Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, from the State of Maryland.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, nobody is going to deny that there is a problem with medical malpractice. The issue is whether the State of Tennessee can adopt a law to solve its own problem the way the State of California has done, the way the other States have acted. Let the States operate in this area which has been traditionally reserved for them. Washington does not have all the answers. Imposing one system on the whole country is not the way to go. I would like to at this point yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. We want to hold down the costs in health care for Medicare, itself. The cost of health care is going up for all health care coverage; but Medicare, if it goes up too much, it's a real problem. So in the Affordable Care Act, we try to put in place ways to hold down costs by reorganizing the delivery of care. We have some other strategies. We hope it will work. But for a backstop, if it doesn't work, there is this Independent Payment Advisory Board, and they will give us some idea as to how to hold down health care costs. Now, it seems to me, the biggest objection is, once they give their recommendations, we can accept them, we can change them, or we can let them go into effect. I think the biggest problem is that if nothing happens, those health care costs go up; and that's what preserves the right of Congress, is to let nothing happen. And this is not how to hold down costs. This is to let the costs go up. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our idea for Medicare for the future is to make it better, not to eliminate it. In the Affordable Care Act, we provide help for seniors to pay for their prescription drugs, especially when they're in the doughnut hole. We provide money so they will be sure to have preventive services without having to pay for them so that we know we can prevent diseases that we otherwise have to pay to treat. We have extended the life of the Medicare trust fund. We're always looking for ways to hold down costs in a reasonable, rational way. One of the reasons we have very high costs in Medicare is, when a doctor and a patient get together, the doctor decides on how many services are going to be paid for, especially when that doctor gets paid more money for more services. Therefore, we've got to look for alternatives to that. Now I have a feeling the doctors like the idea of deciding how many services are going to be paid for, but we just can't afford that. So we have ways to hold down health care costs by trying to bring people together in affordable care organizations, ways for doctors to manage the care from physician to physician in a more efficient way, and we have a backup if these other things don't work--to have an advisory committee to give us their ideas; but their ideas cannot lead to rationing health care or making people have to pay more money for their insurance or to restrict benefits or modify eligibility. That's what we propose to do. The Republicans propose to take away the assured guarantee of services under Medicare and require people to go find a private insurance plan, if they can afford it, over and above the voucher, which would never keep pace with the increase of health care costs. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my California colleague (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if you listen to the comments that were just made on the House floor, it would be better to leave over 30 million people without health insurance because they want to see doctors when they get sick. The legislation, the Affordable Care Act, provides more training for doctors and higher reimbursement for primary care doctors, and it provides for the opportunity to get a medical education with a payback in underserved areas. We're going to get more doctors, but we shouldn't say that those who have health insurance should turn their backs as the Republicans, I feel, are doing to all of those who have no insurance whatsoever. I want to yield, at this point, 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Virginia (Mr. Scott) so he can further speak on this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN. We have one.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. WAXMAN. I'd like to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman and ask him to yield to me.

Mr. WAXMAN. The problem that we keep facing is rapidly rising health care costs. It's not just for Medicare; it's for private insurance. It's for anybody who has health coverage that costs of health care are going up rapidly. The approach of Medicare has always been to look for ways to hold down the cost. There was a time when ophthalmologists would charge a fee for removing the cataract and then ask for another fee for inserting the lens. Well, that made sense when that surgery was brand new, but they didn't want to give up the two fees that they were receiving because it would be a reduction in their reimbursement. But Medicare said no, that really doesn't make sense. Medicare does a lot of things to hold down cost, and then private insurance picks them up because so often they make sense.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. The way to hold down cost is to try to reform the way health care is delivered. Medicare tries to do that. If we don't do it that way, the Republicans would say that private insurance will be able to control it because that's all people are going to be able to get. No more Medicare. They will have to buy private insurance and let the insurance company tell the doctor and the patient what they will be able to do with their trying to hold down cost, without regard to the Medicare patient. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to congratulate my dear friends Toni and Bruce Corwin as they are honored by Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills at the 5th Annual Beverly Hills Purim Ball where they will be presented with the synagogue's Humanitarian Award on February 29, 2012. I cannot imagine a more deserving couple to receive this award. For decades the Corwins have worked tirelessly within the Los Angeles Jewish community and our community at large. In addition to admiring their remarkable work, my wife, Janet, and I are personally grateful for the many years of friendship we have shared with Toni and Bruce. Toni and Bruce have truly accumulated more than a lifetime's worth of professional and personal achievements. They have proven time and again that passion, commitment, and persistence can turn ideas into reality. Their longtime work on behalf of the Jewish community ranks them among the very top supporters and advocates in Los Angeles, and they have been an inspirational voice in higher education for decades. Toni and Bruce are being honored by Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills for the extraordinary leadership they have demonstrated for many years. In addition to providing a strong religious foundation, the synagogue, under their guidance, has developed many secular programs dealing with immigration, health insurance, the Middle East, Jewish-Muslim relations, art, dance and intergenerational theater. Beyond the achievements Toni and Bruce have reached at Temple Emanuel, they have been recognized in the community as well. Their leadership has included membership on Mayor Tom Bradley's Blue Ribbon Committee of 40, presidency of the Coro Foundation National Board of Governors, serving as a trustee of the California Community Foundation and receiving the prestigious Pioneer of the Year Award from the Foundation of Motion Picture Pioneers. I am delighted to congratulate my dear friends, Toni and Bruce Corwin, and ask that my colleagues join me in sending our very best wishes on this great occasion.

Mr. WAXMAN

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 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. 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.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I'll vote for this bill, but I do so with reservations. We should have done better in meeting our responsibilities to the American people. There are important provisions in this legislation that will do a lot of good for families and our economy. We are extending the payroll tax reduction for millions of families, extending unemployment insurance, and ensuring that doctors serving seniors will be paid for their services through the end of year, and we are making spectrum available for new innovations in wireless communications. While these are provisions I support in the conference report, there are significant missed opportunities and poor choices that affect Federal workers and preventive health programs. Nowhere is this lost opportunity more apparent than our failure to end the Medicare physician payment formula, known as the SGR, and set us on a path to a fair and reasonable physician reimbursement system. Having to settle for another temporary solution, which leaves us at the end of the year even deeper in the hole in terms of a permanent solution, is a real failure and one that fails Medicare beneficiaries and doctors alike. I did not agree with the cuts in reimbursement for hospitals and nursing homes and, unbelievably, in prevention services in order to pay for the physician reimbursement levels at a reasonable rate. I'm deeply concerned about the Federal employees' provisions. I think that is very unfair. I do not have similar reservations about the spectrum provisions in the conference report. Our bipartisan, bicameral negotiations resulted in legislation that will make new spectrum available for broadband services, will create a nationwide band of spectrum that can be used for innovative, unlicensed applications, and will provide for the construction of an interoperable broadband network for first responders. Taken as a whole, I believe we should support this package even with its serious shortcomings. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for H.R. 3630. Although I will vote ``yes,'' I do so with reservations. We could and should have done better in meeting our responsibilities to the American people. Nevertheless, I commend the members of this conference for the positive things they achieved. First and foremost, we are doing a lot of good for families and our economy in this legislation. We are extending the payroll tax reduction for millions of families, helping them in a difficult economic time and providing much-needed stimulus to our economy. We are extending unemployment insurance, which is a lifeline to those out of work. We are ensuring that doctors serving seniors will be paid for their services through the end of the year. And we are making spectrum available for new innovations in wireless communications at the same time as providing public safety with a national broadband network. These spectrum policy decisions will be an engine for economic growth. While these are the provisions I support in this conference report, there are also significant missed opportunities and poor choices that affect federal workers and preventive health programs. Nowhere is the lost opportunity more apparent than in our failure to end the Medicare physician payment formula known as the SGR and set us on a path to a fair and reasonable physician reimbursement system. Having to settle for another temporary solution, which leaves us at the end of the year even deeper in the hole in terms of a permanent solution, is a real failure, and one that fails Medicare beneficiaries and doctors alike. We had the opportunity to use the war savings from Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for this solution. The Republicans said no. At the minimum, we should have used these savings to pay for the debt caused by previous short-term temporary fixes. The Republican leadership refused to allow that to happen. As a result, we are, once again, forced to accept a short-term ``solution'' that simply stops an immediate crisis, but ensures that physicians in Medicare face another emergency a year from now. This is a poor result. It is not right to ask Medicare beneficiaries to bear the cost of the failure of an arbitrary formula written into the law in 1997. It is not right to ask other providers, particularly safety-net providers serving a disproportionate share of low income seniors and individuals with disabilities, to take cuts in their payments for the same reason. And it certainly is not right to reduce our commitment to prevention by robbing the Prevention and Public Health Fund of critical dollars that could help us keep people healthy instead of paying for them when they are sick. I am also deeply concerned about the federal employee provisions. It is simply unfair to ask working Americans who happen to serve the taxpayers through their work for the government to pay for half the costs of continuing unemployment benefits for the entire nation. This denigrates public service, and it is unworthy of us to impose such an involuntary sacrifice on them. Moreover, it is a bad precedent to be paying for this emergency economic relief at all. We have not done so previously, and I am sorry we are doing it in this legislation. Although I have serious reservations about these provisions, I have none recommending that the House adopt the spectrum provisions in the conference report. Our bipartisan, bicameral negotiations have resulted in legislation that will make new spectrum available for smartphones and tablets, will create a nationwide band of spectrum that can be used for Super WiFi and other unlicensed uses, and will provide spectrum to fund the build-out of an interoperable broadband network for first responders. Establishing a nationwide public safety broadband network allows us to complete the major piece of unfinished business from the attacks of 9/11. These provisions will promote innovation and economic growth while contributing $15 billion to pay for this legislation. These spectrum provisions are the result of many members' hard work. Two Senators not on the conference made an enormous contribution, Senator Rockefeller, the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Reid, and I thank them for their leadership. On the conference, Senator Kyl and Chairmen Upton and Walden deserve great credit for their work in crafting this pro-growth, pro-innovation compromise. Taken as a whole, I believe we should support this package, even with its serious shortcomings. It is not what any of us would have written. This is indeed a compromise. But the alternative would be worse. Failure to pass this package would let the middle class tax cut lapse and undermine our economic recovery, cause the unemployed to lose their benefits, and slash physician payments in Medicare so that our seniors and disabled lose access to their doctors. It would also mean a halt to progress in developing the wireless superhighways of the future and ensuring we have an emergency broadband network in place to respond to terrorism and urgent events. That is why I support this conference report and ask my colleagues to do likewise. House of Representatives, February 2012. Summary of the Spectrum Provisions Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff The payroll tax relief conference has reached agreement on landmark bipartisan legislation to ease the nation's growing spectrum shortage, create a nationwide, interoperable broadband network for public safety officials, and raise $15 billion. The legislation gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to pay TV broadcasters for underutilized broadcast spectrum and resell it at higher prices to wireless companies to meet the growing spectrum demands of smartphones and tablets. This provision is expected to make a large band of prime spectrum available for auction, raising over $25 billion. The bill provides $7 billion in auction proceeds and spectrum worth $2.75 billion (called the ``D Block'') to a new ``First Responder Network Authority'' to build a broadband network for police, firefighters, emergency medical service professionals, and other public safety officials. A key provision in the legislation authorizes the FCC to create guard bands in the broadcast spectrum auctioned to wireless carriers that can be used for innovative unlicensed uses like Super WiFi. The legislation agreed to by the conferees is based upon two existing pieces of legislation: H.R. 3630, the spectrum provisions passed by the House, and S. 911, the bipartisan legislation approved by the Senate Commerce Committee. The conference report incorporates most of the auction-related provisions included in the House legislation, with changes regarding unlicensed spectrum and FCC auction rules. The public safety provisions are based on the national model outlined in S. 911, with changes to ensure flexibility for states. The Auction Provisions The auction provisions in the final legislation are largely the same as those in H.R. 3630 as passed by the House with two significant exceptions: (1) the provisions relating to unlicensed spectrum and (2) the provisions relating to FCC auction authority. Unlicensed Spectrum: Unlicensed spectrum has been an engine of economic innovation and growth, enabling new forms of communication like WiFi and Bluetooth. Many advocate that allowing unlicensed use in the broadcast frequencies could lead to new breakthroughs like Super WiFi. The conference report advances this goal in three ways: (1) it gives the FCC the authority to preserve existing TV white spaces; (2) it gives the FCC the authority to optimize these white spaces for unlicensed use by consolidating them into more optimal configurations through band plans; and (3) it gives the FCC the authority to use part of the spectrum relinquished by TV broadcasters in the incentive auction to create nationwide guard bands that can be used for unlicensed use, including in high-value markets that currently have little or no white spaces today. Nationwide, unlicensed access to guard bands will enable innovation, promote investment in new wireless services, and enhance the value of licensed spectrum by protecting against harmful interference and allowing carriers to ``off-load'' data to alleviate capacity concerns. FCC Auction Rules: Under current law, the FCC has broad authority to craft auction rules in the public interest. The agency has used this authority to ensure that communications markets remain competitive and spectrum is not concentrated in the hands of only one or two providers. H.R. 3630 would have restricted the FCC's future ability to limit participation in spectrum auctions, regardless of the size or market dominance of potential bidders. The conference agreement modifies this prohibition by expressly preserving the FCC's ability to ensure competition through spectrum aggregation limits and other rules. The legislation also drops a provision in the House-passed bill that would have limited the FCC's authority to set license conditions, such as open-internet requirements, on auctioned spectrum. The Public Safety Provisions The conference report provides our nation's first responders with access to the spectrum and advanced wireless broadband communications they need to protect the public and to communicate with each other across the country. The legislation provides for the construction of a nationwide public safety broadband network, as envisioned in the Senate bill, with an ``opt-out'' option for states that demonstrate the capacity to build their own networks and connect them to the national network. The legislation creates a First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and provides FirstNet with $7 billion and a license to use the ``D Block'' and adjacent public safety spectrum to build the nationwide public safety network. To ensure national interoperability, the legislation also creates a technical advisory board at the FCC to develop interoperability standards. States that want to construct their own portion of the national public safety network have the option to apply for federal grants to build and 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. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Last week, the Republicans filed this bill, this transportation bill that the Secretary of Transportation called the worst transportation bill he had ever seen. The Republican leadership realized that not even Republican Members would vote for this monstrosity of bad policy, so they've chopped the bill up into three parts and hope to get a separate majority on each part. This way, House Republicans hope they can pass the bill and give their Members deniability at the same time. Now, that's not a transparent process or a fair one. It's a way to hide what's really going on from the American people. Some Republicans don't want to vote for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; others don't want to vote for the money for the highways because some of the right-wing groups in this country are against it. So we've got this shell game going on. The bill before us, H.R. 3408, contains the text of a very bad bill that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We considered that bill earlier this month. The bill provides a legislative earmark that would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to issue a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline within 30 days of receipt of an application. Now, existing law requires the President to make a determination whether this pipeline is in the national interest. Serious questions have been raised about whether this pipeline is in our national interest. It is being built with steel imported from South Korea and pipes from India. The oil it transports, I believe, will be exported to China. Meanwhile, the risks of spills from that pipeline that could contaminate drinking water will be borne by American families. These are factors the President should take into account. But this law ties his hands. It mandates that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approve the pipeline without addressing any of these issues. In fact, it requires approval before we even know the route that the pipeline will take. Now this follows some Keystone Kops activities on the Republican side of the aisle. They've worked themselves up about this pipeline. So in order to get unemployment insurance or middle class tax breaks, they put in the extension for 2 months of those areas, a requirement that the President decide the issue within 2 months. And the President said, I don't have all the information, I can't make that decision. So he said, I'm not going to approve it within 2 months. I'll consider it later, but I'm not going to approve it. Suddenly, the Republicans realized they were outsmarted, hoisted by their own petard. They forced the President to make a decision, and he made a decision against them. They don't want to take that chance again. This bill would put in an exemption from all the laws for one pet project, from the ordinary permitting requirements that apply to every other oil pipeline crossing our borders. During the committee process, we asked a simple question: Who benefits from this unprecedented congressional intervention into the regulatory process? Many media reports said that a private oil company, Koch Industries, is one of the ``big winners.'' But the committee refused, even though the Democrats asked them, to even inquire from the company, Koch Industries, whether it had a direct and substantial interest in the pipeline. They wouldn't even ask that question. Could you imagine? They talk about they're against earmarks, then when there is an earmark that they want, they won't even tell us who benefits from it? Under this bill, the oil industry gets a conduit for exporting tar sands products from Canada to China. India gets the opportunity to provide pipes to build it. South Korea gets a market for its steel. But what do we get? Midwestern farmers and ranchers will have their land seized through eminent domain and may lose their vital water supplies to a pipeline spill into the Ogallala Aquifer. Oil prices in parts of the United States will increase as fuel supplies come into their area, and we are left with a dirtier fuel supply and higher emissions of carbon pollution, worsening the climate change that is already starting to afflict our Nation. I urge all Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee,

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds if he would yield to me for further comment.

Mr. WAXMAN. We heard debate from the other side about refining oil. I think we ought to refine our debate because, on the other side of the aisle, a comment was made that extremists are pushing opposition to this pipeline. From what I heard from Mr. Rush and what I understand the case to be is that those who ordinarily make this decision should have all the facts, and I don't think that is an extreme position at all. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this latest attack on Federal workers. H.R. 3835 is not a balanced proposal. Federal employees have already been asked to make significant sacrifices to help reduce our debt. So far, they have contributed $60 billion through a two-year pay freeze and they face the prospect of furloughs and layoffs in the coming years as the Budget Control Act's automatic cuts reduce agency budgets. Despite this, House Republicans continue to push for expanded concessions in compensation and benefits. H.R. 3835 would require Federal workers to forego an additional $26 billion in pay over the next decade even though Federal employees actually earn less than their private sector counterparts when factors such as skill and education level are taken into account. H.R. 3835 is not a serious attempt to address the budget deficit. The $26 billion it would raise over 10 years would cover only 2 percent of the projected budget deficit for FY 2012 alone. True deficit reduction will need to be balanced and sacrifice will need to be shared. H.R. 3835 is also misguided policy. The Federal government should not be an employer of last resort. Our citizens depend on our ability to recruit the most qualified individuals to treat our wounded veterans, inspect our food, oversee nuclear power plants, protect us from terrorism, and provide a broad range of other critical services. While H.R. 3835 would get us almost nowhere in tackling our long term debt, and shield the wealthiest individuals and corporations from making any kind of contribution, it would have a devastating long-term effect on the quality of government services and operations. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for yielding that time to me, Mr. Pallone. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1173. This bill is another Republican attempt to tear down and dismantle programs that provide health care in the United States. Now we have Medicare, and the Republican alternative to Medicare is to just shift more costs on to seniors, give them a voucher and let them pay more if they want more than that voucher will provide, and that voucher is not going to provide much over time. On Medicaid, they just want to shift the costs on to the States so the States can tell a lot of very poor people, I'm sorry, we don't have enough money to take care of you, but we're not required to under Federal law. They said that they didn't want the Affordable Care Act; they wanted to repeal it. But they haven't told us what they want to put in its place. They said that this was going to be repeal and replace. They have proposed a repeal, but we have no proposal to replace it. Republicans now want to take a part of the Affordable Care Act, the CLASS program, that is the one and only significant new initiative to put in place to deal with our country's long-term care crisis. Those who are supporting this bill say that the CLASS Act is not the right solution to our long-term care problem. Well, I don't think it's perfect, either. But the solution is to amend the program, to make it work, not just repeal it and leave nothing in its place. If we leave nothing in its place, we have the status quo. And what does the status quo mean? The status quo means that for some who are on Medicare, they will have a minimal amount of coverage for their long- term care services. And to get any other help, people will have to go through the indignity of impoverishing themselves. A system that is in place for the very poor would be called upon then, the Medicaid system, to cover their long-term care needs, especially if they had to go to a nursing home. Well, many elderly and disabled individuals will be forced to leave their families and community of friends for institutionalization because that's all that some States will cover. Families will have to do what they call ``spend down.'' They have to spend their money until they're in poverty. So they lose their dignity along the way in order to qualify for Medicaid assistance. The CLASS Act was trying to take some of the burden off Medicaid, some of the indignity away from seniors. Medicaid expenditures for the most part are paying for long-term care, and that will escalate even further. In 2010 alone, Medicaid spending for these services cost some $120 billion. And we have a baby boomer population that is continuing to age. The number of Americans in need of long-term care assistance will grow, compounding each of these problems. So what is the Republican answer to this problem? Nothing. Just repeal the program that attempts to give some effort to deal with these costs for people who need long-term care. Let's not lose this incremental piece. Let's figure out how to add on to it, how to change it, but don't repeal it. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1173.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this has been a terrible year in Congress. The intransigence of the Republican leadership and the Tea Party Republicans has brought us to the brink of crisis again and again. And now we're playing another game of chicken with the lives and well-being of millions of American families at stake. Did the Republican leadership in the House just learn today that at the end of this month, in 10 or 11 days, these tax breaks, the unemployment insurance, and the physician reimbursements were going to expire? No, they learned about it earlier. So they packaged a bill. And the only way they could figure to pay for it was to take it out of the Federal employees, ask the elderly to pay more for their Medicare, to cut back on spending, never to raise taxes on people who make $1 million a year. The Senate had the same issue before them, and the Democrats there wanted to have a tax increase. They couldn't get that through. So the Senators negotiated a short-term extension for 2 months because they couldn't agree to 1 year, and that passed overwhelmingly. That is what we should be voting on today. Instead, starting January 1, the House Republicans are bringing a tax increase to 160 million Americans, forcing 2 million Americans to the edge of despair as their unemployment benefits run out, and scaring 48 million seniors who worry about their doctors opting out of providing services under Medicare. And to add insult to injury, this resolution seeks to impose the Republicans' extreme antienvironment agenda onto legislation essential to the economic security of the American people. This has been the most antienvironment House of Representatives in the history of Congress, and this resolution is a fitting capstone to this dismal record. House Republicans are holding payroll tax cuts, unemployment insurance, and payment to physicians under Medicare hostage to the rapacious demands of the oil and gas industry. The House Republicans want to force the President to approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. They forget that the future of our economy lies in clean energy, not increasing our reliance on the dirtiest source of gasoline imaginable. They would like to hold the pipeline as one of the prices for their blackmail, but they also want to give some other special interest favors; a lump of coal for American families, but at the same time they want EPA's public health standards, which would prevent up to 8,100 premature deaths and 5,100 heart attacks every year, they want to eliminate those public health benefits that come with clean air. And instead, they want provisions in this bill, which has nothing to do with this issue, they want these provisions to allow more mercury, lead, and arsenic pollution in the air we breathe. We've seen this over and over again. They cannot agree on a compromise to pay for anything. They cannot agree on letting something happen without putting in the anti-environmental riders. Once again the Republican leadership has shown the lengths to which they will go to impose their radical, extreme agenda, sacrificing the public health and welfare of the American people. The Senate at least came up with a bipartisan compromise for 2 months. This House Republican leadership will put us in a situation where all of these expiring provisions will in fact expire, and the American people will be done a great disservice by this action.