they can't just make policy measures that
help the rich while taking away from the poor.
I may support this bill in light of the fact that it will give a
payroll tax cut to 160 million Americans. It also extends unemployment
insurance to those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault
of their own, and it will allow seniors access to their physicians
under Medicare. And, as a footnote there, we really should do the doc
fix permanently and stop piecemealing and playing games with this
particular measure.
The bill is not perfect, the pay-for is nowhere near perfect, and the
length of the extension is not perfect, but it does contain critical
provisions that many Democrats negotiated to keep in the bill. While we
were able to compromise today, I do not think that my Republican
friends deserve too much credit. Since they regained the majority, the
American people have seen firsthand their obstructionist policies in
action. In fact, earlier this week, my friends on the right attempted
to bring to the floor a transportation bill so flawed that my former
colleague and Transportation Secretary and good friend of mine, Ray
LaHood, stated:
This is the most partisan transportation bill I've ever
seen, and it is also antisafety. It hollows out our number
one priority, which is safety. It's the worst transportation
bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service.
The American people want a government that understands the challenges
they face daily. Republicans want an economy that works great for the
greediest and leaves the neediest out in the cold. Just ask a teacher
in my constituency in Belle Glade or Margate or a firefighter in Fort
Lauderdale or Pompano Beach and they'll tell you an extra $1,000 in
their pockets makes a huge difference in putting food on the table, gas
in the car, and being able to stay in their homes.
We've been forced to strike this compromise because, for decades,
Republicans have pushed policies that favor the wealthy. We should not
forget that, while we are debating how to pay for this payroll tax cut,
unemployment insurance, and payments to Medicare
[[Page H908]]
physicians, our Nation's massive deficits are due in large part to
Republican tax cuts for the wealthiest in America.
The fact of the matter is that the wealthy have continued to pay less
and less taxes. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan started to lower
tax rates, and then President George Bush slashed capital gains and
income tax rates for the wealthy to their now historic lows.
As I travel throughout the constituency that I'm privileged to
represent, into areas where the unemployment rate in some places in the
Glades is 40 percent, I ask myself: Who's actually benefitting from
these tax cuts for the rich? It's certainly not the police officer
living in Boynton or the nurse working at the VA hospital or the
community health center in West Palm Beach.
Madam Speaker, while I'm pleased that we've come to a compromise to
extend unemployment insurance, I remain deeply concerned that this bill
reduces benefits from 99 weeks to as little as 73 weeks through
December. I hear daily from constituents who are approaching the end of
their unemployment period and are at a loss as to where to turn next.
Although the economy may be starting to recover, what are we supposed
to tell those people who have been looking for a job for months and
months on end? What kind of compromise are they supposed to strike with
unemployment?
The best way to reduce the deficit is to put money into the hands of
people who spend it. This is how we support our communities. If we
invest more money in Main Street, consumers will have more money in
their pockets to spend on putting food on the table, gas in their cars,
and, as I said, being able to stay in their homes.
Every American should have the opportunity to succeed. Opportunity
should not be limited by geography, race, gender, or the size of one's
bank account. Yet thanks to massive gaps in the Tax Code, the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer.
The top 1 percent of earners are responsible for 20 percent of the
Nation's annual income, up from 10 percent in 1981. The wealthiest CEOs
are paid 400 times what the average worker earns. Only 30 years ago, it
was 20 times as much.
Americans in the highest tax bracket are supposed to pay 35 percent
of their income in taxes. However, since President Bush slashed the
capital gains rate to 15 percent, the top 400 wealthiest that we
continue to identify, one of about the top 4,000, for example, pay only
15 percent in taxes on 80 percent of their income. As the law is
currently written, any wealthy American paying the full 35 percent
needs to get a new accountant.
In addition to reducing the term of unemployment insurance coverage,
this bill raises an additional $15 billion by requiring Federal
employees to contribute a larger amount to their retirement accounts.
My understanding is this is a grandfathered measure that will protect
the ones that are Federal workers now; but I'm not sure that this is
going to satisfy Members on either the right or left, or the Democrats
or Republicans on this measure, since it's addressing Federal employees
and there were other ways to get to that $15 billion.
Federal employees are currently in their second year of a pay freeze,
while my colleagues across the aisle only a few weeks ago voted to
freeze Federal employees' pay for a third year. Republicans don't think
twice about limiting Federal workers' ability to support their families
but are more than willing to shut down the government when bankers are
asked to pay their fair share of taxes on their bonuses.
How much can we continue to pick on Federal workers? They are not fat
cats. They are postal workers, receptionists, janitors, teachers,
nurses, social workers, and police officers, to name a few. They are
the fundamental underpinning of this Nation. How much can we continue
to pile on their backs? We've already broken their bank accounts. How
much weight should the wealthiest American, who can afford it, carry?
Investing in America is how we are going to create jobs. Let's build
the infrastructure for the coming era of green energy. Let's fix our
aging highways and bridges. Please, let's adequately fund our schools
so our children can get a good education and can compete on a global
level. Doing these kinds of things today will create a brighter America
for generations to come.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, my good friend on the
left, Mr. Hastings, talks a lot about taxes this morning, and that's
probably an appropriate conversation to have.
I will say, however, that as we examine the facts around the capital
gains tax, let us not forget that President Clinton lowered the capital
gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, according to the American
Thinker. But we also have to keep in mind that the most tax-driven
piece of legislation in the last 3 or 4 years is, in fact, the folks on
the left and the national health care reform, a $500 billion increase
of taxes and fees on the middle class.
{time} 0930
Let us not get lost on the fact that those on the left continue to
find ways to tax the middle class.
When I think about the notion that we're going to have a conversation
about taxation, it kind of gets me excited. I'm looking forward to this
opportunity to debate the worthiness of the payroll tax deduction and
how both sides have come together. This is a good thing; we've found
some common ground on the issue of the payroll tax. But where we will
not find common ground is on the issue of slicing taxes for the middle
class.
My friends on the left, they talk a good game, but they don't walk
the talk. Because when you look at the national health care program,
you must concede that $500 billion of new taxes is a bit much for the
middle class. You must say that the surtax on investment income--
another $123 billion to start 11 months from now--that is a pain for
the middle class. It's a pain for the middle class.
When I think about the excise tax on comprehensive health insurance
plans--$32 billion just a few years away. When I think about the hike
on Medicare, another payroll tax--$86 billion of new taxes starting in
another 11 months. My friends on the left, they seem to have this
concept that if we just wait a little while, the American people will
forget who, in fact, is raising the taxes on the middle class.
I would say that my good friend from Georgia wants to chime in on the
debate, so I'm going to yield, Madam Speaker, 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I do rise in support of the
rule. And of course I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina,
the beautiful Lowcountry, for yielding me this time.
While I am, Madam Speaker, supporting the rule, I must also inform my
colleagues that I will be opposing the underlying conference report.
In December, this House passed responsible legislation that afforded
a full-year extension of the payroll tax holiday. It provided long-
overdue reforms to unemployment benefits. And of course it mitigated
the looming 27.4 percent physician-reimbursement cut for 2 years so
that all seniors would still have access to medical care.
Most importantly, Madam Speaker, that fiscally prudent legislation
was completely offset. My colleagues understand that by that we mean
it's paid for with spending cuts. Yet when it came time for the other
body to stand with us for the American people, it failed; and it forced
us into this 2-month extension. So here we are again. Madam Speaker, I
thought that this approach was wrong then, and I still believe that it
is wrong now.
While I am opposing the conference report, I do need to commend
Chairman Camp for ensuring that necessary unemployment insurance
reforms stayed in the bill; and I want to also commend Chairmen Upton
and Walden for working diligently to include sensible spectrum auction
legislation, as well as for their work to make sure that seniors--at
least through the end of this year, 10 months--have the ability to see
their doctors.
As a physician, I have and I will continue to fight for the long-term
solution to eliminate this flawed SGR system once and for all. However,
despite
[[Page H909]]
these efforts, I cannot and I will not support legislation that extends
the payroll tax holiday without paying for it. This will add $100
billion to the deficit, and it will create an even greater shortfall
within the Social Security trust fund that already has over a $100
billion shortfall just in the last 2 years. And what is it, $2.4
trillion that the government owes the trust fund that's not there, just
IOUs in a file drawer in West Virginia. We did the right thing in
December, and I believe that it is a travesty that we would now reverse
that course.
So, Madam Speaker, make no mistake, I support tax relief for
hardworking Americans, but by reducing their marginal tax rates. But
this legislation is simply an election-year gimmick that jeopardizes
our already-fragile Social Security system while literally tricking
voters--160 million of them--with the hopes that they believe it's real
tax relief.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, we can do better, and quite frankly, the American
people deserve better. It's time to end all of these games--the smoke
and mirrors, the bait-and-switch, the political gamesmanship, all with
concern for this next election and to the detriment of this current and
future generations.
For that reason, Madam Speaker, while I support the rule, and I thank
the gentleman for yielding, I will be voting ``heck no'' against this
conference report.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my very good friend from California, the distinguished
gentlewoman, Ms. Matsui, a former member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. I'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, this bipartisan agreement will ensure that 160 million
Americans will not see a tax increase at a time when so many families
are still struggling to make ends meet. The payroll tax cut provides
American families an average of $1,000 annually to help pay their bills
and for day-to-day necessities.
I am also pleased that this agreement will extend unemployment
insurance. With the unemployment numbers in my district over 12
percent, continued unemployment benefits are important for so many to
make ends meet while still trying to find work.
Additionally, providing for a Medicare physician payment fix will
ensure that seniors have continued access to care. But I do urge my
colleagues to continue working for a long-term solution to this
critical issue.
I am supportive of the spectrum provisions in this bill, which will
finally provide public safety with a nationwide interoperability
network and ensure a path for continued American innovation. However,
Madam Speaker, I do have reservations about other ways this package is
paid for.
The second-largest job provider in my district behind the State
government is the health care sector, employing nearly 30,000 workers.
The Medicare bad debt reductions in this bill would seriously hamper
the health systems in my district. For example, UC Davis Medical Center
would lose $4 million over the next few years.
Additionally, I am greatly disappointed by the cuts to the Prevention
and Public Health Fund--which I actively worked to get included in the
Affordable Care Act--as prevention is the best way to improve public
health.
While passage of this bill is critical for America's middle class,
unemployed, and seniors, I have strong concerns that it should not be
at the expense of our country's health care and Federal workforce.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California, Chairman David Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise first to congratulate my good
friend from north Charleston, a hardworking member of the Rules
Committee, for his stellar management of this rule. And on the other
side, a pretty fair job is being done by my friend from Fort
Lauderdale, I have to say.
Madam Speaker, I will say that I listened to the opening statement of
my colleague from Fort Lauderdale. As he talked about the plight of
those in Florida, constituents of his who are struggling, I was
thinking about the fact that today I deal with in an excess of 14
percent unemployment rate in the Inland Empire, part of the area that I
represent in southern California.
When I hear the stories all across this country of people who are
suffering, it does resonate. And it leads me to say, Madam Speaker, Why
is it that we're here today? Why is it that we're here looking at an
extension of unemployment benefits? Why is it that we're here looking
at an extension of the payroll tax holiday? The reason is that we have
an abysmally low, unacceptable gross domestic product growth rate in
this country.
We have a GDP growth rate which is not acceptable. Yes, we've seen
some positive signs, and we're all gratified about that. I truly
believe that the positive signs that we have seen are in spite of, not
because of, anything that has come from Washington, DC. I mean, years
ago we passed a stimulus bill that was supposed to guarantee that we
wouldn't see an unemployment rate that would exceed 8 percent. We all
know what has happened. We've seen a great deal of suffering.
We've looked at the 82 percent increase in nondefense discretionary
spending that took place in the 4 years leading up to our winning the
majority. That, obviously, didn't play a role in getting our economy
growing.
{time} 0940
The reason our economy is growing is that there is a great deal of
innovation, creativity, diligence, hard work on the part of our fellow
Americans, small business men and women, working Americans who are out
there doing it. That's the reason we're seeing these positive signs.
Now, if we did have pro-growth economic policies put into place, if
we had those put into place, it's obvious that we would not have to
rely on an extension of unemployment benefits. We would not have to
look to extending the payroll tax holiday.
We all know that the payroll tax is designed to specifically go to
ensure that people who are retirees are able to have those benefits. So
we are, obviously, undermining that.
Now, we all argue, certainly on our side, that increasing taxes for
anyone during slow economic times is not acceptable policy, and that's
the reason that we are doing what it is we're doing, supporting this
measure. It's obviously something that is essential because of the fact
that we have not seen the kind of GDP growth rate that we can put into
place.
That's why I believe that after we move beyond this, it is essential
for us to do all that we can to implement the kinds of policies that
will, in fact, spur the kind of incentive, create the kind of incentive
that our job creators need. And there are a wide range of things that
we have talked about. We all know what those are. I hope that we can
come together in a bipartisan way to do just that.
I congratulate my friend, Dave Camp, and the other conferees who have
come to this agreement. It is acceptable to some of us. Some of us are
not enthusiastic.
My friend from Marietta, a few minutes ago, was talking about the
package that existed last December. That was good public policy. It
ended up not being good politics. I'll recognize that. It was the
exception to the rule that good public policy is good politics, because
what it did is that accepted what it is we're doing today, what the
President requested, that we would extend this package for 1 year
rather than just 2 months, which is what we had to reluctantly agree to
last December.
And I also have to say that, on the sustained growth rate issue, that
is, ensuring that hardworking doctors out there have the adequate
compensation for their labors, we need to have major reform of the SGR
structure; and I think that what we have done today is a step in that
direction, and I hope very much that we are going to be able to do
that.
So, again, I thank all my colleagues who've been involved in getting
us to where we are. Now that we are going to
[[Page H910]]
do this, it's essential that we move ahead with very positive pro-
growth policies.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, today's payroll tax conference agreement
will provide $1,000 in the pockets of more than 160 million Americans
and ensure that approximately 3.5 million Americans will continue to
benefit from much-needed unemployment insurance. We've also protected
seniors' ability to see their doctors with an SGR fix through the end
of the year.
Despite these critical provisions, though, this is a difficult vote
to take. I'm greatly disappointed over how these extensions are offset.
First, the unemployment extension is paid for on the backs of middle
class Federal workers. These hardworking men and women continue to be
targeted in this Congress, but yet they are not the reason for our
Nation's deficit. Meanwhile, my Republican colleagues refuse to require
the wealthiest few to pay their fair share.
Secondly, the SGR fix is being paid for with critical health care
dollars. In fact, the bill slashes one of the most important
investments this country has ever made in preventative health. This is
extremely shortsighted. We cannot continue down that path or we'll
never address the real cost concerns of our health care system. And,
sadly, the bill also manages to cut from one provider, hospitals and
nursing homes, to pay for another, physicians. We can't rob Peter to
pay Paul, and our health care system can't sustain further provider
cuts. Meanwhile, there's still no permanent solution to an ongoing SGR
problem that can't continue to be kicked down the road.
I will vote in favor of this bill, but I do so with reservations. I
know that on our Democratic side, our conferees fought very hard for
the best deal that they could get. So I think we have to vote for this
bill because it does a lot of very important things, but I also have to
express my reservations.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Joe Barton.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from South
Carolina for yielding.
I've been in the House, this is my 28th year, 14 years in the
minority and now I'm in my 14th year in the majority. I don't believe I
have ever voted against a rule when I was in the majority, but I'm
going to vote against this one. I'm also going to vote against the
underlying bill.
I'm not saying anything disparaging about the leadership on both
sides of the aisle and the leadership in both bodies, but we are taking
money away from the Social Security trust fund and we are substituting
an IOU that may or may not ever be repaid. So on principle alone, I
think we should at least shoot straight with the American people. So I
will vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
On the rule, when we became the majority, we, the Republicans, we
promised the American people that we would be more open and more
transparent than the previous majority that was headed by Speaker
Pelosi; and one of our primary promises was that we would give the
American people 3 days, or 72 hours, before any bill was voted on the
House floor. This rule waives that principle. And I know it's expedient
and I know that there is majority support, as you can tell by the
debate for both political parties on this bill, but I think to go back
on a principle to the American people, that what we vote on, especially
bills that are very important, should have enough time that people can
look at what's in the bill. I don't think that's something that you
compromise for political expediency.
So I will vote ``no'' against this rule for the first time in my
career in the House of Representatives as a member of the majority when
a majority rule is up, and I would hope that this is a one-time
exception that we violate the principle that we promised when we became
the majority.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I had hoped that Ms.
Velazquez or Mr. Engel would be here, but I'll say to my friend from
South Carolina: Do you have other speakers?
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I do not at this point.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. All right. Then I'm in the position of
having to go forward. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance renewal came
before the House just 2 months ago, my friends on the right refused to
renew either provision, while Democrats tried to avert a tax hike on
the middle class. I believe that Republicans would rather let the
payroll tax cut expire and unemployment insurance run out than ask the
wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.
Madam Speaker, if it's at all possible, I'm midway, but I still have
the time and, with your permission, I would like to yield 2 minutes to
my colleague from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation being considered
today; however, I really just need to say this is not the agreement I
would have written.
I recognize the importance of making sure our physicians don't
receive a 27 percent pay cut, and I have been very, very vocal on the
doc fix. I think it's something that is warranted, is much needed, and
is fair and equitable, but I strongly oppose the cut in DSH funding to
pay for this package.
As a member of the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, we
fought hard to have DSH in the Affordable Health Care Act. And in my
home city of New York City, teaching hospitals are very important and
they help the people who are poor, and that's why DSH funding is so
important.
We'll always need a safety net for hospitals to provide that safety
net to our most vulnerable citizens, and cutting DSH payments only
makes the task harder. This will certainly have a harmful effect on my
district. I really just have to say that.
But, ultimately, I'll vote for this agreement because, at a time when
the Great Recession is finally showing signs of ebbing and the recovery
is taking root, we cannot remove $1,000 from middle class taxpayers'
pockets and expect the recovery to continue.
So I am very glad that we will still have a payroll tax cut. I'm glad
that Democrats have been in the forefront, along with the President, of
pushing for this payroll tax cut.
We need to do more to help the working people and middle class people
in this country, not only the rich. The poor, the middle class, the
working class people, they're the ones that need help, and this bill is
helping them today.
This conference report is also a slap in the face to our federal work
force. Public workers serve their country and without them, our country
would not be what it is today. Without their efforts, we would not be
the leader in medical research. Seniors would not have their Social
Security benefits processed as quickly. People waiting on their tax
return would have to wait longer.
Yet, time and again--while asking no sacrifices of large oil
companies or the wealthiest income earners--we are asking the federal
work force to bear the brunt of paying for extension of unemployment
insurance benefits. How can we expect to recruit and retain a
qualified, effective federal work force if we continue to decimate
their pay and pensions, and attack them for serving their country?
But ultimately, I will vote for this agreement because at a time when
the Great Recession is finally showing signs of ebbing, and the
recovery is taking root--we cannot remove $1,000 from middle class
taxpayers' pockets and expect the recovery to continue.
This bill also fully extends unemployment insurance benefits. While I
strongly disagree with the pay-for, at a time when our country is
showing strong signs of recovery, I cannot vote against benefits for
those who are still looking for work.
I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.
{time} 0950
I'll just say again, Madam Speaker, that again this body was able to
reach a compromise today. The unfortunate fact is that the Republican
Party still seeks to implement policies that unfairly favor the
wealthy. Let me identify some of those people.
[[Page H911]]
We would have me in the position of looking in the mirror. We do
better than other people in our society, and we ought to pay more in
light of that, not just the top 400, but all of us that are doing
better so that we don't fall into that category of not taking care of
those who have the greatest needs.
It is time to stop playing politics with the livelihoods of those who
have been hit the hardest and need our help the most. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, it is time for us to move
forward in this debate. The conference committee has done their job and
brought us a compromise, which is exactly what the American people have
been asking for from Congress, and that is for us to work together.
Supporting the rule for the conference report signals that we are
ready to finish this debate and move on to the most pressing issue
facing our Nation today, and that is creating the environment that
creates jobs.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 554, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for
the creation of jobs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 554, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
February 16, 2012, at page H834.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) whether or not he is opposed to the conference
report.
Mr. LEVIN. I support the conference report.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, in that event, I claim the time in
opposition to the conference report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control
20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany
H.R. 3630.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I come to the floor today in strong support of this conference report
as a result of a lot of long hours, hard work, and determination on
both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol. This agreement
shows the American people that Congress can govern and Washington can
work.
First and foremost, this legislation prevents a tax increase on 160
million Americans. As a conservative, I look at the agreement and see
some very big wins. Chief among them are the most significant reforms
to the Federal unemployment program since it was created in the 1930s,
all designated to promote reemployment and paychecks instead of
unemployment and benefit checks.
While extending unemployment benefits through the end of the year,
this agreement creates a national job-search standard for the first
time, covering benefits from beginning to end and requiring every
American to look for a job if they receive unemployment benefits.
The agreement allows States to spend unemployment funds on paying
people to work instead of just sending them a check when they are out
of work. It ensures taxpayer funds are properly spent by permitting
drug testing under commonsense rules that help people get ready for a
job. It expands work-sharing programs to help avoid layoffs in the
first place; and it improves fiscal responsibility by not only
recovering more overpayments, which currently total a staggering $12
billion per year, but also by making sure that this program is fully
paid for.
And the last item is something I want to focus on for a moment. All
government spending in this agreement is fully paid for, and not with
one dime of higher taxes. All spending on unemployment and health care
are fully paid for. This is a significant victory for those of us
concerned about the national debt and the culture of deficit spending
that has gripped Washington for far too long.
For example, the unemployment program has added nearly $200 billion
to our Nation's debt over the last 4 years. No more. We paid for it in
December, we're paying for it today, and we set a clear precedent that
Congress must live within its means, no more spending unless its paid
for. Period.
Now, I understand this is a compromise, and not everyone likes
everything in here. If I had my way, the bill passed by the House in
December would be the law. That was the only bill that extended these
programs through the end of the year. It was the only bill that was
fully paid for, and it was the only bill that ensured seniors and their
doctors were protected from dramatic cuts for at least 2 years. But we
don't control Washington.
Democrats still control Washington. They control the Senate, and they
control the White House. Yet utilizing the process that dates back to
our Founding Fathers, House Republicans have scored significant
victories in this conference committee. Our Founding Fathers recognized
that Washington would not always be united. In their wisdom, they knew
that even divided government must still govern, and that's what we're
doing here today, governing and providing a solution to the very real
problems Americans are facing in their daily lives.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
supporting this legislation, which pays for new spending with spending
cuts, prevents working Americans from getting hit with a tax increase
next month, reforms our employment programs, and ensures seniors
continue to have access to their doctors.
Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in strong support
of this conference report. As a result of a lot of long hours, hard
work and determination on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of
the Capitol, this agreement shows the American people that Congress can
govern and Washington can work.
As a conservative, I look at the agreement and see some very big
wins. Chief among them are the most significant reforms to Federal
unemployment programs since they were created in the 1930s, all
designed to promote reemployment and paychecks instead of unemployment
and benefit checks. This agreement:
Creates a national job search standard for the first time, covering
benefits from beginning to end, and requires every unemployed American
to look for a job if they receive unemployment benefits;
The agreement allows States to spend unemployment funds on paying
people to work, instead of just sending them a check while they are out
of work;
It ensures taxpayer funds are properly spent by permitting drug
testing, under commonsense rules that help people get ready for a job;
It expands work-sharing programs to help avoid layoffs in the first
place; and
It improves fiscal responsibility by not only recovering more
overpayments, which currently total a staggering $12 billion per year,
but also by making sure that this program is fully paid for.
That last item is something I want to focus on for a moment. All
Government spending in this agreement is fully paid for--and not with
one dime of higher taxes. All spending on unemployment and health care
is fully paid for. This is a significant victory for those of us
concerned about the national debt and the culture of deficit spending
that has gripped Washington for far too long.
For example, the unemployment program has added nearly $200 billion
to our Nation's debt over the last 4 years. No more. We paid for it in
December, we are paying for it today, and we have set the clear
precedent that Congress must live within its means. No more spending
unless it is paid for, period.
Now, I understand this is a compromise and not everyone likes
everything in here. If I had my way, the bill passed by the House in
December would be law. That was the only bill
[[Page H912]]
that extended these programs through the end of the year; it was the
only bill that was fully paid for; and it was the only bill that
ensured seniors and their doctors were protected from dramatic cuts for
at least 2 years.
But, we don't control Washington. Democrats still control
Washington--they control the Senate and they control the White House.
Yet, utilizing a process that dates back to our Founding Fathers,
House Republicans have scored significant victories in this conference
committee. Our Founding Fathers recognized that Washington would not
always be united. In their wisdom, they knew that even a divided
government must still govern.
And, that is what we are doing here today--governing and providing a
solution to the very real problems Americans are facing in their daily
lives.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
supporting this legislation which pays for new spending with spending
cuts; prevents working Americans from getting hit with a tax increase
next month; reforms our unemployment programs; and ensures seniors
continue to have access to their doctors.
In the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference for
H.R. 3630, the description of sec. 7003, Points of Order in the Senate,
was erroneously included in the joint statement.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The basic fact is that this legislation is very different from the
December House Republican bill, very different, and any efforts to mask
that are faults. That House bill was the main bill before the
conference committee.
The basic fact is the conference committee made major changes to the
House bill that passed in December essentially on a partisan basis.
Therefore, this legislation is much better for the American people.
The Speaker said this about this bill:
Let's be honest. This is an economic relief package, not a
bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs.
That's not an honest statement. It's wrong. This is a bill that
relates to the economic growth of the United States of America. We're
recovering, and this bill will provide a boost to continue that
recovery.
{time} 1000
It continues the 2 percent payroll tax through the calendar year; and
it is not offset, as was true of the House Republican bill in December.
It had massive harmful cuts that would have been countercyclical and
that would have undermined further economic growth. In that respect,
this is very different.
It's also very different in terms of unemployment insurance. Let's be
clear about that. The bill that the Republicans passed through the
House that was the main bill before the conference committee would have
slashed 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for millions of Americans in
every State regardless of the unemployment rate in that State. This
bill essentially changes what was in the House bill. It extends
unemployment insurance through the rest of the year up to--this is the
maximum--up to 89 or 99 weeks through May, up to 79 weeks through
August, and up to 73 weeks through December, depending on the level of
unemployment.
Let me just say, our chairman has talked about job search and now a
requirement that people be looking for work. That's already in the law
of every State. That isn't a meaningful reform. In terms of job search,
everybody not only registers, but also, as I said, is required to look
for work. I find it an insult to the unemployed of this country to say,
essentially, that we're simply giving them a check instead of a
paycheck.
If you talk to the unemployed, through no fault of their own, they
are looking for work. They had a paycheck in most cases year after year
after year. They worked for their unemployment insurance. To simply
label this an effort to get people off of unemployment insurance--
unemployment insurance is not a welfare program. People work for it,
and they need that subsistence as they look for work.
The bill that passed through the House had a GED requirement. That is
out. To say to people you don't get a check if you're not in a GED
program when there are 160,000 people in this country who are on
waiting lists for education, that's out of here because it deserved to
be out of here.
In terms of the drug programs, the effort to test people for drugs,
it is so limited. So it is really masking the reality to call this
major reform. It freezes the reimbursement for physicians through
December.
Let me just close by saying a few words about the limits on this
bill, because there are limits.
It would have been much better to treat unemployment insurance as an
emergency, as we have for 20 years. This is the highest level of long-
term unemployed on record in this country, which is another reason not
to blame the unemployed for the unemployment, as the House bill in
December did and some of the rhetoric on this floor continues to do. We
were not able to obtain this, and I want to say this in terms of a
precedent. In my judgment, it should not serve as a precedent. The
precedent is 20 years treating it as an emergency.
Let me also say, it is deeply unfortunate that some on the other side
insisted that Federal workers carry a disproportionate share of the
cost of this bill, even after there were put forward bipartisan pay-
fors that would have covered the cost of UI. In the bill that came
through here on a partisan basis in December, there would have been an
impact on Federal employees of $67 billion. This bill has a provision
that will apply to pension programs, $15 billion over 10 years compared
to the $67 billion that was in the bill that the House Republicans
passed.
Let me just say in closing, this argument provides tax relief to
working families, certainty for unemployed workers that a framework is
in place for the year, and a real commitment--and I emphasize this--by
us Democrats to aggressively continue to pursue efforts to strengthen
the economy and boost job growth so that those hardest hit by the
recession can return to work as they desperately want to.
I just want to reiterate how wrong the Speaker was when he said:
Let's be honest. This is an economic relief package, not a
bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs.
The opposite is true. The provisions in this bill will help to
continue economic growth, the payroll tax. Most economists say that.
Unemployment insurance people spend, and that is not only good for
their subsistence but good for the economy of our country. For all
those reasons, I urge support of this conference committee.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I have taken the unusual process of claiming time in opposition to
this bill. I have done so so I would have sufficient time to place in
context the bill that we're considering. I do not rise to necessarily
defeat this bill. I'm going to vote against this bill. I'm for almost
all of this bill. What we are funding this bill with was unnecessary,
unfair, and ought to be rejected.
I want to say at the outset that my friend Mr. Camp and I had a very
positive discussion. I believe that Mr. Camp and I could have reached
an agreement, which would have put me in support of this legislation.
We didn't get there. We tried late in the game, and we didn't get
there. I regret that. I think Mr. Camp tried.
I know that everybody on my side would have supported the agreement
that Mr. Van Hollen and I put forward. That agreement would say, as the
current agreement, that the only individuals paying for this bill out
of 315 million Americans are the 2 million civilian workers who work
for us, who work for all of us, who day after day, week after week,
month after month make sure that we give services to the people of the
United States, protect the United States, ensure that our food is safe,
ensure that we have FBI agents on the job, make sure that at the
Defense Intelligence Agency we know what other people are doing. These
are all our civilian employees, highly skilled, highly trained, highly
educated, and, yes, highly motivated. Every day they give outstanding
service to the people of the United States. We talk here and we pass
laws here, but none of that talk and none of those laws makes a
difference unless somebody implements what we say and the policies that
we set.
This Congress is on the path to being the most anti-Federal worker
Congress that I've served in. I'm going to place that in context for
you, which is why I wanted the time.
[[Page H913]]
{time} 1010
What is the context we find ourselves in? First of all, we have a
very struggling economy. The good news is the economy is coming back,
but not fast enough. We need to create more jobs, expand opportunities,
and make sure that the American Dream is alive for all working
Americans, working Americans like our Federal employees, working
Americans like the folks at GM who have just done very well, working
Americans who work in the hardware store, the grocery store, the
gasoline station, hardworking Americans. And we don't have enough jobs
for them. As a result, we have high unemployment.
I congratulate my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his leadership
in making sure that the unemployment provision in this bill is
sufficient to try to reach those folks and make sure they don't fall
off the ledge. We walked away from them in December. I'm glad that
we're not walking away from them today.
We also have, as all of us know, a struggling economy; and,
therefore, we put into effect giving $1,000 more to each and every
worker. Now, many of your leaders did not support this 2 percent
reduction, and I understand that. I won't go into their names. Some are
in the Chamber. But the fact of the matter is, it puts an additional
$1,000 into average working Americans' pockets--people who pay FICA,
that is, people who are making less than $106,000. That's an important
thing for us to do to try to keep this economy growing. I'm for that. I
was for it in December. I'm for it in February. I'm glad that we're
going to have consensus on that today.
In addition to that, we are playing a silly little game with the
doctors and with Medicare patients; and this silly little game pretends
that we're going to extend SGR for 10 months. That's baloney, and
everybody knows it. We're going to continue to extend SGR over and over
and over again. We should have done it permanently in this bill. We
should have done it last year and in the last Congress, the Congress in
which I was the majority leader. We should have done that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
So with respect to SGR, ladies and gentlemen, we're playing a game,
and the doctors all over this country and the Medicare recipients all
over this country know we're playing a game. We're giving them no
certainty, no confidence that, come this September, October, November,
we won't have another one of these silly little debates.
Now we also, in that context, have a deep deficit and debt that
confronts this Nation that we have to deal with. And we had two
commissions that said we had to deal with it. One was Bowles-Simpson--
my friend from California (Mr. Becerra), who sits in the Chamber here
with me, sat on that commission--the other was Domenici-Rivlin. And
we've had others, including the Gang of Six in the United States
Senate. And all of them had as a premise that we needed to deal with
the fiscal problem that confronts us. And the other premise was all of
us need to contribute to that solution. All of us.
Now what do we see that's being proposed in this Congress, partially
in this bill, but only partially in this bill? We have either on the
floor proposed or passed over the last 2 years--listen to this, ladies
and gentlemen--we are about to cut or propose to cut $134 billion out
of our Federal employees over the next 10 years. Nobody else in this
bill--not a millionaire, not a billionaire, not a carried-interest
beneficiary, not an oil company--nobody in this bill, other than
Federal employees, is asked to pay.
I understand we have hospital cuts. By the way, how do we have $5
billion of that? Because we just increased by 1 year the cut that they
know they got. It's the same for some other things. No individual,
other than a Federal employee, is asked to take a cut in this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
Now, you will say to me, Oh, it's future Federal employees, so it
doesn't really matter. That's $15 billion of the $134 billion that has
been proposed. They've already paid $60 billion, $60 billion. And by
the way, your side of the aisle is not going to give them that 0.5
percent that the President asked for, so that will be $30 billion. So
in 3 years--Mr. and Mrs. America ought to know, Madam Speaker--Federal
employees will have paid $90 billion in contributions to help bring
this deficit down. And by the way, Federal employees, as a percentage
of our population, are down by a third over the last 20 years. It's not
that the bureaucracy has grown. Yes, our population has grown. We are
trying to serve them. They are down by a third in numbers.
Now, I know something about Federal employee pay. I represent 60,000
Federal employees. And you could say, Well, Hoyer is up there defending
his people. You would be right. You would be very right. But most of
the Federal employees don't live in the Washington metropolitan area.
They live in your districts, all over this country, serving your
farmers, serving your drugstores, serving everything that you do.
Do I think it's the private sector that makes this country great?
Absolutely. Do I believe they need an energized, high-morale, highly
educated Federal workforce as their partner? I do. And you will not
have that, ladies and gentlemen, if we keep along this path of every
time we come to a bill that's a little bit of trouble, the pay-for is
to reach into the Federal employees' pockets. They're pretty much going
to say, I'm not with you any longer.
And I want to tell you: in terms of recruiting and retaining, you
will not do it. Forty percent of the Federal workforce, ladies and
gentlemen, can retire in the next 5 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are going to be able to recruit those folks
only if you have a competitive workforce.
Let me give you a figure that you might find interesting. There are
33,300 employees at Goldman Sachs. Average salary, ladies and
gentlemen: $367,057, the average salary of 33,300 people. You won't be
able to compete. You won't be able to get NSA employees, as opposed to
Siemens or Microsoft or some of those other corporations, many of which
are in Ms. Eshoo's district. You won't be able to recruit them, and you
won't retain them to have the best and the brightest defending America
and making America the strongest and greatest country on Earth. Do you
want America to be an exceptional country? Then you'd better have the
best civil service on Earth, as well as the best private sector.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whether most of you know this. I
saw a gentleman from Florida who's been here for a couple of months
pontificate that I didn't know anything outside of the Beltway.
I was the sponsor of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act. And
George Bush Sr. signed that act, and we worked with his OMB to get it.
And what does it say? Federal employees cannot get a raise unless the
private sector gets a raise. We're precluded from getting a raise
unless the private sector gets a raise. And what does it further say?
That the private sector--which is the economic cost index, by the way,
in case you want to know exactly what the statistic is--says, we're
going to take a half a point less.
So what have you done in this bill, unnecessarily? Because you're
going to freeze their salary for a third year in a row. Bowles-Simpson
said do it for three. But Bowles-Simpson said, Everybody ought to
share, everybody. We ought to get $1 trillion in revenues, $1 trillion
in cuts. Everybody.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
But nobody but Federal employees, nobody is targeted in this bill
other than Federal employees. You can tell I'm angry about that because
that's not fair, and that's not how you ought to treat our employees,
America's employees. America's public servants, we call them. We ought
to stop dissing
[[Page H914]]
them. We ought to stop demagoguing them. We ought to stop using
``bureaucrat'' as an epithet. America needs them.
I will have some other things to say in a few minutes, Madam Speaker.
But we ought not walk away from our Federal employees any more than we
ought to walk away from those 160 million people who need this tax cut
or walk away from those 2.4 million who need that unemployment
insurance or walk away, as we have, from the doctors who need
certainty, long term--not for 10 months, but long term.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1020
Mr. CAMP. Before I yield, I just would like to say to the gentleman
that he did characterize our conversations correctly. It was very late.
I do look forward to working with him in the future on these issues as
we move forward.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden), a conferee.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Camp, and I want to thank the
gentleman from Michigan for his extraordinary leadership in pulling the
House and the Senate together as chairman of our conference.
One of the key elements of this legislation is freeing up an enormous
swath of spectrum for use, to grow jobs in technology and innovation,
generate $15 billion to the treasury to help pay for some of the things
that are being discussed today, to extend the middle class tax cut, to
provide unemployment for those who are seeking work. And in the process
here, there are estimates of building out the 4G network, which will
take spectrum like that which will be made available here, could
generate somewhere between 300,000 and 700,000 American jobs, and
unleash technology and innovation in America.
In addition to doing that, the Republican House, in concert with our
colleagues across the aisle and across the Chambers, have come together
to finally take care of our public safety officials who, on that
terrible day of September 11, discovered that their devices did not
communicate well with each other, if at all. So, finally, we have come
together to create an interoperable, public safety broadband network
that they can operate on wherever they are, wherever disaster may
strike, and they'll be able to communicate with each other. We've
allocated money to build it out. I think we've put a governance
structure in place. While it is not exactly as I hoped would happen, I
think it will function. We will see.
So we have built out a public safety network for our public safety
officials. That will get underway. This bill will help generate 300,000
to 700,000 American jobs, generate $15 billion in private sector money
coming into the government to help pay for some of this, and protect
our over-the-air broadcasters. Our TV broadcasters who will be asked in
a voluntary auction if they want to give up their spectrum are
protected so that the viewers out there in America will still be able
to see and watch their over-the-air public and private broadcasters.
Madam Speaker, this is good legislation, and I hope Members will
support it.
Spectrum is increasingly becoming the lifeblood of our communications
sector and our economy. U.S. investment in 4G wireless networks could
range from $25 to $53 billion in the next five years, produce $73 to
$151 billion in GDP growth, and create 371,000 to 771,000 new jobs,
according to a recent study. But that can't happen without spectrum,
and a spectrum crunch is looming. Back in December, the House of
Representatives tackled the spectrum crunch head on when it passed the
Jumpstarting Opportunity with Broadband Spectrum Act of 2011, also
known as the JOBS Act.
Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act follows
the spectrum auction framework from the JOBS Act to free up valuable
spectrum that when put into service will unleash new technologies. It
will help meet the growing demand for mobile broadband, foster private-
sector investment, and promote hundreds of thousands of jobs. To raise
billions of dollars in federal revenue, it authorizes truly voluntary
incentive auctions, ensures that any spectrum cleared with federal
funds spectrum is auctioned, and enables all wireless carriers to
compete in open auctions. The FCC should not be picking winners and
losers. The market should.
Unleashing the pent-up demand of the commercial sector will drive
innovation and help snap our country out of its fiscal doldrums. The
innovation of the mobile sector has helped America lead the world in
wireless and bring the power of the Internet to every corner of the
country. No longer bound by wires to one location, wireless Internet
access has spawned the creation of countless new technologies, a
proliferation of wireless devices of all shapes and sizes, and even
services so revolutionary they fostered actual revolutions. This
legislation takes all of that innovation to a new level and creates
real private-sector jobs.
The bill also provides the best protection of any competing
legislation to make sure American viewers can continue to watch
programming and news from the Nation's free, over-the-air broadcasters,
who just went through an expensive and difficult federally mandated
conversion to digital. And using the money from spectrum auctions, this
legislation should generate upwards of $15 billion in net revenues
while also helping build a nationwide, interoperable broadband network
for our first responders.
It also includes a priority of my colleague, John Shimkus, who has
been an ardent and articulate supporter of next-generation 911
services. Thanks to his tireless advocacy, we were able to secure $115
million for NG911 deployment modeled on the Shimkus-Eshoo NG911 Act,
and we did so in a fiscally responsible manner, making sure we hit our
revenue targets first before spending the money.
This legislation didn't just drop out of the sky. It is thoughtful
and carefully crafted legislation that finds the right balances. Its
provisions were improved as a result of the input and counsel from five
hearings and 11 months of discussions with members of both sides of the
aisle, the FCC and TIA. Throughout this process my staff and I have
worked in good faith with broadband providers, broadcasters, and public
safety officials.
Our economy needs the help, Americans need new jobs, and we need to
generate federal revenue for the American taxpayer. This legislation
does all of these things--and it does them well.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Waxman, a member of the
conference committee and the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I'll vote for this bill, but I do so with
reservations. We should have done better in meeting our
responsibilities to the American people.
There are important provisions in this legislation that will do a lot
of good for families and our economy. We are extending the payroll tax
reduction for millions of families, extending unemployment insurance,
and ensuring that doctors serving seniors will be paid for their
services through the end of year, and we are making spectrum available
for new innovations in wireless communications.
While these are provisions I support in the conference report, there
are significant missed opportunities and poor choices that affect
Federal workers and preventive health programs.
Nowhere is this lost opportunity more apparent than our failure to
end the Medicare physician payment formula, known as the SGR, and set
us on a path to a fair and reasonable physician reimbursement system.
Having to settle for another temporary solution, which leaves us at the
end of the year even deeper in the hole in terms of a permanent
solution, is a real failure and one that fails Medicare beneficiaries
and doctors alike. I did not agree with the cuts in reimbursement for
hospitals and nursing homes and, unbelievably, in prevention services
in order to pay for the physician reimbursement levels at a reasonable
rate.
I'm deeply concerned about the Federal employees' provisions. I think
that is very unfair.
I do not have similar reservations about the spectrum provisions in
the conference report. Our bipartisan, bicameral negotiations resulted
in legislation that will make new spectrum available for broadband
services, will create a nationwide band of spectrum that can be used
for innovative, unlicensed applications, and will provide for the
construction of an interoperable broadband network for first
responders.
Taken as a whole, I believe we should support this package even with
its serious shortcomings.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for
H.R. 3630.
[[Page H915]]
Although I will vote ``yes,'' I do so with reservations. We could and
should have done better in meeting our responsibilities to the American
people. Nevertheless, I commend the members of this conference for the
positive things they achieved.
First and foremost, we are doing a lot of good for families and our
economy in this legislation. We are extending the payroll tax reduction
for millions of families, helping them in a difficult economic time and
providing much-needed stimulus to our economy.
We are extending unemployment insurance, which is a lifeline to those
out of work.
We are ensuring that doctors serving seniors will be paid for their
services through the end of the year.
And we are making spectrum available for new innovations in wireless
communications at the same time as providing public safety with a
national broadband network. These spectrum policy decisions will be an
engine for economic growth.
While these are the provisions I support in this conference report,
there are also significant missed opportunities and poor choices that
affect federal workers and preventive health programs.
Nowhere is the lost opportunity more apparent than in our failure to
end the Medicare physician payment formula known as the SGR and set us
on a path to a fair and reasonable physician reimbursement system.
Having to settle for another temporary solution, which leaves us at the
end of the year even deeper in the hole in terms of a permanent
solution, is a real failure, and one that fails Medicare beneficiaries
and doctors alike.
We had the opportunity to use the war savings from Iraq and
Afghanistan to pay for this solution. The Republicans said no. At the
minimum, we should have used these savings to pay for the debt caused
by previous short-term temporary fixes. The Republican leadership
refused to allow that to happen.
As a result, we are, once again, forced to accept a short-term
``solution'' that simply stops an immediate crisis, but ensures that
physicians in Medicare face another emergency a year from now. This is
a poor result.
It is not right to ask Medicare beneficiaries to bear the cost of the
failure of an arbitrary formula written into the law in 1997. It is not
right to ask other providers, particularly safety-net providers serving
a disproportionate share of low income seniors and individuals with
disabilities, to take cuts in their payments for the same reason. And
it certainly is not right to reduce our commitment to prevention by
robbing the Prevention and Public Health Fund of critical dollars that
could help us keep people healthy instead of paying for them when they
are sick.
I am also deeply concerned about the federal employee provisions. It
is simply unfair to ask working Americans who happen to serve the
taxpayers through their work for the government to pay for half the
costs of continuing unemployment benefits for the entire nation. This
denigrates public service, and it is unworthy of us to impose such an
involuntary sacrifice on them. Moreover, it is a bad precedent to be
paying for this emergency economic relief at all. We have not done so
previously, and I am sorry we are doing it in this legislation.
Although I have serious reservations about these provisions, I have
none recommending that the House adopt the spectrum provisions in the
conference report. Our bipartisan, bicameral negotiations have resulted
in legislation that will make new spectrum available for smartphones
and tablets, will create a nationwide band of spectrum that can be used
for Super WiFi and other unlicensed uses, and will provide spectrum to
fund the build-out of an interoperable broadband network for first
responders. Establishing a nationwide public safety broadband network
allows us to complete the major piece of unfinished business from the
attacks of 9/11. These provisions will promote innovation and economic
growth while contributing $15 billion to pay for this legislation.
These spectrum provisions are the result of many members' hard work.
Two Senators not on the conference made an enormous contribution,
Senator Rockefeller, the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and
Senate Majority Leader Reid, and I thank them for their leadership. On
the conference, Senator Kyl and Chairmen Upton and Walden deserve great
credit for their work in crafting this pro-growth, pro-innovation
compromise.
Taken as a whole, I believe we should support this package, even with
its serious shortcomings. It is not what any of us would have written.
This is indeed a compromise.
But the alternative would be worse. Failure to pass this package
would let the middle class tax cut lapse and undermine our economic
recovery, cause the unemployed to lose their benefits, and slash
physician payments in Medicare so that our seniors and disabled lose
access to their doctors. It would also mean a halt to progress in
developing the wireless superhighways of the future and ensuring we
have an emergency broadband network in place to respond to terrorism
and urgent events.
That is why I support this conference report and ask my colleagues to
do likewise.
House of Representatives,
February 2012.
Summary of the Spectrum Provisions
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff
The payroll tax relief conference has reached agreement on
landmark bipartisan legislation to ease the nation's growing
spectrum shortage, create a nationwide, interoperable
broadband network for public safety officials, and raise $15
billion.
The legislation gives the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) the authority to pay TV broadcasters for underutilized
broadcast spectrum and resell it at higher prices to wireless
companies to meet the growing spectrum demands of smartphones
and tablets. This provision is expected to make a large band
of prime spectrum available for auction, raising over $25
billion. The bill provides $7 billion in auction proceeds and
spectrum worth $2.75 billion (called the ``D Block'') to a
new ``First Responder Network Authority'' to build a
broadband network for police, firefighters, emergency medical
service professionals, and other public safety officials. A
key provision in the legislation authorizes the FCC to create
guard bands in the broadcast spectrum auctioned to wireless
carriers that can be used for innovative unlicensed uses like
Super WiFi.
The legislation agreed to by the conferees is based upon
two existing pieces of legislation: H.R. 3630, the spectrum
provisions passed by the House, and S. 911, the bipartisan
legislation approved by the Senate Commerce Committee. The
conference report incorporates most of the auction-related
provisions included in the House legislation, with changes
regarding unlicensed spectrum and FCC auction rules. The
public safety provisions are based on the national model
outlined in S. 911, with changes to ensure flexibility for
states.
The Auction Provisions
The auction provisions in the final legislation are largely
the same as those in H.R. 3630 as passed by the House with
two significant exceptions: (1) the provisions relating to
unlicensed spectrum and (2) the provisions relating to FCC
auction authority.
Unlicensed Spectrum: Unlicensed spectrum has been an engine
of economic innovation and growth, enabling new forms of
communication like WiFi and Bluetooth. Many advocate that
allowing unlicensed use in the broadcast frequencies could
lead to new breakthroughs like Super WiFi. The conference
report advances this goal in three ways: (1) it gives the FCC
the authority to preserve existing TV white spaces; (2) it
gives the FCC the authority to optimize these white spaces
for unlicensed use by consolidating them into more optimal
configurations through band plans; and (3) it gives the FCC
the authority to use part of the spectrum relinquished by TV
broadcasters in the incentive auction to create nationwide
guard bands that can be used for unlicensed use, including in
high-value markets that currently have little or no white
spaces today. Nationwide, unlicensed access to guard bands
will enable innovation, promote investment in new wireless
services, and enhance the value of licensed spectrum by
protecting against harmful interference and allowing carriers
to ``off-load'' data to alleviate capacity concerns.
FCC Auction Rules: Under current law, the FCC has broad
authority to craft auction rules in the public interest. The
agency has used this authority to ensure that communications
markets remain competitive and spectrum is not concentrated
in the hands of only one or two providers. H.R. 3630 would
have restricted the FCC's future ability to limit
participation in spectrum auctions, regardless of the size or
market dominance of potential bidders. The conference
agreement modifies this prohibition by expressly preserving
the FCC's ability to ensure competition through spectrum
aggregation limits and other rules.
The legislation also drops a provision in the House-passed
bill that would have limited the FCC's authority to set
license conditions, such as open-internet requirements, on
auctioned spectrum.
The Public Safety Provisions
The conference report provides our nation's first
responders with access to the spectrum and advanced wireless
broadband communications they need to protect the public and
to communicate with each other across the country. The
legislation provides for the construction of a nationwide
public safety broadband network, as envisioned in the Senate
bill, with an ``opt-out'' option for states that demonstrate
the capacity to build their own networks and connect them to
the national network.
The legislation creates a First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet) within the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) and provides FirstNet with
$7 billion and a license to use the ``D Block'' and adjacent
public safety spectrum to build the nationwide public safety
network. To ensure national interoperability, the legislation
also creates a technical advisory board at the FCC to develop
interoperability standards. States that want to construct
their own portion of the national public safety network have
the option to apply for federal grants to build and
[[Page H916]]
operate the radio access network in the state if they can
demonstrate to the FCC that the network will meet the
interoperability standards and to NTIA that they have the
resources and capability to provide comparable coverage and
security and maintain ongoing interoperability.
Unlike the House-passed bill, the legislation does not
require public safety officials to return the important 700
MHz ``narrowband'' spectrum to the FCC for auction. Instead,
the legislation requires the return of less efficient
spectrum known as the ``T-band.'' This transition occurs 11
years from the date of enactment, and public safety
relocation costs will be reimbursed from any auction
proceeds.
Finally, the legislation provides funding for critical
public safety research and development activities and
deployment of Next Generation 9 1 1 services, which will
complement the advanced broadband capabilities of the public
safety network by enabling the delivery of voice, text,
photos, video, and other data to 9 1 1 call centers.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking
member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Hoyer.
This bill accomplishes three very important objectives: it extends
the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans; it extends unemployment
insurance to millions of Americans who are out of work through no fault
of their own; and it supports the Medicare program. So I am not here on
the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. In
fact, I'm confident it will pass.
The bill is also significant for what it will not do. Unlike the
original Republican House bill which cut compensation for current
Federal employees by about $40 billion, this bill does not cut
compensation for any current Federal employee, not one cent. Let me
repeat that. I'm pleased that Senator Cardin and I and other members of
the conference committee were successful in holding harmless our
hardworking current Federal employees.
That being said, I'm going to vote ``no'' to send a message that
enough is enough when it comes to using the Federal workforce as a
piggy bank to fund our various national initiatives. Here's why. While
no current employees are impacted by this bill, it does cut
compensation for future employees hired starting in January 2013; and
that will, as Mr. Hoyer said, it will make it much more difficult for
us to attract the Federal employees we need to do our national work
together as part of our Federal service.
And indeed, one-half, a full half of the 10-month extension for
unemployment insurance that benefits the entire country, $15 billion is
financed by cutting compensation for future Federal employees. That is
a disproportionate share from the Federal workforce. The Federal
workforce has already contributed over $88 billion toward deficit
reduction by the denial of two COLAs and the proposed COLA cut this
year, and the Republican transportation bill would cut another $42
billion from Federal employees to finance our national highways. That's
a ridiculous approach.
Federal employees, as Mr. Hoyer said, are willing to do their fair
share to help reduce our deficit, but stop singling them out and making
them scapegoats. They had nothing to do with the financial meltdown on
Wall Street. They are not the drivers of our national debt. And I am
sick and tired of hearing some Members of Congress bad-mouthing and
belittling Federal employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOYER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. They are an easy political target for some, as Mr.
Hoyer said, but it is irresponsible to denigrate their good work. These
are the men and women who care for our veterans and many of our wounded
soldiers. These are the people in our intelligence community who helped
track down Osama bin Laden. These are the folks at NIH and elsewhere
who help find treatments and cures, that help prevent diseases that
plague every American family. They are the folks who protect our
borders. They are the folks who help run the Medicare and Social
Security system. They're the folks in the Capitol Hill Police that
protect this great center of democracy right here.
So while this conference report does many good things, we need to
send a message that it's time to stop scapegoating Federal employees
and using them as the piggy bank for our national objectives.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Ellmers), a member of the conference committee.
(Mrs. ELLMERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
{time} 1030
Mrs. ELLMERS. Yesterday afternoon, I happily signed the conference
report that was very, very well put together; and I commend Chairman
Camp for the hard work that he did and my fellow conferees. This joint
conference committee came together, and it was tasked to negotiate the
payroll tax holiday extension.
This is a very important breakthrough and shows that we can actually
work together and compromise for the sake of the American people. I
would like to thank, again, Chairman Camp and my fellow conferees once
again for the honor and privilege to serve on this committee.
Our report does what is necessary to provide a responsible level of
certainty to job creators and ensures that millions of hardworking
Americans will be protected. In this Obama economy, it is important
that American taxpayers keep more of their money and use it to make
ends meet. Gas prices are projected to go up above $4 a gallon, Madam
Speaker, by the summer. If this puts a little more money in
individuals' pockets so that they can pay for a half a tank of gas or
one-quarter of a tank of gas, then I say I'm all for it.
Furthermore, this deal strikes the most dramatic blow to ObamaCare
yet, keeping a promise I made when I first came to Washington. With
this agreement, we are cutting spending by more than $50 billion and
using a portion of these savings to pay for the doc fix. What is the
doc fix? The doc fix ensures that millions of Medicare patients, our
seniors, will receive that medical care. It will prevent the 27.4
percent cut to physicians for Medicare services.
We must now return our focus to the most pressing issue facing our
Nation, which is job creation and fixing this economy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, the President has submitted another
bloated budget that ignores the economic crisis we are all living
through under the Obama economy. It's time to roll up our sleeves and
get to work on removing these barriers to prosperity and focus on the
one thing that matters most--job creation and continuing to provide
certainty to millions of Americans who are looking to us to make
concise decisions about their future and the future of their children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Just as a reminder, the time remaining is
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 11\3/4\ minutes remaining,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 10 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. It's now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our
distinguished leader, Ms. Pelosi, from the great State of California.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his relentless and persistent advocacy on behalf of a
thriving middle class in our country and his work to ensure that we
would have this payroll tax cut as well as the extension of
unemployment insurance that he fought so hard on, as well as on making
sure that our seniors are able to see their doctors under Medicare.
Congratulations and thank you, Mr. Levin.
I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of this legislation. Of
course, I identify with the concerns expressed by our distinguished
whip, Mr. Hoyer, and of Mr. Van Hollen regarding our public employees.
Before I talk directly about what is in the bill, I do want to say
that for our country to thrive and for us to do our very best, we must
have a great relationship between the public and the private sector.
The private sector is the driving engine of job creation in our
country, but it cannot succeed unless we also have an effective and
thriving public sector. It's about so
[[Page H917]]
many things that relate to our public safety. The courts, the
implementation of laws passed in Congress, they don't exist unless the
public sector then implements them. So this is a symbiotic relationship
that has existed from the beginning of time in our country.
It's not a zero sum game. We cannot say we're going to do this in the
private sector at the expense of the public sector. So I salute them
for their persistent leadership and recognizing the important role that
the public sector plays. It was not necessary for us to go down the
path that has been taken in this bill, and I'll get to that in a
moment.
First, I want to say that this represents a victory for the middle
class in our country, and I salute President Obama for going out there
so strongly and taking this message to the American people that it was
very important for us to have a payroll tax cut for the middle class.
It's important to those families because it puts $40 more into a
paycheck to buy groceries, to buy gasoline, and to make ends meet--to
make ends meet.
In addition to being personally helpful to families, it has a
macroeconomic effect because these families will immediately spend that
money and inject demand into the economy, and that is a job creator.
Any economist will tell you that this is very important to continuing
the economic recovery in our country. To have rejected it, as had been
in the mix earlier, would have halted, if not turned back, our economic
recovery.
So let us recognize that we had three pillars that we insisted be in
this package, we on the Democratic side, one that we would have a
payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, preferably unpaid for, and
that is the way it is in this bill. What is unfortunate is that we did
not use our choice of a pay-for, should it be paid for, the surcharge,
to cover the unemployment insurance. That would have been a preferable
place to go, the extension of unemployment insurance. It could have
also been used to pay for the SGR, the ability for seniors to see their
doctors instead of taking money out of the prevention piece of the
Affordable Care Act. Prevention makes America healthier, it saves
money, and it expands opportunity for people to get in the health care
loop. That's unfortunate, and it could have been avoided as well as the
unfortunate provision relating to our public employees.
Even on that score, Mr. Hoyer said, as Mr. Van Hollen did, there was
a further compromise that could have been made that addressed some of
the needs of the Republicans to vote for this bill without doing more
harm to, as Mr. Hoyer said, the recruitment and the retention of public
employees, the best--the best--public employees to help implement our
laws. And I want to salute all of them for their patriotic duty to our
country, to make and keep us safe in every possible way, and to allow
commerce to proceed in a very positive way.
Now let's get back to why this is important, this victory for the
middle class. This was a fight. Why should it have been a fight?
There's something out there in the public, the ``ground truth,'' the
common sense coming up from the ground that this was an important thing
to do; and the American people overwhelmingly supported it. There's a
ground truth out there from the public, common sense coming up from the
ground, that in order for us meet our needs and also reduce the
deficit, that we should have a surcharge on the wealthiest people in
our country, people making over $1 million a year--not having a million
dollars--making over $1 million a year.
That was not contained in this bill, but it will be part of the
debate as we go forward. So let's take a moment to say that we
recognize here on this floor of the House the importance of a thriving
middle class to our democracy--to our democracy--and that this action
taken today is an important step, but we have much more work to do.
Democrats are committed to reigniting the American Dream, to building
ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules
and take responsibility. But we have work to do. In this thriving--this
reigniting--American Dream, it's about recognizing the role of
entrepreneurialism in our system of small businesses and what they do
to grow our economy and how we have a public-private relationship there
to encourage small business. And also, again, all of this relates to a
thriving middle class.
{time} 1040
So I urge my colleagues to be ever-vigilant about every opportunity
we can take to support the middle class. Today is a good day in that
regard. It's just one piece of it, though. We have much more work to
do.
In any bill that comes up, there are things you may not like in it,
and you say: Well, I'm not going to vote for it for that reason. On
balance, I come down in favor of supporting what the President asked us
to do, which we did do, and what the American people want us to do. But
I don't want to go forward without registering the concern that we
could have done better in this.
One place we can start on our next legislation is to look at the
surcharge for the wealthiest people in America instead of taking
billions of dollars from preventive care so that we can offset the cost
in here. None of it needed to be offset. The payroll tax cut has not
been, unemployment insurance has not traditionally been paid for, and
we didn't have to do it now. In fact, paying for it diminishes some of
its stimulative effect because economists will tell you unemployment
insurance benefits paid out are immediately spent back into the
Treasury, as the payroll tax cut will be too, and stimulates the
economy by injecting demand and creating more jobs.
SGR, we should have gone all the way with it. We should have done it
permanently. We could have paid for it with our war savings or with a
surcharge at the high end. Republicans said no.
Having said all of that, the fact that we are here today is an
admission that this is the right thing to do in terms of the payroll
tax cut and unemployment compensation and our seniors. It's a
recognition that the American people are watching, and they have little
appetite for us to be fighting over what they know is the right thing
to do, which is to take every action we can to grow our economy,
focusing on the middle class, small business, entrepreneurial spirit,
and the rest. Again, we have important work to do to reignite the
American Dream in even bigger ways.
So with that, Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the
legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague.
I support the doc fix in this bill. I support the payroll tax cut
extension in this bill. I support the extension of unemployment
insurance to so many of our fellow Americans who have suffered in the
Great Recession. Sadly, I cannot, however, bring myself to vote for
this bill.
I represent the third largest number of Federal employees in the
United States. They're asking a simple question: What is the nexus,
what is the relationship between their employment and these worthy
subjects? And the answer is ``none.''
Three times this week the Republican majority has attempted to get at
benefits and pay and compensation of the Federal workforce, and often
it's based on misinformation--a bloated workforce. We entered data into
a hearing record just the other day that shows that the Obama
administration, in absolute terms, has 350,000 fewer Federal workers
than those that served during the administration of President H.W.
Bush. As a ratio to thousand population in America, it's the lowest
since John Kennedy was in the White House in 50 years.
They've already given $90 billion to debt reduction through pay
freezes and future pay freezes. And of course there is legislation to
whack at their pensions, affecting both current and future employees in
the pending transportation legislation that I hope will die of its own
weight. It is not fair to ask only one group in America to make a
sacrifice. Shared sacrifice should mean shared sacrifice.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the House-
Senate conference committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Hayworth).
[[Page H918]]
Ms. HAYWORTH. I thank the chairman.
Madam Speaker, this conference report that we bring to our colleagues
for a vote today represents a remarkable good-faith effort by the
members of a committee who combined--who worked together, Democrats and
Republicans, House and Senate--to act responsibly for the American
people and in response to what the American people have asked us to do.
As a physician--and I practiced for 16 years in the Hudson Valley in
New York--the importance of extending reimbursement assurance for our
seniors who rely on Medicare, for the doctors who care for them who
have to keep their doors open is a crucial issue. But not only did we
provide that assurance through the end of this year, we also provided
for some other crucial provisions for our rural hospitals, for our
ambulance services, for a number of other aspects of care that rely on
our action and on the responsible action that we take today.
And, yes, we did pay for those extensions in a responsible way, as we
must in a time of looming fiscal crisis. We have a debt that extends to
$50,000, roughly, per man, woman and child in this country. It is
unconscionable for us to fail to acknowledge that responsibility. For
all of us to do our part in that way, we have, yes, asked our Federal
employees to help us. Because as the employer, the Federal Government
has to take its responsible steps as well.
The hope that all of us have is that we will continue to work through
this year. We will move from here with this consensus document and
continue to work on the growth that our economy desperately needs and
do so together by controlling what the Federal Government does.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another conferee, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In December, this Congress gave 20 conferees three tasks to achieve
by February 29: to extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million middle
class Americans; to ensure Americans who lost their jobs through no
fault of their own receive their unemployment insurance benefits; and
to guarantee our seniors on Medicare have access to the doctors of
their choice and the care that they need.
We achieved this goal. But let's be clear, this agreement is by no
means free of controversy. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
eloquently illustrated that. Our Republican colleagues succeeded in
extracting a pound of flesh from middle class working Americans who
also serve ably in our Federal Government.
But what was the alternative that we faced? A House Republican bill
passed in December that quadrupled the cuts to workers in their
salaries and their benefits; that increased the cost of Medicare for
millions of seniors; that eliminated and restricted access to physical
speech and occupational therapy in hospital settings for Medicare
patients; that eliminated the child tax credit for millions of modest-
income families; and that eliminated unemployment insurance benefits
for nearly 3 million Americans who had lost a job through no fault of
their own.
This agreement represents a rejection of the approach in the House
Republican bill of December. It is a compromise, free of the
controversial and extraneous measures in that Republican bill in
December. But it is a bill of controversy because we are asking
American workers who work very hard, who give their all and just happen
to work for the Federal Government, to pay the cost of helping other
Americans who are unemployed.
We could have made this a good bill. We could have asked every
American--especially those most able to contribute--to help out. We
didn't in this bill, and that's why it's a compromise. It could have
been much better, but we faced a deadline by February 29 where 160
million American families would have seen their taxes increase. We
would have seen a situation where millions of Americans would have lost
their unemployment insurance. We needed to act, and we did.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this compromise measure.
Mr. HOYER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member
of the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we are extending
the payroll tax cut through the end of the year, which is essential to
support our continued economic recovery.
I am also pleased that we are providing unemployment benefits to
ensure that millions of Americans have access to benefits they so
urgently need and that we are implementing the doc fix to ensure that
seniors on Medicare can continue to see the physicians of their choice.
That said, there are a number of provisions in this agreement that
deeply disappoint me.
{time} 1050
For example, this agreement will reduce by 30 weeks the maximum
number of weeks of unemployment insurance available to residents of
States with average unemployment rates.
While the unemployment picture certainly improved in January with the
creation of 243,000 jobs and a reduction in the unemployment rate of
8.3, there are still 12.8 million people unemployed in this Nation and
millions more who work part-time but want full-time work. For millions
of our fellow citizens, unemployment benefits are truly a lifeline.
I'm also deeply disappointed that the conference report requires new
Federal workers to contribute more to their pensions. Our Federal
employees are not a piggy bank. We should not reach into their pockets
anytime we need to pay for something.
Federal workers are the backbone of our government. In return for
their hard work and dedication, the majority has rewarded Federal
workers with an unprecedented amount of criticism; assault on their
compensation and benefits, including proposals to extend their current
2-year pay freeze and to arbitrarily cut the number of Federal
employees; and, now, to slash their retirement benefits.
So I'm going to vote against this conference report. It is an
important bill to get through, but I have to vote against it in the
name of my employees.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a member
of the House/Senate conference.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State
of Michigan for yielding.
I rise, obviously, in support of this conference report. It's not
perfect, but it is certainly the right thing to do now.
Our economy is still struggling big time. Families are struggling. In
my home State of Michigan, we know better than anywhere else the pain
of high unemployment and anemic economic growth. And extending the
temporary payroll tax relief and unemployment benefits, it's not the
way to fix the economy, but we need to do it now to offer a measure of
relief to those in need.
But our long-term goal is certainly much bigger: We've got to fix the
economy. We've got to create jobs. We need to return America to a place
where these temporary patches are not needed.
In addition to the payroll tax and unemployment health extension,
this package includes the doc fix through the end of the year to
protect seniors who depend on Medicare and prevent physician
reimbursement rates from being slashed by nearly 30 percent. Again, it
is but a temporary solution to a long-term problem.
As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am absolutely
committed to working with my good friend Chairman Camp to develop a
permanent solution to the Medicare physician payment system, one that
protects seniors and their doctors in the long term while also
protecting taxpayers and making sure that Medicare is efficient,
effective, and sustainable.
These temporary solutions are a big part of the package, but, Madam
Speaker, it would be a terrible mistake to ignore another part of the
package, one that will help support literally hundreds of thousands of
jobs, one that will spur billions of dollars of investment in our
economy and affect the daily lives of nearly every American. I'm
talking about spectrum reform.
[[Page H919]]
Spectrum, it's the airwaves that carry wireless communication.
Spectrum is all around us and we sure do use it. With the explosion in
smartphones, tablets, mobile broadband devices, Americans are using
more spectrum than ever before. This bill helps our country make more
efficient use of those airwaves.
We're clearing large swaths of spectrum for innovative wireless
investments, and the upshot is that wireless companies will pay the
taxpayers billions of dollars for the right to build the next
generation of wireless networks. It's a huge win for consumers and
taxpayers.
This package is the culmination of years of effort, bipartisan
effort, numerous hearings, extensive stakeholder input, cooperation on
both sides of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. UPTON. I want to recognize my good friend and chairman of the
Communications and Telecommunications Subcommittee, both Greg Walden
and Anna Eshoo from California, for their tireless efforts to push this
bill across the finish line.
No qualified bidder can be excluded from the auction, and we're not
giving away airwaves that the taxpayers paid to clear. These are good,
solid reforms with clear congressional intent, and I appreciate the
hard work to get an agreement and advance this wireless future.
I thank all my colleagues on the conference committee. We worked
together, we got it done, and the taxpayer's going to be better off.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the
conference committee, Mrs. Schwartz from the State of Pennsylvania.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. This conference committee was charged with resolving
differences between the House and the Senate so that we could extend
middle class tax cuts, protect seniors' access to their doctors, and
extend unemployment benefits for Americans looking for work. As a
member of the conference committee, I'm pleased we found a compromise
to meet these goals and we are able to provide stability for millions
of Americans.
Action today means 160 million American taxpayers will be able to
keep more of their hard-earned dollars. These are middle class families
struggling to pay their mortgages, their food bills, child care costs,
and college tuition. This tax cut will better enable them to meet their
obligations and contribute to growing the economy.
Action today means that 13 million of our hardest working Americans
will receive unemployment benefits and be better able to provide for
their families.
There are encouraging measures of economic growth in our country, but
recovery is still fragile. We've had 23 consecutive months of private
sector job growth. Unemployment numbers are down, yet millions of
Americans are still looking for work. Action today better ensures that
losing a job will not mean economic disaster for families who have
worked hard and played by the rules.
An action today means that we will keep our promise to 47 million
seniors by preventing a drastic 27 percent cut to physicians who care
for Medicare beneficiaries. This is a win for American seniors, but it
does not relieve us of our responsibility to permanently repeal the SGR
and replace it with a new payment system.
For over a decade this failed policy has created uncertainty and
instability for patients, for health care providers, and for the
Federal budget. Throughout this process, I advocated for both
permanent, fiscally responsible repeal of the failed Medicare policy
and a path forward to new payment models to improve quality while
reducing costs. Despite bipartisan support for this approach, a long-
term agreement could not be reached. I will continue to work with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to end this perennial threat to
the promise of Medicare once and for all.
I urge support for middle class families, for America's seniors, and
for millions of Americans still searching for a job. I urge support for
this conference report.
Mr. HOYER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank my good friend from Maryland.
I appreciate the work of the conferees, but I oppose this conference
agreement, not out of concern for the welfare of the tens of thousands
of Federal employees that I represent, but out of concern for the
welfare of the great Nation we serve.
We are blessed with the least corrupt, most effective, least
discriminatory, most responsive Federal workforce in the world. And yet
how do we repay them? We are requiring them to increase their pension
contributions by 400 percent, with no increase in benefits.
So we are sending them a signal: We don't really appreciate what
you're doing. You're expendable. It's a signal that will not be lost on
the recruits that we desperately need in the future, let alone the
hundreds of thousands, really, of Federal employees who could easily be
making much more in the private sector.
The whole country is going to pay a price for the signal that this
bill sends, and that's why I think we should defeat it.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member of the
Communications and Technology Subcommittee on this legislation because
I think it's so important. It will define our Nation's ability to lead
the world in wireless broadband deployment. It also will define how we
finally provide our first responders with a nationwide interoperable
broadband network.
This legislation will usher in more competition, enhance innovation,
bolster the American economy, and very, very importantly, create jobs,
good jobs.
I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the other
Chamber for coming together to develop legislation that promotes the
public interest and ensures a return on investment for the taxpayer by
supporting unlicensed spectrum, a nationwide interoperable public
safety broadband network, and provisions to ensure that our Nation's
911 call centers will have the modern tools needed to improve the
quality and the speed of emergency response.
Incentive auctions will ensure that we have the world's leading
wireless infrastructure, and the future for unlicensed innovation in
the TV band is bright.
{time} 1100
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. ESHOO. Public safety will have the tools to finally build out a
critical nationwide interoperable broadband network and the inclusion
of provisions to promote and fund Next Generation 911, which will
enable the delivery of voice, text, photos, videos, and other data to
911 call centers.
Our country has been counting on us to make smart, bipartisan
choices. I'm proud of what we've accomplished and what it represents
for American entrepreneurship, competition, and ingenuity.
I thank my colleagues, and I urge them to support the legislation.
Mr. HOYER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. I'd like to enter into the Record three letters from
representatives of public employees and retirees who are wondering why
it is that they've had to sacrifice $60 billion of reductions over the
last decade when they didn't create the deficit and yet they're asked
to pay for it.
The National
Treasury Employees Union,
February 16, 2012.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 150,000 federal
employees represented by NTEU, I am writing to urge you to
VOTE NO on the conference report on H.R. 3630, the payroll
tax extension legislation. This conference report singles out
one group--federal employees--to offset fully half the cost
($15 out of $30 billion) of the unemployment insurance
extension included in the bill, while there are no offsets
included for the payroll holiday extension.
[[Page H920]]
Federal employees are in the second year of a two year pay
freeze that is contributing $60 billion to deficit reduction.
It is unconscionable to come back to them for a second $15
billion hit, while no other group has been asked to
sacrifice. Under this agreement, millionaires and
billionaires continue to keep their tax cuts and corporations
that have shipped jobs overseas keep their tax loopholes, but
middle class federal employees who guard our borders, keep
our food and water safe and protect our financial systems
will get a 2.3% pay cut due to increases in pension
contributions with no increase in benefits. While the payroll
tax holiday extension and the unemployment insurance
extension only last for the next 10 months, the loss to a new
federal employee making $50,000 a year that is $1,000 per
year, every year for the rest of their career.
This is not shared sacrifice, it is targeting one group of
middle class workers for an extremely disproportionate
burden. We urge you to vote no on the conference report on
H.R. 3630. For more information, contact
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Colleen M. Kelley,
National President.
____
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL CIO,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2012.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents 650,000
federal workers throughout the nation, I am writing to urge
you to vote against the Payroll Tax Holiday/Unemployment
Insurance extension conference report that pays for the
latter by taxing the working and middle class Americans who
make up the federal workforce. Forcing new federal employees
(hired after 2012) to pay an additional 2.3 percent of their
incomes to cover the cost of lengthening the period of
eligibility for Unemployment Insurance is not a compromise
and it is not a form of shared sacrifice.
For a GS 3 nursing assistant earning $27,322 while working
in a VA hospital psychiatric ward, this will be a $628 annual
tax increase. For a GS 5 USDA meat and poultry inspector
earning $31,825 while protecting Americans from E. Coli and
other deadly diseases caused by contaminated meat, this will
be a $732 annual tax increase. For a GS 7 federal
penitentiary correctional officer earning $38,790 while
guarding ruthless gang leaders in dangerously understaffed
institutions, this will be an $893 annual tax increase. In
short, this ``deal'' is an outrageous injustice that deserves
the vociferous opposition of every Member of Congress with a
conscience.
Please note the following:
The extension of unemployment insurance is temporary, but
the additional 2.3 percent tax on new federal employees in
this bill would be permanent.
The 2.3 percent tax on new federal employees will go to a
retirement trust fund that is already fully funded; it is not
to address any kind of shortfall in federal retirement
financing.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data on
private sector defined benefit plans, 96 percent of employers
require no funding contribution from their employees, but
this plan would force new federal employees to pay 3.1
percent of their incomes for this modest benefit.
This plan is entirely unfair, unnecessary, and undeserved.
There is simply no legitimate rationale for imposing this
tax on federal employees. Federal employees are extremely
sympathetic to the dire situation of the long-term
unemployed. We strongly support the extension of unemployment
benefits, but we absolutely oppose placing a full 50 percent
of its cost on federal employees, and forcing them to pay
these insupportable rates in perpetuity.
If there must be offsets to counter the cost of extending
unemployment insurance, let them come from a group that has
not already given $80 billion toward deficit reduction in the
form of a two-year pay freeze, and is slated to give $28
billion more from the plan to withhold salary adjustments in
the future. The millionaires and billionaires who have
continued to profit during this economic recession haven't
been asked to pay one nickel more in taxes. Americans
continue to pay massive subsidies to oil companies as well as
bail out the banks that started this recession with their
shady lending practices that caused millions of Americans to
lose their jobs, their homes, and their savings.
Please stand up to this shameful maneuver and vote to
oppose the conference report.
Sincerely yours,
Beth Moten,
Legislative and Political Director.
____
NARFE,
Alexandria, VA, February 17, 2012.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 4.6 million federal
employees and annuitants represented by the National Active
and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), I am
writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 3630 because of its cuts
to federal retirement benefits.
President Obama has already imposed a two-year pay freeze
and proposed only a marginal pay raise for 2013, that
together save about $88 billion. H.R. 3630 would force newly
hired federal employees to pay 2.3 percent more, permanently,
for retirement benefits. This would save $15 billion, for a
total budget savings from federal employees of $103 billion
over 10 years. No other group of Americans has been asked to
sacrifice in this way. I urge you to stop singling out
federal employees for unfair cuts.
Even more importantly, these actions undermine the federal
government's ability to attract and retain the highest level
of skilled talent it needs to deal with the challenges facing
us. Singling out federal employees for disparate treatment
threatens to do permanent harm to a federal civil service
critical to meeting the increasingly complex and deeply
important tasks of government. At a time when more is being
asked of our government, the American public deserves an
engaged and efficient workforce, not one that members of
Congress characterize as the source of our country's
problems.
Federal employees ensure that the food we eat and the water
we drink are safe; they protect our borders and our airways;
they take criminals off our streets and keep them behind bars
and they care for our veterans and provide the intelligence
needed to thwart terrorism. Day after day, they perform the
tasks needed to maintain the stability and security of our
country. The constant assault on the federal workforce will
only undermine the strength of our government and the welfare
of our nation.
President John F. Kennedy once said: ``Let the public
service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and
woman who works in any area of our national government, in
any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and with
honor in future years: `I served the United States Government
in that hour of our nation's need.' '' We are proud of the
service we have given to this country, and we ought to
instill that same pride in the next generation of public
servants. Sadly, that is not what is happening today.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3630,
and specifically to oppose the provisions unfairly targeting
federal employees.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Beaudoin,
President.
I rise in opposition to the conference report on behalf of Federal
workers, and I wonder where it is that we will be able to find the next
Robert Ball, who lived in my district, who was the architect of Social
Security. I wonder whether we will be able to find the national
security and intelligence specialists, who live out in my district in
Collington, for the next generation. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether we
will be able to find the next negotiator of a START Treaty, who lives
in my district. We won't be able to find them because we've asked
Federal workers to continue to sacrifice for a deficit that they didn't
create.
With that, I would just say, please let's vote against this
legislation, vote against the conference report. Support Federal
workers and the talented workforce that we have, for future
generations.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to support this legislation.
Once again, we're reading about how troubled the economy is. This is
the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. It is certainly the
kind of economy we all want to improve.
The underlying piece of this legislation frees up spectrum that will
generate hundreds of thousands of jobs as 4G is built out. They need
spectrum to build out 4G. This provides spectrum.
This is a voluntary incentive auction, so nobody is being for forced
off the airwaves; but they have the opportunity to leave the airwaves
and then repack the bands and then make this spectrum available. People
say, What is that? That's what powers your devices, whatever you have
on whichever hip, your iPad, your Android, whatever needs this
spectrum. In the process, it will generate $15 billion from the private
sector into the government by auctioning off this spectrum to help pay
for the middle class tax cut and pay for unemployment extension and the
doc fix.
Now, we would have, on our side of the aisle, preferred a 2-year fix
for our physicians taking care of seniors on Medicare, but that was not
to be, and we know that. But we could not let them fall off the cliff
and see their reimbursement rates cut 27.4 percent.
So contained in here are solutions both for the long term and short
term we're going to have to revisit.
But the other thing we did that's really important is we're going to
build out an interoperable public safety broadband network for our
first responders. Our brave men and women, public servants, police and
fire, will finally have this Congress answer the call that has been
pending since 9/11.
[[Page H921]]
Post-9/11, they said you've got to get our public safety people an
interoperable broadband network, and it didn't get done until now. So
when you vote for this legislation, you're voting to help your public
servants and police and fire finally have the tools to keep them safe
and do their jobs.
Mr. LEVIN. How much time is there for each?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Michigan has
3 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Maryland has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan in support has 4\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield now 1 minute to the very distinguished
Representative and a leader in our caucus, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I support this compromise because it ensures that we
will be able to continue tax cuts for millions of American workers, and
it preserves vital benefits for unemployed Americans that are essential
for the overall economy and safeguards seniors' access to their
doctors.
While I will vote ``yes,'' this agreement is not perfect. I have
serious objections to the continuing demonization of public servants in
the Federal Government. We should not keep cutting their pay and
benefits while refusing to ask the top 1 percent to pay one penny more.
Federal employees have sacrificed now, and they should be given time to
share in the sacrifices. All of us should.
I'm also disappointed that this bill cuts money for prevention which
is so important to the health of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I believe
that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cheer.
Mr. HOYER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. If we're prepared to close, I will yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 1 minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend the Speaker. I'm glad that he's in the
chair. He and I have worked together because we understand what needs
to be done in order to meet the fiscal crisis that confronts our
country. All of us need to participate--not just our Federal employees,
but all of us.
In the short term, we need to do what this bill does:
160 million people will get an extra thousand dollars that hopefully
will help build our economy, create jobs, and expand opportunity for
our people;
The unemployed will make sure that they've had that safety net that
is critical for them and their families;
The doctors will have a short period of time to have some confidence
that they will be compensated to serve Medicare patients over the next
10 months.
The only people asked to pay for that, as I said before, are Federal
employees. That is why I took this 20 minutes, to say to each and every
one of us in this House, first of all, Federal employees ought not to
be the piggy bank out of which you pretend that we're going to be able
to pay the deficit. That's wrong. It's not been recommended by any of
our groups.
I've had the opportunity of working with Mr. Camp, who, in my view,
is a very conscientious Member of this body. I'm glad that he's the
leader. Actually, I wish Mr. Levin were the leader, because he's of my
party. But since my party is not in control, I'm glad that Mr. Camp
leads it, a reasonable person.
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, America must know that we all
need to contribute. The Federal employee has paid $60 billion over the
last 24 months, over the next 10 years already. This year, they will
have their pay reduced from what the law requires another $30 billion.
That's $90 billion. Forget about this bill. Forget about the highway
bill which says $44 billion in additional reduction in benefits. It's
$134 billion that's on the table. It hasn't passed, but it's on the
table.
Let us, as conscientious Members of this Congress, as representatives
of our people, come together and have a plan that does not require
nickel-and-diming of Federal employees, nickel-and-diming of doctors,
nickel-and-diming of Medicare patients, and nickel-and-diming of
America. Let us come together and do what America knows what needs to
be done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1110
Mr. LEVIN. How much time is left for Mr. Camp and myself?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan on the proponent's side has
3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think this has been a healthy discussion, and I think all of us
respect very much the positions that have been put forth. I think we
need to look at where we came from.
The main bill before the conference committee was the bill that
passed on a partisan basis here in December. It essentially would have
countermanded the effort at continued economic growth through the
payroll tax bill. It would have required very inimical pay-fors. It
would have threatened the pay of 160 million people. That bill also
would have drastically cut unemployment insurance.
Cutting unemployment insurance is not reform. It is not reform.
People have worked for it. These are people looking for work who can't
find it. We have worked so hard--so hard--to defend and to preserve the
lifeline of unemployment insurance as best we could; and essentially it
does preserve it in major ways through the rest of this year. For
seniors, we have made sure that health care and their physicians are
available.
With respect to differing points of view, I strongly urge support for
this conference committee report. It is said it isn't perfect, and it
is often said no bill is perfect; but we have worked to preserve the
basic ingredients to promote economic growth and to preserve the
unemployment insurance so critical for the unemployed of this country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This conference report extends the payroll tax cut to 160 million
working Americans. It prevents a cut in physician payments through the
end of the year so that seniors can get the medical treatment and care
that they need under Medicare.
This represents about $800 for working families in America over the
next 10 months. Most importantly, this agreement includes no job-
killing tax hikes to pay for more government spending. The deficit
spending on unemployment stops with this legislation. This agreement
firmly establishes that extensions of unemployment benefits must be
paid for.
This legislation also includes some of the most significant reforms
to unemployment since the 1930s--job-search requirements, drug
screening and testing, reemployment programs. These are all critical
for work readiness and for reemployment, and these are essential
reforms to the unemployment system. We also reauthorize Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families with this legislation; but while doing
so, we make reforms to that program, as well, by closing the loophole
that allowed welfare funds to be accessed at ATMs and in strip clubs,
liquor stores, and casinos.
The government spending in this bill is fully offset. Reductions to
ObamaCare pay for more than half of the health spending in this
legislation. This also restores to the Congress a process dating back
to our Founding Fathers. They knew that, at times, government would be
divided and that we wouldn't always agree. This agreement was debated
in public while using that time-honored process.
With that, I urge all Members to support this bipartisan House-Senate
conference agreement, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, what are we doing?
The bill before us today, which would extend the expiring payroll
holiday for 10 more months, exemplifies all that is wrong with
Washington. No wonder the American peoples' faith in Congress is at an
all-time low.
First, the agreement steals $93 billion from the Social Security
Trust Fund to pay for a 10-
[[Page H922]]
month extension of a temporary program that was supposed to expire two
months ago.
Second, there is no offset for this new spending. It adds $93 billion
to the deficit this year--money we will have to borrow from countries
like China, which is spying on us, taking our jobs and has terrible
record on human rights.
Third, this bill only asks for sacrifice from a small number of
Americans--federal employees and postal workers--to pay for the
unemployment insurance extension and the Medicare ``doc fix.''
Fourth, this ``holiday'' has proven to have little impact on economic
growth and job creation, while significantly growing our deficit.
Finally, the House Appropriations Committee led efforts to cut $95
billion in spending in the 2011 and 2012 fiscal year appropriations
bills. This bill undoes all of the discretionary spending cuts achieved
by the House in one fell swoop.
As chairman of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations
subcommittee, I have cut $11 billion from the budgets of the Commerce
and Justice departments since Republicans reclaimed the majority. These
were difficult cuts, but necessary to start reining in our
unsustainable deficit and debt. And they will be completely undone
after today's vote.
Have we already forgotten the debates over the deficit last year?
A year ago, we hoped to consider $4 trillion in debt reduction under
the Bowles-Simpson Commission and the ``Gang of Six'' proposals. By the
summer, we were voting on the Budget Control Act, which established a
supercommittee charged with finding an additional $1.2 trillion in
savings over 10 years.
Now, the White House and Congress are going in the other direction
and choosing to spend away the $95 billion in deficit reduction
actually achieved last year.
This is shameful.
The American people are right to be disappointed that the President
and the Congress have walked away from every serious deficit reduction
effort.
They should be appalled that both sides have joined together to spend
more money and weaken Social Security.
This agreement is giving away the store. And for what? A payroll
``holiday'' that most Americans haven't even noticed, according to a
recent nationwide poll.
Our country is going broke. The national debt is over $15 trillion
and is projected to reach $17 trillion by the end of this year and $21
trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of over $1 trillion. We have
unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. We are going the
way of Greece.
Why are we voting to extend a policy that does nothing more than
steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already going
broke?
Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated
tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today
funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits.
Because you pay now, a future worker will pay your benefits. That is
why, until December 2010, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct
by both political parties.
Social Security is already on an unsustainable path. Today's medical
breakthroughs simply were not envisioned when the system was created in
1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and
16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is
78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million
people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today.
Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65.
This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these
numbers sound sustainable to anyone?
The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2036 the trust fund will
be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive
an across-the-board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money
they paid into the system.
Does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get
money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet or
Jimmy Buffet changed their buying habits as a result of this temporary
suspension?
Or did General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, the head of President
Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness who recently shipped GE's
medical imaging division from Wisconsin to China, really benefit from
this ``holiday?''
We all know what needs to be done to address the deficit and debt and
that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this
crisis, including the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget,
the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget
Control Act.
I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who
urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in
savings. I continue to work with my colleagues to advance the Bowles-
Simpson report. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment. Since 2006,
when George Bush was in office, I have introduced my bipartisan
legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times in hopes of dealing
with this problem.
While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the
necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve
this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration: all
entitlement spending; all domestic discretionary spending, including
defense spending; and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax
code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks and
loopholes that cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
Some of the pay-fors in today's bill could be better used to address
our deficit, such as the profits from the spectrum auction. Another
pay-for that was previously proposed, and signed into law last
December, raised the rates that mortgage lenders can charge on Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac loans. This 10 basis point increase makes a home
loan more expensive for thousands of individuals looking to buy a
house, while doing nothing to further reform these two lending
entities. But rather than putting these offsets to good use, we're
spending them away for a 10 month extension of this ``holiday.''
But the bill before us now is even worse than what was previously
considered because the biggest portion, the $93 billion cost of the
payroll holiday, is not being offset. Once again, only a small segment
of our society--federal employees and postal workers--are being used to
pay for the other measures wrapped into this proposal.
While there are many federal employees in the Capital region, it is
worth noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce is outside of
Washington. Eighty five percent. More than 65 percent of all federal
employees work in agencies that support our national defense
capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror.
Has anyone fully considered the impact that this legislation will
have on our ability to recruit qualified individuals to the CIA, the
NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Counter
Terrorism Center?
Or the impact it will have on the FBI, which has, since 9/11,
disrupted scores of terrorist plots against our country?
Or the impact on our military, which is supported by federal
employees every day on military bases across the Nation?
Or the impact on VA hospitals across the country, which are treating
veterans from World War II to today?
Or the impact on the Border Patrol?
Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists?
Or the impact on NIH, and other federal researchers, scientists and
doctors?
Federal employees are currently working under President Obama's two-
year pay freeze as they do their part to address our deficit. But to
ask them to spend the rest of their careers paying for a 10 month
policy? That doesn't make sense.
Leadership from both parties has said that extending this payroll
``holiday'' is paramount. I see what has happened. We all know that the
President has used the power of his bully pulpit to push for the
policy. Just look at the headline of this morning's National Journal
Daily: ``Payroll Deal Hands Victory to Obama.'' But he missed the
opportunity to support his own Bowles-Simpson Commission to seriously
deal with the deficit.
The fiscal tsunami that is coming demands that we make tough
decisions. Should laws be passed just because they are perceived as
popular? I regret that months have been spent on this flawed policy
instead of tackling the difficult choices to address our nation's
massive unfunded spending obligations.
There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions. The longer
we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the
greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. I understand that
many feel they need help. But, as many have said, ``there's no such
thing as a free lunch.''
America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. We must stop
leaving piles of debt to our children and grandchildren.
We can't afford this debt financed spending. I voted no on this
policy in 2010. I voted no on this policy on December 13. I voted no on
December 20. And I vote no today.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today, I am witnessing a
glimmer of hope that bi-partisanship based around enacting job creating
legislation and helping the middle class is possible. This is something
that has been sorely missed throughout the 112th Congress.
The actions we take today will put over $90 billion into the economy.
In the Garden State, this means $100 million into the construction
industry, over $285 million into manufacturing and the creation of
almost 1,500 retail jobs. More importantly, this means families in
Bergen, Passaic and Hudson counties will receive between $1,000 and
almost $1,500 directly in their pockets over the course of the next
year.
[[Page H923]]
While people say this isn't a lot of real money, I will tell you,
every dollar matters when people are in need and every dollar matters
to help continue our economic recovery.
Over the last couple of months, we've seen signs that our recovery is
accelerating, including 23 month of private sector job growth, 247,000
new jobs in January added, with the highest increase in manufacturing
jobs since the late 1990s. This week, initial jobless claims dropped
yesterday to their lowest level since March 2008, recent economic
surveys showed strong gains in new orders, and the Dow Jones is at its
highest level since May 2008.
However, despite this good news, now is not the time to take our foot
off the gas. The President has proposed a whole list of job creating
ideas contained within the American Jobs Act that will kick this
recovery into high gear, including a $5 billion fund to hire and retain
police and firefighters, and a bold plan to invest in American
infrastructure, that stands in stark contrast to the politicized and
broken bill we are debating in the House.
As we pass this legislation, we mustn't stand here and simply savor
this hard fought victory for the middle class, we should use it as the
foundation to further economic growth and create more jobs.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan
legislation to extend the payroll tax cut through 2012, delay a massive
Medicare physician pay cut until January 1, 2013, and extend
unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed workers.
It's not often we get to laud bipartisan legislation these days. Nor
did this bill start out that way. The bill the House Republicans passed
late last year on this topic was highly partisan. While extending the
payroll tax cut for a year and preventing a physician pay cut for two
years, it achieved those goals by shifting costs to Medicare
beneficiaries and undermining low-income financial assistance in the
Affordable Care Act. It extended unemployment benefits, but the price
for that extension was cutting off benefits for the long-term
unemployed and mandating onerous new rules such as drug testing and GED
requirements. It was standard Republican fare--give with one hand, but
take away more with the other.
After an embarrassing debacle to end 2011, House Republicans backed
down. Now, with today's legislation, they've backed down even more.
That's good news for working families, Medicare beneficiaries, and
unemployed workers. But don't be fooled that they're suddenly ready to
govern. They are not.
They recognized the political risk of not enacting this legislation
and then reluctantly came to the conclusion that they had to work with
Democrats to get this done.
Once this bill passes, they'll go right back to the issues they
really care about: lambasting President Obama for creating a solution
that protects religious institutions while providing free
contraceptives to American women; trying to require the building of the
Keystone pipeline across our country--putting our environment at risk--
in order for Canada to export oil to other countries; and pursuing the
most partisan transportation authorization bill in history--one that
actually defunds mass transit and eliminates vital safety programs. All
the while, doing nothing to create jobs or strengthen our economy.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3630.
I am very pleased that we are extending the payroll tax cut through
the end of the year, which is essential to support our continued
economic recovery.
I am also pleased that we are providing unemployment benefits to
ensure that the millions of Americans have access to the benefits they
so urgently need, and that we are implementing the ``Doc Fix'' to
ensure that seniors on Medicare can continue to see the physicians of
their choice.
That said, there are a number of provisions in this agreement that
deeply disappoint me.
For example, this agreement will reduce by 30 weeks the maximum
number of weeks of unemployment insurance available to residents of
states with average unemployment rates.
While the unemployment picture certainly improved in January with the
creation of 243,000 jobs and a reduction in the unemployment rate to
8.3 percent, there are still 12.8 million people unemployed in this
nation--and millions more who work part-time but want full-time work.
For millions of our fellow citizens, unemployment benefits are truly
a lifeline.
I am also deeply disappointed that the conference report before us
requires new Federal workers to contribute more to their pensions.
Our Federal employees are not a piggy bank. We should not reach into
their pockets every time we need to pay for something.
Federal workers are the backbone of our government.
In return for their hard work and dedication, the majority has
rewarded federal workers with an unprecedented assault on their
compensation and benefits, including proposals to extend their current
two-year pay freeze, to arbitrarily cut the number of federal
employees, and now to slash their retirement benefits.
As a result of the current freeze in their pay, Federal workers have
already contributed $60 billion toward the reduction of our Federal
deficit.
They are now being asked to pay for unemployment insurance and the
``Doc Fix'' while we still refuse to ask millionaires and billionaires
to contribute one additional penny.
It is time we stop the assault on our Federal workforce. We must
implement policies that will ensure that our investments in our nation
are a shared national priority.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a less than ideal piece
of legislation. All of us recognize it is vital the payroll tax cut be
extended. This cut has put money in the pockets of 160 million
Americans--17 million of them in the tri-state New York area. These
consumers--indeed our entire economy--cannot afford for this measure to
lapse.
At the same time, this bill does not go far enough in helping those
who have been hurt by the recession. Millions of Americans are seeking
employment but still cannot find it. Indeed, our economy would need to
create 230,000 jobs each month--for two years--to regain all the jobs
lost since December of 2007. This bill makes it more difficult for out-
of-work Americans, by shortening the amount of time they may receive
unemployment benefits to 73 weeks. At the same time we cut these
benefits, our Republican colleagues insist on protecting those
``vulnerable millionaires'' who continue receiving tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill--but reluctantly. We cannot
afford for Unemployment Insurance or the payroll tax cut to expire.
Still, it is my hope that in the future we can do more to protect
working families who have suffered from this downturn.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize the importance of extending the payroll tax cuts for middle-
class Americans, but with a few concerns regarding the source of its
funding.
The recent compromise on H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act, highlights the critical need to have sensible
negotiations with the average American in mind at all times. I believe
that it is a success that this Congress was able to extend the payroll
tax cut, which will provide a typical middle-class family with an
additional thousand dollars in their paychecks over the course of a
year. For most low- and middle-class families, a thousand dollars can
go a long way to buy food for their family, put gas in their car, and
cover minor medical expenses.
The payroll tax cut extension also continues federal Unemployment
Insurance programs through the end of 2012, providing job-seeking
Americans additional time to find work in a persistently sluggish
economy.
I understand that the final version of the payroll tax bill puts off
a 27.4 percent reduction in pay to Medicare doctors by making a handful
of health care cuts. The nearly $20 billion cost of the so-called ``doc
fix'' is covered largely by a $6.9 billion cut to Medicare hospitals,
as the federal government decreases how much they will pay hospitals
and doctors when Medicare enrollees fail to pay their premiums and co-
pays. It also slashes $5 billion from a fund earmarked for preventive
medicine established in the 2010 health care law, cutting a third of
the total money appropriated for the fund under the law.
Mr. Speaker, President Obama has already imposed a two-year pay
freeze and proposed only a marginal pay raise for 2013, which together
save about $88 billion over ten years. I am concerned that H.R. 3630
would force newly hired federal employees to pay 1.5 percent more,
permanently, for retirement benefits. This would save $15 billion, for
a total budget savings from federal employees of $103 billion over 10
years. No other group of Americans has been asked to sacrifice in this
way. I worry that this action would undermine the federal government's
ability to attract and retain the highest level of skilled talent it
needs to deal with the challenges facing us. Singling out federal
employees for disparate treatment threatens to do permanent harm to a
federal civil service critical to meeting the increasingly complex and
deeply important tasks of government.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on
H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011.
I have never believed in short-term tax policy because uncertainty is
the enemy of prosperity. For that reason I have authored the Tax Relief
Certainty Act which would make permanent the tax cuts established in
2001 and 2003, repeal the estate tax, and provide permanent relief from
the Alternative Minimum Tax.
While I would have preferred this conference report was more than
another piece-meal approach to tax relief, the question we
[[Page H924]]
face today is whether this Congress is going to avoid a tax increase on
working families. During these difficult economic times I believe that
we should not allow a tax increase on working families, and therefore,
I will support this bill.
I am pleased that this conference report includes important reforms
in unemployment benefits. As I travel around Indiana, small business
owners in one community after another have told me about the need to
reduce dependency on unemployment insurance. I believe we can provide a
safety net for those who have fallen on hard times while at the same
time protecting the incentive to work.
This legislation takes an important first step toward reforming
unemployment insurance by reducing the maximum number of weeks of
eligibility for benefits based on a state's unemployment level and
creating national job search requirements for everyone collecting state
and federal unemployment insurance benefits. I am also pleased that
this conference report contains language that will not interfere with
Indiana's efforts to return the state's unemployment trust fund to
solvency.
The deal before us today is nothing to write home about, but it does
avoid a tax increase on working families during these difficult
economic times and starts us down the road toward unemployment
insurance reform--and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for reaching an
agreement on a longer term extension of the payroll tax cut. While this
bill is not perfect, it does provide the average American middle-class
family with an additional $1,000 over the year through the payroll tax
cut extension, it continues Unemployment Insurance through the end of
the year, and prevents cuts in Medicare physician payment rates. More
than 160 million Americans will benefit from the payroll tax extension
and millions of seniors using Medicare will be able to continue to see
the doctor of their choice.
Despite the assistance this legislation will provide to millions
across the country, I have reservations about a number of problematic
provisions. The Republican Majority continues to put the burden of the
recession on Federal public servants. By requiring an increase in
retirement payments by new employees, this legislation further
undermines the Federal Government's ability to attract and retain the
best talent. The vital services provided by the more than 2 million
civilian employees cannot be compromised. It is time this Congress
recognized the service that Federal employees provide to our senior
citizens and the disabled, to our military service members and
veterans, and to our overall safety and health. In addition, the
reduction in weeks of unemployment insurance benefits starting in May
will put a hard burden on some of America's hardest hit families.
Lastly, the cuts to reimbursements for hospitals who serve large
numbers of un-and-under-insured patients will put the load of the cost
directly on the hospitals providing care.
Despite these concerns, I support this bill today because the
extensions help this country continue on a path of job creation and
economic growth. We are well in to the second session of the 112th
Congress and still my colleagues on the other side have failed to bring
meaningful jobs legislation before the House for a vote. It is time the
Republican Majority responded to calls from the American people to
strengthen our workforce for middle class families.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of the conference
agreement on the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
because I believe it is necessary for our nation's continued economic
recovery, which still remains fragile. Economists of every stripe have
endorsed the three major components of the bill which will provide some
additional confidence for both consumers and business. However, I have
serious concerns about parts of the compromise, chiefly the lack of a
permanent repeal of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and the
funding sources for the ten-month SGR ``patch.''
Medicare cuts to community hospitals and skilled nursing facilities
included in the compromise threaten the already thin financial margins
these institutions are operating on. Also included in the compromise is
the elimination of $5 billion from the Prevention and Public Health
Fund created by the Affordable Care Act. These cuts will stifle
progress on disease prevention which in the long-term is the best way
to reduce health care spending. And, the fact that these programs will
be cut to pay for a short term fix of a broken SGR formula that was
passed into law nearly two decades ago and has proven to be totally
infeasible, is particularly galling.
While the window of opportunity to repeal the SGR permanently in this
package has passed for now, Congress still has an obligation to enact a
permanent fix to this flawed policy when the ten-month fix expires. We
know now that the longer a permanent fix is delayed, the more
precarious our system of care for seniors and veterans will become. On
a positive note, growing bipartisan, bicameral support for abolishing
the SGR is building, paid for with savings from the Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funds. The Congressional Budget Office has
confirmed these funds are available which provides a promising
opportunity in the coming months to repeal the SGR finally once and for
all.
Fixing this long standing problem must be a bipartisan priority for
this Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle towards a permanent solution to the SGR that gives
our doctors, seniors and veterans the long term certainty they need--
and deserve--in their care.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with
the President and working Americans today by supporting this measure,
which will add an average of $1,000 to the paychecks of working North
Carolinians this year, extend unemployment benefits for Americans who
have lost jobs through no fault of their own, and ensure seniors on
Medicare will be able to see their doctors. After a year in which
Republicans in Congress took the country from one manufactured crisis
to the next, this bipartisan agreement is a step in the right direction
and at a time when so many families are still struggling to make ends
meet, it may be our last chance to help revive the economy as we head
into an election year.
Once again, however, House Republicans are asking us to rob Peter to
pay Paul, and the positive economic impact of this measure will be
undermined in part by their senseless and misguided insistence that
federal employees, hospitals, clinical laboratories, and preventive
health programs must bear the cost. Unemployment benefits are paid out
during true economic emergencies and should not require offsets. And to
the extent we should offset the cost of the other programs extended in
this measure, we should do so by asking corporations and the wealthiest
Americans to pay their fair share--not by asking middle-class Americans
and providers of health care who have already sacrificed in the name of
deficit reduction to do even more.
I'm particularly troubled by the demonization of federal workers by
Republicans in Congress, which has reached a crescendo of late. To be
effective and respond to the needs of the American people, government
needs to attract the best and brightest to public service. Federal
employees have already been subjected to a pay freeze, and now we are
asking them to open their wallets again to pay for unemployment
benefits for workers who have lost their jobs.
I cannot in good conscience oppose a measure that puts money in the
pockets of American workers, protects our fragile economic recovery,
and maintains the safety net for unemployed workers and health care for
seniors. But we simply must do better if we are to maintain the promise
of expanding opportunity for working and middle class Americans.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns with a
health provision in the Payroll Tax Compromise. Even though we have
successfully protected Medicare beneficiaries from significantly
increased premiums on Medicare patients with incomes below $40,000, and
prevented attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act's mission of
expanding coverage to millions of Americans, the Payroll Tax compromise
still contains provisions that will hurt middle-class and economically
disadvantaged Americans. Specifically, I am concerned about the
inclusion of cuts to Medicare laboratory services. Under this
legislation, clinical lab payment rates will be cut by an additional 2
percent in 2013, on top of the cuts that were included in the health
reform law. These new cuts also rebase the lab fee schedule, resulting
in lower rates for clinical lab services for years to come.
In some independent clinical laboratories, especially those serving
rural communities or nursing home populations, 80 percent or more of
their patient-base consists of Medicare beneficiaries. The cuts being
faced threaten their practice's existence and no additional cuts--big
or small--can be absorbed without adversely impacting patient care.
Medicare payment amounts for clinical laboratory services have already
been reduced, in real terms, by about 40 percent over the past 20
years. While clinical laboratory testing is less than 2 percent of all
Medicare spending, it has been subject to significant freezes in
payments and cuts over the last decade.
Clinical laboratories are an important part of the health care
system. Their tests inform up to 70 percent of a doctor's medical
decision-making. As the first point of intervention, laboratory tests
serve as the foundation for the diagnosis and clinical management of
conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease, and
infectious diseases. These clinical laboratories do more than just draw
a person's blood. They are a major part of the medical process.
Independent clinical laboratories also are essential for those who
must depend on the laboratory's mobility for testing. Medicare
[[Page H925]]
beneficiaries in nursing homes rely upon the services provided by
independent clinical laboratories that can deploy medical professionals
to their place of residence. If these laboratories continue to have
their Medicare payments cut, not only will jobs be lost, but patients
will suffer.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to repeal these cuts.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against the
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3630, but within this legislation,
there are provisions that I do support. I support giving a payroll tax
cut to 160 million Americans, extending unemployment insurance to those
Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and
to allow seniors access to their doctors under Medicare. But there is a
damaging aspect of this bill that will affect the pensions of future
federal employees.
This bill raises an additional $15 billion to extend unemployment
insurance coverage by requiring federal employees to contribute a
larger amount to their retirement accounts. Federal employees are
currently in their second year of a pay freeze while my colleagues
across the aisle only a few short weeks ago voted to freeze federal
employees' pay for a third year. Republicans don't think twice about
limiting federal workers' ability to support their families, but are
more than willing to shut down the government when bankers are asked to
pay their fair share of taxes on their bonuses.
How much can we continue to pick on federal workers? They are not
fat-cats. They are postal workers, janitors, teachers, nurses, social
workers, and police officers. When did they become the bad guys? How
much can we continue to pile on them before their backs break? How much
weight should the wealthiest Americans, who can afford it, carry?
I am also concerned that this compromise to extend unemployment
insurance reduces benefits from 99 weeks to as little as 73 weeks
through December. I hear daily from constituents who are approaching
the end of their 99 weeks and are at a loss as to where to turn next.
Although the economy may be starting to recover, what are we supposed
to tell those people who have been looking for a job for months and
months on end? What kind of compromise are they supposed to strike with
unemployment?
Furthermore, this legislation will blow a $100 billion hole in the
deficit by not paying for the measure. It is a precursor from the
Republicans for the beginning of the end of Social Security.
Millions of Americans all across this nation are struggling and they
need our help. The Republican majority would rather implement policies
that unfairly favor the wealthy, while asking the least among us to
make enormous sacrifices. I am sick and tired of Republican
gamesmanship. I voted against this measure, because `enough is enough.'
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with reservations,
to support H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation of
2011.
Benefits paid out by Social Security now exceed payroll taxes
collected, and with no change the trust funds will run out by 2035.
While this conference report would continue our policy of replacing
uncollected payroll taxes with funds from general revenue, the $93
billion cost for ten months of this policy makes clear we cannot afford
to continue it for the long term. Our focus on Social Security should
be reforming it to ensure its viability for those who have paid in, not
infusing it with hundreds of billions of additional dollars we don't
have.
However, H.R. 3630 allows Americans to continue to keep more of their
paychecks for the rest of the year in this delicate economy. This bill
also contains important reforms to Medicare and unemployment insurance
and ensures this new, current spending is paid for. We cannot
indefinitely pay out 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and this bill
begins phasing out these extended benefits. While I would prefer we
permanently reform Medicare, this conference report ensures seniors
have access to care through the end of the year by addressing physician
reimbursement rates and other payment issues while laying the
groundwork for permanent payment reform. We also reform federal
employee benefits and will expand access to wireless broadband through
this bill. These are important accomplishments worthy of support.
Because of these achievements, I ask my colleagues to support H.R.
3630. I also ask we continue our work to permanently reform both the
tax code and our entitlement programs to provide Americans the long-
term certainty they need, rather than continuing our reliance on
piecemeal legislation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Conference Report on H.R. 3630 ``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2011.'' The Conference Report extends the 2 percent
payroll tax cut, the Medicare SGR ``doc fix'' and various Medicare and
Medicaid extenders through the end of the year.
There are currently 160 million workers who will benefit from a
payroll tax holiday and millions of unemployed workers in desperate
need of an extension of unemployment insurance. In addition it would
prevent 170,000 Americans from losing their health coverage. It is in
consideration of the millions of Americans that will benefit from this
legislation that I cast my vote today.
Although certain improvements have been made to this bill that have
made it more palatable in the name of compromise, in comparison to the
version offered by House Republicans, I still believe we could have
done more.
Instead of a temporary fix to the Medicare sustainable growth rate
formula (SGR), commonly known as the Doc Fix, we could have had a
permanent solution which would have addressed the concerns of doctors
across this country and the patients who utilize their services. We
cannot continue to rely upon short-term patches that arise every few
months. It is time to bring certainty to our system of payment. We must
act now--the cost to repeal SGR today would be $300 billion. If we wait
five years that cost will double to $600 billion. Without addressing
the SGR head on and instead continuing to kick the can down the road,
it is only making a flawed system more costly to resolve.
Under this Republican led House measures continue to be offered that
are being paid for on the backs of federal workers. These workers are
responsible for aiding in crafting the legislation that we put forward
in this body. They are responsible for implementing and creating
regulations that ensure that our system of governance runs smoothly,
that our airways, roadways, ports, and food are safe.
These dedicated civilian employees are paid less than they would be
in the private sector. Their reward for these dedicated federal
servants is for the Republican led House to use their pay and their
benefits as a piggy bank, instead of issuing a surcharge on the
wealthiest among us, a simple 1 percent increase in taxes on those who
earn over one million a year. Instead, we are targeting the federal
worker.
Under Republican pressure the fate of 315 million Americans will be
borne by the 2 million federal civilian workers who serve them. To be
clear, federal employees will be the only people paying for this bill.
Again, under a Republican led House, Republicans have continued to
use federal civilian employees as a piggy bank. Which in many ways is
an attack on the fabric of the middle class.
In this Congress alone the federal workforce has already contributed
$80 billion to deficit reduction. This was done by freezing their pay,
preventing two cost of living increases, and other measures. Which is
really code for what a federal employee is making today is less than
what she was making two years ago (when you adjust for inflation).
Federal workers are highly skilled, highly trained, and highly
educated. We must remember that none of the laws that we pass here
today will make a difference without having people around who will
implement them.
My Republican colleagues appear to believe that they can continue to
target federal workers without repercussions. When we are no longer
able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest, then we can look
to the measure pushed by my Republican colleagues. Although I support
many of the provisions in this bill; I must make clear I am concerned
with how this bill is constructed.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT
I will repeat again that this conference report would require new
hires into the federal government to have a significantly higher
portion of their wages diverted to pay for their retirement.
Even though it is very uncommon in the private sector for employees
to contribute any portion of their pay toward retirement, this
conference report would require newly hired federal workers to
contribute 3.1 percent of their wages to pay for their pensions, a 2.3
percent increase over current levels that will cost even the lowest
paid federal workers hundreds of dollars per year in take home pay.
This amounts to a targeted tax on middle class federal workers like VA
nurses, border patrol agents, food inspectors, and wild land
firefighters. Targeting these middle class workers again as a ``pay-
for'' when the wealthiest Americans have not been asked to contribute
anything is unconscionable. Federal workers have already been asked to
make significant sacrifices.
As I said before, I will say again being dedicated to this country
they accepted a two-year pay freeze (for 2011 and 2012) which has been
a great burden to federal employees and their families who are
struggling just like everyone else in this tough economy. This
sacrifice alone saved American taxpayers $60 billion.
Treating newly hired federal workers differently than current federal
employees is a
[[Page H926]]
very disturbing precedent. Federal agencies are only able to recruit
the talent they need because, though they do not pay as much, federal
government jobs are still considered good jobs.
If we go down this path of taking away key benefits from future
federal employees that will no longer be true. The days of federal
agencies hoping to attract the best and brightest will be over.
Taking a giant symbolic step in the race to the bottom by undermining
middle class federal employees' retirement security is unfair to
workers and it is bad policy.
I have repeatedly pushed for a surcharge on individuals who earn over
one million dollars a year to pay for this bill. I offered legislation
to that effect and in each instance, I did not garner significant
Republican support. This would have protected the middle class and
protected civilian workers from having to continue to bare the full
brunt of the economic down turn.
Republicans once more protected the interest of the wealthiest among
us. Using the benefits of future federal workers as a piggy bank, is
just another example of the assault on the middle class.
There is good news in this bill, the Conference Report reauthorizes
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program through the
end of the fiscal year. I have been an ardent supporter of a TANF and
although I believe more could be done. I am pleased with the compromise
that was able to be reached on this point today.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Finally Republicans have begun to realize they cannot continue to
target the unemployed. There are more than four unemployed Americans
for every job opening. Never on record in our nation's history have
there been so many unemployed Americans out of work for so long. There
is nothing normal about this recession. Republicans were clearly out of
touch with the needs of American families. It is about time they
recognized that the American people want Members of this body to work
together.
I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities
through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business
opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. I believe and
have been an advocate for extending unemployment insurance.
Every American deserves the right to be gainfully employed or own a
successful business and I know we are all committed to that right and
will not rest until all Americans have access to economic opportunity.
According to a report released by the Department of Labor late this
afternoon, 3.3 million Americans would lose unemployment benefits as a
result of the original House GOP bill compared to a continuation of
current law. In the State of Texas alone 227,381 people will lose their
sole source of income by the end of January. Under this compromise
unemployment insurance programs will be extended until the end of 2012,
will be gradually reducing the number of weeks, and with some
adjustments in requirements.
Again, I have been a supporter of Unemployment Insurance benefits and
I am not fully satisfied with all elements of this provision. Although
it retains the current maximum level of 99 weeks of total Unemployment
Insurance benefits through May.
I am disappointed that it will reduce the maximum to 79 over the
summer, and to 73 in September--depending on a state's unemployment
rate. This is a significant compromise when considering the bill the
Republicans put forth previously which would have cut federal UI
benefits by more than half, with the total number of weeks of
unemployment insurance down to 59 weeks for most states by the summer.
I recall when making my decision about this bill, the previous bill
that was presented which was a shining example of how the Republicans
failed to keep their pledge to the American People. A little over a
year ago, Republican leadership released to the public their Pledge to
America. In which they told the American people that they would ``end
the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-pass' legislation
to circumvent the will of the American people. [Further] Instead,
[Republicans] will advance major legislation one issue at a time.''
This is what my colleagues stated less than one year ago. So as I
consider the measure before me today, I have to consider how far the
Republicans have decided to come on this issue. I have no desire to
gamble with the much needed assistance that the American people today.
If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to
people in communities all across this nation at this time, it would be
unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a
means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts
of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.
Although according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statics the state of
Texas continues to have the largest year-over-year job increase in the
country with a total of 253,200 jobs. However, there are still
thousands of Texans like thousands of other Americans in dire need of a
job.
GED AND DRUG SCREENING REQUIREMENT REMOVED
In the previous Republican package which included drug testing on
those who received UI or a requirement for GED/High school Diploma
receive. I am glad that by working with Democrats the Republicans were
able to remove these poisonous positions.
I am pleased this measure has a more common sense approach to the
unemployed, as it drops the draconian provisions which required people
to get a GED and allowed a blanket drug testing. Instead, the bill
before us today permits states to drug screen and test anyone who (1)
lost their job because of drug abuse, or (2) is seeking a job that
regularly requires a drug test. Further it codifies current state
practices requiring those receiving unemployment benefits at both the
state and federal level to look for a job, which is important to
ensuring that people know this benefit is given to them to help them
while they search for permanent income.
Rather than requiring a GED or requiring people to join an already
160,000 persons waiting list for job training. The measure before us
would allow the Department of Labor to approve waivers for up to 10
states for re-employment programs. Although this represents the
beginning of the journey as a step in the right direction it is not the
end.
I found the drug testing element to be one of the most disturbing
parts of the Republican unemployment reforms. It was an insult to the
unemployed. Further, the requirement to insist that to qualify for
benefits that a person has or is in the process of attaining a GED or a
high school diploma would have had a negative impact on minorities who
have been hit the hardest during this economic downturn.
We need job training programs that are funded rather than penalties
for those who for a multitude of reasons have not attained a high
school diploma or GED.
Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public transportation, need
to be able to get to potential employers' places of work. Utility
payments must be paid.
People use their unemployment benefits to pay for the basics. No one
is getting rich from unemployment benefits, because the weekly benefit
checks are solely providing for basic food, medicine, gasoline and
other necessary things many individuals with no other means of income
are not able to afford.
Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been
tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type
of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are
created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term
unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when
there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has
been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.
With a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, preventing and
prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national
tragedy. In the City of Houston, the unemployment rate stands at 8.6
percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed.
Indeed, I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to alleviate the
concerns of my constituents who are unemployed that there will be no
further extension of unemployment benefits. It is clear that it is more
prudent to act immediately to give individuals and families looking for
work a means to survive. This Conference Report is reflects changes
that are much better for the American people, but it is also flawed
measure.
Until the economy begins to create more jobs at a much faster pace,
and the various stimulus programs continue to accelerate project
activity in local communities, we cannot sit idly and ignore the
unemployed, the uninsured, the elderly, and those with a low income and
our middle class. I am committed to rebuilding the American dream. I
firmly believe that we could have done more than what is before us
today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 554, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting the conference report will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 293,
nays 132, not voting 8, as follows:
[[Page H927]]
[Roll No. 72]
YEAS--293
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Velazquez
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Westmoreland
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--132
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Farenthold
Farr
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hoyer
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Lee (CA)
Lummis
Lynch
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McKinley
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Olson
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Reyes
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Schmidt
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--8
Bono Mack
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Gosar
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Shuler
{time} 1140
Messrs. LABRADOR, GRAVES of Missouri, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Messrs.
GOODLATTE, OLSON, and HALL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CROWLEY, ALTMIRE and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 72, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________