[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2034-2059]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 2035]]

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 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.

[[Page 2036]]

  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. 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 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

[[Page 2037]]

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. 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.
  The Bill also creates a nationwide broadband network which fulfills 
the final recommendation of the 9/11 commission to allow 
interoperability for first responders.
  The Bill also brings our spectrum policies into the 21st century by 
providing critical access to spectrum and advanced wireless broadband 
communication to accomodate our growing use of smart phones and 
tablets.
  I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

                              {time}  0950

  Mr. Hastings of Florida. I thank the gentleman.

[[Page 2038]]

  Madam Speaker, I will continue to close now.
  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.
  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 1947.)
  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.

[[Page 2039]]

  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 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 agreement 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

[[Page 2040]]

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.

                              {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

[[Page 2041]]

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 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. 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.

[[Page 2042]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 2043]]

     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 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.

                              {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.

[[Page 2044]]

  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 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

[[Page 2045]]

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).
  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

[[Page 2046]]

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.
  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

[[Page 2047]]

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.
       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

[[Page 2048]]

     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. 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

[[Page 2049]]

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- 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

[[Page 2050]]

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.
  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

[[Page 2051]]

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 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.

[[Page 2052]]

  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 
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

[[Page 2053]]

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 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

[[Page 2054]]

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.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief 
and Job Creation Act of 2012 on February 17, 2012. As House majority 
conferees, as well as chairmen of the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee and its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, we are 
pleased that the spectrum auction provisions in Title VI, Subtitle D, 
of the legislation are based on the Jumpstarting Opportunity with 
Broadband Spectrum, JOBS, Act of 2011. We helped pass the JOBS Act in 
the House on December 13, 2011, as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief 
and Job Creation Act of 2011. Like the JOBS Act, Title VI, Subtitle D, 
of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is designed 
to spur the next generation of wireless investment and innovation, to 
bring in federal revenue in the form of auction proceeds, and to 
promote significant new job creation. Among other things, Subtitle D 
allows the FCC to share proceeds with licensees, like broadcasters, 
that voluntarily return spectrum to be re-auctioned to meet the growing 
demand for commercial mobile broadband services. To prevent the Federal 
Communications Commission from picking winners and losers, Subtitle D 
prohibits the agency from excluding qualified bidders from 
participating in the auctions. To protect taxpayers, Subtitle D also 
requires the FCC to auction spectrum it has used federal funds to 
clear. What follows is a section by section explanation of some of 
Subtitle D's significant spectrum provisions.
  Section 6401. This subsection establishes clearing and auction 
timelines for spectrum in 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz (the PCS H 
Block), 2155-2180 MHz (the AWS-3 block), 15 MHz from the government 
spectrum at 1675-1710 MHz, and 15 MHz to be determined by the FCC.
  Section 6402. This section amends the Communications Act to grant the 
FCC authority to conduct incentive auctions under which it shares some 
of the proceeds with licensees that return spectrum to be re-auctioned 
for commercial use. Such auctions must have competition on the 
``reverse'' side--the portion of the auction that sets the buy-out 
price. To do otherwise would provide insufficient market competition to 
minimize costs and would create little more than a substitute for a 
license transfer.
  Section 6403. This section grants the FCC special authority to 
conduct an incentive auction for television broadcast spectrum.
  Subsection (a) governs the ``reverse'' side of the auction. 
Broadcasters may propose to relinquish their licenses to leave the 
market completely, to share a license with another broadcast licensee, 
or to move from a UHF channel to a VHF channel. The reverse ``bids'' 
they place represent the amount of money they would accept to exit, 
share, or move from a UHF channel to a VHF channel. The FCC is directed 
to maintain the confidentiality of auction participants until 
reassignments and reallocations are complete so as not to prejudice the 
ongoing business operations and relationships of broadcasters, 
including broadcasters whose bids may not ultimately be accepted. 
Spectrum recovered through this mechanism is to be auctioned for 
licensed services under section 309(j) of the Communications Act. This 
subsection also defines the retransmission consent and must carry 
rights of licensees who choose to channel share.
  Subsection (b) governs the relocation of broadcast incumbents who do 
not leave the market through the incentive auction process. This allows 
the FCC to reorganize the remaining broadcast channels in a way that 
makes the cleared spectrum most valuable for re-auction, both in terms 
of monetary value and usefulness for licensed broadband services. To 
protect broadcasters, however, subsection (b) prohibits the FCC from 
involuntarily relocating broadcasters from UHF channels to VHF 
channels. It also requires the FCC to make all reasonable efforts to 
preserve relocating broadcasters' coverage area and population served. 
Subsection (b) also qualifies for reimbursement of reasonable 
relocation costs those broadcasters that are not being compensated 
through the reverse auction, cable systems that must retune or relocate 
their systems in order to receive the signals from the newly relocated 
broadcasters, and channel 37 incumbents (provided the entirety of 
channel 37 can be cleared for less than $300 million). Section 6402 
limits to $1.75 billion the amount the FCC can spend to reimburse 
relocating broadcasters, cable operators, and incumbents on channel 37. 
Section 6403(b) also provides broadcasters the option of requesting 
specific regulatory relief in lieu of recovering relocation expenses. 
Finally, this subsection

[[Page 2055]]

makes clear that while low-power broadcasters without class A status 
cannot participate in the incentive auctions, the incentive auction 
relocation authority under subsection (b) does not change the rights of 
low-power broadcasters.
  Subsection (c) governs the forward auction of new licenses made 
available by the reverse auction and relocation process. The spectrum 
made available by the purchase of licenses through the reverse auction 
and reallocated under this section must be auctioned for commercial 
services through the mechanisms detailed in this subsection. This 
subsection ensures that the auction is both self-funding and generates 
a profit for the U.S. Treasury. This subsection also encourages the FCC 
to assign licenses in a variety of geographic sizes.
  Subsection (d) allows the FCC to borrow in advance up to $1 billion 
of the $1.75 billion available for relocation costs.
  Subsection (e) allows the FCC to conduct only one special incentive 
auction for the broadcast spectrum. It does so to encourage the FCC and 
broadcasters to make best efforts to ensure success of the special 
auction rather than await the results of a first attempt. Broadcasters 
may still participate in general incentive auctions authorized under 
Section 6402, although certain offsetting FCC flexibilities and 
broadcaster protections in Section 6403(b), (g), and (h) do not apply.
  Subsection (f) leaves to FCC discretion whether to conduct the 
reverse and forward broadcast incentive auctions contemporaneously or 
separately.
  Subsections (g) and (h) work in concert with the provisions of 
subsection (b) to create offsetting FCC flexibilities and broadcaster 
protections to facilitate the broadcast incentive auction. Subsection 
(g) creates certain limitations on the FCC's ability to relocate 
broadcasters or modify their spectrum usage rights during the pendency 
of the broadcast incentive auction. Subsection (h) limits broadcasters' 
rights to protest license modifications made pursuant to the broadcast 
incentive auction provisions.
  Subsection (i) clarifies that the FCC's November 8, 2008, ``White 
Spaces'' order continues to apply to vacant channels in the 
reconstituted television broadcast band after the incentive auction, 
reorganization of the broadcast channels, and re-allocation of spectrum 
for broadband use.
  Section 6404. This section prevents the FCC from excluding qualified 
bidders from participating in spectrum auctions so long as they abide 
by the auction procedures. Such ``prior restraints'' would be 
antithetical to the notion of open auctions, which use a competitive, 
market-based approach to allocate spectrum to those entities that will 
put the spectrum to its highest and best use. By maximizing the amount 
of spectrum available for auction and offering a variety of geographic 
licenses and license sizes, the FCC can help ensure all potential 
bidders--local, national, and regional; urban and rural--have an 
opportunity to obtain spectrum to address the exponential increase in 
demand for spectrum caused by the increased use of smartphones and 
tablets by U.S. consumers.
  Under this section, the sole qualifications of bidders are that they 
abide by the auction procedures and other requirements to protect the 
auction process, and that they meet the technical, financial, 
character, and citizenship requirements under sections 303(1)(1), 
308(b), and 310 of the Communications Act at the time of bidding or, if 
they submit a winning bid, before grant of the license. The phrase 
``auction procedures'' refers to the mechanics of the auction, such as 
the ``activity rule.'' The phrase ``other requirements to protect the 
auction process'' refers to rules to protect auction integrity, such as 
those restricting collusion.
  The FCC should not be picking winners and losers: the market should. 
As demand for spectrum grows exponentially in the mobile broadband age, 
all carriers will need additional spectrum, and artificially limiting 
access to certain entities or skewing auctions to favor them will lead 
to inefficient outcomes that ultimately hurt consumers. Moreover, 
recent history demonstrates that attempting to ``shape'' the market by 
micromanaging auctions leads to unintended consequences that hinder 
competition, harm spectrum policy, reduce auction proceeds, and result 
in valuable spectrum lying fallow for years.
  This section also makes clear it is not intended to affect any 
remaining authority the FCC has to adopt and enforce rules of general 
applicability, as opposed to rules regarding particular carriers, 
particular classes of carriers, or particular auctions. The rigor of a 
notice and comment rulemaking conducted separately from a particular 
auction better ensures that all interested parties participate, not 
just parties courting particular spectrum. It also helps ensure that 
the FCC rigorously examines whether there is any need for action, as 
well as the pros, cons, and potential unintended consequences of any 
proposed measures. Conducting such a proceeding separately also ensures 
parties have a more realistic opportunity for appeal. Challenging rules 
adopted in the lead up to an auction are logistically challenging in 
that time is typically short, in that courts are likely reluctant to 
delay an auction or invalidate it after the fact, and in that if courts 
do, they potentially affect interests of all the auction participants, 
not just the challenging party.
  It is not intended, however, that the FCC act in a way that would 
override or undermine the fundamental purpose of this section--ensuring 
open and wide participation in spectrum auctions in order to put 
spectrum to its highest and best use and to increase auction revenues. 
The reference to ``rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote 
competition'' is not meant to confer any new authority on the agency, 
but merely to illustrate that the FCC retains authority to adopt such 
rules in an industrywide rulemaking to the extent such authority can be 
found elsewhere in the Communications Act and does not conflict with 
the prohibition on excluding bidders.
  Section 6405. This section extends the FCC's auction authority 
through 2022.
  Section 6406. This section instructs the FCC and NTIA to pursue 
additional secondary allocations of spectrum for unlicensed use by 
evaluating the viability of sharing spectrum with government operations 
in the 5 GHz band.
  Section 6407. This section clarifies that nothing in sections 6402 or 
6403 shall be construed to prevent the FCC from using relinquished or 
other spectrum to implement band plans with guard bands. Such guard 
bands shall be no larger than is technically reasonable to prevent 
harmful interference between licensed services outside the guard bands. 
The FCC may permit unlicensed use in such guard bands. Unlicensed use 
shall rely on a database or subsequent methodology as determined by the 
FCC. The FCC may not permit any use of a guard band that would cause 
harmful interference to licensed services. Thus, this section makes 
clear that the FCC is free to create guard bands and allow secondary, 
unlicensed use in spectrum it has cleared with federal funds and 
auctioned under sections 6402 or 6403, so long as such guard bands are 
no larger than technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference 
between licensed services outside the guard bands and the use does not 
interfere with the licensed uses.
  Section 6408. Over the last 20 years, licensees trying to use their 
spectrum as authorized have started to experience limitations on 
service because adjacent spectrum users are relying on receivers that 
are not sufficiently tailored to focus just on the spectrum allocated 
for their adjacent use. The result has been lower power limits, 
restricted uses of spectrum, and a proliferation of guard bands. This 
section requires the GAO to submit a study to Congress not later than 
one year after the passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012 detailing current spectrum uses and whether 
changes to receiver performance, changes to operational aspects of 
existing spectrum uses, and narrowing of existing guard bands can help 
make more efficient use of the scarce spectrum resource.
  Section 6409. This section streamlines the process for siting of 
wireless facilities by preempting the ability of State and local 
authorities to delay collocation of, removal of, and replacement of 
wireless transmission equipment. It also increases access by 
establishing a uniform process for access to Federal rights-of-way and 
easements. It establishes a master contract process for siting wireless 
facilities on Federal Government owned property and buildings.
  Section 6410. This section amends the NTIA Organization Act to make 
efficient use of spectrum by federal agencies one of the NTIA's core 
responsibilities. As we search for the 500 MHz of spectrum that the 
National Broadband Plan recommends we find to address the Nation's 
growing wireless broadband demands, it is critical to ensure that 
government users maximize the use of the spectrum devoted to their 
missions. Government users represent a significant portion of the use 
of spectrum below 3 GHz. Ensuring that agencies use this resource 
efficiently should be a tenet of the NTIA's stewardship of this 
important public resource.
  Section 6411. This section requires OMB to update section 33.4 of OMB 
Circular A-11 to reflect recommendations in the January 11, 2011, 
Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Incentive Subcommittee 
report. OMB Circular A-11 currently requires agencies to integrate the 
cost of spectrum into their capital planning and management process. 
The CSMAC Incentives Subcommittee

[[Page 2056]]

recommended changes to that circular that make the spectrum use 
analysis more robust, including whether new federal spectrum uses will 
share spectrum with other systems, a detailed explanation of the 
efficiency gains compared to the prior use, and consideration of non-
spectrum based systems and commercial alternatives. Moreover, agencies 
must show that the chosen solution is the most spectrum efficient or 
explain why it is seeking to implement a solution that is less spectrum 
efficient.
  Section 6412. This section requires the GAO to study the use of the 
11 GHz, 18 GHz, and 23 GHz microwave bands with a focus on whether the 
spectrum is being used efficiently and whether commercial alternatives 
to the FCC licensing of such bands are sufficiently incentivizing 
efficient use.
  Section 6413. This section establishes the Public Safety Trust Fund, 
where most auction proceeds under this Act are deposited. It also 
establishes a cascading series of priorities for use of auction 
proceeds. First priority is given to repayment of funds borrowed 
against the $7 billion authorized elsewhere in the title to establish 
the First Responder Network Authority and the State and local broadband 
offices. Next in priority is the remainder of the $7 billion for 
buildout of the public safety broadband network and $100 million for 
research and development related to public safety broadband 
communications, followed by $20.4 billion for deficit reduction. From 
any remaining auction revenues produced above approximately $27 
billion, $115 million is used to fund the Next Generation 9/11 
provisions under subtitle E of this title and an additional $200 
million may be used for further wireless research and development of 
public safety broadband communications.
  Section 6414. This section requires the GAO to study the capabilities 
and use of amateur radio operators in times of emergency and to make 
recommendations to improve integration of amateur radio operators in 
disaster response.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a 
provision in H.R. 3630 that will help ensure a competitive, creative, 
and consumer-friendly wireless marketplace. As more and more Americans 
use mobile devices to surf the web and communicate with others, it is 
imperative that they have a choice of providers that have sufficient 
spectrum to meet these growing demands. Because H.R. 3630 gives the FCC 
authority to hold voluntary incentive auctions of broadcast spectrum, 
it is important to ensure that there is no question about the 
Commission's authority to adopt and enforce rules of general 
applicability concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition. 
Fortunately, the H.R. 3630 conferees included a provision that 
specifically confirms that authority. As an exception to a provision in 
the bill that prohibits the FCC from preventing persons from 
participating in auctions, this savings clause gives the FCC the 
flexibility to adopt spectrum rules in the manner that most effectively 
promotes competition--in connection with a particular auction or 
otherwise. I commend the conferees for including this provision.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 2012, Rep. Fred Upton, the 
Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, inserted into the record 
a section-by-section discussion of the spectrum provisions in H.R. 
3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. This is 
a one-sided and after-the-fact attempt to influence interpretation of 
the Act by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and reviewing 
courts. Although there are a number of inaccuracies in the section-by-
section analysis, Rep. Upton's commentary on section 6404, which adds a 
new paragraph 17 to section 309(j) of the Communications Act addressing 
participation in auctions, is particularly egregious.
  Rep. Upton made two unsuccessful attempts prior to the passage of 
this legislation to have the conferees adopt his views on the consensus 
language in section 6404. First, on February 15, 2012, Rep. Upton's 
staff proposed that language be inserted into the Joint Explanatory 
Statement of the Conference Committee stating that a ``full spectrum of 
bidders'' must be allowed to buy spectrum in incentive auctions. The 
conferees rejected this suggested language. In particular, it did not 
reflect the provision in the final bill that preserved the authority of 
the FCC to adopt rules that protect competition in any market, such as 
by requiring carriers that win licenses at auction to divest spectrum.
  The following day, as the Joint Explanatory Statement was being 
finalized, Rep. Upton's staff proposed a section-by-section summary of 
the Act for insertion into the report. This summary was also rejected 
by the conferees. As a result, the final Joint Explanatory Statement 
contains a section-by-section summary of only the language in H.R. 3630 
as it passed the House, not as it was modified by the conferees. This 
section-by-section summary of the House-passed language was prepared by 
the Congressional Research Service as an aid to the conferees.
  The conferees, including Rep. Upton, did agree to include in the 
Joint Explanatory Statement the following general language to describe 
the spectrum provisions in the final legislation: ``The public safety 
and spectrum provisions of this legislation advance wireless broadband 
service by clearing spectrum for commercial auction, promoting billions 
of dollars in private investment, and creating tens of thousands of 
jobs. These provisions also deliver on one of the last outstanding 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by creating a nationwide 
interoperable broadband communications network for first responders and 
generating billions of dollars of Federal revenue.'' This is the only 
summary of the final legislation approved by the conferees.
  Accordingly, Rep. Upton's insertion of his own section-by-section 
analysis of the bill, offered after passage and without approval by the 
other conferees, carries no special weight. It is an effort by one 
member of the Conference Committee to advance an interpretative spin 
that does not fairly reflect the language of new paragraph 17 and was 
specifically rejected by the conferees as a whole.
  Like Rep. Upton, I was a conferee. The language in question was 
negotiated over multiple meetings by the staff of three members of the 
House and five members of the Senate. The three House members 
represented in these meetings were all conferees: Rep. Upton, the 
Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Walden, the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, and 
myself, the Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The 
five Senators represented were two conferees, Senator Baucus, the 
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Kyl, a member of 
the Finance Committee and the Republican Whip; two Senators with 
special expertise in spectrum policy, Senator Rockefeller, the Chairman 
of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator Hutchinson, the Ranking 
Member of the Commerce Committee; and Senate Majority Leader Harry 
Reid.
  My staff in particular played a leading role in writing and 
negotiating the language in paragraph 17 that ended up in the final 
bill, including the very savings language Rep. Upton glosses over, 
which was inserted specifically to protect FCC authority. I have a very 
different perspective on the language my staff put forward than the one 
Rep. Upton suggests.
  Rep. Upton states that the ``sole qualifications'' of bidders under 
paragraph 17 are that they ``abide by the auction procedures and other 
requirements to protect the auction process, and that they meet the 
technical, financial, character, and citizenship requirements under 
303(1)(1), 308(b), and 310 of the Communications Act'' either at the 
time of the bidding or before grant of the license if they submit a 
winning bid. What this interpretation fails to reflect is that the 
prohibition in subparagraph 17(A) is only a prohibition on 
``prevent[ing] a person from participating in a system of competitive 
bidding.'' A ``system of competitive bidding'' under the Communications 
Act can include multiple groups of licenses or blocks of licenses. It 
therefore would be permissible for the FCC to set aside blocks of 
licenses within an auction on which particular bidders may not bid. 
This would limit a person's participation in the system of competitive 
bidding, which subparagraph 17(A) allows, but not prevent 
participation, which subparagraph 17(A) prohibits. For example, a 
system of competitive bidding in which the FCC established two blocks 
of licenses, and allowed bidders to bid on either of the two blocks, 
but not both, would be consistent with subparagraph 17(A).
  Rep. Upton acknowledges that nothing in paragraph 17 affects the 
FCC's authority to ``adopt and enforce rules of general 
applicability,'' but suggests that such rules must take their form via 
``notice and comment rulemaking conducted separately from a particular 
auction'' and with the input of others besides ``parties courting 
particular spectrum.'' Rep. Upton is apparently trying to create a 
distinction--found nowhere in the law--between ``rules of general 
applicability'' conducted through separate notice and comment 
rulemaking and ``rules regarding particular carriers, particular 
classes of carriers, or particular auctions.'' This interpretation 
departs greatly from what was agreed to by the conferees. Contrary to 
the interpretation posited by Rep. Upton, a ``rule of general 
applicability'' is a well-known term used in the definition of a 
``rule'' in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The established APA 
and judicial meaning is that a rule of general applicability is a rule 
that is not

[[Page 2057]]

party-specific or what is known as a ``rule of particular 
applicability.'' The term ``rule of general applicability'' was used in 
the savings clause in subparagraph 17(B) to ensure that the FCC can 
adopt and enforce rules that apply to all licenses, apply to auctioned 
spectrum generally, or apply to spectrum offered in a particular 
auction. All of these types of rules are enforceable with respect to 
auctions and auctioned spectrum because they are not literally or 
effectively party-specific.
  Rep. Upton further states that the phrase ``rules concerning spectrum 
aggregation that promote competition'' was inserted in subparagraph 
17(B) to ``illustrate that the FCC retains authority to adopt such 
rules in an industrywide rulemaking'' if the authority for the rule 
``may be found elsewhere in the Communications Act and does not 
conflict with the prohibition on excluding bidders.'' There are 
multiple problems with this analysis. During negotiations among 
conferee staff, Rep. Upton's staff proposed that the phrase ``other, 
industrywide'' be inserted before ``rules of general applicability.'' 
This proposal was considered and rejected. The final language thus 
preserves the FCC's authority to issue any rules of general 
applicability, not just those that apply ``industrywide.'' It also 
makes clear that the savings clause in the last sentence preserves all 
of the FCC's pre-existing authority to issue rules of general 
applicability, not just those that address subjects ``other'' than 
participation in auctions.
  The language of the savings clause provides that ``[n]othing in 
subparagraph (A),'' which contains the prohibition on participation in 
a system of competitive bidding, ``affects any authority the Commission 
has to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, including 
rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.'' If 
Rep. Upton were correct that the rules of general applicability cannot 
``conflict with the prohibition on excluding bidders,'' the savings 
clause would be meaningless. The whole point of the savings clause is 
to preserve the FCC's pre-existing authority to issue rules of general 
applicability. The savings language in subparagraph 17(B) limits the 
reach of the prohibition in subparagraph 17(A), not vice-versa as Rep. 
Upton contends.
  The purpose of the agreed-upon language is simple: It prohibits the 
FCC from singling out a specific carrier for exclusion from a system of 
competitive bidding as long as that carrier complies with all auction 
procedures and other requirements to protect the auction process 
established by the Commission and either meets the technical, 
financial, character, and citizenship qualifications under sections 
303(1)(1), 308(b), and 310 or would meet such qualifications before 
grant of the license. Rep. Upton is correct in saying that every 
carrier is eligible to participate in a system of competitive bidding. 
The FCC, however, is able to require those carriers to come into 
compliance with applicable spectrum holding limitations, and all other 
license qualifications of any type, prior to granting a particular 
license. As adopted by the conferees, subparagraph 17(B) clarifies that 
Congress intends for the FCC to continue to promote competition through 
its spectrum policies. The FCC can adopt and enforce, for example, a 
spectrum cap through a rule that applies either to all licenses or to 
spectrum offered in a particular auction, as long as such rules are not 
party-specific. The agreed-upon savings clause thus preserves the FCC's 
ability to require, among other things, the divestiture of specific 
spectrum, such as spectrum below 1 GHz, in order to promote 
competition.
  I was opposed to the language in paragraph 17 in the House-passed 
version of the bill. In the conference, I urged that the provision be 
deleted in its entirety. I was not successful in eliminating the 
section, but with the support of other conferees, I was successful in 
significantly limiting its application. Under pre-existing law, the FCC 
could have barred particular carriers like AT&T and Verizon from 
bidding on any of the relinquished broadcast spectrum if the FCC 
determined that excluding them would advance the public interest by 
promoting competition. Under the final language in paragraph 17, the 
FCC can no longer single out individual companies and exclude them from 
participating in a system of competitive bidding, but the FCC can limit 
their participation to discrete blocks of spectrum that are to be 
auctioned under the system of competitive bidding. Moreover, the FCC 
can require a company to divest spectrum it currently holds before 
awarding the company a license to new spectrum won in an auction. In 
effect, paragraph 17 gives companies with large spectrum holdings a 
choice: they can keep their existing spectrum or they can get new 
spectrum but give up their existing spectrum to preserve competition. 
Under paragraph 17, companies like AT&T and Verizon will be able to 
acquire new spectrum in an auction, but if the FCC determines the 
acquisition of that spectrum would diminish competition, the companies 
can be required to divest other spectrum before they get a license to 
the new spectrum.
  Prior to introduction of H.R. 3630 in the House, FCC staff was asked 
to meet with a bipartisan group of staff to review the draft House 
language. At that meeting, the FCC staff raised concerns regarding 
flaws in the proposed Republican language on bidder eligibility. 
Specifically, FCC staff stated that the House Republican language was 
overly broad and would hinder the Commission's ability to promote 
competition. Along with other conferees, I worked to correct these 
problems and provide the Commission appropriate flexibility. The 
conferees unequivocally rejected the original House language, which 
Rep. Upton seeks to resurrect through his interpretive gloss.
  The final language in paragraph 17 was not to everyone's liking. The 
conferees tentatively agreed to the language on Sunday, February 12. As 
the final language leaked out, one company launched an eleventh-hour 
campaign to change it. According to an article in Politico on February 
15, AT&T was ``furious with proposed language in the deal that could 
affect its ability to bid for the spectrum'' (David Rogers and Manu 
Raju, Spectrum Auction a Holdup on Jobless Benefits Deal, PoliticoPro 
(Feb. 15, 2012) (online at https://www.politicopro.com/story/tech/
?id=9274)). House Republicans, Politico reported, ``would like to 
appease AT&T by refining language its negotiators have already 
accepted'' (Id.).
  AT&T's effort failed. As Politico reported the following day, ``House 
Republicans had hoped to appease AT&T by refining language its 
negotiators have already accepted--but this effort was finally 
dropped'' (David Rogers and Manu Raju, Payroll Tax Deal Finalized, 
PoliticoPro (Feb. 16, 2012) (online at http://politi.co/yHTIM4L)). If 
accepted as accurate legislative history, Rep. Upton's remarks would 
give AT&T through the backdoor much of what the company was not able to 
achieve through the actual legislative process. This effort at 
revisionism should be rejected by the FCC and reviewing courts 
interpreting this section.
  I also have concerns about the discussion in Rep. Upton's remarks of 
section 6407, which addresses unlicensed use of spectrum in guard 
bands.
  Unlicensed spectrum has been an engine of economic innovation and 
growth. Many advocate that allowing unlicensed use in the frequencies 
currently occupied by broadcasters could lead to new innovations like 
``Super WiFi.'' The final legislation advances this goal in three ways: 
(1) it gives the FCC the authority to preserve TV white spaces; (2) it 
gives the FCC the authority to optimize existing TV white spaces for 
unlicensed use by consolidating the existing white spaces 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 establish nationwide ``guard bands,'' 
including in high value markets that currently have little or no white 
spaces today, creating additional, new white spaces. Experts believe 
nationwide, unlicensed access to guard bands will enable innovation and 
promote investment in new unlicensed technologies.
  The relevant language is contained in sections 6402, 6403, and 6407. 
Section 6402 creates a new subparagraph 309(j)(8) of the Communications 
Act that authorizes the FCC to pay for the voluntary relinquishment of 
spectrum ``in order to permit the assignment of new initial licenses.'' 
Section 6403(a) provides that the reverse auction to relinquish 
broadcast television spectrum is conducted ``in order to make spectrum 
available for assignment through a system of competitive bidding.'' 
Section 6407 in turn permits the FCC to use some of the relinquished 
spectrum to create guard bands and, as detailed below, to allow 
unlicensed use in those guard bands.
  The final legislation does not require that existing white spaces be 
auctioned. Section 6403(b) gives the FCC discretion in deciding how 
much spectrum, if any, the agency should auction in addition to the 
relinquished spectrum. Section 6403(b)(1)(A) requires the FCC to 
``evaluate the broadcast television spectrum (including spectrum made 
available through the reverse auction).'' Section 6403(b)(1)(B) then 
specifies that the FCC ``may'' repack the remaining broadcast spectrum, 
which would include white spaces, by making ``such reassignments of 
television channels as the Commission considers appropriate.'' Section 
6403(b)(1)(B) also provides that the FCC ``may . . . reallocate such 
portions of such spectrum as the Commission determines are available 
for reallocation.'' Under section 6403(c), only spectrum that the FCC 
determines should be ``reallocated'' under section 6403(b)(1)(B) is 
required to be auctioned.

[[Page 2058]]

  The savings clause found in section 6407 provides the FCC authority 
to use ``relinquished or other spectrum'' to create ``guard bands'' in 
the spectrum to be auctioned and make these guard bands available for 
``unlicensed use.'' Under this authority, the FCC could create new TV 
white spaces in all markets by creating the guard bands out of spectrum 
that is relinquished by the broadcasters.
  In Rep. Upton's summary of section 6407, he states that the section 
gives the FCC the authority to ``create guard bands and allow 
secondary, unlicensed use in spectrum it has cleared with federal 
funds.'' I agree with Rep. Upton that the FCC can create guard bands in 
this spectrum and allow unlicensed use in these guard bands, but such 
use does not need to be a ``secondary'' use. During the course of 
negotiations over section 6407, Rep. Upton's staff proposed that the 
language in section 6407 include the requirement that any unlicensed 
use of the guard bands be ``secondary'' to a licensed use of the 
spectrum in the guard bands. This provision was not accepted by the 
conferees. As a result, the final language gives the FCC the discretion 
to decide whether to make unlicensed use the primary or secondary use 
of the guard bands. Of course, any unlicensed use of the guard bands 
may not cause harmful interference with licensed uses of the spectrum 
that is auctioned.
  While there are other assertions made by Rep. Upton's insertion in 
the Congressional Record that are inaccurate, these examples should 
serve to show that his statement does not fairly reflect the intent of 
Congress in adopting the provisions. In light of the fact that the 
conferees chose not to adopt a detailed summary of the provisions in 
this portion of the Act, it will fall to the FCC's open processes to 
ultimately inform its implementation of the Act's language.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Communications and Technology, I want to provide an explanation of a 
key provision in the spectrum title of H.R. 3630, the recently enacted 
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which promotes 
competition and ensures a vibrant wireless marketplace.
  Section 6404 enables participation in a spectrum auction if a person 
``complies with all the auction procedures and other requirements to 
protect the auction process established by the Commission'' and ``meets 
the technical, financial, character, and citizenship qualifications 
that the Commission may require under section 303(1)(1), 308(b), or 
310'' of the Communications Act, or would meet those qualifications by 
means approved by the Commission prior to the grant of the license.
  A similar provision was included in the version of H.R. 3630 passed 
by the House in December, however, the Conferees made three important 
modifications. First, they added the requirement that an auction 
participation must comply with ``auction procedures and other 
requirements to protect the auction process.'' This ensures that the 
FCC can ensure the integrity of each auction.
  Second, they added a requirement to ensure the FCC has the authority 
to design auction rules, such as divestiture plans, and require a 
winning bidder's compliance prior to the grant of the license.
  Third, and importantly, the Conferees added language stating that 
none of the limitations on the FCC's ability to prevent a person from 
participating in an auction ``affects any authority the Commission has 
to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, including rules 
concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.'' This 
provision is critical to ensuring that the FCC can meet its statutory 
obligation to ensure competition in the wireless marketplace by 
avoiding an excessive concentration of licenses through auction-
specific rules.
  I'm pleased the Conferees saw fit to balance the original House 
language with this savings clause. As Americans increasingly depend on 
wireless services for both voice and data, this legislation makes 
substantial new spectrum available for auction and ensures that the 
FCC--by rulemaking--can adopt rules enhancing competition, consumer 
choice and innovation.
  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:

                             [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

[[Page 2059]]


     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.''

                          ____________________