Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment because I believe in a free and open Internet.

It was December 21, less than 2 months ago, that the Internet lost its freedom when the FCC, on its own, initiated an order, a rule, to start regulating the Internet.

Now, who believes that by regulating it you are creating freedom?

When the system was unregulated and when the FCC couldn't micromanage the Internet was during the time when innovation and investment occurred on the Internet and in the cyberworld. That's when we got the eBays, the Hulus, the Apple TVs, and all of the great applications that we use today. So, when I go back to my district and look my constituents in the eye, I can honestly say I am the one fighting to keep the Internet free and open.

There are three points that we need to discuss here today: First of all, the regulation of the Internet by the FCC is not a congressional initiative. It was three votes on the FCC while Congress was away. Now they think they've got the power, but that's under dispute. There is already a lawsuit telling them they don't have that authority. I don't believe they have the authority. It was an incredible stretch by the FCC to take a sentence out of section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996 that actually used a phrase about data and that the FCC can't put up barriers. Somehow they assume, now that they have power from that phrase, they can start implementing and putting in barriers.

I worry that these new rules and regulations controlling the Internet will stifle investment in innovation in the long run. Let's look at what this order does that will affect investment.

On the investment side, the power that the FCC has sought to regulate

says that, in the cyberworld, there can't be discrimination. Who wants discrimination unless you find out that it's maybe a business model? For example, as a typical business model, you pay for what you use. If you're at 1 megabit, that may be $14; 7 megabits of speed is a higher price; 20 or 30 megabits is going to even be a higher price. The issue is that some people now say that that is unreasonable discrimination.

In fact, I have an email newsletter from a friend of mine who runs a software company that can stop viruses. I am a client--or soon won't be. But listen to this. This is their interpretation of the FCC's net neutrality, ``What Net Neutrality Means for You.''

Here is what it says: ``Deregulation,'' which is what we are being accused of doing, which is regulating the Internet, ``could mean higher Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models that offer speedier downloads to higher-paying customers.''

That is the current business model. You will pay for what you use. If the business model is struck down by the FCC, you won't have the investment. You won't have an expansion of the Internet.

I think it will stifle innovation. Frankly, the creator, the Godfather, the grandfather of the Internet, Dr. David Farber, agrees with this position. He has co-written an article that basically says, if you put regulators in charge of the Internet instead of engineers, it will reduce innovation. It makes sense, because now, if you're a big enough company--like a Google or an eBay--you just hire lawyers and lobbyists to go and lobby the FCC instead of hiring engineers to innovate.

[From the Trend Micro Consumer Newsletter, February 2011]

What Net Neutrality Means for You

Net neutrality has been in the news for some years now, but

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just released

some important new rules on the topic. ``Net neutrality''

refers to the principle that Internet service providers and

the government shouldn't restrict content or service levels

for different users. In other words, supporters of net

neutrality think that ISPs shouldn't favor one user over

another when it comes to Internet access.

Net neutrality opponents argue that intentional content

blocking and performance degradation is more of a theoretical

problem than a real one. They also argue that less

regulation, not more, is what's required to create greater

competition among ISPs and better service levels for

everyone.

For consumers, deregulation of the Internet could mean

higher Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models

that offer speedier downloads to higher-paying customers.

Some people also worry that allowing businesses to choose

what content or sites they'll offer to whom will result in

the commoditization of a formerly free and open environment,

akin to the evolution of television from an essentially free

service to a highly fragmented and fairly expensive one.

The FCC's new rules appear to favor net neutrality

proponents. They require ISPs to be more transparent about

network performance and management; they prevent fixed (as

opposed to wireless) service providers from blocking content

(for example, sites owned by their competition), and they

don't allow ISPs to discriminate against specific

applications (such as Netflix, BitTorrent, or Hulu). In other

words, you can expect things to pretty much remain as they

have been--for now, anyway.

Will the gentleman yield?

If you yield, it will solve the question.

Yield to me, please. Give me a little bit of respect.

I spoke one time, which is right now. I don't know who you're confusing me with or why you're standing up right now.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It's interesting that the gentleman calls it political welfare for elected officials. We should remember why this was created and when it was created. This was created after Watergate, and it was created as an understanding that we needed to move more and more to a situation where folks with a lot of money would not go around controlling our elections. The gentleman calls it political welfare for Presidential candidates, but, in fact, without this, it is totally in the hands of people making donations; whereas, here, it is the average American citizen who gets a chance to donate to this campaign.

We know that a lot of the amendments that will come up today are directed not necessarily at issues but, I believe, and many of us believe, are directed at who is the resident of the White House right now. We have an election coming up in 2012, and I think some would rather have an open-ended private contribution situation where a lot of very wealthy people in this country control the giving to elections. I really think that this is an amendment that sounds like a savings, but it isn't. It is part of many amendments we will see today to strike at this particular President and at the White House and at the expenses that have to do with the President of the United States.

So I would hope that folks understand first of all why this was created, why it's been important, why Presidential candidates accept this kind of funding, but, most importantly, why it allows the American taxpayer the ability--the ability--to decide if he or she wants to participate in having something to do with how the election gets funded.

No one is forced to do this. This is just an opportunity for the average American to participate. So I really hope that, in a bipartisan fashion, people turn this down and reject this amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It shouldn't surprise me by now, but it's amazing how folks will continue to get up during the day, during the year, during the next 2 years in support of the big guys against the little guy. And so the FCC ruled, and ruled in a way that protects and keeps the Internet open for all of us, and we should remember that.

It issued an order providing for a version of net neutrality that allows the FCC to regulate how Internet service providers manage access to content, requires certain transparency from the providers about their policies, and requires reasonable management of traffic on their networks. Now, all of a sudden there is such a reaction to simply setting some rules.

While we all use the Internet, there are still many parts of this new service behavior that have not been looked at and where it allows some folks to just overrun other people. And if there was ever a decision made by the FCC that's in favor of the consumer, this is one of them. So, of course, we will try to scale it back.

But there are other issues here. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and, as such, I think it's the greatest committee and the most important committee in the history of man- and womankind. But I know that there are times that even we should not take up an issue that belongs to people who are much more qualified and have the time to sit down and look at it carefully. And when I say ``qualified,'' I know that scares a lot of people. We're all qualified, but there are some people who pay a lot of attention to this issue on a daily basis. And we have the folks from the Commerce and Energy Committee who have done a lot of work, and my first feeling here is that this should be left to the authorizing committees to continue to work on. In fact, they have been holding hearings and doing that kind of work.

One of the great virtues of the Internet: its openness. The ability of so many people to connect with so many other people without interference from companies providing the service. The FCC has been the guardian of that openness and needs authority to continue to do so.

The Internet has become more and more important in our lives, and we need to allow the FCC to play an appropriate role in making sure that it continues to remain accessible to everyone as a level playing field.

The FCC's ability to address other Internet policy concerns such as privacy and accommodation for people with disabilities is also at stake.

Now, for Members who are on the floor who may be new to Congress, let me just alert you to something. You are going to see amendments today and during this Congress telling the FCC not to get involved. Then you are going to see some issues come back that haven't been around for a few years about certain personalities on radio and TV, and you are going to see the same folks who are telling the FCC to stay out of it telling them to get into it and control what those folks say on radio and TV. And that's going to create a big debate once again. So we have to be careful what we wish for. Do we want less involvement? More involvement? We should be consistent.

Lastly, I really believe that this should be left to the authorizers to continue to work on, a ruling by the FCC to be respected at this point, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of my Energy and Commerce Committee colleague, Mr. Stearns, as well as Mr. Terry and Chairman Upton, and my appropriations colleagues, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr. Graves of Georgia.

We all want an open and thriving Internet, and that Internet exists today. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse, thanks to our historical hands-off approach. Changing direction now will only harm innovation and the economy.

I am bringing up this funds limitation today to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from spending funds to implement its network neutrality rules regarding the Internet. It is a stopgap measure while we work toward passing a more permanent solution, a Resolution of Disapproval, H.J. Res. 37, which would nullify the rules themselves. And I would encourage everyone who cares about keeping the government out of the business of running the Internet to cosponsor that resolution.

Before we even get into the harm the network neutrality rules would cause, it is important to realize the FCC's underlying theory of authority would allow the Commission to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from the Congress. In essence, the FCC argues it can regulate anything if, in its opinion, doing so would encourage broadband deployment.

I am relieved, however, that the FCC declined under its newfound authority to regulate coffee shops and bookstores, airlines, and other entities. Now, this of course means that the FCC believes that if it had not so declined, it would have subjected WiFi and coffee shops and bookstores to government management.

If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan. Recall that the FCC concluded that consumers' concerns over privacy are deterring broadband. So does that mean the FCC can regulate Internet privacy?

The national broadband plan also addresses health IT and distance learning, smart grids, smart homes, smart transportation. Can the FCC regulate all these matters, too, in the name of promoting broadband? Under the FCC's rationale, its authority is only bounded by its imagination.

The Internet started as a Defense agency project to connect computers at research facilities. It did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until it was opened up to free enterprise to participate in. And the American entrepreneurs and innovators did what they did best: They grew jobs and they created new technology.

As early as the 1970s, the FCC took a hands-off approach to data services. FCC Chairman William Kennard reaffirmed this approach during the Clinton administration. In rebuffing requests to regulate cable Internet access service, Chairman Kennard explained in a 1990 speech, and I quote, ``The fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because, from the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the Internet.''

There is no crisis warranting departure from this approach. Most everything that the order discusses is either an unsubstantiated allegation or speculation of future harm. The FCC even confesses in its order that it has done no market analysis. It only selectively applied the rules to broadband providers, shielding Web companies.

If the mere threat of Internet discrimination is such a concern, and if the FCC has done no analysis to demonstrate why one company has more market power than another, why would discrimination by companies like Google or Skype be any more acceptable than discrimination by companies like AT&T or Comcast?

Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.

Section 230 of the Communications Act makes it the policy of the United States to ``preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.''

Statutory statements of policy are not grants of regulatory authority, but they can help delineate the contours of

that authority. In light of Congress' statutory pronouncement that Internet regulation is disfavored, the FCC's theory of regulation by ``bank shot'' stretches too far.

At bottom, this is little more than an end run around the D.C. circuit court's April 2010 ruling in the Comcast case that the FCC failed to show it had ancillary authority to regulate network management. Therefore, I urge your support of this amendment, as well as your support of H.J. Res. 37, our resolution of disapproval.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment which would provide more funding to New York under the Urban Areas Security Initiative. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague from New York.

The Republican's funding bill that we are debating today is, in many ways, putting the future of our Nation at risk. But the cuts made to Homeland Security grants are literally putting our communities at risk and in harms way.

Under current funding levels, the Urban Area Security Initiative provides grants to 64 metropolitan areas, including New York City. As we are all keenly aware, New York City is at the top of the target list for terrorists wanting to strike our country. It is clear that we must do what we can to rein in spending by the federal government, and this requires making difficult choices, but New Yorkers and the American people rely on homeland security measures to keep them safe on their way to work, home or while touring New York City.

I believe that we have to make smart choices, and cutting $12 million that could help New York City prevent the next terrorist attack on this country is not a smart choice. But there is a way to protect our Nation's most-vulnerable targets without adding to the deficit and the amendment I have offered today with my good friend and colleague from New York accomplishes both goals.

Our amendment limits the number of metropolitan areas that are eligible to receive Urban Area Security Initiative funds, increasing the share each eligible city receives. Currently, this Continuing Resolution that my colleagues on the other side of aisle have brought to the floor cuts funding for these critical grants by $87 million. New York City officials estimate this cut will result in a loss of $12 million for the city. That means $12 million less for important technology investments; $12 million less for critical personnel; $12 million less for training for police and firefighters; $12 million less for ongoing counter terrorism operations and overall emergency preparedness.

Mr. Chair, less than ten months ago, Faisal Shahzad attempted to set off a car bomb in Times Square, putting at risk the lives of thousands of New Yorkers, along with visitors from across the country and around the world. The risk to New York City is real and we must remain vigilant.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and ensuring that the funds we are spending on the Urban Area Security Initiative are going to the cities that are the most at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment by my distinguished colleague from California.

This isn't that complicated. It all gets down to the lesson that we all learned in grammar school: Honesty is the best policy. Not more complicated or not more complex than that. Honesty is the best policy.

There is not a Member of this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, who doesn't believe in the First Amendment. I believe in the First Amendment. I believe that in a democracy you can say almost anything you want about almost anybody. You have the right to say what you want. But people have the right to know who is funding your message.

When people turn on their television sets and they see a political commercial making outlandish claims, they deserve to know whether that commercial is being funded by a foreign-owned corporation. They deserve to know whether that commercial is being supported by a special interest group. They deserve to know when they're watching a commercial about how evil a candidate is whether it is being funded by a special interest that is trying to defeat that particular candidate because that particular candidate supports the Environmental Protection Agency, supports clean air, supports clean water, and whether a special interest is trying to defeat that candidate because they want to dismantle the EPA. They have the right to know when one of those commercials permeates our airwaves whether those commercials are being funded by a special interest, for example, that wants to dismantle Federal inspections of meat because those Federal meat inspections are impinging on the bottom line of that particular special interest.

And so this is simply about the right to know. This is simply about upholding our right to say what we want when we want about whom we want but making sure that the American people, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, understand who is behind that message. This says that the American people and the American taxpayers shouldn't be unwittingly subsidizing dirty campaigns and secret donations. And that is why this amendment is so important, because the American people and taxpayers have the right to know and because honesty is the best policy.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

For the purpose of entering into a colloquy, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The language which is included in the explanatory tables provides $145 million for termination liability, or for continued system development and demonstration if certified by the Secretary.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that it is the intent of the committee to provide that flexibility. In fact, it is my hope that the Department exercises this flexibility to finish SDD activities and get something usable for the $3 billion investment that we have already made.

Here is a unique opportunity for a win-win situation. The Marines want to cancel the program, and they would normally pay a $145 million termination fee. Here is an opportunity, and we believe the contractor is agreeable, to forego the payment of the $145 million to them, but use that money to continue the program so that we at least get something for the $3 billion that we have already appropriated.

If I might expand on the colloquy, one of the problems that we have in our defense budgeting is that we too often start a program, spend a lot of money on it, and then decide to terminate it and get little or nothing for what we already did. So I believe it is important for the Department to have this flexibility as they negotiate the remaining activities for the fiscal year.

It is my hope the Department would be able to reach an agreement which would provide for an orderly conclusion of the fiscal year 2011 SDD activities and ensure the Marine Corps is able to harvest the advances in technology and beneficial equipment from the program, should the program not be continued.

The gentleman knows that he and I are on the same page on this issue. We want to get something for the money we've already spent, and we think this is a way out.

Will the gentleman yield?

My understanding is the $34 million would be to complete the research and the development of the program and to develop the new innovations to this particular vehicle.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing this matter before the House today. It is something that Mr. Dicks and I have worked with ever since these wars began--something that we cannot overlook, something that is extremely, extremely serious--a major debt that we owe to the men and women who serve our country as warfighters. And so I would say again to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), thank you very much for bringing this matter before the House today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We just had a very good colloquy on the issue of the EFV and we think we have a solution here that is good for the taxpayer, is good for the Marine Corps, and is good for the Marines. Here's an opportunity to get something for the $3 billion that we've already spent on this program. So I must be opposed to that.

On the V-22, we've already voted on that once during the earlier procedures on this bill. The V-22 did have some developmental problems years ago. The V-22 is a most effective weapon being used in Afghanistan. Because of the high mountains, because of the high altitudes, because of the weather, the V-22 is the vehicle of choice to move our war fighters from where they are to where they have to be.

I would hope that the vote would be the same on this amendment as it was earlier on the V-22, and that's to defeat it. Here is an airplane-- the Marines use this V-22 in Afghanistan on a regular basis because it has the capability that the CH-46 does not have. It has the ability for altitude, it has the ability for speed, and it is an outstanding aircraft today.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I thank the gentlelady for raising the question. It's something we should discuss more and more, and in fact, we have an obligation to our troops and our warfighters and our veterans.

I would say that Mr. Dicks and I worked long and hard to come up with the savings that we were instructed to come up with, and I can guarantee the gentlelady, we did not create anything that would have an adverse effect on our warfighters. It would not have an adverse effect on our Nation's readiness, would not have an adverse effect on their training and their preparation for war.

So I say to the gentlelady, I share her very strong commitment, and I thank her for her strong commitment, and our subcommittee has the same strong commitment. So I can assure her.

I can, and I would like to say that we look forward to working with you during this Congress as we do what it is that you want us to do.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think a little bit of telecommunications history would be appropriate at this juncture. First of all, just let me explain that AT&T and the regional Bell companies had nothing to do with the invention of the Internet. In fact, they were asked by the Federal Government in 1966 if they wanted the contract to build the packet switch network that would operate simultaneously with the Long Lines Network across the country, and AT&T and Bell South and Verizon all said, No, we don't want to build the packet switch network. Give it to someone else. And so they did. They gave it to a tiny company, Bolt, Baranek and Newman up in Massachusetts, which built the Internet across the country, designed it, without any of the Bell operating companies.

Back in the 1960s and the 1970s, when people said to AT&T and said to Verizon and said to Pac Bell, How about allowing people to be able to go out and buy another phone other than a black rotary dial phone? Well, here's what AT&T and Bell South said. They said, If you allow someone to buy another phone other than a black rotary dial phone, it could destroy the entire phone system of our country.

Back in the 1970s and early 1980s there were new companies called MCI and Sprint that wanted to provide competing long distance service. Remember, up until the mid-1980s, whenever grandma called from California, people would run to the phone saying, Run, it's long distance. It costs a dollar a minute. That was AT&T, that was the Bell system across our country. No competition, no incentive to introduce innovation, no incentive to lower prices, no incentive to make the consumer the king.

And then along comes the 1990s and 2000s. We here on the floor of Congress said we must introduce competition. This system--this AT&T, this Bell South, Verizon, Pac Bell system--it does not innovate. Not one home in America had broadband in February of 1996 when we passed the Telecom Act here. We had to order it. There were no broadband users in America in any home as we passed the bill.

So what we tried to do is to induce Darwinian, paranoia-inducing competition. What do the broadband barons seek to accomplish? They, as the private sector, want to quash competition. They don't ever and they never will invent a Hulu, an Amazon, an eBay. They will never invent any of these thousands of smaller companies which are the engine of economic growth in our country, which leads to our ability to export these products.

Verizon is not going to invent anything to do. What they want to do is squeeze the competitors. Price them out of the market so that they can maintain a monopoly or an oligopoly across the country. That's what this debate is all about. That's what the FCC rules are saying. They're saying that the new Steve Jobs, the new Bill Gates, the new Sergey Brin or Larry Page in the garage somewhere--and there are thousands of them across the country--must be able to get into the marketplace to create these new jobs without having to be tipped upside down and having every last cent poured out of their pocket to pay these large companies. That's what this debate is all about. It's about whether or not we want vigorous competition in the marketplace. Those who are opposed to the open network, those who are opposed to giving every competitor equal access with the biggest broadband behemoth, that is what this debate is about.

They're covering it as though the government is really trying to control the Internet. Not so. They are siding with the broadband barons against those thousands of companies who are out there, who have reinvented telecommunications and information delivery in our country and across the planet just 14 years after the Bell system had 100 years to do so and had invented every single technology. They had invented them all, but they had no incentive to deploy those new technologies because they had a monopoly.

That's what the debate is about. If you vote for this amendment to give control by the broadband barons over the Internet once again, then you will see an inexorable, inevitable decline in innovation, in investment, in the private sector in these new products, these new technologies, these new applications, these new devices which are basically invented by hundreds and thousands of smaller companies in our country. That's the choice you have. Vote ``no'' on this amendment that shuts down the Internet.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has grown and grown and grown. But let me say that I would agree with the gentleman from Michigan, that we do not want the Asian carp to be able to get into the Great Lakes and into Lake Michigan first.

We have been working on this issue for 12 years and it really makes me upset to think that they seem to say, well, nothing has happened, and now it's an emergency, that the Asian carp are going to get into Lake Michigan. Let me tell you that we have set up two electronic dispersal barriers that are in my district to stop the Asian carp from getting through. This is the only path from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes and these two barriers are there.

The Asian carp are 42 miles from the city of Chicago, and this is an emergency and they have 42 miles to go. They have moved very slowly. Most of the population of the Asian carp are in the Illinois River around Channahon and right now, Channahon, they have a

contract with China to send the Asian carp over to be used as food in China.

The Army Corps of Engineers has been doing everything, and this is for the last 12 years, and the Congress has funded this, to make sure that those Asian carp never reach the Great Lakes. And if they do, it would be devastating. So things that have happened, the two dispersal barriers, the bubble barriers, electro-fishing, oxygenation, rotenone used to kill the fish, the bypass screening barriers to combat the Asian carp.

The problem is, and it's not just that the carp will get in there-- and the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of whether this was the only way that the Army Corps has said to stop the carp. It is not. And, in fact, the Army Corps has said that even if the locks are closed, the Asian carp will be able to get through those locks. So this is not the answer. The answer is to find all of these ways to combat that.

Invasive species are legally hard to deal with, but I think what Army Corps and all of the other agencies have been doing is something that we will be able to contain them and eventually--I've been on fish kills before. There were 22,000 fish that were killed to make sure that these Asian carp had not gotten beyond the barriers. Not one of these fish was an Asian carp.

But the problems that we're really facing are economic, devastating to the State of Illinois, devastating to the States below Illinois, down to the Gulf of Mexico, devastating to anyone that is using the locks to send goods back and forth.

And, in fact, we are facing 800,000 jobs lost with the barge traffic. People don't realize how much this is used because of the barge. You're not stopped by a barge when the gates go down. You're not stopped having a barge on the streets.

What has been determined is that if we were to shut down the barge traffic, it would take--oh, well, we just put them on the rail and we put them on trucks. If we were to put these on trucks, if you were to take and line up the trucks from the east coast to the west coast, line them all up across the country and then put them all back going back to the east coast, that's how many trucks would be to be able to move the asphalt, the salt, the coal, all of these big, big items that are used and used in the economic thing of things. As well as the food and everything else that goes up and down.

So I think that the Corps has testified that all the things are working. There is another study out that is going to be finished by 2015. We have got to get this right and they worked. But having worked for 12 years on this, it really upsets me when the gentleman states a study from Wayne State saying that it would only cost $4.5 million in damages for economic. Oh, no. The barge people, all the people estimate it's at least $29 billion.

This bill was to make sure that we can get the economy back, that we can create the jobs. This will destroy jobs.

And I'm also talking about flooding. It will flood the city of Chicago, and it will flood 124 suburbs. I urge a negative vote on this.

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Aderholt, first of all, I want to thank you for recognizing me and also giving me this opportunity to speak on my amendment which in consultation with you, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw and not offer.

That is amendment, I believe it's numbered 543 as printed. Mr. Aderholt, first I want to thank you for your pledge to continue to work

with your subcommittee and our full committee in your rigorous oversight of how the Transportation Security Administration is spending our scarce resources.

Unfortunately, the TSA bureaucracy has mushroomed since 9/11 from a workforce of 16,500 to 62,000 employees today.

The purpose of my amendment is my concern about the growth and administrative overhead--a huge number of personnel. TSA has more employees than the Department of State, the Department of Education and Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development combined.

Now listen to this: TSA headquarters, which is within a few miles of where we're standing, has 3,776--latest count--administrative bureaucrats employed, and 27 percent are supervisors of them. The average pay of these 3,700-plus bureaucrats here is $105,000.

Having helped create TSA in the aftermath of 9/11, I can tell you we never intended to support this kind of bureaucracy.

Now listen to this: if you think the bureaucracy in Washington is bad, there are 9,233 non-screener employees at the airports across the country. There are only 400 airports in the program. That's 20 bureaucrats per airport on average. This agency is totally out of control. In addition, in the 2012 budget, they have asked for 3,300 more positions.

In its nearly 10 years since creation, Mr. Chairman, TSA still lacks the institutional capacity to become a performance-driven organization.

On January 28, TSA shut down the most successful screening program we had. We set up two models, both with Federal supervision and one using private contractors. Every positive initiative we have ever gotten from TSA came from those programs, and they shut it down. In addition, one week later, they granted collective bargaining rights to TSA workers.

It is time that we dramatically reform TSA and cut its massive administrative bureaucracy. I will work with you. My cuts are not as surgical as maybe they need to be, but we will work with you to improve its mission. My goal is for less bureaucracy and to redirect TSA to its important security mission.

Finally, the failure of TSA puts this Nation at risk--read the GAO reports--with the total failure of the SPOT program, the behavior recognition program. Get the classified briefings on the failure of the advanced technology. They went out and bought $500 million worth of equipment, and spent another $500 million to install it. The failure is dramatic. You can read that as Members of Congress.

The failure of the pat-down program. Everyone is getting patted down. Do you think that's helpful? I implore Members to get a classified briefing and see, again, the results of that failure.

The failure to have even a pilot identification. Six years ago, I asked for a pilot identification that's durable, not something that looks like it came out of a crackerjack box, with the pilot's photograph on it and a biometric measure. After spending millions of dollars, TSA gave a card, but the only pilots on it were Wilbur and Orville Wright. The biometric measure that they put in is a total failure. Any credit card you have in your wallet has a better capability than what they have produced.

It is failure after failure, and they put us at risk. I thank you for offering to work with me to make the necessary changes.

Will the gentleman yield?

The number is 62,000, of which we have 3,770 administrative personnel in Washington, DC, and another over 9,000 administrative personnel in non-screening positions across the country.