direction. >> thank you very much. >> we will recognize the distinguished chairman of the oversight committee. let me run through a couple of items. just the somebody who came out that the electronics industry and allied with the automobile industry, we have people making eight times more cars. do we place as much over a period of 60 plus years -- i am not sure it should be the standard for the federal work force. if the federal workforce fails to give us efficiencies -- we are at a time when we are trying to produce real savings.

etz talk to you about step increases. if you cannot accept step increases today, can you work with us to look for a way to have stepped increases and even if there is a catch up provision later, but in this year's budgeting, eight freeze -- a freeze and not just for those that do not have step increases, but for everybody. we are only talking about step increases, not merit increases we have talked about. >> at this point in time, the answer would be no. i am happy to take that back and discuss that to see if there would be any opening there. i believe you are talking about

"within grade" increases. >> it would occur in automatic -- you are simply still vertical. as long as you are on the payroll, you get the increases. it continues up. >> my concern with that, mr. chairman, would be we were talking about the retention rate. >> i will cut you short for a moment. your view is, we freeze for real, we have a retention problem. >> within grades allowed a natural progression. >> my time is short. the president announced a freeze. there is no freeze because people are getting increases automatically. they will make more money --

they will make the same money this year they made last year and a year before because we have a freeze is going on. the president announced a pay raise. there will be pay raises due this process. you support that from the standpoint of pretension. a simple answer like that is fine. i am not asking you to be on our side of that particular issue. and get to a couple more that are important. you mentioned medicare. you do medicare with so few people -- medicare as a 10% for all right. it is the worst in health care. this is the most fraud-ridden program. we are not necessarily talking about bad doctors. we are talking about organizations pretending to be doctors and the system does not catch them. on what to ask a specific question.

in your seat a couple of days ago, we had the gao report be presented to us. it shows $100 million in savings by consolidating some programs. many of those are in the purview of the administration. there were not created by an act of congress. had you looked at whether or not federal work force can be more efficient and take advantage of some of that $100 billion simply by some consolidation within the recommendations of that report? >> absolutely. i am aware of the report. i have just 81-page summary of the highest risk items -- a one- page summary of the highest risk items. three-quarters of those items have a human capital segment. it will be incumbent on us whether we have good people on

the job to handle these issues. recruiting and retaining an outstanding work force -- >> you are going back to the same answer. i appreciate that. the adi and heritage reports did not include an adjustment for educational experience. would you look at them again and give us an answer on why you think there was fraud in the process. this means going back to the g l and doing one more study to try and find out -- gao and doing one more study to try and find out if they are correct in their assessments. if they are correct, we were paying some people quite a bit more than would be necessary to recruit and retain. if we could get your comments in two weeks, that will allow us to make a decision going forward.

>> yes, mr. chairman. i would be happy to. >> we recognize the distinguished gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is good to see you again. thank you for being here. let me first of all commend you for the movement i have seen in promotions, especially as it relates to women and other members of minority groups. i appreciate that movement i have observed. let me ask you, exactly what was the president doing when he initiated a freeze? what was the accomplishing? >> it is an important point you have hit on. it goes to the term of the back- and-forth we have had today. the appointment cost index reflects the cost of labor increase that is determined by what is happening in the private

sector. what we do is we get that data. the law provides that federal employees would get that%. that is not built into it -- get that percent. that is not built into the budget. it affects every employee of the federal government. all 2.4 million get that adjustment. not every employee is that on an annual basis. those are experienced-based. some people get them every year. some people get them every three years. some people do not get any for a two-year period. those numbers are built into the agency's baseline. there are all these people leaving and coming. as senior people leave, yoghurt folks come in at lower pay. -- younger folks come in at

lower pay. the reason i would have argument with the numbers that are being thrown around is that does or within the overall budget. the president has directed those downwards. the president has a five-year domestic spending freeze that will take our budget to what it was when eisenhower was in the white house. that is a $400 billion in savings. that is the way to approach reducing the federal government, not by across the board cuts, but by dealing with the budget numbers that are real. that is what the taxpayers want. that is what the president is trying to deliver. >> at the end of the day you have experience some cost savings and to reduce the budget. let me go to another area. many people i encountered take the position that they believe somehow or another the public work force is not as efficient,

not as productive, and ultimately not worth as much as private sector employees. almost no matter what information you give to them, they still maintain those feelings. had you ever encountered any studies, any reports, any information that would validate that kind of thinking? >> there are not any, sir. i can give you two things i think address your point. the first is my own experience. i have been here since 1985. i have sat in the chair where many of your staff is sitting today. we would regularly hear members of the reagan and bush administration and their answer under testimony was, "what do you think of federal employees?"

to a person, they have said they were impressed with what they have encountered and that many of them are listed as the biggest surprise they encountered in washington. i was with clay johnson last friday night. he said the exact same thing. i think anecdotally people who are around federal employees, who see what they do, come away very impressed. resurvey our employees every year with questions. the most recent employee survey showed that 97% of respondents answered positively to the question "when needed, i am willing to put in the extra effort to do what needs to be done to get the job done." our federal employees are committed. they understand the criticality of their mission.

they are protecting our interests. i am here to tell you, i have never seen a study that would question the work ethic. >> thank you very much. process, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cummings, thank you. >> one of my concerns is that so often federal employees are getting a bad rap. we all work with federal employees' everyday up here. we see what they get through. on this side of the aisle, every single one of our employees have to take a 5% cut.

this was done in a time when milk is going up, gas is going up, rent is going up. a lot of times i think we forget that public employees trade out very important functions. we take so much for granted. one of the reasons we take so much for granted is because they are expendable. you said something earlier and i want you to elaborate. i look at the people who work for me -- work with me, rather. i look at their education levels and i know without a doubt that they could be making

a whole lot more money than working on this hill. they could be working a lot less hours. some of them working until 2:00 and it 3:00 in the morning and they do not get a whole lot of money. i know that they get certain benefits. i want you to go back. i am tired of these public employees being beaten up on. it pains me tremendously. i just want you to go back -- you said something about education. by the way, when you talk about education, a lot of them are struggling try to pay back loans because they wanted to be the best they could be. they wanted to take the advantage of their opportunities.

after they got an education, they did not go to wall street. they did not go looking for the big bonuses. they came because they wanted to serve the public and they have sweated blood, sweat, and it tears simply trying to lift us up, to make this congress better, to make sure our airports or safe, even cleaning airport bathrooms, cleaning these places -- cafeterias. talk about education think again. i think we lose sight of that. with everything else, you get elevated because you get an education. a lot of these folks have been educated -- have been education and they stayed the same. the president says they will be level-funded. tell me about that.

>> the president is, as are all americans, grateful for the sacrifice federal employees are doing. there are families that have to deal with the inflationary costs and pressures -- the cost of milk, the cost of gas -- the they still have to commute and they still have to deal with those costs. the president is clearly aware of their sacrifices and is grateful for it. there -- they were the first ones asked to step up to the plate and help the country. >> let me interject something. when i had to ask the employees when i took over this committee -- i had to ask every single employee if they would take a 5% cut. listen to me, director. not one of them objected. i ask them why. they said, "because we want to serve the public."

we have to be very careful in these conversations that we have. we need to encourage the best and brightest to come to government. we do not want to be caught up in a culture of mediocrity. we want the best. i cut you off. what were you saying? >> it goes to what you were saying about our been at the comparison. you hear that our benefits are not in line with the private sector. i would argue that they are in line when you account for we do not have proper sharing or stock options in the federal government. most of my work force is compatible with the large companies in the private sector. it is not fair to compare federal employees with the labor force. i do not have short order cooks. i do not have waitresses. god bless all of those. they should be paid what they should be paid. to save federal employees should be paid based on that is not

appropriate. you have to appear like to light -- apples to apples. the ports in 500 companies are a much better comparison in terms of who you -- the fortune 500 companies are in much better comparison in terms of who is working for us. half of federal workers work in the ninth highest paying occupations. by comparison, a -- by comparison, only a third of the labor force works in those occupations. in contrast to the private sector workers in the four lowest paid operations, only one in 13 of federal employees are in that category. when you look at this, -- that comparison is looking at the total civilian labor force, not as like to like. when you come into education or

comparing these things, we need to reflect that the federal work force is a highly skilled, highly challenged work force. >> that is my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will yield to the chairman from virginia. >> if i could just pick up on where mr. cummings was leading off -- what you are saying is the skill set mix of the public sector is quite different than the private sector skill-set of the work force. >> absolutely. that is my core point. wheat are running 8 -- we are running a company of 2 million employees that is dealing with challenges that rival any thing -- it really does not have a comparison in the private sector. it is bigger than the fortune 500. to compare it to the total label

-- labor force, i can see how it could be something to do politically, but it unfairly compares wages. it is not an apple to apple comparison. >> with respect to the size of the federal work force, is the current federal work force significantly larger than it was when president george h. w. bush was in the white house in 1991? >> i can leave this or did this to you for the record. i did not make up these numbers. it shows you the civilian labor force from 1950 until the present. it is this red line. it is pretty flat. federal expenditures or the blue line -- federal outlays. outlays have gone up over that time period, but the work force has remained largely stable. these are gao numbers.

>> absolute numbers. >> yes, sir. >> i am sure the ranking member would not want this put there -- i hope my republican friends remember this when we are back in the majority. [laughter] there will be all kinds of signs. you may not like them. why don't we be assembled to one another and respect the fact that the ranking member sits there. that would be a different issue. where were we? [laughter] despite the hysterics, the work force has not come up much but the missions have. >> absolutely. the majority of that increase is

in what would either be -- >> all ask you not to point to a sign where a congress member does not exist. >> we have obviously had to stand up a significant counter- terrorism force in the country. both parties agreed that is something we need to do. we need to protect our border as well. both parties agree to that. we need to protect our veterans when they come home with serious injuries. we need more doctors and nurses to care for them. >> let me understand -- for example, president george h. w. bush at roughly the work force we had. we created a whole new agency of federal government, homeland security. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> we beefed up fema after its

utter collapse in new orleans. is that correct? >> i would have to check my budget numbers to answer that one. >> i think the answer is yes. of course, since president george h. w. bush was in the white house, we are fighting two wars in iraq and afghanistan. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> there are costs related to that including care of veterans when they come home. >> the the there is an increase in iraq -- as the military mission is going down, the state deployment -- state department employees are going up. there are people going into a dangerous area, serving the country. that is a civilian increase. we have to recognize that. >> i will end on that.

there are civilian federal employees but in their lives at risk next two uniformed military in iraq and afghanistan. is that correct? >> absolutely. i look forward to be able to end up with mr. lynch one of his visits to iraq or afghanistan. we can honor the service of both our military and civilian work force that put their lives in great danger to serve our country. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. connolly. that is the last of our questions. we will recess for now. thank you for being here. we will prepare for the next panel. >> thank you, sir. it is an honor. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we have a senior policy expert from the heritage foundation. we also have the resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. we have the president for the partnership of public service and the national president for the national treasury employees union. if you all would not mind, please stand up to be sworn in. please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give this committee will be the truth, the old trees, and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record show all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. i will recognize each of you for by minutes to summarize your testimony.

the transcript has been submitted for the record. >> chairman ross, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. the views i expressed in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as recommending a official position. as a consequence is up this filing, the average federal employee bursting typically more than they would make in the private sector. there are things the congress should be made aware of. it does a poor job of approximating market fare -- market paid. the jobs similar level of work received the same pay. an engineer, and i t specialist, and a budget analyst all receive the same pay. the law requires the

president's agent to determine what level of work a private- sector job entails. the federal pay is set by averaging pay. this superimposes the general and now. private sector employees do not base plate on anything remotely resembling this schedule. market forces determine private pay. employees in different occupations perform similar levels of work and earn very different salaries. federal play often looks nothing like market rates in both directions. some federal employees have wildly inflated salaries. some are 50% above what they would earn in the private sector. others to not receive market rate. highly skilled workers such as scientists and lawyers do not

receive premium wages in the government. the second feature of the federal pay system congress should understand is that on average -- my research shows that after you account for education, experience, and occupation -- something where you can make an apples to apples comparison -- the average federal employee makes 22% more an hour then in the private sector. including benefits, -- the average federal employee earns more than they would then if they were in the private sector. it will cost taxpayers $50 billion this year. many economists have come to this view. alan krueger served as the chief economist at the treasury department in the obama administration. he found that "the federal government consistently pays a

higher wages than the private sector for federal employees." the research consistently shows that they are paid more. it is important to emphasize that this average federal premium as only part of the variation between federal and market paid. it is simultaneously true that many federal employees are not overpaid and that the federal government pays private sector employees more on average. notpresident's report does agree with this. no administration has ever found the results credible or acted on them. it frequently expresses concerns with the methodology of the law requires it to use. this is for good reason. that federal employees were underpaid, the federal government would have retention problems. federal employees quit their jobs just one-third as often as private sector workers. they know they are getting a

better deal pandit federal government than they can get on the private sector. the third feature congress should understand is this it rewards time served, not performance. 90% of life is just showing up. less than one-quarter of the money spent on federal pay increases is geared toward performance. the rest is either automatic or almost automatic. as long as they receive a three out of five performance rating, they automatically receive increases. managers who wish to get ratings below three bear the burden of proving that the employee performed poorly. the sense federal employees are adequate and gives them raises. managers rarely give performance ratings below three. it is social promotion for adults. i am surprised that with this

system federal employees receive raises and promotions more rapidly than private-sector workers do. that is why federal employees receive better than market paid. thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about the federal pay system. >> thank you. dr. biggs, you're recognized for five minutes. >> process for and by to me to testify in regards to a federal employee compensation. my testimony is based on joint research at the heritage foundation and a copy of our working paper has been enclosed in my testimony. the federal employees on average received greater compensation than these individuals could receive in the private sector? our answer, which is consistent with economic research, is yes. your doubtless aware of the page that requires federal jobs pay

25% less. most economists are skeptical of the pay agent approach. the most important reason is because the pay agent approached compares apples to oranges. it does not compare similar workers. it does not account for the fact that the federal government hires workers at higher pay grades and promotes them faster than does the private sector. for instance, a person working as a senior accountant in the federal government, may only have the education of the junior accountant in the private sector. in 1997, academic studies had a larger gap up three-quarters of a pay grade. a 2003 study shows "federal workers have significantly fewer years of education and experience the private sector workers with the same level of responsibility."

once this is accounted for, the supposed pay penalty disappears. labor economist began by controlling for help individual workers differ in regards of earnings related factors such as experience, geographic location, and so forth. let me reiterate, despite what we heard the loud the director's testimony, the study i have conducted controls for differences between education between federal employees and private-sector employees. they do control for that. by controlling for these differences, you can isolate the effects on plate with working for the federal or the private sector. we found that federal employees receive average salaries 14% higher than similar workers employed by large, private sector firms. this is a conservative comparison. large firms offer the best

salaries and benefits. if we compare to all private sector workers, it rises to 22%. some argue this argues -- this ignores relevant differences between workers. it looks at your degree, not your gpa or quality of the school you attended. we followed workers overtime, tracking how they're paid changed as they move into or out of the government. workers to switch between private and public sector, occurred about 8% more when employed by the federal government. we examined at their workers at the same points in time and all of these same workers overtime. it is clear most federal employees would earn lower salaries in the private sector. benefits or an appointment component -- benefits are an important component. we calculated the well -- the value of a wide range of federal

benefits. on average, federal employees receive total benefits equal to around 66% of their salary and large private sector firms, benefits averaged 50% of salary. federal employees receive a benefit of 33% over federal -- over private sector employees. economists noted that positions of greater job security should pay lower salaries. the bls reports that in any given year federal workers or one-third less likely to be fired or laid off. we estimate the value of job security by calculating the production a private-sector worker would willingly accept to have the increase job security

of federal employees. we find a federal worker's job security is equivalent to an extra 11% of pay. when properly valued, the total federal compensation package is worth upward 39% more than private-sector workers. the total federal pay premium could top $60 billion per year. i did it by the premium is easier than fixing it. -- finding the premium is easier than fixing it. fundamental reforms will work consistently into the future. thank you. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> it is a pleasure being here. i appreciate the opportunity to testify. i suggest that we are asking the wrong question. it is not whether federal workers are underpaid or underpaid, but how do we move to a more market system --

market sensitive system. in any group of public service, you'll find some that are underpaid, some that are overpaid, and some that are paid just right. we need the best talent for the best price. we have core principles to look at and think about where we go from here. we need a pay system based on the market for talent. we need to make sure we have competitive salaries set not just by geography, but by occupation and the relevant factors discussed already. second, we need to account for benefits posthumously. job security is not a cross- support benefit. the fact that a job might have more security may be a turn off. you have to understand your talent and global appeal to them. third, we need better data. right now we are looking at across the board comparisons. if you look biography -- if

elected geography. we are not looking at what -- we need to do a lot better in order to get that information. fourth, we need to look at the quality of the hires we are looking at. this is a balance. you think about what you are paying, but he that to think about what you are paying for. we do not understand what quality talent is and how to retain it. we will never be able to design the right system so we will not know whether we are getting the right value for the money that is being spent. we need to make sure agencies are recruiting the talent -- the right talent. number five, we need to reform the federal classification system. the classification and pay system is at decline. the classification system was not designed for the world we live in today. a gsl is someone who performs work of marked responsibility.

it does not make any sense. gsl 12 engineers, budget analyst -- they get paid the same. it is internal equity, but you are not marching -- you're not matching the market for talent. we need to make sure what talent we need. we do not have a government-wide plan on the human capital we need to make sure the government runs right. we need that. we are not forecasting that enterprise-wide. it is a component of what we should be looking at. we need real flexibility. if you look at the government to date, you have a lot of agencies that have been given different authority to create different systems. the v.a. were given authority.

financial regulatory institutions -- they are all try to do different things. we need to make sure it permits for the flexibility to allow all the different needs of these organizations to recruit the talent they need. there are four key recommendations. this has to be a collective effort. we need the best minds. we need to make sure everyone is at the table. we need people to design the right thing. secondly, we need to design from where we are today. this is not an exercise. we need to design something that takes us where we need to get. that may mean that there is a population viewed as being overpaid. that is an extra challenge. number three, we need to build off of what works. we have had these experiments in government before. we had a profit for 30 years. there are organizations that have tried different things. different agencies have been given different authorities

whether it be financial organizations or others. the gao is another example. finally, we need to step back and see what success much light. when the accountability to make sure we are driving towards the right outcome. that means getting the right talent at the most cost- effective fashion. the main thing is to jeep the main thing the main thing. -- the main thing is to keep the main think the main thing. we have to avoid the distractions and focused on the key issues. i appreciate the opportunity to be before you enter i can answer questions later. >> thank you, chairman ross. the pay system for the large majority of white-collar federal employees is known as the general schedule. it maintains that federal pay

should be comparable to pay for similar work in the private sector. in 1990, congress enacted a federal pay comparability act to make the pay system more sensitive to geographic market forces. the bureau of labor is required to conduct surveys in 32 separate localities and provide that information to the president's pay agent that consist of the secretary of labor and the director of o.p.m. they had the responsibility of submitting a report to the president each year that looks at pay gaps in the 32 areas. the pay agent reports showing lower pay for federal employees have been consistent in democratic as well as republican administrations. the reasons the numbers and defer or many. b.l.s. compares actual job

duties, not just job titles. more than a 54% of federal workers work in the ninth highest paying occupation groups. federal workers are more experienced, they are older, and they have many more years of education than private sector workers. federal employees are covered by the federal employees health benefits program. they pay 30% of the total premium costs. in the private sector, workers pay 18% of their premiums for single plants and 29% for family plans. federal980's, the employees accounting system was created. there has been discussion about that today. the earlier plan has serious unfunded liability programs -- problems that are similar to those faced by many states today. today, it is fully funded and financially sound with no

unfunded liabilities. close to 70% of federal retirees receive annuities of less than $3,000 per month. in a recent interview, mr. chairman, a few inches stated your support -- you indicated your support or a paper performance -- you indicated you r support for "pay for performance." is saying to me a pay system should have a couple of things attach to it. number one, does it help recruit and retain the best people for the job and, number two, does it better motivate employees? i do not know of a single pay for performance system that is showing progress for either of these goals today in the federal government.

i discussed these systems in my written statement including those at the t.s.a. the inspector general has gone so far is to say that the irs managers system -- it reduces the risk of developing -- of giving quality system to taxpayers because the irs's ability to recruit and maintained a highly skilled leaders is diminished. time off all wars and flexible work schedules allow employees to better balance careers and family life. these need to be used more widely. suggestions have also been used to contracting out more federal work. we have had recent experience with this notion. it has not proven true.

excessive reliance on contractors has eroded the capacity of agencies to perform many critical conscience and has undermined their ability to accomplish their mission. the obama administration has begun to reform this by requiring agencies to cut wasteful contracting practices and improve oversight and accountability. this result in $40 billion in annual savings beginning in 2011. some of the hardest working people i represent make less than $30,000 a year yet they are facing a two-year pay freeze and retirees are in a second year without cost-of-living increases. the country faces challenges. although they did not cause the prices, they are willing to work to help solve them. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. >> it is interesting in reading each transcript and listening to

both sides, we all believe that we need to recruit and retain and reward good employees in federal appointments. i think that is good, ground to begin with. in the last panel, there was testimony given about how the federal work force has remained almost able sense president george h. w. bush until today. there seems to be a correlation that inversely we have seen an increase in debt significantly cents george h. w. bush -- well over 60%. if you had a work force and you maintain your same work force but increase our debt by 60%, would that be indicative of something that needed to be done with your personnel management? >> it would be a sign that you have problems. >> you talked briefly about benefits for federal employees.

what affect is that have on total compensation? >> it increases it fairly substantially. if you look at only the wage premiums, federal employees on average when you are making that apples to apples comparison are making 22% more an hour. if you add in the benefits, that compensation premium increases to between 30% and 40%. it is generous pay and even more generous benefits. >> you said that lowering wages would only slightly reduce the quality of the federal job applicants. what led you to that conclusion? >> we decided from our research by a dartmouth professor -- he looked at used for government

jobs. is there more demand for government jobs than private sector jobs? are people waiting out there who would like to get government jobs? what the professor found is that many people would be willing to accept federal employment. it offers significantly more attractive compensation packages than the private sector. they found if you cut salaries significantly you would not hurt the quality of applicants. it would only slightly reduce the education qualifications of federal job applicants. someone else to a simpler approach. the measured the number of applicants for federal job openings relative to private- sector job openings. he felt federal job openings receive more applicants than

private-sector job openings. if a salary were reduced, but would not be a large reduction in the quality of applicants for federal positions. >> the general schedule has been around since 1949. it does not take market forces into consideration. >> it takes locality into consideration. >> in terms of incentivizing someone to do well as opposed to someone just to show up and get a paycheck, it does not make that distinction does it not? >> on the performance side, there are opportunities to get performance bonuses. there are performance mechanisms currently in the system. >> you talked about paid for performance programs. -- pay for performance programs. do you believe there is an adequate system that would adequately compensate those in the federal work force based on an outcome? >> employees do not believe they

are currently being rewarded for doing better work. i think the answer is new. the system is not working in the way it ought to. >> if you think there could be one implemented? >> i'd think there could be, but what needs to be done first is to make sure we have a hand of what good work is and make sure we reward it accordingly. >> i want to have you step aside from your role with the treasury union. he were in charge of making -- assume you were in charge of making decisions for a company whose debt has increased 60% over a period of time and you have to make a decision about personnel. which you have to let people go or reduce their salary? >> first i want to know what caused the decline in revenue.

>> it is what it is. not yet to make a decision. >> if the war cost -- work force did not cause it, i had to get down to the root cause of what did it. i think there are other things to look at. >> you cannot say what you do? >> if the work force did not cause the debt, i think working with them and figuring out what can be done -- they will have suggestions on how to change and do the work better and not do things, for example, why cut taxes on the wealthiest americans. >> my time is up. i will yield to the distinguished chairman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you can put your union hat back on. [laughter] 60% of federal employees working in three departments,

one being the department of defense. we have already talked about the fat we are in two wars. my wife says i spent too much time in iraq and afghanistan. a large portion of those employees work at veterans affairs and that the department of human services. i know from my own experience, we look at what is going on in iraq and afghanistan, we have about 10 million private contractors across our government. more and more of the responsibilities are being contracted out. i do not see any reduction in costs. we had a dilemma early on in afghanistan where we were trying to decide whether embassy personnel should be guarded by

blackwater. they did an amazing job, but let's look at the cost for a minute. blackwater charges us about $1,500 a day for one security if i have a u.s. marine corps army soldier do it, we are talking about $54,000 a year for the average soldier. $54,000 a year versus $450,000 per year. that goes the same for usa id. they do wonderful work.

but when we get to the contractors' side, the price goes through the roof. people are saying, "advertised this stuff and we will save money." i spend a lot of time at the v.a. quite frankly, the biggest problem i have is when nurses and therapists are being stolen away by private hospitals in the area. the one thing that keeps my nurses, doctors, and staff in place at the v.a. is that they are so proud to serve veterans. it is their commitment to veterans. they love their job because they are caring for the united states uniformed veterans. they are working at a lower

rates than private-sector hospitals. they are stealing them away. i see a lot of this acrimony and attacks on federal employees. it is not borne out under the facts. you raise a good point about how we could do this better moving forward. president kelly, i want to ask you -- in terms of the folks you are seeing, we are asking you to oversee in many cases tremendous responsibility. they could make a ton of money in the private sector. you mentioned there were some gaps and differences in what you see these studies providing and what you see actually in practice at the treasury.

could you talk a little bit about that? >> if you look at -- if you ever were a federal employee and you know the work that they do, it is all work you can measure on a piece of paper. i was an irs revenue agent for 15 years as an accountant and a cpa. i met the kind of wall street representatives the irs agents have to go up against an be knowledgeable on in order to find the financial schemes and scams that are happening. that is the kind of talent and skill that you need. you have to be willing to pay for it. in this economy -- and others would like to talk about how many applications and how willing people are to work for the government -- it is one world. when the economy turns, i am very worried about the talent the federal government has not been able to recruit and whether

or not they can keep them. when you look at the compensation and the gaps, employees make a conscious decision. many of them want to work. they have a desire to serve. they have a desire to work for our country. they are willing to give up some of the extras. but, in the long run, they want to be treated fairly. that is what this conversation is about. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. >> thank you. i recognize the distinguished gentleman from maryland. >> i will recognize the distinguished gentleman from washington, d.c. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we sat in this very room when it was less rehabilitated.

we had joint hearings from senate and house committees concerned about the state of the federal work force, particularly the retiring of the so-called "baby boomers." you testified that 90% of the senior service could retire in the next 10 years. this is considered by everybody to be the creme de la creme of the work force of the united states to were partly john for a number of reasons. there has been a lot of discussion here about federal employees, but little discussion of out a return on investment that any employer will understand. when you hire an employee, let's

take people in this room -- if you see any of your employees in him you invested time walk out the door, you see your investment in that employee what out of the door as well. -- wall out of the door as well. the rich -- walk out of the door as well. your return on investment bet that is a high-quality employee, there is a greater return on experience in the federal work force. that may account for some of the promotions. we knew this. rapid turnover takes investment out of the door.

the notions of promotions from within encourages people to stay. you want to encourage competition. you at least one to keep you wanted to occur -- to occur in the investment agencies. i wish you would describe that in places like the irs and the other agencies that you represent. >> they hope to enhance their skills and receive training and move up within the agency so they can do more complex and more important work for the agency. agencies were those opportunities denied this, you tend to see people leave more

because, obviously, people want to know that they have some opportunity in the future. but i also have to believe that happens in the private sector. must you cannot go into a job and want to stay in a specific job, in that occupation, for their entire career. they look for opportunities to grow. in the federal government, the idea that there are some a different jobs and so much important work across agencies gives employees opportunities to do just that. >> of course, the federal government has made the decision. it wants career employees. it is a courier service. it is a civil service. i wish you would describe -- there have been statements made by others on the panel about collective bargaining in wisconsin and the rest. there seems to be very little understanding of the role that unions can play when there needs to be reductions in the work force, when there needs to be givebacks of some kind in the

work force, as opposed to you have to do that and no one is there to help employees understand how it occurs. >> about a year ago, labor management forms were created under an executive order. that executive order has, as this underpinnings, that in the idea of collaboration and working together, we can figure out the most typical problems. as you described, were the work force has to change because the work of the agency changes, and the their work goes away and therefore there needs to be a smaller work force and it is the unions working side by side with management to deal with these very difficult issues to try to do two things. one is to ensure that the agency is able to continue to be successful in whatever its mission is. at the same time, do all it can

to have employees have opportunities to be placed somewhere else, to make sure that the skills and experiences are not lost. the only way that it happens is in a way that is special for the agency. if enough management as the unions and each conversation, it is something that we can grab the best solution to. >> thank you very much. >> we now recognize the distinguished gentleman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. are you a fan of paid-for- performance? >> i think it is a good idea. it needs to be done correctly. as a general principle, yes. >> do you think it can be broadly used in the federal government?

>> broadly speaking, yes. >> and we would expect better results in what we get in terms of productivity as well as how we compensate our employees? >> if it is designed correctly, you should. doctor, let me ask you -- you were here when there was testifying. you heard talk about comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. to a rugged the conclusion you made relative to use it to arrive at the conclusion you made relative to public versus private sector pay, is that the methodology you used? >> i will pick my words carefully.

director barry did not correctly described the mythology that i have used in this study are that others have used. the claim he made was that federal employees are better educated on average than private-sector employees. that is a correct claim. he also claimed that the pace cities that i have done and others have done the -- do not compare them accurately. that is not true. we compare apples to apples. we control the differences. the federal pay agent analysis defines a pay penalty of almost 25% by contrast, that does not take education into account. it looks into a job, but does not account for the fact that

private sector employers tend to put more educated individuals -- public-sector employers tend to put more educated individuals into those positions and then private-sector employers. he did not correctly characterize the study that i did. >> with a clerk at wal-mart be the same as the court in one of our agencies if you were looking at the the two. >> in general, no. we do not categorized by job cuts. we categorize them by the human capital they are bringing to the game. you would least have a high school education, a bachelor's degree. accounting for the educational

experiences and the other expenses they have will parlay tougher than getting better pay. our study does not say federal employees should not get paid higher than private-sector employees. the question is how much higher should they be paid? we can find the effect of working in the federal government outside in the public sector -- in the private sector. we have consistently found that, if you take the same individual and put them in the federal government versus the private sector, you have a significant value premium. does not appear-reviewed constantly says. >> you began your testimony by suggesting that maybe we are asking the wrong questions or exploring the wrong possibilities and options. but what we really need to be

looking at is how do we get the best work force that we possibly can for the price that we are prepared to pay. >> could you articulate that began for me? >> in listening to everybody here, i thought everybody agreed to the proposition that, at some point, in looking at the totality of the federal work force, there will be some folks who are underpaid, some who are overpaid, and some who are paid just right. there may be a difference in what the proportions are the panel, but that is a proportion -- a proposition that is accepted. the next question is how do we design a system that does a better job of actually ensuring that we are being as cost- effective as possible to get the right talent, the best talent for government. a proposition would be that that is the conversation we should be having and i proposed a set of principles that i hope can help push that conversation forward.

>> thank you. >> the chair know recognizes the ranking member of your sick committee from marilyn. >> dr. biggs, let me extend this right. you're saying that there is a great demand for federal jobs. is that right? >> that is what research indicates. because there is a great demand, what does that have to do with pay. remind us? >> a higher demand for public sector jobs does not prove that they are overpaid. there are indicators that have more attractive characteristics

of the work and in the private sector work. you find things like the quit rate for federal employees. those are consistently lower than the private sector. there could be other reasons that are indicative in general. it offers people an attractive compensation package, for example. >> most members of congress spend and collect millions of dollars to come here and most could make a lot more money than what they are making. apparently, there is something that members want that comes from this public service review. federalway, we are i employees, public servants. i am wondering. is that one of those "other" things? when i talk to nurses, for example, and a talk with people in that kind of profession, they will tell you any minute that,

in most instances, i love my job because i am able to help people. this is what i always wanted to be. and this is something that really means something to me. you ascham -- you ask them if it bothers them if they have to clean up blood and they say no because it is what they really wanted to do. when i talk to people appear on the hill, a lot of them will come -- i have seen this a lot of times. they want to come not so much for the pair -- as a matter of fact, a lot of them make a lot less pay. i interviewed somebody who was willing to take a 15% cut because he wants to be a part of government. how much does that play? i also want you to be thinking about that. is that part of that little fume

-- that little formula you just gave us? >> i would not in any way deny that the desire to work in public-service is a desire to serve your country. >> you were a public employee? >> yes. i know it is hard to believe. the desire is strong and legitimate. that if we have a queue for federal jobs and look with great, that can be attributable to a desire for public service. the results you find from the cities that control for education experience and the rest, they find that the same person would earn a higher salary on average in the federal government than the private sector. that is something that tends towards the view of higher compensation. one study we did was not simply controlling for differences in

education and so forth. we follow the same people over time, using census bureau data. when they switched from private- sector employment to federal employment, on average, they got a pay increase. that does not mean every person gets a pay increase. it is not that the highest cannot earn more in the private sector. the same person would earn a higher salary than they would outside. >> you said something very interesting. a lot of people are trying to move forward. i assume that when you move from public servant, you probably made more money. did you? >> i make less money now. >> ok. you are making my case. in other words, what you just said -- usually, if someone moves from one job from another, it means that they will move to

more pay. if they will move from public to -- from private to public, and they are moving on a normal course, it is logical, i guess, that they will make more money. >> we did control for that difference. most people get a pay increase when they switch jobs. that is one of the main reasons that people do switch jobs. with private sector workers who found a new job in the federal government received pay around 8% higher than private-sector workers who found a new job in the private sector. the same person getting different jobs -- this has been represented in other studies as well. it is not just do you get a pay increase when you get another job? do you get a larger pay increase to find a public-sector job than if you get a private sector job and the answer is yes. >> the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

is turnover a problem in certain sectors of the federal government? >> yes. absolutely. if you look at the overall attrition number relative to the overall private-sector number, it is lower. but in the critical area of new employees, it is about 25%. nursing is close to 18%. my favorite example is the department of homeland security between 2003 and 2007. three-quarters left. what is amazing is that no one was paying attention and no one did exit interviews to find out why. >> when we look at certain categories of employees, the

attrition might be conservative lay higher than in the private sector. we have not bothered to find out why. >> correct. >> most private-sector firms do exit interviews. >> the good ones do. >> can you think of some categories of federal workers with high turnover time. >> the highest is that tsa, those to protect our skies. up until about a year ago, it was running at over 20%. >> per year? so federal salaries and cushy jobs, one of the working conditions the top of an 20% of the work force to leave every year. >> these tsa workers earn less than $30,000 a year. that is not something you can put into a category of being

overpaid. >> a few years ago, when we had a much lower unemployment rate -- i'm hearing testimony about how a lot of people are flocking to federal service or public service. of course, when you have an almost 10% unemployment rate, my guess is that that is a pattern. but when your looking at 4% unemployment rate, especially in the higher end, my guess would be that the labor market gets real tight in being able to recruit and retain skilled workers for the federal work force. is that true? >> absolutely. even with high unemployment, there are certain fields that the federal government is having trouble recruiting. >> for example? >> the center security area is one that is front and center. you have examples in -- the cyber security area is one that is front and center.

you have examples of nursing. >> why do we have a problem in cyber 63. >> there is a lot of competition. >> it requires a high skill set, a technical skill set. >> right. >> what percentage of the federal workforce is eligible for retirement in this decade? >> again, depending on -- you looking at over half. a very large portion of the population will be able to retire. i think the general numbers are less important than looking at the specific populations that we should be most concerned about. that is where you see much higher numbers. >> so i would assume that, frankly, we will not have any trouble at all filling 50% of the existing federal spots as people retire over this next decade. is that your view as well? >> it is my view that there will be no problem filling the spots. the question is filling them

with whom. can you get the right talent? >> of course. >> we have to do a better job in a lot of different spent >> to have the right talent in government. >> i am worried about the ability to fill the positions when they are vacated. for years, every talk about the tsunami that was coming up, federal retirement, and it did not come in large part because of the economy. but it will come. it will happen. agencies are not positioned to be able to hire the skill level, the skill set to be able to maintain what it is they are trying to do in their agencies today. >> of course, the more we debase federal service, the less attractive we make it and then you have to worry about who you are tracking to federal service, especially in the higher skill set. thank you. >> i now recognize the vice

chair of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from michigan. >> mr. shirk and dr. bates, thank you for being here today. i have a question. how much did the federal government say with equal benefits compared to the private sector. -- private-sector? >> i did not look at benefits specifically. if you like, i can get it later. but putting benefits together, we save $47 billion this year under my account. >> i think that is about right. >> thank you. excuse me for a second. miss kelly, your union represents a cross-section of federal workers who perform key functions of government.

if they pay fees is enacted, how many we do have in federal service? i cannot give you -- >> i cannot give you an exact answer. many who have been eligible to retire and plan to stay are now talking about leaving. i think we will see real numbers in the foreseeable future. but i could not give you a number today. >> i have a general question. any of you can answer it. the president has talked about freezing pay for two years. does this include within great staff adjustments at 3% a year? >> no, it does not cover those at all. it is purely the cost of living adjustment. but the vast majority of federal employees will get those three% reses. >> when mr. barry was year earlier, he testified that there should be no place in the

federal government for non- performers to hide. how would you respond to the fact that federal government rarely fires employees. in the majority of cases, it is the length of service rather than job performance. >> is a serious problem. once they finish the probationary year, the first year, 20% of a place either quit or are fired. after that, it is rare to see a federal employee get fired. there are also very few rewards for performing above and beyond the mediocre level. the employees basically get to appeal and they can challenge it. most employers do not want to go through the hassle. they want to manage the agency and not do that kind of work. the employees qualify, but very

little above and beyond that for performance pay. it is simply to encourage mediocrity. but you can get the majority of the apples -- the bad apples out in the first year. >> incompetence is not -- competence is not enough for raising a person's salary. work ethic, dedication and exceeding expectations are the proper criteria for salary increase? >> sure. i do not want to demean the work ethic and dedication of federal employees. i worked with them for a significant time. as director barry said, you're surprised at how hard working people are. at the same time, it does not serve the hardworking dedicated federal employee when people who are not pulling their weight is essentially cannot be fired.

it is a natural process in any business. some people do very well and are promoted. others do not do well and are fired. to explain the federal rates of firing, we have to assume that the fed government is extremely good at picking employees such that it's never find anybody that does not work out. it is not plausible. you want to retain good employees. you want them to build up the job-specific skills. you wanted to increase productivity. but you want to have the plucks ability to move on when people are not working out. you need a strong balance between those two. >> i think that the things you identified are important. but i also think that performance is important. performance is an aspect of the federal system today. the flaws that are being described are grossly overstated, that federal employees can never be fired because they are fired. but they are fired after their probationary period. if they're not hired at the ritz they should be with somebody

thinks should not be -- if they're not hired at the rates that somebody thinks they should be, you have to look at the managers. they have to either improve their performance or move them out of the agency. that is the manager's job. that has nothing to do with the system. it is the manager's job. it is true from a training perspective and also from an implementation perspective. >> thank you. that completes our questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked some of the statements of the american federation of american employees, the national confederation of federal employees. >> without objection, so ordered. i want to thank our panel very much for being here. i appreciate your patience. we stand adjourned.

>> now homeland security committee holds its hearing on the muslim american community tomorrow. beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. we will have live coverage on c- span 3 and c-span.org. >> potential republican presidential contenders have been making stops in key primary states. this weekend on c-span 2 road to the white house, minn., michele

on sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> president obama nominated barry locke to be the new u.s. ambassador to china. he will be the first chinese- american to hold the ambassadorship if confirmed by the u.s. senate. the post is open after former u.s. gov. john hutton said he would resign earlier this year under speculations that he may seek the republican presidential nomination. >> good morning, everybody. >> as everybody knows, jon huntsman has decided to step down from his job. he has been an outstanding advocate for this administration.

he has helped to strengthen our critical relationship with the chinese government and the chinese people. so i am very grateful for his service. in replacing him, i can think of nobody who is more qualified than gary lauck. more than 20 years ago, his father left a steamboat for america. he served as a public servant for washington state. a century later, his grandson will return to china as america's top diplomat. in the years between these milestones, he has distinguished himself as one of our nation's most respected and admired public servants. as their country's first chinese-american governor, he worked tirelessly to attract jobs and businesses to washington state and he doubled exports to china. two years ago, i asked him to

continue this work as commerce secretary. i wanted him to advocate for america's businesses and american exports all around the world. to make progress with our relationship in john and use the management skills he developed as governor to reform a complex and sprawling agency. he has done all of that and more. he has been a point person for my national export initiative. last year, his department led a historic number of trade missions that helped promote american businesses and support american jobs. he has ever seen an increase in american exports and, particularly, exports to china, a country we recently signed trade deals with that will support 235,000 american jobs. as commerce secretary, gary oversaw the census process that ended on time and under budget, returning to billion dollars to american taxpayers. he has -- returning to billion

dollars -- returning from billion to american taxpayers. in beijing, american countries -- american companies will be able to count on him. our relationship with china is one of the most critical of the 21st century. over the last two years, we work hard to build a relationship that serve our national interest, addressing global security issues and expanding opportunities for american companies and american workers. continued cooperation between our countries will be good for america, good for china, and for the world. as the grandson of a chinese immigrant who went on to live the american dream, gary is the right person to continue this cooperation. i know he will continue to bring the same skills and experience that he brought to the commerce

secretary to this new position that he is about to embark on. i want to thank him and i also want to thank his gorgeous and extraordinary family who is standing here, mona, emily, dylan, and manmaddy. it is always tough to move families. maddy just turned 14. so i was commiserating with her. i assured her that it would be great 10 years from now. [laughter] right now, it is probably a drag. but i am absolutely confident that this -- we could not have better representation of the united states of america than this clear relationship that we will get from this family. gary, i wish you all the luck in beijing.

>> thank you. deeply humbled and honored as your next ambassador to china. it was a little over a century ago that my grandfather came to america to work as a houseboy in a household in exchange for language lessons. he then enlisted in the united states army just before the outbreak of world war ii. he became part of that greatest generation. he saw action on the beaches of normandy and on the march to berlin and then came back to seattle to raise a family and started small business. my father never imagined that one of his children could never serve as the secretary of commerce for the unit states of america. he was beaming with pride, mr. president, the day they presided over by swearing-in ceremony. tragically, my dad died this past january.

if he were still alive, it would be one of his proudest moments to see his son named as the ambassador to his ancestral homeland. i'm going back to the home of father, myfather, my mother and her son of the family. i will do it as a devoted and passionate advocate for america, the country that i was born and raised. as commerce secretary, i help open up foreign markets for american businesses so they can create more jobs right here in america. i am eager to continue that work in china and to help you, mr. president, manage one of america's most critical and complex diplomatic, economic, and strategic relationships. i am excited to take on this new challenge, as is my wife and our children. it is to varying degrees among the kids. we will be leaving washington, d.c. with great memories and many new friends.

being commerce secretary has been one of the best job i have ever had, thank you to the immensely talented and dedicated men and women within the department of commerce, in the white house, and within the cabinet. i am proud of the work we have done in the commerce department, delivering services faster, serving the needs of u.s. workers, saving taxpayers billions of dollars by being more efficient in everything that we do. i am confident that these accomplishments will stand the test of time. mr. president, i am eager to assume his new position and it is a privilege and a solemn responsibility to serve you and the american people as the next united states ambassador to china. thank you for the confidence and the trust that you placed in me. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> can you talk about the no-fly

zone over libya? >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up on c-span, muslim and civil rights groups criticized planned hearings on the american muslim community. then a look into new fcc net neutrality rules. later, the house debates eliminating a home mortgage refinancing program. >> tomorrow, congresswoman sheila jensen reed talks about tomorrow's hearings on the muslim american community.

congressman doc hastings talks about rising oil prices and whether the u.s. should tap into the strategic reserves. and then ed o'keefe about federal workers pay. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> on television, on radio, and online, c-span, bringing public affairs to you, created by cable. it is washington your way. >> the house homeland security committee will hold a hearing tomorrow looking into the role of american-born muslims and acts of domestic terrorism. a coalition of moslem and civil rights groups have criticized these hearings and committee chairman peter king for singling out the muslim community. the council on american-islamic relations talked about the hearings today at this briefing. this is one hour.

please say you -- please see your name and organization.

>> thank you all for coming this morning. i am the national director of care. more than 250 organizations have written to him, expressing concern about the statement and allegations. hundreds of leaders from across the nation, including more than 18 representatives from his home of long island, n.y., have expressed similar concerns.

this week, a former fbi director rejected allegations of muslim noncooperation. there are multiple occasions. academic research has these claims. duke university found that tips provided information that led to its being ported in 120

cases. leaders have put significant efforts into comforting violent extremism. -- into confronting violent extremism. there is no denying that people had the opportunity recruit. that includes that of the islamic faith. the muslim community is there. there is no denying no institutions including members of our community deserve a share of that. they have maintained that it is a civic and religious duties for criminal activity. equally, like other civil liberties organizations, we advised our community to know their constitution.

our community has reasonable concerns with some law enforcement activity and apologies. some of these concerns is brought surveillance of muslim institutions. there are concerns about the fbi and other agencies pursuing the lines of questioning protected by activity. this includes african- americans, and asian-americans, japanese-americans, catholics, mormons, and many others. they have been singled out in other nation's history.

american muslims would do a disservice. we also asked our non-americans and not to succumb to peer mar gramm -- to fear mongering. we ask the members of the public to communicate and get to know them in personal visits. we believe this is the best way to know one another.

we demand political and religious leaders. ladies and gentlemen there were principles. we have to tell them not to divide our nations. many of our positions on terrorism have been condemned without an organization. there are reluctant to work with law enforcement.

this is a false accusation. we are backing of the main allegation. he will have no research to substantiate the allegations. he will have no evidence and no research to back up his allegations. uses the there are too many mosque in america and that should be rejected by americans. [unintelligible] his bias makes him unfit to lead a very important committee like homeland security. thank you. >> our next speaker is michael

from the american civil liberties union. >> thank you. i and the legislative chief of staff and pairs of men a counsel for the american civil liberties union. -- and a member of the council for the american civil liberties union. thank you for inviting us. the american civil liberties union supports their right of individuals under the u.s. constitution and bill of rights to speak and associate free of government hindrance and be treated fairly without discrimination. we support peter king's right to voice his opinions and no matter how well informed baby. -- no matter how ill informed they may be. professional and careers like legislation must not intend on to speak freely and associate freely.

targeting the american muslim community for an alleged and erroneous connection to demand action -- to domestic terrorism. this is what america sometimes does when faced with crisis and fear. john adams sought and got the alien act. thousands were arrested for anti-war abuse during the world war roman one era. the japanese americans were tossed into internment camps. senator mccarthy met his downfall. he met his downfall when they said "had you know sense of decency -- have you no sense of decency?" the aclu is hopeful that the american public and that mr. king in self will realize that focusing on the entire american

muslim community to reduce terrorism is bad law enforcement and based on erroneous facts and flawed policies and theories. there is a basic distinction between belief systems and violent or criminal actions. political moderates are required to full protection. they said that extremism is no vice. they have radical extreme beliefs. we can all hold such a release of out this. -- we can hold those beliefs without resorting to acts of violence. these are pretty good subjects. the belief systems are not. they have a missed opportunity to find the similarities among all of those that commit acts of violence. there is more in common with a tax protester that flew a plane into the irs builds and -- iris building.

to focus is investigation solely on the american muslim community to based on a discredited police department report, there is a flawed. radicalization. he wants to gain cooperation and misses a chance to come up with a theory that might do some good. we encourage mr. king sued investigate this and drop evidence based inclusions that might help law-enforcement gain a greater understanding of what moves a person from nonviolent to violence. thank you.

>> thank you very much. our next bigger is with the muslim public affairs council. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i am a government and policy analyst. last name, beutel. i come here today as a representative of region as an american and a muslim. when i look at what has happened today with the peter king hearings and what has been taking place over the past few months, is that there is a serious lack of an adult conversation right now on the

issue of violent extremism facing our nation. if anything, what has been taking place is that represented king has engaged in political theater rather than problem-solving. as the other speakers have mentioned, everyone agrees that terrorism is a serious threat that affects our entire nation and that we all have to stand strongly against. divisive rhetoric that splits apart our community, undermined our values, and mrs. the threat is counterproductive -- and that it misses the threat is counterproductive. we feel that in order to have an adult conversation we need to make sure be let the data needed the discourse. according to the muslim public affairs council, the post-9/11 terrorist incident data base, we have found to out of every five al qaeda related plots threatening the united states

since 9/11 has been dotted with the assistance of muslim communities. -- has been thwarted with the assistance and muslim communities. it has actually spies to 3/4. although he has many abroad brash statements, this is demonstrably false. the number of law-enforcement officials have come forward and given their support in favor of the muslim community. "if he has any evidence of now corp., he should bring it forward." i do not know what he is hearing. he also invited represented keen to come to los angeles county.

the more we have heard is that the rep has not taking him up on that. we had former fbi counter- terrorism agents say that "the community has a multiple occasions come forward and assisted with law enforcement." our message right now is that we feel that going forward and we need to be treated as partners and not as suspects. america's diversity is its strength and not its weakness. thank you very much. >> thank you. up next is the islamic circle of north america.

>> good morning. high end the vice president of the islamic circle. the islamic circle of issues and it denounces the plan from a national inquiry. the committee on homeland -- on homeland security will hold a meeting. hearings and nothing but a political stunt. he is well known for his anti- muslim sentiment. he has declared erroneously that muslims control 80% of market in america.

that is an upsurge -- that is an upsurge observation. the congressional inquiry is based on such unfounded claims. the proposed hearing that cast doubt on an entire community by virtue of its faith, encouraging the values of religious freedom that are protected by the constitution. our country stands for justice, equality and tolerance. none are up held by his hearings. he wants us to believe that these hearings are creating a better america. we believe that these baseless acquisitions and biased increase -- that these baseless accusations and biased inquiries would only serve to

have suspicion of law-abiding citizens. it would provide fuel and put the american muslim community in serious danger. he must stop capitalizing on the rise of islam-phobis. 4 officials were in a rally. another official further divide the nation. they have remained silent for far too long. there is the rise of anti sentiment. 7 million muslims deserve more than to be treated as guilty until proven innocent. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good morning. i am here on behalf of -- i am a member of the board of trustees at the organization. thank you. i think my voice is a grass- roots efforts from american muslims looking to present the boys on issues affecting muslims and islam. through the use of video messages and maybe our reach, it provides the american muslim community and on my platform to speak directly to america. this week we are calling on american muslims to speak up and present our own narrative recalling the false allegations by representative peter king of. we are working on broadcasting our own public service announcement during the hearings. it will offer a balanced perspective. if your interested on that psa,

please see me after this and i can give you that info. in the recent past, peter keane has made unsubstantiated claims that -- these claims are not true. it goes against what the majority of american muslims believe. they also bring about more hate, misunderstanding, and assure me nation. and it discrimination. the reality is that american muslims are peaceful, caring people that generally love their country and want to not make it -- and want to help make it a better place. they were to get back to the broader community their careers, it teachers, doctors, engineers, public surface, firefighters, and other professions. many participate in public service activities. mosques actually help to facilitate many committee service events in social activities. -- many community events and

social activities. we started my faith, my boys, because american neat to see who we are and what we do. we feel i stories often not hold. the candid nature allows people to see for themselves what the average muslim things on a variety of issues. we know that not everyone has we know that not everyone in america has a muslim friend or neighbor, but taking your stories on our website about those motivated to get back to their community. one established a soup kitchen that will soon be opening its doors to people of all faiths. we have posted over 200 videos on our website.

i can tell from a personal perspective that as a muslim american, this is my home. as a high-school teacher, a mother to a beautiful daughter and one on the way, i am getting the word out to people about who the average american-muslim is. i have volunteered my time to my own career as an educator. i believe in the american democratic system and believe americans will see it through the rhetoric and "reach out to discrimination. we -- my children and everyone else's will be able to enjoy and appreciate the same rights and freedoms i have enjoyed. thank you. i am, --

>> thank you, very much. on the speaker is from the muslim-american society. -- our next speaker is from the -- the muslim-american society. my name is mohammad dawood. we join with other organizations, leaders, and voices in the american-muslim community to voice our concern involving the upcoming hearings on radicalization of the muslim community called by representative peter king. as citizens of the united states and as an integral part of the american interfaith community and the u.s. civil society, we are keenly aware of the challenges facing our nation. muslims, like other people, had

been victimized by war, social violence, and a group that seeks to indiscriminately harm people to our nation. random acts of terrorist violence contradict the core values of our faith. we have appropriately come to the assistance of legitimate law-enforcement officials to have brought such nefarious plans to our communities. whether such plots have been called muslims, christians, jews, or persons of other religions or no faith at all, they share our fabric of moral values. when these actions have been a courage -- encouraged by a small minority of muslims, we have vigorously challenged but the actions and motivations behind them. these muslims themselves have time after time challenged plots involving muslim individuals

were such actions have threatened the nation. all of these things are well known to the agencies of the united states government charged with the responsibility of protecting all of us. we are concerned that the meetings caused by rep rescinded if peter king will not uncovered new information about criminology nor will the hearings particularly examined be present in american society occupied of groups that openly espoused the overthrow of the government, or hurt racism or hatred of emigrants, -- the aged of emigrants. these proceedings will give voice to people with clear agenda is against the very religion of muslim and those who have made a cottage industry out of the demonization of an

entire religious community. the muslim american society is well aware that there is a presumption of on proven guilt. when committee chairman, peter king, stated that 80% of mosques in america are headed by radicals or the muslim organizations have not cooperated with law-enforcement officials, he took a leap into the pool of religious bigotry and unproven allegations that cast aspirations on an entire religious community. the hearing has been compared to the 1960's hearing sponsored by then u.s. senator joe mccarthy whose position in the united states governor was to persecute and in some cases destroy the lives of countless innocent citizens accused of being members of the communist party. xenophobia and religious presidents exist as unfortunate

strains in our future -- in our history and culture. it is manipulated by some forces in society through fear mongering, and principal the tax, and spreading of propaganda that masquerades as objective fact. this is contrary to the best practices of america. we joined today with other leaders -- other leading organizations in saying that such acts have no place in our democracy. we note and thank the large number of protestants, catholics, jewish, and others to stand with the muslim community against prejudice and irrational fear. our religious traditions may be the verse, but they are bound together by common threads that celebrate truth. the muslim-american society will continue to support both are collective civil-rights and collected maturity. will respect the law and honor the principle of peaceful

process and -- peaceful protest. we will continue to educate and nurtured muslims with the positive understanding of the values of our faith and we will band with all of our brothers and sisters to set a straight path for our nation and community that honors the best of all of us. the best practices of muslims will overcome all prejudice and fear by the grace of god and our faith will be a blessing to this great land of freedom that we also love and respect. thank you very much. >> thank you, mohammed. barnett speaker is with the council of muslim organizations. -- our next speaker is with the council of muslim organizations.

>> i am representing the council of muslim organizations of the greater washington area. on behalf of the council of muslim organizations, which represent over 100 mosque, schools, and organizations in the greater washington area. we want the community to note that we have held numerous meetings with law enforcement -- we want the community to note that we have held numerous meetings with law enforcement, that we have met regularly with members from the washington field office of the fbi, providing consultation and and vote with them, specifically on some of the cases mentioned earlier in this press conference. american imams have travel to foreign countries to talk about the radicalization and our commitment as american muslims.

i want to say that we are not in denial as a community that something is going on. that there are bad actors in every community and it is our role as citizens to gather together and look for justice to identify individuals. our data has shown that the american-muslim community has been in the forefront. there is something going on, though, which mr. king's hearing. he is onto something, but he is moving in the wrong direction. this approach is like finding a needle in a haystack by adding more hate. -- by adding more hay.

the american-muslim community, i believe, is the best defense that we have against radicalization in america among american muslims. in fact, it is our opinion that if you look into the american- muslim community's response, we have done a lot, but we have much more to do. we will call on peter king and others to say, "why not be a constructive partner in the war against terror and to recognize that the number of muslims in america in march will double in the next few decades." we are here to stay as a community. fear and hate-speech will not make the problem any better. on behalf of the council, we remain committed to our religion, to our rights as americans, and our faithful

responsibility to further peace and justice in our society. thank you. >> thank you very much. we have two speakers who arrived late. welcome to the famous d.c. traffic. their names are on the speaker best we gave alps before the press conference. the first is with the northern virginia at muslim city coalition. >> good morning. my name is uddinahhed. i am representing the va muslim corporation. our goal is to increase civic awareness in the muslim community and to engage our elected officials on issues that affect all americans. i am short my colleagues have pointed out some of these facts already. in 2004 representative peter king said, "you could say that

8% to 85% of the mosque in this country are controlled by islamic fundamentalist and that average muslims are loyal, but do not come forward. they do not tell the police what they know. they will not turn in their own." in 2007, he made a comment. rep keane said, "we have too many mosque in this country. -- represented king said, "we have to mean lost in this country." he said muslims were not true americans. with all due respect, congressman, i disagree with your assessment. in fact, the fact is that you have never been able to support your statements with any factual data. here are some facts.

i am part of a group of muslim leaders which cover major muslim organizations in northern virginia to are part of amsac. this council was created by the fbi washington field office after 9/11. we meet on a regular basis. muslim community leaders are also engaged in homeland security. the muslim community is a source of to -- is a source of information. the muslim community and its leadership has the same goals as congressman peter king. protect our country from any harm foreign or domestic.

however, singling out a group of americans for government scrutiny based on faith or race is a divisive and wrong. if you look back into the history of our nation, many other communities have suffered similarly. african-americans, jewish- americans, japanese-americans, catholic-americans, and irish- americans. even martin luther king, who is a non-violent example of a civil rights movement and now has a federal holiday named after him and won a nobel peace prize was branded the most dangerous effective leader in the country. in an fbi memo, fbi director j. edgar hoover labeled king as a degenerate. it is about time we as americans

put a stop to this practice. all of us need to work together to protect this great nation. thank you. >> thank you very much. next we have someone from the bill of rights and defense committee. >> thank you. i am the executive director of the bill of rights defence committee. as a constitutional lawyer who leads an organization based on civil liberty defense for all americans, there are two perspectives of would like to add to the discussion. the political theater that is looming in the haleh security committee is not just a crisis affecting the american-muslim community. it affects the united states.

inclusion has long wait at the heart of our nation budget promised to the world as well as the strength on which we have predicated this country's growth. the 7 million americans of all ethnicities that comprises the american-muslim community deserved more than guilt by suspicion, especially when you consider the interest at stake -- peace freedom of belief, of speech. these are fundamental. they are in the first amendment for a region -- for a reason. these are integral to our society as a whole. when we compromised them for any given community, it sets a presidents and opens the door for more. i would just note one caveat in all of this. the ship has already sailed. one of the disturbing parts about this hearing is the

importation of bias from the executive branch where it has long been visible and pervaded our nation's anti-terrorism efforts. there is a difference between the fbi and the house committee. the regime of pervasive air infiltration which remain secret to congress, the press, and the public -- there is not been adequate oversight. it should not comfort us about this being dragged into the public arena. the house: security committee is not a government agency, but has been in the business of violating american rights since the days of its early inception. unlike the fbi, it is not a government agency. the house homeland security committee does not a government agency that refuse to defend its

own policies in public. the concern i have is the open and over embrace of bias and xenophobia. it has been done before. the house un-american activities committee was essential ingredient in the mccarthyism that peter king aims to replicate. peter king and still be the eugene mccarthy of the 21st century. it is important for all of us to note the this ingenuity of the effort. when representative jane invested in the roots of extremism, he left out the people who bombed the offices in oklahoma. these are not the kind of threats -- it is not the

domestic extremism in which domestic -- represented king is interested. he was to score cheap political points. that's a concern all thus, not just a muslim -- that is a concern for all of us, not just muslim-americans. thank you. >> finally, -- we appreciate your patience with us. we have someone from the american muslim task force. he will keep his remarks fairly brief and then we will get right to your questions. >> i am with the american muslim task force. we represent 15 + regional

muslim and islamic organizations in the united states of america. we stand united with our muslim brothers as a people of conscience in this society, people of faith, and even people of no faith. people of faith from buddhist to the judeo-christian communities. this process which peter keane has chosen -- peter king has chosen, it will further radicalize the situation. [unintelligible]

the same type of environment that has made a mockery of the president of the united states of america. if you look up there, it is not so bad. [unintelligible] i stand -- we stand united with all people of conscious who feel that society needs to be rebuilt. we have to show in terms of our image -- we do stand united with

the rest of our brothers and sisters in the united states of america. >> again, thank you very much. almost everything you heard here will not be present during the hearings tomorrow. that is why we held this press conference. i would like to dive right into questions. we will go with a lady first. >> even if you could argue that post 911, is it not true that the vast majority of imported terrorism -- i wondered what group would be investigated?

who would you like to see investigated? what we do all the press conference before the hearing rather than after it? >> this is been going on for a while. you can go back a couple of congress's two hearings before the same committee -- you can go and a couple of congress' hearings before the same committee. it has been talked about for quite some time. as far as the acts of terrorism, if you are looking to develop a working theory of how you reduce terrorism, you do not just focus on one narrow set. you look at ported accept terrorisms, but you also look at successful acts of terrorism. you look at them for the past 50

years -- 200 years. if you are trying to develop a theory of what turns somebody from non-violence to violence, you look at all the actors to engage in that. >> post 9/11, have not the vast majority of terrorist threats been attributed to radical islam? >> nobody has done a good job at quantifying that. there has been so much focus on the american-muslim community. we have not got into an answer of deciding whether there has been in many more types of violence committed by extremists. you can certainly look at all of the on campus violence. are there commonalities with

those actors? we do not know the answer to that. if you have an examination of just the american muslim community, you're missing the opportunity to make those connections. >> i will take one question and have about two speakers respond to each question. we have said many. >> all would like to know if you agree with the assessment that congressmen came is the mccarthy of the 21st century and the assessments of a few other people to have made that connection? also to the imam, he said congressman king was on to something.

could you elaborate a little bit? >> we would like to see of the hearings will proceed. we are looking at what peter king himself has said and how he perceives the muslim community. he is not talking about the number of american muslims who had been involved in -- to have been condemned by the entirety of the muslim community. he does not recognize that. he ignored the fact that the muslim community has been cooperating and has been the source of finding many of these plots. we have worked with the parents who have announced that their

five boys were missing when they travel to pakistan. we worked with the fbi in coordination with the families. that led to the arrests and ending that episode. the history and cooperation of the muslim community should not be ignored. is he the mccarthy of the 21st century? i hope he is not, but from the way he is composing this -- the way he has been singling out and stigmatizing muslim-americans raises a lot of concerns. it is really up to him to show that he is the mccarthy of the 21st century or he is not. >> just to akio what he said, -- just to echo what he said, if

you look at the case of the five boys who went to pakistan -- this is the case of some young people who were, in fact, radicalized. the data suggest that it was via the internet, but nonetheless, it creates a concern for the community. how did this happen? what we did in that case, in that community, the parents were concerned about their community. they went to the imam of the mosque. they called the fbi immediately. we have a realize our examples of partnership in something that is really going on. what do i need by some things going on? that was the real case and the real involvement in the muslim community evident in the media.

how do we become more effective partners in what we did rather than be a part of this witch hunt that peter keane is involved in? does that answer your question? >> yes. >> none of your organizations were invited or interviewed to take part in the verbal testimony tomorrow? >> that is right. >> they have called a doctor. [unintelligible] >> i welcome a what he wants into a mosque in the united

states. you'll get people who know that organization inside the mosque. do the same for the doctor, and you'll find his name is not well known. as a witness, the is not representative -- is a convenient witness for peter keane. peter king is bringing him because he would like to hear something that -- will tell him. instead of hearing what he likes, he would -- he should have people who will tell him what he needs to hear.

those should have probability and research and accurate data on what goes on in the moslem community. -- they should have credibility and research. >> listen to the sheriff because he is the actual law enforcement person on the panel to look into why muslims are not cooperating with muslims. he would be the most direct witness. >> [inaudible]

>> it is religion part of this debate? the religion of mr. cantor and mr. king? >> it should not be. in the lead up to this hearing, we met with the numbers of members of this committee and other members of congress. where the article gets it right is that even some members of the republican majority in the house are uncomfortable with the rhetoric. i think that mr. king has gone too far. it will be interesting to see how that discomfort manifest itself in the next couple of days. will there be republican members who will go down a different path? i will recognize that the focus on the american muslim community

is the wrong way to go. there is a legitimate point of studying domestic terrorism is a valid point of focus in it on the american muslim community is the wrong way to go. >> let me try to get in as many questions as possible. >> i think the concern is that you are hearing that religion is not need to be a part of the conversation. we want to understand extremism and not have our country torn apart along religious lines. that has happened before. when kennedy was running for president, people were saying that the pope was appoint to run the country. that is inappropriate to attack catholics in that way. -- people were saying that the pope was going to run the country. we have a common enemy and violent extremists. >> you called the press

conference because of the hearings coming to mark. did any of you tried to get in touch with representatives came and tried to have a dialogue with him? -- the any of you try to get in king?with representative >> recently, we had an opportunity to meet with some of the staff on the committee of house homeland security. however, during the course of the discussion, this was more of a listening session. we were talking about some of the work that our organization has been doing and expressing some of our concerns with at the direction and rhetoric. really overall, that was fighting tooth and nail just to

get with some staff to meet with us. outside of that, there has not been much else said. >> no one has mentioned by led muslim extremists like me. by unanimously attacking king, are you shifting the blame on him rather than radical muslim extremists? >> we have talked about it. we acknowledge there is a problem. that number should not be exaggerated and he should not generalize. he should not accuse the muslim community as a whole because of the acts of the few. we have been involved in foiling successfully. we have condemned those

individuals and those acts. our problem is with the assertions about the muslim community in its entirety. his approach will radicalized young people. this is sending the wrong people -- message to young people and the world. someone is his -- in his position should be more sensitive to the issues pertaining to our national security. >> anyone who commits an act of terrorism, we don't even consider the muslim anymore. we do not allow anyone to hijack the good name of islam. the issue at hand is that there are 1.5 billion muslims that are getting put on trial. this has never happened in the history of the united states of

america. this is not a good message. >> that there is no diverting we are trying to do. in fact, our community organizations have been playing a front-line role. that is why we are pointing up the data and we are trying to get constitutionally appropriate operation. in addition, we have also been involved before -- the muslim public affairs council has put out a number of public service announcements denouncing terrorism and extremism in the name of islam as well as putting out other publications, launching our grass-roots campaign to fight terrorism. we have had a long track record going back 25 years dealing

with this very issue. represented king has decided to ignored all of the work that our organizations have been doing over the years and decided to embark on political theater rather than actual problem solving. at the end of the day, that is the concern that many of us are having because this is going down a path where this is violating people's civil rights and civil liberties. putting an entire religion on trial and not going after the real criminal threats which concern all of us as american citizens. >> to speak to your point directly, i mentioned about -- but the this is a real case. let's look in orange county in california. the muslim community identified a young person who was in a moscow who was behaving in a way that they felt was not

representative of islam. this was dangerous. -- the muslim community identify the and person who was in a mosque. they contacted law enforcement. they found out that this person was put up to this by the government. what a waste of resources. they put a person in our midst to try to encourage people to become violent and we catch them. we don't have a hearing about that. how can we engage and in power the muslim community to do just that rather than catching someone who is a paid informant? >> i cannot close it out any better than that. we appreciate it. everyone is available for a one on one and we appreciate you coming out.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now, homeland security committee holds its hearing on the muslim american community tomorrow. we will have live coverage on c- span 3 and c-span.org. coming up next, a look into new sec net neutrality rules. the house debates eliminating in mortgage refinancing program. then a hearing into federal worker pay and benefits. >> potential republican presidential contenders have been making stops in key primary states. this week, minnesota m ichelle bachmann at a fund-

raiser. >> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books. this is available online, radio, and on social networking sites. we take c-span on the road with our digital local content vehicle. this is washington your way, the c-span networks. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> the federal communications commission recently instituted net neutrality rules. these rules require that internet providers treat all data and content the same. the house commerce committee held its committee hearing to look into the rules. witnesses included an official from at&t and a co-founder of a car sharing service.

this is over two hours. >> today, the resolution of disapproval i've filed to stop the fcc from regulating the internet. this committee had a three-hour hearing with all five fcc commissioners. at the request of the democratic colleagues, i scheduled this hearing to shed more light on the impact of the fcc's rules for regulating the internet. i have introduced the resolution under the congressional review act. it is an expedited process to nullify agency rules. it requires a simple majority in each chamber and is a filibuster-proof in the united states senate.

the form of the resolution is provided for in a statute and is not subject to amendment. senate majority leader harry reid describe the process as reasonable, sensible. we have an open and thriving internet thank you to our historical hands off approach. the internet works pretty well. it is the government that does not. on december 21, 2010, the fcc instituted rules without statutory authority to do so. it is important to realize that the underlying theory of authority would allow the commission to regulate any interstate commerce and communications services on barely more than a when man without any additional input from congress. i do not want to see such authority to the federal

communications commission. under the rationale, the authority is bounded only by its imagination. this new rule is little more than a weak attempt to get around the d.c. circuit comcast ruling that the fcc failed to show it had a 30 to regulate the internet. my colleagues agree that the fcc has the authority to regulate internet at coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and other entities. the fcc believes it has those authorities. this is an agency of seeing his congressional authority and its action will hurt investment and cost jobs. small cable and internet provider in my district recently wrote to me about her concerns. "they invested billions of

dollars of private capital to build broadband it infrastructure to 90% of american homes. commissioners are looking in the rearview mirror, attempting to regulate the internet of yesterday. how well companies be able to compete if we bear the brunt of the regulations while the giants go free. the internet is evolving. all members of the ecosystem need to work together to innovate. these efforts will cost jobs and dampen investment." this is not a partisan issue. in 2006, 50 democrats voted with

us on the house floor to oppose the network neutrality for the legislation. some of the democrats are on the full committee. some are on the subcommittee. that was not a title to versus the title one approach. it was against the network neutrality rules. dr. david farber warned on december 21, 2010 that the fcc will -- it becomes a creature of government rules-making. this will make it harder for a search to compete with incumbents. it will let the needed flexibility to compete.

what is more universally damaging is the ability to destroy the possibility to raise capital. we will also hear the rule transfer wealth to a petition providers. "that does not begin to grasp the problem for both parties. the transfer of wealth between two independent parties can be beneficial to one at the expense of the other. the transfer of wealth will cripple the party on which the other relies for its very existence and is profoundly harmful. it will cost jobs. there will hinder the necessary investment in network upgrades in which customers and network providers relied. let's keep the internet open and

innovative. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution. with that, i will recognize my friend from california. >> thank you. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for agreeing to a request on this hearing. it is a resolution against approval under the review rag. before we rush to consider this legislation, we would all benefit from hearing from companies, public interest groups, and economists. my concern is that there is an enormous disconnect between the facts and the majority's policy objectives.

as we will learn today, technology innovators opposed the resolution. consumers opposed the resolution. and economists oppose the resolution. even broadband providers to not support the resolution. the cable industry says it supports the fcc order because "is largely codifies the status quo which the industry is committed. it provides clarifying language around what constitutes reasonable network management. the alternative presented a stark and much worse risk." hearings resume we will hear similar testimony from at&t today. a poll showed the overwhelming public support for an open

internet by a two-one margin. none of these facts seem to matter. the reason we are debating the disapproval resolution is that republicans claim that fcc regulation will stifle the internet and hurt our economy. but the fastest-growing, most innovative companies in america, companies like google, amazon, netflix, and others say exactly the opposite. they urged the fcc to have open internet rules because "baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness." in fact, most of the internet companies wanted stronger rules than those adopted by the fcc. i wanted to get independent advice so are staffed contacted

economist at stanford, and why you, usc, and other leading academic institutions. -- stanford, nyu, usc, and other leading academic institutions. they could choke of innovation by charging internet companies for the right to communicate with consumers. one of the costs of this misguided resolution is that it is distracting us from important telecommunications issues when we should be addressing them and we can do so in a bipartisan basis. we ought to be working together to grow our economy by freeing of spectrum. we should your do together to make our nation safer by building a broadband network for public safety.

and we should be protecting taxpayers and consumers by enacting universal service reform. but we're not doing any of these things. we're wasting time about a destructive resolution that should threaten open innovation on the internet. i thank our witnesses for being here. i want to yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. why is the internet so important? it enables freedom of expression and the sharing of ideas across town and around the world. it prevents a single entity, whether it is a broad and big enough for the government exercising total control it is a vital tool that helps small businesses compete and expand, pumping life into our economy. that is what an open internet is all about. one of our witnesses this morning, robin chase, embodies the importance of an open internet to our economy. she co-founded a car-sharing service available in more than two hundred cities across the u.s..

she used the of the nature of the internet to build her innovative business from the ground up without having to ask permission from verizon, at&t, comcast, or any other carrier or commission. these are her car numbers current 474 full-time employees. $186 million in revenue. 540,000 members. that is what open internet means to our economy. if this debate we're having today is not just a solution in search of a problem, it is a resolution in search of a problem. if we want to move forward in a way that deals with this issue, comcast and agrees that it can live with these rules appeared at&t agrees they can live with these rules. the key to the internet is ensuring that it is open so that new companies, new applications, new gadgets are being invented on a daily basis in hundreds and thousands of cities across our country that utilize this engine for economic growth and keeps america's lead over the rest of the world.

that is what makes us great, the open internet. if we allow a small number of companies to control how fast that change, that innovation moves, then we will be settling our ability to continue to be the engine of growth in the world using the internet as our way revolutionizing the rest of the world. if you did not have an open internet, no facebook, no twitter, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will now turn to the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would remind my friend from massachusetts that we have all of those and we do not have net neutrality now. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

president obama has said that it is his priority to focus on jobs. he also said that his administration will avoid owners and unnecessary regulations that stifle energy. while the executive order does not apply to independent agencies, like the fcc, the president urged such agencies to follow it and the fcc chair says that he does agree with the orders and the bulls. if the fcc had taken this approach last year, we would not have needed this resolution today. if the fcc was truly weighing the cost and benefits of its action, the agency would not be attempting to regulate the internet. there is no crisis warranting intervention. the internet is open and thriving, precisely because we

have refrained from regulating it. imposing these rules will cause more harm than good by chilling the very investment and innovation that we need to ensure that the internet keeps pace for the growing demand being placed on it. this will only hurt our economy. the internet is not broken. the market has not failed. to justify the grab for a favored sector, the fcc is speculating about the possibility of future harm. a pallid, they never heard the old phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." we can go one step further. notit ain't broke, do cricket." the fcc confesses in the order -- do not break it." where is the rigorous cost benefit analysis? we reviewed the response to our follow-up and is lacking.

let's be clear. i do not believe we should be regulating the internet. but if we follow the f c c's logic, it will be regulating google and any number of other internet companies. this affects not only what traffic internet users see, but can have a financial impact on web sites. should the fcc be determining whether google is engaged in undue discrimination. is there management risible. would it be prepared for the government to intervene because of the possibility of future harm without an analysis of current problems in market power? i think not. not for google and not for

anybody else. ultimately, there is a question of authority. the sec has changed his story about where it is the power to -- the fcc has changed its history about where it gets the power to issue these rules. none are consistent with its own president and they're all in runs from the d.c. circuit comcast case where it has failed to show its authority in this space. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. you gave an excellent explanation of why we should all support hj37. tibias system does possible, the internet has thrived, i think, in large part because this congress repeatedly has stated that we did not want it to be regulated and the fcc keeps attempting to get some nose under the tent, so to speak, so that, in the future, they can come back with really heavy-handed regulation.

the 3-2 vote is simply an effort to establish the principle that the fcc can regulate the internet. it is not as important what they do now. but the fact they have the authority to do it -- hj37 would specifically say they do not have the authority. it is happening in l.a. the regulated and are met and we should keep it that way. -- it is happening in a deregulated way and we should keep it that way. >> thank you. thank you for being here. given the significance of the resolution under consideration today, i want to thank chairman walton for respecting the request of ranking member of the full committee mr. waxman, myself, and members of the myself, and members of the subcommittee, to have