Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. I don't rise in opposition to disclosure. I think it's a good thing if it's done in the proper venue in the proper way. And that's not on this particular bill. A similar amendment was brought before the full committee and rejected by the full committee. It has since been rewritten. It's better than what came before the full committee, and I commend my friend from California for that. But the way that this is written, I believe that it has lots of unintended consequences that can be difficult and doesn't accomplish what she's trying to accomplish in an effective way. For example, my colleagues in the Chamber, you all would have to disclose, when you go to inquire about the purchase of time now in radio, TV, or satellite, your $10,000 donors. So any PAC that gave you $10,000 in the last 2 years would have to be listed. Now, my colleague from California, that would be like Abbott Labs and Google that gave you 10, and I've got some that gave me 10. You'd have to do that and disclose. You wouldn't have to do money you got from others. But here's the deal, because I looked this up last night about one in the morning. I couldn't sleep, I was on west coast time, and so I went to the site where this stuff is disclosed--for us, that's the Federal Election Commission site. So I could easily find all the documentation for my dear friend--I just happened to go to her contribution history for last year. And only $30,000 of the $296,817 that she got from PACs would be disclosed as a result of this, which is about 10 percent. But she was able to have another $400,000, or thereabouts, from individuals. So you're really down to only seeing a tiny little window of about 5 percent, or less, that would be disclosed in the public file of a broadcast, satellite, or cable operator, or radio, which, by the way, is all on paper, at least for now, and not online. I was able to ferret out this information online last night, one in the morning, or thereabouts. The other thing it does, I think it draws in every candidate in America the way this is listed. Because when you read the actual language of the amendment, it talks about political programming. And it defines it as meaning ``programming that communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance.'' So I'm thinking about a city that's having a fight with the Federal Government over some new Federal regulation. That would be an issue of national importance; or if in a local community they were fighting about something, again, that, I don't know, Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights. That would be an issue of national importance. Further, the language talks about a legally qualified candidate for public office. So that would seem to be any candidate for public office at any level. So then you have public broadcasting that could be pulled into this because they have people that underwrite programming that deals with issues of national importance. So could that be that every public broadcaster would have to disclose somehow everybody that's paying for that programming? Then you have the creative minds of the people who try to hide from disclosure. This would be real simple under this amendment because it says the look-back period is back to the last Federal general election. Whatever donors you've had at $10,000 would have to be reported before you could inquire about buying time and purchasing time. Well, it's not a reach to think that these clever little rascals out there would simply create a new committee every time they wanted to buy time. That's easy to do. They've got lots of money; they've got lots of attorneys. They just create the committee to attack Anna Eshoo, 2012. And it has no prior donors from the 2 years, so they escape this. And who among us here thinks that they won't do that? So I don't think the amendment is written to accomplish the goal, and the goal is best achieved and accomplished through the Federal Election Commission, not the Federal Communications Commission. So we're about two letters off. I think it really raises a host of issues that are unintended consequences and should be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Diaz-Balart, I have an amendment I am going to offer.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, throughout the course of the debate today on the floor we'll have amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats, a total of potentially 10. This is one offered by my colleague from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), which we will be supportive of. There will be at least one amendment on the other side we will be supportive of as well. This one will require the FCC to make additional disclosures on its Web site and in its annual budget regarding its processing of Freedom of Information Act requests. I think this does fall in the category of reforming how the FCC operates in a positive way. It would increase the Agency's transparency with regard to how it complies with Freedom of Information Act requests. Additional disclosure and transparency is a good thing, and the burdens on the FCC are clearly modest, completely. So I would urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. This amendment would exempt from procedural reforms any FCC actions with regard to broadband access in rural areas. Now, I know the gentleman talked about representing a large rural district. My district in eastern Oregon is larger than his State of New York. It is 70,000 square miles. In fact, it's bigger than any State this side of the Mississippi River, I'm told. This is my bill. I am an advocate for it because, in many respects, it's bad process at the FCC that harms those least able to afford big high-rise towers of lawyers to come and oversee the FCC. That's why we need a more open and transparent process. This would exempt the FCC from using good process when reforming the Universal Service Fund, for example. I know the gentleman is fairly new here, but he may not have caught the part about the FCC doing a data dump in the final hours before they promulgated their rule on the Universal Service Fund, which meant it was very difficult, if not impossible, for anybody who really cared deeply about the build-out of broadband or of the future of the USF to go through literally thousands of pages. I used these earlier today in the debate on the underlying bill. We have binders and binders and binders of the actual documents that they dumped at the last minute. It's just not the way to do the public's business. So I understand what the gentleman is saying. Mr. Terry, who is the sponsor of this bill, is a long-time advocate of rural broadband build- out, as am I, which is part of what we are hoping to accomplish in other legislation as well that has become law. The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, the voice of rural carriers--the very people you're trying to help and genuinely so with your amendment--actually supports the underlying bill. Surely they don't think it will slow down rural broadband deployment. So I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to rural broadband build- out. I think his amendment actually goes in the wrong direction in that it reduces transparency, accountability, and access for the very people we're trying to help. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. WALDEN. No, I won't. What we have here is a problem that you exempt from the process. You don't protect the consumer. There are many of us who, after this debate concludes and we move on, would be happy to work with you on legislation because I think this is a real issue that we all share, and that is protecting privacy. This doesn't do that. In fact, you could open the door where they could allow employers and licensees to go after your stuff, and you wouldn't know it until they published the rule. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman, and I would just like to draw your attention to several points. First of all, we had a very open process with hearings in the Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee, and this issue didn't come up. We had a markup in the subcommittee, and there were no amendments offered of this nature. We had a markup in the full committee, and there were no amendments offered. We had an opportunity for all Members to offer amendments on the floor, where they could be thoughtfully debated, and this amendment was not put in this context. Now it suddenly appears before us at the last minute of this day. So it would have been helpful to have been able to have had this discussion because many of us share the concern that the gentleman is talking about. I think it's awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that. Here is the flaw: Your amendment doesn't protect them. It doesn't do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they're proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn't know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here. There is nothing there to enforce. What this motion to recommit does here at the last minute--and if we could have had time to work this out ahead of time, we might have figured out something we could have both agreed on.

Mr. WALDEN

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. 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. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. No, I won't, not at this moment. Don't leave. I'll get to you. I've got to finish this because this is the problem with the dysfunctional nature of what happened here in Congress 2 years ago, which then, when we took the majority in January of last year, we inherited--no budget--just like our colleagues on other side have not produced a budget in more than 1,000 days. They still haven't produced a budget. If you and I were on a board of directors of some nonprofit and if we didn't do a budget every year, they'd rightfully say that you're being malfeasant, that you're not doing your job. So the House passed a budget. The House, under Speaker Boehner, also funded the government. That wasn't easy, but we only have a majority on a good day in a third of the process, so we had to work with our friends on the other side and with the President downtown. At the end of the day, though, we funded the government for the rest of the fiscal year. You talk about anxiety in the markets and all that. By the way, in having brought some stability back to government, in having seriously said we have to pay for spending and cuts by cutting spending, the market now is at the highest level it has been since the crash in '08 or thereabouts. So it is coming back. Now, that doesn't help the average Joe out there on the street necessarily or people trying to find work, and there has been a lot of effort to try and deal with that, but we have a long way to go. I agree with my colleague that none of us is happy at 8.3. None of us was really happy at 10 or, in parts of my district, at 16 percent unemployment, so we have a long way to go. I would yield just briefly.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think this has been a good, thoughtful, and lively debate because I think we've been able to show each other, through you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the House did its work. House Republicans put forward a proposal to extend unemployment benefits for a full year, and we paid for it. We put forward a proposal to give working middle class taxpayers a reduction in the amount they pay into Social Security, but we backfilled that money so that Social Security's trust fund was not depleted. And we said to our physicians out there who take care of our seniors that they would have certainty and not face a 27.4 percent cut in their reimbursement rates under Medicare and that they would have that certainty for 2 full years. So the facts are clear what the House passed. We also included in this legislation to try and drive new job creation in the high-tech sector by auctioning off spectrum that would generate $16.7 billion and upwards of 700,000 jobs. That's a high-end number, but let's say it's half that. There are estimates all over the place. But a few hundred thousand jobs would be a really great thing, especially in technology and innovation and everything that would come from that. That's in this bill. What we got back from the Senate was 2 months--2 months--2 months-- and a failure to even come to the table. So the Republican conferees from the House have been willing to meet anytime, anywhere. And, in fact, under Chairman Camp's leadership, we have met in public with our counterparts. Frankly, we've had some good discussions across the table. I want to make that clear, as well. Between the Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, those of us on the conference committee I think you would say, even though we may have disagreements, we've had good discussions. And now we need to get the work done. In order to get the work done, we have to have some alternative proposals from the Senate, which hopefully we're going to get, maybe even tonight. I think that would be helpful because then we would know what their position is, because this is kind of a different sort of conference. We had a year bill; they had a 2-month bill, and most of that 2-month bill became law. So it's been kind of an awkward conference for the Senate to try and figure out how to do this, and the House has a full year or 2-year extension, depending upon the items at issue here. So we'll meet again tomorrow at 10 o'clock, is my understanding, in conference, either in private or in public. I don't know. That will be up to the chairman. But in any case, I don't care when or where. I'm ready. Mr. Reed from New York who spoke earlier is ready, and my other conferees are ready. We were ready in December to get this done, we really were, and we still are. And we're committed to the working American people and those who are trying and struggling to find jobs to make sure they have that unemployment insurance. They deserve that, they need that, and we're committed to providing that. So, Mr. Speaker, on that note, I don't think there will be any objection on this floor to approving the motion to instruct conferees to get their work done by the 17th. I'll certainly support it, as I have and nearly everyone in the House has. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. How much time does each side have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. WALDEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what Americans really want is a job. I don't think there's any disagreement between us that that should be our goal. That's why as part of what the Republicans put in the bill that went to the Senate is a plan to auction off spectrum that would generate upwards of 700,000 jobs, according to some studies--700,000 jobs. It will spur innovation and spur technology. That's in this bill that we're fighting for because this is a sector that can grow good-paying, family jobs that can keep America in the lead on innovation and technology. So the legislation, the American Jobs Act, which I authored, is in this legislation. It's a part of this bill. It would generate net $16.7 billion to help pay for extending unemployment or to help pay the Social Security trust fund so that it doesn't have to be depleted. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to set the record straight. First of all, my colleague who just spoke, it was his party that raided Medicare as part of the President's health care legislation by $500 billion. That's a fact. Now, when he says that my party ended Medicare, that is not a fact. And, in fact, PolitiFact, the independent arbiter of what we all say here to see if it's truthful, said that the notion that that is true is the biggest untruth of the year. They gave it that award because they knew that it wasn't true. And I know it's not true. Now, I'm trying to figure out what my friend, and he is my friend, means when he said that this isn't somehow raiding Social Security's trust fund because the payroll tax that is at issue here that is being reduced by 2 percent is the payment that, if it were made, would go into Social Security. That's the payroll tax. I won't yield at this moment. You wouldn't yield to me. I'll let you use your folks' time. Now that is being offset. And by the way, the offsets that we are talking about as part of this legislation almost in every case received bipartisan support in this House, and sometimes overwhelming bipartisan support. And many of those offsets were actually recommended by the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, as part of a different package as things that he thought made sense. And so we said, you know what? Maybe there's some common ground here. The President recommended some of these offsets as ways to reduce government spending and pay for other things as part of the supercommittee process. And so if he thought it was okay there, maybe we can finally find some common ground, and we'll say you like that there, and so we'll use that here so we don't increase the deficit, don't hurt jobs, and don't leave our kids with an unimaginable debt. So Republicans are the ones who've said, We're not going to let you raid Social Security. We'll reduce the payroll tax payment, the Social Security tax payment, but we're going to offset it so that the fund is not any further reduced. I think that's an important principle that I would hope we would all share. And so I just say that it was the President's health care plan that took $500 billion out of Medicare. I don't know, I'm a fan of Medicare. I've seen what it does for seniors. I saw what it did for my parents and my wife's parents. I want to make sure it's preserved for the future, just like I want to make sure Social Security is as well. That's why we shouldn't rob the fund. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Reclaiming my time, that's cute and clever. You and I know that's not exactly the same issue. And I would assert that if a different President, a different party had done that, you might share the same concerns that some of us have. We were not officially in recess, but they were not in town, either. Both Chambers open and close every 3 days. That's how it's been done in the recent past.

Mr. WALDEN. I believe it was.

Mr. WALDEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to just point out a couple of things so we get on the same terms here. I was actually here until the 23rd day of December, as were the Republicans appointed to be conferees. I don't know that Leader Pelosi had appointed Democrat conferees at that point. I don't think in that process she had yet, although she did somewhere thereafter. Maybe on the 23rd, but not in between. The Senate wasn't here. And even though we tried to get them to appoint conferees prior to that, they did not. So on the 23rd is when we finally said, It's over. They weren't coming back, and we ended up agreeing to the 2-month extension, which leaves us here. Now, my friend from New Jersey talked about this should have been done by January 17. Well, there's only one problem with that: the Senate didn't come back into session until the 24th of January. The conferees could have met during that period. In fact, we would have met during that period; but, frankly, there were Members--probably from both parties and both Houses--who were not available to meet. And I know for sure in the Senate, some of the conferees were not available to meet because they weren't exactly in the country. So that wasn't going to happened until we were both in session. I believe the State of the Union was Tuesday night, the 24th. I believe that's the day the Senate came back. I may be off by a day. But that's why this thing didn't start up. Which, by the way, is why in December we begged the Senate, Why don't we work this out December 23? Why don't we work this out December 22, 21, 19, 18, go on back. We were ready and we stayed, and they chose not to. They had a big vote and said, We're going to do 2 months. We'll see you at the end of January. So that is where we are.

Mr. WALDEN. How much time remains on each side, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. WALDEN. I'm going to reclaim my time because you actually have time, and you might want to get some yielded on that. The point is, the discussion we are having right now is on how to pay for it. That is the discussion we are having with the Senate, and there is disagreement. But there should be no misunderstanding that it was the Republican House that put forward the 1-year extension of the payroll tax cut for these same working-class folks. It was the Republican House that put forward a 2-year fix for the docs so they had certainty in their medical practices and could continue to see seniors on Medicare. And it was the House that passed the 1-year extension on unemployment. We just think the ``spend it even when you don't have it'' days are over. This country's job outlook is affected because of this country's government's failure to cut spending. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. There is nothing that has a longer chance of living in America than a government program created in Washington. We have got to do a better job. It's not easy. The hardest thing you can do in this job is to tell somebody ``no.'' But you know what, for too many times, too many people in this Chamber over the years have only said ``yes'' to spending and creating new programs. That has to change. So we did have a debate about increasing the debt ceiling. And for the first time we said, It's not going to be that automatic Democratic Dick Gephardt rule that said, when you pass a budget, you raise the debt ceiling automatically. We thought it was time to have the debate. As painful as it was, as difficult as it was to say, We have to offset this increase in deficit by cutting spending, I know, as a small business owner, our small business would have been broke if it had been run as this government runs. Now there are good times and bad times in government, and you can work around some level of borrowing and some level of deficit. But it isn't far from this porch out here to the debt crisis Greece has and Portugal has and the European countries have and are facing right now. We have time to fix that; and that's why we're saying rather than cut the funding going into Social Security and not replace it with something else is a mistake. That is what we're saying. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALDEN. Wait a minute. I've got a couple of other things I was going to share with you first. So that's what the House passed; right? What we got back from the Senate was the 2-month short-term that we're all upset about. Because I agree with you. Having been a small business owner, there were a couple of things that were bad about that 2-month extension, which we actually, in the end, tweaked and fixed. One is just doing the payroll--trying to get the formulas, the calculations, the software in your payroll system. All that had to be changed for employers, and we actually got that fixed at the end, which is a good thing. Going forward, we need long-term predictability and certainty, and that's what Republicans thought and Speaker Boehner thought in the beginning, which was, why don't we stop kicking these cans down the road on short-terms and get away from these problems that were such an issue last year that riled the markets, as one of our colleagues said earlier. Why were we forced into this mess with short-term continuing resolutions that time and again we came right up to the brink on? Why? Because, under Speaker Pelosi, my friends on the other side of the aisle did not produce a budget nor did they fund the agencies for the full fiscal year.

Mr. WALDEN. In reclaiming my time, I don't disagree with that. I didn't support some of those bailouts either, although I did vote to make sure their financial system didn't collapse. My point is we faced some tough problems. We actually got over the hump in a bipartisan way, and we can do that here. The interesting thing is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are the ones who, I believe, in most cases voted against the long-term payroll tax reduction the Republicans put forward; they voted against the 1-year extension of unemployment and the 2-year doc fix.