Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) whether or not he is opposed to the conference report.

Madam Speaker, in that event, I claim the time in opposition to the conference report.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I have taken the unusual process of claiming time in opposition to this bill. I have done so so I would have sufficient time to place in context the bill that we're considering. I do not rise to necessarily defeat this bill. I'm going to vote against this bill. I'm for almost all of this bill. What we are funding this bill with was unnecessary, unfair, and ought to be rejected.

I want to say at the outset that my friend Mr. Camp and I had a very positive discussion. I believe that Mr. Camp and I could have reached an agreement, which would have put me in support of this legislation. We didn't get there. We tried late in the game, and we didn't get there. I regret that. I think Mr. Camp tried.

I know that everybody on my side would have supported the agreement that Mr. Van Hollen and I put forward. That agreement would say, as the current agreement, that the only individuals paying for this bill out of 315 million Americans are the 2 million civilian workers who work for us, who work for all of us, who day after day, week after week, month after month make sure that we give services to the people of the United States, protect the United States, ensure that our food is safe, ensure that we have FBI agents on the job, make sure that at the Defense Intelligence Agency we know what other people are doing. These are all our civilian employees, highly skilled, highly trained, highly educated, and, yes, highly motivated. Every day they give outstanding service to the people of the United States. We talk here and we pass laws here, but none of that talk and none of those laws makes a difference unless somebody implements what we say and the policies that we set.

This Congress is on the path to being the most anti-Federal worker Congress that I've served in. I'm going to place that in context for you, which is why I wanted the time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whether most of you know this. I saw a gentleman from Florida who's been here for a couple of months pontificate that I didn't know anything outside of the Beltway.

I was the sponsor of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act. And George Bush Sr. signed that act, and we worked with his OMB to get it. And what does it say? Federal employees cannot get a raise unless the private sector gets a raise. We're precluded from getting a raise unless the private sector gets a raise. And what does it further say? That the private sector--which is the economic cost index, by the way, in case you want to know exactly what the statistic is--says, we're going to take a half a point less.

So what have you done in this bill, unnecessarily? Because you're going to freeze their salary for a third year in a row. Bowles-Simpson said do it for three. But Bowles-Simpson said, Everybody ought to share, everybody. We ought to get $1 trillion in revenues, $1 trillion in cuts. Everybody.

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.

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield myself 1 minute.

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.

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 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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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?

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. 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.'

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I come to the floor today in strong support of this conference report as a result of a lot of long hours, hard work, and determination on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol. This agreement shows the American people that Congress can govern and Washington can work.

First and foremost, this legislation prevents a tax increase on 160 million Americans. As a conservative, I look at the agreement and see some very big wins. Chief among them are the most significant reforms to the Federal unemployment program since it was created in the 1930s, all designated to promote reemployment and paychecks instead of unemployment and benefit checks.

While extending unemployment benefits through the end of the year, this agreement creates a national job-search standard for the first time, covering benefits from beginning to end and requiring every American to look for a job if they receive unemployment benefits.

The agreement allows States to spend unemployment funds on paying people to work instead of just sending them a check when they are out of work. It ensures taxpayer funds are properly spent by permitting drug testing under commonsense rules that help people get ready for a job. It expands work-sharing programs to help avoid layoffs in the first place; and it improves fiscal responsibility by not only recovering more overpayments, which currently total a staggering $12 billion per year, but also by making sure that this program is fully paid for.

And the last item is something I want to focus on for a moment. All government spending in this agreement is fully paid for, and not with one dime of higher taxes. All spending on unemployment and health care are fully paid for. This is a significant victory for those of us concerned about the national debt and the culture of deficit spending that has gripped Washington for far too long.

For example, the unemployment program has added nearly $200 billion to our Nation's debt over the last 4 years. No more. We paid for it in December, we're paying for it today, and we set a clear precedent that Congress must live within its means, no more spending unless its paid for. Period.

Now, I understand this is a compromise, and not everyone likes everything in here. If I had my way, the bill passed by the House in December would be the law. That was the only bill that extended these programs through the end of the year. It was the only bill that was fully paid for, and it was the only bill that ensured seniors and their doctors were protected from dramatic cuts for at least 2 years. But we don't control Washington.

Democrats still control Washington. They control the Senate, and they control the White House. Yet utilizing the process that dates back to our Founding Fathers, House Republicans have scored significant victories in this conference committee. Our Founding Fathers recognized that Washington would not always be united. In their wisdom, they knew that even divided government must still govern, and that's what we're doing here today, governing and providing a solution to the very real problems Americans are facing in their daily lives.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation, which pays for new spending with spending cuts, prevents working Americans from getting hit with a tax increase next month, reforms our employment programs, and ensures seniors continue to have access to their doctors.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in strong support of this conference report. As a result of a lot of long hours, hard work and determination on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the Capitol, this agreement shows the American people that Congress can govern and Washington can work.

As a conservative, I look at the agreement and see some very big wins. Chief among them are the most significant reforms to Federal unemployment programs since they were created in the 1930s, all designed to promote reemployment and paychecks instead of unemployment and benefit checks. This agreement:

Creates a national job search standard for the first time, covering benefits from beginning to end, and requires every unemployed American to look for a job if they receive unemployment benefits;

The agreement allows States to spend unemployment funds on paying people to work, instead of just sending them a check while they are out of work;

It ensures taxpayer funds are properly spent by permitting drug testing, under commonsense rules that help people get ready for a job;

It expands work-sharing programs to help avoid layoffs in the first place; and

It improves fiscal responsibility by not only recovering more overpayments, which currently total a staggering $12 billion per year, but also by making sure that this program is fully paid for.

That last item is something I want to focus on for a moment. All Government spending in this agreement is fully paid for--and not with one dime of higher taxes. All spending on unemployment and health care is fully paid for. This is a significant victory for those of us concerned about the national debt and the culture of deficit spending that has gripped Washington for far too long.

For example, the unemployment program has added nearly $200 billion to our Nation's debt over the last 4 years. No more. We paid for it in December, we are paying for it today, and we have set the clear precedent that Congress must live within its means. No more spending unless it is paid for, period.

Now, I understand this is a compromise and not everyone likes everything in here. If I had my way, the bill passed by the House in December would be law. That was the only bill

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.

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), a member of the conference committee.

(Mrs. ELLMERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the House- Senate conference committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

If we're prepared to close, I will yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 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.

I support the conference report.

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.

It continues the 2 percent payroll tax through the calendar year; and it is not offset, as was true of the House Republican bill in December. It had massive harmful cuts that would have been countercyclical and that would have undermined further economic growth. In that respect, this is very different.

It's also very different in terms of unemployment insurance. Let's be clear about that. The bill that the Republicans passed through the House that was the main bill before the conference committee would have slashed 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for millions of Americans in every State regardless of the unemployment rate in that State. This bill essentially changes what was in the House bill. It extends unemployment insurance through the rest of the year up to--this is the maximum--up to 89 or 99 weeks through May, up to 79 weeks through August, and up to 73 weeks through December, depending on the level of unemployment.

Let me just say, our chairman has talked about job search and now a requirement that people be looking for work. That's already in the law of every State. That isn't a meaningful reform. In terms of job search, everybody not only registers, but also, as I said, is required to look for work. I find it an insult to the unemployed of this country to say, essentially, that we're simply giving them a check instead of a paycheck.

If you talk to the unemployed, through no fault of their own, they are looking for work. They had a paycheck in most cases year after year after year. They worked for their unemployment insurance. To simply label this an effort to get people off of unemployment insurance-- unemployment insurance is not a welfare program. People work for it, and they need that subsistence as they look for work.

The bill that passed through the House had a GED requirement. That is out. To say to people you don't get a check if you're not in a GED program when there are 160,000 people in this country who are on waiting lists for education, that's out of here because it deserved to be out of here.

In terms of the drug programs, the effort to test people for drugs, it is so limited. So it is really masking the reality to call this major reform. It freezes the reimbursement for physicians through December.

Let me just close by saying a few words about the limits on this bill, because there are limits.

It would have been much better to treat unemployment insurance as an emergency, as we have for 20 years. This is the highest level of long- term unemployed on record in this country, which is another reason not to blame the unemployed for the unemployment, as the House bill in December did and some of the rhetoric on this floor continues to do. We were not able to obtain this, and I want to say this in terms of a precedent. In my judgment, it should not serve as a precedent. The precedent is 20 years treating it as an emergency.

Let me also say, it is deeply unfortunate that some on the other side insisted that Federal workers carry a disproportionate share of the cost of this bill, even after there were put forward bipartisan pay- fors that would have covered the cost of UI. In the bill that came through here on a partisan basis in December, there would have been an impact on Federal employees of $67 billion. This bill has a provision that will apply to pension programs, $15 billion over 10 years compared to the $67 billion that was in the bill that the House Republicans passed.

Let me just say in closing, this argument provides tax relief to working families, certainty for unemployed workers that a framework is in place for the year, and a real commitment--and I emphasize this--by us Democrats to aggressively continue to pursue efforts to strengthen the economy and boost job growth so that those hardest hit by the recession can return to work as they desperately want to.

I just want to reiterate how wrong the Speaker was when he said:

Let's be honest. This is an economic relief package, not a

bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs.

The opposite is true. The provisions in this bill will help to continue economic growth, the payroll tax. Most economists say that. Unemployment insurance people spend, and that is not only good for their subsistence but good for the economy of our country. For all those reasons, I urge support of this conference committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Waxman, a member of the conference committee and the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

It's now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, Ms. Pelosi, from the great State of California.

I now yield 2 minutes to another conferee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the conference committee, Mrs. Schwartz from the State of Pennsylvania.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished Representative from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

How much time is there for each?

I yield now 1 minute to the very distinguished Representative and a leader in our caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

How much time is left for Mr. Camp and myself?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think this has been a healthy discussion, and I think all of us respect very much the positions that have been put forth. I think we need to look at where we came from.

The main bill before the conference committee was the bill that passed on a partisan basis here in December. It essentially would have countermanded the effort at continued economic growth through the payroll tax bill. It would have required very inimical pay-fors. It would have threatened the pay of 160 million people. That bill also would have drastically cut unemployment insurance.

Cutting unemployment insurance is not reform. It is not reform. People have worked for it. These are people looking for work who can't find it. We have worked so hard--so hard--to defend and to preserve the lifeline of unemployment insurance as best we could; and essentially it does preserve it in major ways through the rest of this year. For seniors, we have made sure that health care and their physicians are available.

With respect to differing points of view, I strongly urge support for this conference committee report. It is said it isn't perfect, and it is often said no bill is perfect; but we have worked to preserve the basic ingredients to promote economic growth and to preserve the unemployment insurance so critical for the unemployed of this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.