Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last night Roger Schlickeisen was honored for his 20 years' leadership as president of Defenders of Wildlife, where he became a key pillar of the American environmental movement.

The successful reintroduction of the gray wolf into the American West was an example of his tenacity, skill and his vision. Whether Roger was fighting to protect our environmental laws from assault or using them for their intended purposes, he showed how even in difficult times, people would respond to protect what they cherish. That is how he built Defenders of Wildlife into such a formidable political and policy force, increasing its membership 1,500 percent to almost 1 million people.

Whether taking his phone call, an office visit, or exploring the Arctic wildlife refuge with Roger, his passion was clear to me. Roger provided leadership that matters, which speaks volumes today and will far into the future. Thank you, Roger.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to emphasize what my friend from California just said. What the amendment does is to make sure that you add to the analysis the impact on clean energy jobs and clean energy companies. Why wouldn't you want to make sure explicitly that that is a part of the analysis?

I invite you to come to Portland, Oregon, where it is, I think, the wind energy capital. It's making a lot of difference in our community and across America. Wind energy, for instance, is the fastest growing in terms of installed capacity, and costs are going down. It is an area that makes a difference to the economy. What my colleague from California is urging is to make sure that it's a part of the study.

It is unfortunate that we're to this point this morning anyway. We started this odyssey in 1990 with the Clean Air Act. After 8 years of study at EPA, the conclusion was this is a real problem, and the Clinton administration and the EPA started the rulemaking process. The Bush administration drug its feet until 2005 with an inadequate response that was thrown out by the courts. Finally now, after 21 years, we're starting to move forward with something that wouldn't take effect until 2015. In the meantime, there would be many jobs that would be available in construction and in clean technology.

At least, at least, at least I hope you're not successful in stretching this out even further to delay the action; but at a minimum, you would think that you would want to have a full picture. Look at the people, like in my community, who are producing product and making it available for export.

Support this amendment.

I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy, and I appreciate your offering this amendment. My friends on the other side of the aisle can't have it both ways. There has been a lot of study. For heaven's sake, EPA has already estimated cost of compliance, less than $1 billion, and the savings to Americans from lives saved, health care costs avoided and days of work and school not missed between $120 billion and $280 billion. This is a part of the study effort that has been going on for 20 years.

We had hoped that on the 25th anniversary of the Clean Air Act in 2015 we would probably have full compliance. Yet we are quibbling here about things that EPA has been unable to monetize like a birth defect-- but for Heaven's sake, it's serious--in addition to the hundreds of billions that they can monetize.

It is, I think, unfortunate that if this approach is approved, it will enable the Chinese to get ahead of us again. Remember, I put in the Record last night the front page of the Chinese Daily where they are moving ahead to reduce emissions. They are willing to incur the costs because of the health benefits, but it's not enough for my friends on the other side of the aisle to go ahead after 25 years.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Parkrose, Oregon on your Centennial.

Founded by Italian, Dutch, and German farmers in the late 1890s, the community of Parkrose was incorporated by its business community in 1911 and quickly faced the challenges of rapid growth.

By the 1920s, the farmland that supplied nearby Portland with much of its food was developed into motels, serving the travelers that traveled from the Columbia Gorge into the ``big city''. Next came housing developments, changing the landscape even more. In the 1960s, the newly constructed Banfield freeway attracted motorists off of Sandy Boulevard, Parkrose's main thoroughfare.

By the time of annexation by the City of Portland in 1980, Parkrose had faced challenges as great as any part of the metropolitan area. Throughout, Parkrose has fought to retain its identity, as well as its farmland, and have kept its schools an important focal point for the community.

In more recent years, Parkrose has rediscovered its past, celebrating many rich traditions. From its schools and businesses to its community gardens, parks, local farms, and thriving Farmers Market, the residents of Parkrose continue to shape their community into one that will be treasured and celebrated 100 years from now.

I offer my congratulations to the good citizens of Parkrose, Oregon as they begin their next century.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As Washington appears to be trapped in partisan gridlock, sliding to budget paralysis and the potential of another government shutdown looming, there is one particular area that doesn't get the attention it merits, even as it is the key to our economic recovery. This is our serious and ever-growing infrastructure deficit. America's roads, bridges, water systems, transit, aviation ports all are in serious need of repair.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has, over the years, given grades every 5 years to the state of infrastructure in the United States. Sadly, the latest survey showed that we are still getting a failing grade, and the gap necessary to bring these resources up to standard is growing larger, over $2.3 trillion for 5 years to make it in a reasonable state of repair.

For example, we lose 6 billion gallons of water every day through leaks in aging pipes and sewer mains throughout the country. This is enough water to fill 9,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. If you laid them end to end, you could swim from Washington, D.C., to Pittsburgh in the amount that is leaked every single day.

But it doesn't end there. In terms of the sad state of rail, deteriorating bridges, here is an opportunity for us to step forward dealing with a serious challenge that threatens America's productivity, threatens America's environmental and physical health, and puts hundreds of thousands of Americans to work at family wage jobs virtually overnight.

Madam Speaker, in times past, investment in infrastructure has been something that has captured the vision for the United States; but more than that, it has been part of how we have repaired some of our problems fiscally.

Remember in 1982, Ronald Reagan approved, as part of his budget stabilization program, a 5-cent a gallon increase in a user fee for gasoline that helped put the budget in balance and be able to finance needed infrastructure.

In 1993, as part of the Clinton program that led to the first balanced budgets that we had seen in decades, every year the deficit declined until the last 3 years he was in office, three successive years of increasing budget surplus, while we had an unprecedented increase in jobs, they included a modest gas tax increase.

There are a whole host of areas for user fees. I have bipartisan legislation for a water trust fund that would deal

with the problem I mentioned a moment ago. We have the superfund tax on the petrochemical industry to pay for the damage to the environment that they created that expired in 1995 and has not been renewed but we still have the superfunds to clean up, pushing that burden on State and local governments and on businesses that are required to spend money that wasn't their fault, giving the petrochemical industry a pass.

There's an opportunity, Madam Speaker, as the supercommittee is meeting, for Congress to step up in a bipartisan way to have resources to help rebuild and renew America. We're falling behind the Chinese. We're falling behind the Indians, the Brazilians, and the European Union, even while unemployment in the building trades is 20 percent or more from coast to coast.

There's an opportunity here for us to be able to stabilize the budget, deal with the infrastructure deficit, put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work virtually overnight, and maybe, just maybe, work together to heal the frayed political process here in Washington, D.C.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I enjoy listening to the former chairman of the Commerce Committee in his argument on the floor. He gave us part of the story.

I find a certain irony, however. He talked about how he supported the 1990 Clean Air Act. Well, many of the arguments he makes that we're hearing here today could have been directed towards him and his own support in 1990.

But bear in mind what happened in 1990. It didn't impose a bunch of rules and regulations. It put in motion a process so that we would have those studies. From 1990 to 1998, EPA was studying the issue. They came to the conclusion that the study mandated under the 1990 Clean Air Act required that we promulgate rules to regulate this pollution.

From 1998 until 2005, the Clinton administration, and then the Bush administration's EPA, they kind of studied it. They came to the same conclusion. The Bush administration came up with rules that were so flawed they were thrown out by the Courts. It didn't meet the standard that was required by your 1990 Clean Air Act.

So here we are now, in 2011, 21 years later, talking about another study to delay it further, delay further what the gentleman, and I would say a number of Republicans on the Commerce Committee, supported in 1990. But now it's crunch time. We actually have to do something.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying we shouldn't pick winners and losers in the economy. Well, Mr. Chair, I find it ironic that this Dirty Air Act does pick winners and losers. Who are the losers?

I agree with my good friend from California, the ranking member, the losers are hundreds of thousands of people will die, get illness from cancer, asthma, lost school days, millions of lost work days, the lost quality of life that is documented beyond belief. This is real, and these people lose.

Who else loses?

The downwind areas lose because they will not be able to act to be able to deal with the problems that the pollution drifts over their jurisdictions. And as again my friend from Southern California pointed out, that means that local communities that don't have the protection because we can't stop the drift, they're going to have to do all sorts of things that are more expensive and less effective, and it's not their fault.

The losers are going to be the American economy. We will lose the economic benefits of getting the work from unions and contractors from pollution control. Bear in mind, pollution control devices are an export area. We have a net benefit. We make money exporting this abroad.

We lose the net economic benefit of the lost health. We bear the cost of unnecessary damage.

But there's another area of losers. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting, in December 2010, eight major CEOs sent a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal saying that they didn't oppose--that the EPA agenda would have negative economic consequences. Their companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation and maintaining reliability.

On March 16, 2011, six leading energy companies joined together to applaud EPA's release of one of their proposed rules.

The losers in the approach that you take are the early adapters, the people who took the law at its word and started cleaning up. They lose by taking the word of Congress that we were serious about reducing pollution, including one of my local utilities, Portland General that's moving ahead to close down a dirty coal plant to meet their responsibilities.

Who wins under the Republican approach?

Well, the winners, under the Republican approach, are those who profit from pollution: the people who are dragging their feet, who bet that we will, yet again, have another study, that we won't follow through. The winners under this are the people who are cynical, who think that they don't have to comply with the Clean Air Act.

I noticed that today, in China Daily, dated September 22, the Chinese are talking about their tougher emission standards. They are talking about the fact that there's a pushback from their utilities because there's cost of compliance. But they know that there is a health benefit. They can't continue to pollute. And there's an economic benefit for people who move ahead with the compliance. The Chinese are going to make money by being cleaner, adopting technologies to reduce emissions.

Mr. Chair, I'm embarrassed that we have, after 21 years, a proposal to yet again delay implementation, that they're picking winners and losers, putting people who profit from pollution ahead of people who are responsible. It's just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, last week in a speech before the Economic Club of Washington, Speaker Boehner used this tried and true Republican applause line: ``Excessive regulations are making it harder for our economy to create jobs.'' But then he followed up with a real- life example. ``Last month, Federal agents raided Gibson Guitar factories in Tennessee. Gibson is a well-respected American company that employs thousands of people. The company's costs were $2 million to $3 million. Why? Because Gibson bought wood overseas to make guitars in America. Seriously.''

Well, seriously, Mr. Speaker, you were seriously--well, not necessarily you, I know you can't write all of your speeches, but you were done a disservice by your speech writers who could have done a little more research about the background of what was happening there. The Federal Government was involved with enforcing the Lacey Act which actually makes it easier to protect American jobs and manufacture here at home.

In 2008, I was pleased to be part of leading an effort working with the Bush administration in a bipartisan fashion to amend the Lacey Act, which bars trade in illegally harvested species to include trade in illegally harvested timber. Illegal logging threatens some of the world's richest and most vulnerable forests, but more important, it threatens tens of thousands of jobs right here in the United States. Over 50 trade associations, nonprofits, and unions representing the entire range of the U.S. economy signed statements supporting this amendment to the Lacey Act and its proper implementation.

This is serious business. People who cheat by knowingly using wood products that are bought illegally overseas cost American jobs. The estimate was over $1 billion every year in lost opportunities and lower prices because of the illegal logging. We wanted to increase American jobs here at home, so we created a mechanism so that people would have an incentive to stop cheating, to stop competing unfairly against American businesses that are following the rules.

It's interesting to note that in 2009 when Gibson was first brought to the attention of the enforcement agencies and a process started, because of concerns that they may have taken illegal timber from Madagascar, on the floor of the House, over 400 Representatives voted in favor of a resolution I had condemning illegal logging in Madagascar.

We find there are people right here in the United States who understand this dynamic. The success of the Lacey Act rests on a simple principle: rewarding companies that follow the law while shedding light on bad actors. It ensures that American business using foreign wood, like guitar makers, pay attention to the sources of their wood. We had very powerful testimonies of what happens in illegal logging. It doesn't just destroy fragile ecosystems and threaten a scarce and dwindling supply of rare species of wood, it destabilizes those countries. The people who are engaged in the traffic of illegal timber threaten, they corrupt, and sometimes they kill. It is possible to figure this out. People need to pay attention.

Guitar makers like C.F. Martin Guitar are strongly supportive of the law. I quote: ``I think the Lacey Act is a wonderful thing. I think illegal logging is appalling,'' the company's CEO,

Chris Martin, said in a recent interview. ``It should stop, and if this is what it takes to stop unscrupulous operators, I'm all for it.''

Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. Being able to have protections to protect American manufacturers from unfair competition by people who skirt the rules, people who cheat, is in everybody's interest. Let's let the process ongoing right now work its way out. Let's see if there's a problem. But by all means, we ought to protect the integrity of the Lacey Act, which is designed to save these tens of thousands of jobs here at home and the environment abroad.

Mr. Speaker, today, we move one step closer towards full equality by ending the immoral and irresponsible practice of discriminating against courageous Americans who want to serve their country. I am proud to have voted again and again for Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal because I know--and the military has told us--that ending this policy will strengthen our armed forces.

A comprehensive report from the Defense Department found that of the 400,000 service members and 150,000 military spouses, 70 percent of military personnel thought the repeal would be positive, mixed, or no consequence. This is a remarkable finding, and makes the policy seem all the more indefensible for the more than 14,000 service members who have been discharged.

Brave Americans have served and sacrificed in silence for years while the military enforced a discriminatory and harmful policy. Today this policy is officially a thing of the past, a relic of a different time.

The road to equality is long, winding, and will have many bumps along the way. Today, I have the 14,000 discharged service members in my thoughts as we celebrate the end of an era of discrimination. Tomorrow, we will get back to work, fighting for the Employment and Student Non Discrimination Acts, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act that will overturn DOMA.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed by the bill the Republican majority is bringing to the floor today. While I am used to the Republicans attacking new protections for American workers, this bill attacks and removes long-standing enforcement provisions of the National Labor Relations Board, virtually eliminating its protection for U.S. workers.

This bill prohibits the National Labor Relations Board from carrying out its mandate to prevent unfair labor practices and would even allow companies to move outside of the United States to avoid union organizing. In other words, this bill makes it easy for companies to outsource jobs to other countries in order to avoid paying our workers family wages, providing health benefits, and meeting basic safety and environmental obligations.

Under current law, it is illegal to retaliate against workers for union activity or to threaten workers to discourage union activity. Not only does the bill remove the power from the National Labor Relations Board to block such retaliation or threats, but the bill even prevents the Board from seeking such an order. Our laws may set forth strong worker protections, but this bill prevents the exercise of those protections, reducing those promises to empty words.

It is appalling to me that the Republican majority is considering rolling back provisions that have protected workers for decades. I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-considered legislation.

Mr. Chair, I voted in favor of House Resolution 2218, the Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter Schools Act. While I support most of the legislation, I have a few concerns which I would like to highlight.

I welcome the additional accountability requirements and the increased access measures incorporated into this legislation, as well as the specific encouragement for public charter schools and traditional public schools to share best practices. However, I am worried about the authority given to the Secretary to dispense charter planning grant money. We have often seen this discretionary authority used to coerce school districts or states into adopting policies that do not fit within the state's education framework.

While I appreciate the bipartisan nature of this legislation, and the important advances it makes for accountability and access issues, I hope that the discretionary authority given to the Secretary is used judiciously.

It is unfortunate there is an attempt to scapegoat America's unions for the economic problems that beset us.

After all, it was not America's grocery clerks, nurses, teachers, postal workers, and electricians who nearly caused the meltdown of the economy. It wasn't America's labor unions that were pushing for tax loopholes that made our revenue system a hopeless, inefficient mess. It wasn't unions that pushed for shortcuts for worker safety that produced the tragedy that we've seen in our mines. America's working men and women didn't engineer poor loans, systematically cheat consumers, and transform financial institutions into giant casinos.

No doubt there were some consumers who took unfair advantage as well as others who were not as vigilant as they should have been in the financial meltdown; but the truth is they were part of an unprecedented economic scheme that played on those weaknesses, the gullibility and some individual greed to make it into a vast industry.

Are there some areas where unions are too effective in securing benefits for their members? That probably depends on who you ask about the give and take of the collective bargaining process. The leadership of unions are, in fact, much more democratic than their corporate counterparts. Union officials are routinely challenged for reelection. There are insurgents even in the most powerful and entrenched unions, something one seldom sees on the boards of public corporations. How many business directors are defeated? It's not easy to even have opposing nominees through today's shareholder democracy. It's pretty sketchy compared with what happens with unions.

There is a very direct remedy for union power in the negotiation process. For 18 years, I was a local elected official, part of that time responsible for a collective bargaining program. I like to think that I bargained tough but that I bargained fair--but I bargained. I've supported collective bargaining rights for public employees since I was first in the Oregon legislature and still believe that honest, tough, principled negotiations will lead to the best results.

Having someone attempt to dictate working conditions unilaterally is not calculated to produce enhanced productivity. It matters how people are treated and how they feel. Employee-owned corporations illustrate this principle in spades, some of which are not only employee-owned but have unions in addition. One of the best performing of the world's economy is Germany, where they still manufacture and have a huge export market for high-value products. The Germans work hard to integrate labor and business with government in the decision-making process, something that is, sadly, too rare in the United States.

Unions are not the answer for every employee and every company, but every employee and every company ought to have that option. Even companies that are nonunion benefit. I've had executives from successful companies candidly tell me that they treat their employees right because they don't want them to unionize. Even these nonunion company employees benefit from higher wages, better benefits, and a system that respects worker rights because of the competition with the unions.

Instead of treating employees fairly by allowing them to organize, far too many corporations have chosen instead to attack the fundamentals of collective bargaining. It is today an art form in some companies to stall, delay, intimidate, even to flagrantly violate the

laws of collective bargaining in this country, weak as they are and as ineffectively as they are enforced.

Collective bargaining has been systematically under attack by my Republican friends in Congress as Republican administrations have fought to make a National Labor Relations Board that is toothless, passive and unable or unwilling to protect the rights of employees to organize. This is not calculated to produce a spirit of cooperation. It is not clear that people need to cheat in order to avoid any excesses of collective bargaining.

I would argue the opposite.

It's not just workers in companies, union and nonunion, who benefit from unions. American society benefits. It was organized labor that spearheaded the effort for a 40-hour workweek. It is not just rhetoric that unions brought you the weekend. Unions have played a key role in extending security to millions of Americans in the workplace, in consumer safety and in environmental protections.

Again I don't pretend unions are perfect and I've had some differences with them over the years. But make no mistake: Unions are amongst the few who stand up to some of the more egregious economic follies, for justice in the workplace, for protecting the unorganized, fighting for a minimum wage, even a living wage.

It's important to reflect about our collective bargaining system. I'm all for fine tuning, but I am adamantly opposed to gutting rights and protection of workers.

I think we all should start by acknowledging the debt we owe to unions and work to stop this wholesale assault on America's workers.

This pointless exercise that the House has embarked upon here today illustrates the challenge that we have to try and deal meaningfully with the very real problems that America expects us to make progress on. This resolution has already been laid to rest in the Senate. It has been defeated. Ain't going to happen. So, no matter what the result of the hours of debate that we have here today, it will make absolutely no difference.

It is an extension of what happened with the totally manufactured crisis surrounding the debt ceiling earlier this year. The debt ceiling increase was to deal with bills that we had already incurred, for which Congress over the years had already approved the spending, and we'd borrowed the money for it. It made no difference about future debt. It made no difference about the spending commitments that had already been made. Yet we watched tremors go through international markets, not because America couldn't pay its bills, but because some politicians, for their own purposes, were willing to risk that America didn't pay its bills.

Unprecedented.

We've raised the debt ceiling over 100 times. There was no doubt that we would, in fact, honor our commitments; but there were people talking crazy enough that cast doubt. That, I think, at least in part, is why we have seen the markets in the United States be on a roller coaster and people watch their 401(k)s maybe become 301(k)s one afternoon before they go up a little again and then go back down.

It doesn't have to be this hard if, instead of a pointless exercise, we would spend some time on areas where actually Congress could come together and cooperate on dealing with the infrastructure crisis in this country, where there is broad support from the business community, organized labor, contractors, local government, environmentalists to move forward to rebuild and renew this country, putting not tens of thousands but millions of Americans to work in strengthening our country and our economy. We could be dealing with something like this, but we're not.

We could deal with reforms in agriculture that would put more money in the hands of America's farmers and ranchers, less in mega- agribusiness. We'd save money, and we'd improve the state of agriculture. While we're at it, we could probably improve the health of our children in school with their nutrition, but we're not dealing with that.

Most tellingly, we should be accelerating the reforms that the last Congress enacted. When they started, most of them were bipartisan ideas that have been implemented, in some cases, by Republican Governors. The difference between what America spends on health care this year and what the second most expensive country, Switzerland, spends is $3,000 a person, $3 trillion over 10 years. If we could just spend as much as the second most expensive country in the world.

We ought to be working on things like this that will make a difference for America, put them back to work, have fiscal stability-- and maybe regain a little confidence in the political process instead of pointless exercises like this. I hope--I hope--that we will get this out of our system, get down and get to work. America deserves our best, not our worst, which is on exhibit here today.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much talk about jobs and economic recovery--sadly, more talk than action.

Today's consideration of extending the Surface Transportation Act and the FAA Authorization, both of which have expired, is a positive development. It puts a little more certainty for our partners in the State and local government. It avoids disastrous revenue losses. It's a positive signal of cooperation, with Chairs Mica and Boxer working with Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner. And it leaves important policies intact.

The 1991 ISTEA framework has proven effective in meeting transportation needs and providing economic activity. But now let's concentrate on what we do need.

We need more money, not less. Certainly we must reject the 30 percent transportation cut that is called for in the Republican budget, or a 34 percent reduction that's called for in the Transportation appropriations bill that is being considered. We need longer-term legislation, not shorter. Three months for aviation, 6 months for transportation is better than what we've been putting up with, but certainly not what our partners deserve.

Finally, we need more partnerships with our regional engines of growth at the local level, not a pullback by the Federal Government. We need a full reauthorization, one that is right sized for America's needs. We need to be more ambitious in terms of what we spend. Remember all the expert bipartisan commissions that called for much greater levels of investment 5 years ago. The need has not declined at all.

We can and we should combine these efforts with deficit reduction and economic recovery. This is what happened with Ronald Reagan in 1982, with Bill Clinton in 1993, what was called for by Simpson and Bowles, the cochairs of President Obama's deficit reduction commission.

Make no mistake. Unmet infrastructure needs threaten the health and safety of our communities, our environment, and our global competitiveness. Congress will find a tremendous coalition supporting bold action from the business community, organized labor, contractors, environmentalists, engineers, architects, local government. The list is extensive, broad, and the commitment is deep. Many communities and some States have already stepped up on their own.

It's now time for the Federal Government to be a better partner, reclaiming the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Eisenhower, back when infrastructure investment was not partisan or particularly controversial, but a national vision that brought us together.

We can begin by passing this legislation later this afternoon. We need to move to a larger and a longer term agenda as we rebuild and renew America, jump-start the economy, and make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I listened to my friend from Pennsylvania, who is concerned about the Recovery Act. A number of us voted against it because it was too heavily weighted for tax cuts in an attempt to get Republicans to participate, but all of them voted ``no'' anyway. If you would have worked with us, we could have increased the amount of money devoted to infrastructure, but it's this same myopia that we see when Republicans refuse to accept broad bipartisan support for FAA in the Senate. What was it? It passed 89-7 or something like that, and yet we in the House can't work with them to increase the investment for aviation.

It's sad. All you have to do is talk to the contractors in your district to find out that the Recovery Act kept them afloat. Contractor after contractor knows that it made a difference, but it's time for us to stop dancing around. We ought to approve the approach in a bipartisan way with the Senate, and we ought to step up and invest more in surface transportation, not less.

We will find that there is broad agreement with the business community, the U.S. Chamber, organized labor, environmental groups, local government. This is the way that we will put more Americans to work. You seem to acknowledge it, but you're not working with us in the spirit of Chairman Bud Shuster and Chairman Don Young, who were willing to stand up and be counted in the need for more resources. We are facing a 34 percent reduction with the bill that the Republicans are dealing with now in the appropriations process, and you're not going to be able to get a decent 6-year authorization when you're slashing investments where America is falling behind.

I think we ought to take this very good, clean extension, use the 6 months to be able to build on a foundation of the original ISTEA, right-size it, accept the recommendations of broad bipartisan commissions that we need to be spending more, deal with the deficit reduction the way that it happened with Ronald Reagan and with Bill Clinton that includes more infrastructure investment, and agree with the Senate FAA approach. We'll be able to put millions of Americans to work and stop the partisan bickering that we don't need to do. It's not partisan in the Senate. It doesn't have to be partisan here.

Madam Chair, today I voted against H.R. 1892. Despite of the progress we've made in reforming our intelligence community in size, scope and accountability, today's authorization does not go nearly far enough.

On the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, there is still nothing more important than the security of our people. Unfortunate, there is a clear lack of progress in getting a handle on the sprawling intelligence bureaucracy.

There are 856,000 people with top-secret security clearances in the United States. That's nearly the population of the entire state of Delaware and more than the entire population of San Francisco. In over 10,000 locations scattered across the U.S., there are around 1,200 government organizations and 1,900 private companies that focus on intelligence gathering and on homeland security.

In the wake of 9/11, we opened the funding floodgates to our intelligence community. It has now grown so large and so secretive that we have no idea how much it costs or how many people it employs, let alone understand how much of this work is duplicative. While improvements have been made, Congress needs to not just take a closer look, but reverse this dangerous trend.

With the inability for anyone to really know exactly what's going on, the surge of information isn't always a source of protection, but a potential vulnerability. We can have too much information to use effectively. After all, parts of the bureaucracy were well aware of the threat from Osama bin Laden immediately prior to 9/11.

The problem is not intelligence gathering, which is essential to the security of America. The killing of Osama bin Laden would not have been possible without such efforts. It's simply that since 9/11, the intelligence community has grown so fast, and so secretively, that oversight hasn't kept up.

At a time when we are cutting to the bone essential government services, this is a huge area that is ripe for budget scrutiny and, very likely, budget reduction. This bill has good features, but avoids getting this vast intelligence network under control. That is why I voted against H.R. 1892.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Intelligence reauthorization act reluctantly. On the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, there's still nothing more important than the security of our people. But I am troubled by a clear lack of progress in getting our arms around the sprawling intelligence bureaucracy.

There are 856,000 people with top security clearance in the United States. Think about it: that's nearly the population of the entire State of Delaware. It's more than the number of people who live in San Francisco.

In over 10,000 locations scattered across the country, there are 1,200 government organizations, 1,900 private companies that focus on intelligence-gathering and homeland security. But, unfortunately, we have an inability for anybody to know exactly what is going on. And the flood of information that is generated by hundreds of thousands of people with opportunities for leaks and mistakes is troubling. It can be a source of vulnerability. After all, parts of the bureaucracy were well aware of the threat from Osama bin Laden immediately prior to 9/ 11. It's time for us to give this the scrutiny it deserves.