Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in a desperate effort to pass a sweeping government takeover of our health care system, Democrats held Congress in session throughout the weekend to pass H.R. 3590, The Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act along with a package of desired ``fixes,'' H.R. 4872, The Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. In a purely partisan fashion, the Democrats have now passed the largest tax increase in history, a massive expansion of entitlements, and policies which will put the health care system at the whim of the Federal Government.

One of the most distressing aspects of this legislation is the dishonesty which has been utilized for its passage. While I am pleased that the Democrats forfeited the ``Deem-and-Pass'' ploy to hide a vote on the Senate health care bill, I am shocked that they support this 2,700 page monstrosity, complete with its slew of sweetheart deals that benefit home states of members who once opposed the bill. Despite the backlash that rightfully followed these deceitful kickbacks, the Democrats included even more million-dollar deals for specific members in the reconciliation package. This tactic is an abuse of power, an abuse of taxpayer money, and abandons the integrity that the American public expects from their Congress.

The numbers in this Democratic health care package are astounding. The bill costs about $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, imposes almost $570 billion in new taxes on the American public, and cuts the Medicare program by over $500 billion. As our economy attempts to recover from the largest recession since the Great Depression, this bill's laundry list of new taxes is deplorable: $32 billion in taxes on health care benefits, $52 billion in taxes on employers, $17 billion in penalties on individuals, $210.2 billion in an unprecedented Medicare tax on wages, self-employment income, and certain investment income, and many more. While these taxes will be in effect immediately, 98% of the bill's provisions do not begin until 2014. Therefore, Americans will be paying for health reform for four years without ever seeing the government return the favor. Unbelievably, the bill's true ten-year cost when fully implemented totals about $2.4 trillion dollars. To pay for this spending, it proposes half a trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage, robbing the benefits our seniors deserve.

What may be worse than the vast cost of this bill are the budgetary gimmicks used in its scoring. The authors use ten years of revenue to pay for only six years of government spending. They also double count savings from Medicare cuts to simultaneously pay for Medicare entitlements and the bill's new entitlements. Furthermore, the bill does not include the ``doc fix,'' legislation that will likely be passed separately to ensure doctors do not incur a huge cut in reimbursements--and costs an additional $371 billion. These methods were used to dupe the American people, a smoke-and-mirrors strategy to uphold President Obama's pledge that health care reform will ``not add a dime to the deficit.'' Unfortunately, if one omits these budgetary tricks from the bill's cost, it will actually increase the deficit by almost $600 billion in the first ten years.

The structure of this bill is a clear effort to give the government complete control over health care--it takes choice and flexibility from American citizens while also making them pay more. For example, the bill instructs the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to determine what constitutes a ``minimum

benefits package'' for all Americans and then requires all citizens to purchase it. This mandate will be enforced by a massive expansion of the IRS, which will fine those who do not comply two percent of their income. I believe that individuals can best determine for themselves how comprehensive their health care insurance should be, and that Americans have many different needs which cannot be defined by a one- size-fits-all package. Unfortunately, H.R. 3590 sets the stage for mandated, standardized health care.

The provisions in H.R. 3590 will hurt families, businesses, and kill jobs at a time when we can least afford it. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reported that this health care package will most likely raise premiums for millions of families by $2,100 per year. It also taxes employers if they cannot provide health insurance and their employees receive federal subsidies--this provision will cause employers to lay off employees due to cost increases, and it discourages companies from hiring low-wage workers who are more likely to qualify for subsidies. Furthermore, Democrats have promised that Americans may keep their health insurance if they like it, but the CBO has predicted that up to 9 million Americans will lose their employer- based coverage. Additionally, the bill imposes an unfunded mandate on Texas by drastically expanding the Medicaid program, costing Texas an estimated $24.3 billion dollars in the next ten years.

Unfortunately, the reasons why this bill will hurt this country abound. This legislation fails to ensure federal funding is not used for elective abortions. While the President has promised to issue an Executive Order for political effect, the President cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says. The bill also fails to include proper verification procedures to ensure illegal immigrants do not receive federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Furthermore, it lacks protections for 9.2 million military personnel, families and retirees that their health insurance will not be affected. These pitfalls explain why Americans have flooded the DC area in protest, a visual testament of the public opinion on the Democratic health bill, which has become largely opposed throughout the debate. Unfortunately, the Democrats have not listened, and in one of the largest abuses of majority power, have forced their hand on the American public.

My fellow Republicans and I have been willing to work on health care reform from the beginning of this debate. We have introduced numerous proposals emphasizing free market solutions and cost-cutting strategies to make health care insurance readily available and more affordable to Americans. We were present when the President called us to discuss health care reform, but our willingness to start over and work together was ignored by our colleagues. I am disappointed by the events of tonight, but I have not given up and will continue to work for true reform that will lower costs instead of simply shifting those costs onto the government.

Madam Speaker, the American people have spoken loud and clear on this issue as recently as the Massachusetts election. They want health care reform, but they reject this bill. This administration and the Democrat majority have been tone deaf to this message. Speaker Pelosi just said, ``We need to pass this bill to see what's in it.''

I don't quite understand what that really means. But I will tell you what's in this bill: there's over $500 billion in tax increases, a cut to Medicare by $500 billion, a new form of government-run

health care insurance by the Office of Personnel Management, a cut to Social Security by $4.2 billion, and sweetheart deals, basically legalized bribery, to buy off votes of the Senate by the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback and the Gator aid.

To those Blue Dog Democrats, 40 sitting in conservative districts, do the right thing. Don't walk the plank on this bill. This is still the United States of America, and we're going to take this country back.

I thank the gentleman from Texas and your hosting this leadership hour and your great leadership on this issue. You and I see this the same way. You were a judge. I was a Federal prosecutor. We respect the rule of law, but we respect the truth. We call it like it is. We call it like we see it. That's what Texans do. And the way I see it is this matter has been swept under the rug; we're not calling it what it is.

You and I, I think, were some of the first two Members of Congress to stand up and say, you know what, that was an act of terrorism that occurred the other day at Fort Hood. That was an act of a terrorist. Not some criminal defendant. This was an act of terrorism. You stood up, in representing Fort Hood in your usual way, and said that's what it was and I stood up and said the same. And it took months before the Secretary of Homeland Security came before our committee and finally acknowledged what we had said all along and that this was truly an act of terrorism.

I want to congratulate you for your bill, which essentially acknowledges it for what it was, and that was an act of war on U.S. soil, combat, recognizing the victims and their families, giving them the combat pay that they deserve. You and I were at the ceremony, the memorial service, one of the most dramatic memorial services I think I've ever attended. I know the gentleman feels the same way.

I just wanted to hold up a picture of that tragic day, where we had 13 pairs of combat boots, 13 rifles with 13 helmets honoring the dead and, of course, one unborn child; 43 injured, two of those injured standing next to me in this photograph. I asked them the question, because they are the best evidence, what happened that day? They were shot by him. What did he say to you? And these two said: Congressman, he said ``Allahu Akbar.'' He screamed ``Allahu Akbar'' as he gunned down my colleagues in cold blood, as he wounded 43 soldiers on the base, the largest military installation in the country.

And who is this man? I met with General Cone at the ceremony and I said, Would you have liked to have known that a major on your base was making communications with the top al Qaeda operative?

Sure I would have.

What happened that day? The Joint Terrorism Task Force who I used to work with when I was a prosecutor had that evidence; a Department of Defense representative on the JTTF had that evidence; but for a variety of reasons--and I've questioned witnesses on this--did not want to share that with the commander of Fort Hood; for a variety of reasons. But for God's sake at least let the commanding officer know that he's got a major--this is not some ordinary event--a major on his base talking to an al Qaeda operative in Yemen, a man who it has come to our attention in a big way recently with the Christmas bomber, the same radical cleric who talked to the Christmas bomber.

But who is Mr. Hasan? And thank God he's a terrorist that is going to face a military tribunal. Well, he was born of Jordanian immigrants. Each of these, as the case unfolded, if you will, raised a flag as to who is this man. We talk a lot about connecting the dots, but these were dots that popped up that were failed to be acted upon. Why weren't these dots acted upon?

A man who said his allegiance was to the Koran, not the Constitution.

A man who described the war on terrorism as a war against Islam, according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.

A man who argued that Muslims are being targeted by U.S. anti-terror campaigns. A former classmate said of Mr. Hasan, he was very vocal about the war; very up-front about being a Muslim first and an American second.

And if that's politically incorrect for me to say that, all I'm saying here in this Chamber is the truth. You take it for what it is.

He was also concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted. On his business cards--this is all the evidence of this man--his business card said Soldier of Allah. We know that the morning of the shooting he wore traditional Pakistani garb at the 7-Eleven that morning. He was known to wear that off-duty. Certainly there are religious protections in this country for that.

But all these flags put together shows us an individual who was presenting a threat to the soldiers. We know al Qaeda has targeted military installations. We know they targeted Fort Dix. The question that General Cone asked me was, We just don't know how many more Hasans are out there. How many more Hasans are out there who are a direct threat to our military installations? The cleric in Yemen basically said that Hasan trusted him and praised him as a hero after the shooting. ``God is great,'' that's what he screamed when he shot those men in cold blood. I can't think of anything more sickening to my heart as a God-fearing man, a Christian, or anybody who believes in God, to believe in a God where you could say, ``God is great'' as you're killing somebody. That's a perverted, twisted religion. That is what we are dealing with.

I have asked the Homeland Security Committee through letters. I am ranking on the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. I asked Chairwoman Jane Harman to hold hearings on this. We asked Bennie Thompson, the majority chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, to hold hearings on this matter, because the American people are entitled to know what happened that day. And yet we got a report, a report that really didn't say a whole lot, a report that was so politically correct, it didn't even mention radical Islam. Well, in my view, that's what this war is all about that we're in right now, is a war against the extremists, against a radical, perverted teaching of Islam that says it's okay to kill in the name of Allah. The day we recognize that in this country, I think is the day we're going to be a lot safer.

I have a lot more to say, but I know the gentleman probably has some comments, but I do want to thank you for being one of the first ones to step out of the box and say this was an act of terrorism. I'm glad that Napolitano has come around to that same conclusion. And I want to thank you also for your steadfast support for our troops. You represent a base that has more soldiers than any in the world, and I know how proud you are of them and how well you represent them, and I want to personally thank you for that.

If the gentleman would yield.

It was refreshing to see that. And I don't always agree with her either, but she had the courage to call it like it is, like you and I called it for quite some time. The sad thing is there are 13 dead, one unborn, and 43 wounded because people didn't have the guts to stand up and call it what it was. You know, the day that happened it seemed to me there was a systematic process of trying to--like you said, I was a prosecutor too. If you can't win this case, you know, you need to get out of the business. The sweeping under the rug and not wanting to hold hearings on this issue and not willing to brief us.

We finally got a briefing on this just a couple of weeks ago for the first time. And you saw the impact this administration was trying to have on this whole thing that no, this wasn't--you know, we can't really call it what it is because we don't want to offend anybody. Well, that is the same type of attitude that led to this monster killing 13 people to begin with.

It was when all these red flags popped up and these dots, if you will, when they popped up, no one had the guts to act on it. And they want to sweep it under the rug, and they swept his promotion. They promoted him, even though all this was out there, swept it under the rug. And now even after the tragic events that happened that day, there is an attempt, in my view, to try to sweep all this under the rug and trying to move forward.

You know, this is one example of many things that have happened this past year. I always said that they like to attack a President in the first year of office, al Qaeda. They did it with Bill Clinton, '93 World Trade Center. They did it with George W. Bush with 9/11. And I predicted that this was going to happen under this President's watch this year. And not only did this happen, but we had the same radical cleric tied to the Christmas bomber. Fortunately, Mr. Hasan will face a military tribunal. The Christmas bomber, on the other hand, will not.

We had several events over the last year of threats to the United States and multiple attempted terrorist attacks on the United States of America. And I think it is high time we recognize it and see it for what it is to better protect the American people and our military bases that we know are being targeted right now. The idea that the Joint Terrorism Task Force and, again, these are friends of mine, that they had this information and they didn't--I understand compromising investigations. But you could at least let the general at the base know that he has an individual, a major, in his outfit talking to a top al Qaeda recruiter, and you may just want to put him under observation. You don't have to question him, you don't have to dig into his files, you don't have to put him on alert that we are looking at him; but you may want to kind of just monitor his actions because there is some radical stuff going on, and potentially he could be a threat.

This man did not believe in the mission. The irony of Mr. Hasan is he was the man trained and paid for by the taxpayer in the United States Army to counsel people coming back from the theater of war, and he didn't believe in the mission. I can only imagine what kind of counseling he was giving to these troops coming back from the war theaters that you and I have been to in Iraq and Afghanistan and what he was telling them when he himself didn't believe in the mission they were sent to do. That is the absurd irony of Mr. Hasan.

And, again, as General Cone asked, how many more Hasans are out there? I think we have a duty in the Congress. I think the Department of Defense has a duty. I hope the Webster report will uncover more of this. But we have a duty to better protect our soldiers not only abroad, but right here in the United States. And that is the great, awful tragic event of what happened was that it happened on American soil and it happened in their home. That is just not supposed to occur in this country.

It needs to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be swept under the rug. And I think we should continue to do this and continue to ask the majority to hold hearings on this. And you know, as Secretary Napolitano admitted, it was a violent Islamic terrorist attack. I think the Department of Defense needs to come forward with that as well, and I think we have an obligation to the American people not to sweep this under the rug, to prevent future actions from occurring. Our oversight responsibilities under the Constitution I take very seriously, and we have a duty here in the Congress to hold those hearings and get to the bottom of this case so we can stop it in the future.

I went down to Guantanamo after the President decided to close it down, and I saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And it was during prayer hour. And he was laying on his rug, bowing to Mecca. And it was one of the most chilling things I have ever seen in my life. A man responsible for killing 3,000 Americans, and the idea that we are going to bring him into the United States. And look, I am a Federal prosecutor. The Southern District of New York is one of the best U.S. Attorney's offices in the country. But are we going to treat these people as criminal defendants or enemy combatants? Are we going to say that this is a war or a criminal prosecution?

It seems to me that we are slipping back into the Clinton years, where we really looked at these as really just illegal criminal prosecution, not an act of warfare perpetrated against the United States of America. It seems to me, particularly with the top 16 al Qaeda operatives, many of whom were responsible for 9/11, that was an act of warfare, and it should be treated as such.

If the gentleman would yield, I was proud to be a cosponsor of your bill. I hope we see it pass in short order.

I agree with you. That was an attack on American soil by the terrorists. According to the Secretary of Homeland Security, so was Fort Hood, and American soldiers were killed. So how can we differentiate between the Pentagon and Fort Hood? Both are symbols of military might and power in the United States. I think it is fitting to the families. I would hope the majority would see it the same way, that this was an act of terror perpetrated on American soldiers and on a symbol of military might and power, and give them the just compensation that they gave the victims of 9/11 and the Pentagon.

I can think of no reason why that legislation should be blocked by the majority.

I agree. I think this is, in some ways, worse than 9/11 because, there, the enemy was foreign, radical Islamic terrorists. In this case, these soldiers are saluting their colleagues who lost their lives, who were killed by a major in the U.S. Army who was wearing the very same military uniform that they are. And the idea that he could betray his soldiers like this, and not only betray, but kill them, that's what I think makes it so very, very hard to accept.

Aulaqi, the Yemeni cleric, said that Hasan trusted him. The radical cleric said that Hasan trusted him. Unfortunately, the Army trusted Mr. Hasan and promoted him through the ranks. Because of political correctness, he was never called out for his behavior, which we know was a problem. We know the flags were raised. I'm not making this stuff up. He had business cards that said ``soldier of Allah,'' the jihadist line he used when he killed them in cold blood, talking about the war on terrorism is a war against Islam. It just makes you wonder how could we have promoted someone in the United States Army and the United States military with these types of flags going up? He said his allegiance was to the Koran and not the Constitution.

Judge, you are absolutely right. The morale, which is so important in a time of war that we are in, is critical here. And if we can't act upon cases like this in the United States Army in the United States out of fear that we won't be politically correct and we may hurt someone's feelings, where have we gone in this country? We can't call it out like it is and say it for what it is, that this man did not love his country, that he had more loyalty to radical Islam, and that is precisely why he killed those 13 soldiers that day.

I point to the same radical cleric who praised Mr. Hasan's actions and called him a hero is the same radical cleric who is behind the Christmas bomber. This is no coincidence here. It is connecting back to a radical al Qaeda operative out of Yemen. Why in the world General Cone didn't know about this, a major on his base, is really beyond me. And that's what we have got to fix looking forward with the JTTFs and with the Department of Defense.

We have talked to them about the Christmas bomber. But how many Christmas bombers are out there? How many more people is the radical cleric Aulaqi influencing? Jihad Jane and others, they all go to these Web sites. And not only do we have to deal with the al Qaeda operatives overseas, but this kind of act inspires them, and the fact that we could have let this happen inspires them. And then how many more radical homegrown terrorists are potentially out there in the United States?

We know that the radical cleric has now said just one man, one incident. They are decentralizing. They are saying one man can carry out, take a gun, take an explosive device. That is in a very radical departure from how al Qaeda had worked in the past, and it is coming from the same individual who is tied to Mr. Hasan and the Christmas bomber, and we better wake up to that.

If the gentleman would yield. We had the information in both the Hasan case and the Christmas bomber. I made all the points about the Hasan case, all the flags that popped up, a failure to act upon those red flags.

Indeed, in the Christmas bomber case you had a State Department cable coming out that warned the father had come in warning that his son was in touch with Islamic extremists in Yemen. Yet, when I asked the Under Secretary of the State Department, Mr. Kennedy, in God's name when he found that out, why didn't he revoke his visa, his response was, You know, a lot of people come into embassies and a lot of people give us tips, and they are not all credible. And I said, Well, this was not some anonymous source coming in, it was his father.

Meanwhile, in the intelligence community there is specific threat information coming in about this individual. The State Department has got the cable, the intelligence community has got the threat information. It is not put together. Both sides could have acted on it. The intelligence community could have asked the State Department, Does this guy have a passport? Does he have a visa? Can we revoke that? And the same with the State Department. Yet, that doesn't happen.

We need to move forward to make sure the Christmas bomber never happens again, and to make sure, with all the evidence coming in with Mr. Hasan, to make sure that with individuals like this the evidence isn't swept under the rug out of political correctness.

If the gentleman will yield. It was preventable. There is a lot of information coming in, and we have a lot of good men and women working counterterrorism. They have got a tough job. There is a lot of information coming in. But we had these two major focal points that just were never acted upon and never put together in the Christmas bomber case. And Mr. Hasan, my God, how many points of error popping up on him? How many red flags are popping up?

And why weren't they acted upon? I think it goes back to your original point: We didn't want to hurt someone's feelings.

And do you know what? We see this in the Federal Government. They would rather just kind of promote and move on somebody rather than have to deal with the problem. Gee, we have someone who is making these radical statements, but I would rather not deal with the problem. Let's just push them along in the system. Let's transfer him from Walter Reed, where he was a major problem--we know that, poor performance evaluations--to one of the largest military installations in the country, and let's promote him to major in spite of the fact all these points of evidence were out on him. I think that is the real tragedy.

I know my good friend from Texas has probably one of the most difficult

jobs out of any Member in this body, and that is because you have more soldiers in your district than any other, and you are the one who has to comfort them, as we all do, but you, many more times than any other Member, have to comfort the loved ones whose son or daughter has been killed in a time of war. I know you personally have comforted the families of the victims here and Fort Hood, and the biggest tragedy is that it could have been prevented.

With that, I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I thank the gentleman from Austin, Mr. Doggett, for introducing this resolution. We share Austin, and we share in our grief and share in these tragic events that occurred on February 18. I was in Austin. I was driving, and I saw a bunch of smoke coming out of some Federal buildings where I used to work with the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI, right next door to the IRS building.

I called the police chief that day, and I said, What happened? Police Chief Acevedo said that a plane had flown into the Federal building, and I said, Well, do you know if it was an accident? He said, No, Congressman, it was intentional. And at that point in time, we knew that this was not just some accidental mishap, airplane getting off course, mechanical problems, but rather an intentional act of violence.

What I saw at the scene was quite astounding, and I'm sure the gentleman from Austin saw it as well. The airplane was a rather small aircraft, yet the damage that was done was massive, almost bringing the entire Federal building down. As it was in flames that fateful day, it reminded me a bit of Oklahoma City. It also looked like a sort of smaller version of 9/11. As the flames went up, as the glass blew out, a technician by the name of Robin De Haven, probably one of the great heroes that day, removed glass from the back side of the building and saved five employees of the IRS.

Our thoughts and prayers go to the Hunter family. Vernon Hunter served his country and served in the IRS. He also served in the United States Army for 20 years. His office was right above where the airplane crashed into that building. The plane literally skipped off the top of a car and went into the first floor of the building in an intentional act to kill people.

And I was asked a question at the press conference with the police chief and the fire department, Well, Congressman, was this an act of terrorism? Well, I guess it's all how you define ``act of terrorism.'' But what I said was, Anytime somebody flies an airplane intentionally into a Federal

building to kill people, I think that is an act of terror. And if you ask the Federal employees that day what they thought, well, they certainly thought it was an act of terror as well. We need to stop this in this country. We need to stop this.

The heroism on the part of the Austin Police Department, the fire department, the FBI and the first responders in responding to this tragic scene and saving so many lives when we saw this massive destruction, the great miracle that day was that more people were not killed. Those first responders saved countless lives, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their great, great service to not only the city of Austin but to the American people.

So with that, let me again thank the gentleman from Austin for introducing this resolution. It's very timely. We do share that city together. We work well together, and I think, again, we share the grief of the loss. We share the tragic event, and we also share the belief that this was really an intentional act, an act of terror that we need to stop in this country.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. And you cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

That was a quote from President Abraham Lincoln.

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

I rise in support of this bill. I want to thank Ranking Member Hall and I want to thank my good friends across the other side of the aisle, Chairman Gordon and Mr. Lipinski, for, as usual, working in a bipartisan way to get good things done for the country. I think the American people deserve that, and they want to see more of that, of us up here in Washington.

I was proud to be the lead Republican sponsor on this bill as well because this issue is so important. A lot of times when you talk about cybersecurity, people's eyes kind of glaze over, and yet when we talk about cybersecurity, we are really talking about national security. We held hearings both in the Science and Technology Committee and on the Homeland Security Committee where we examined the vulnerabilities and the threats presented by cyberattacks, and it is very frightening.

When you talk to the top military advisers to the President, they will tell

you one of the greatest threats we face as a Nation is a cyberattack and that we are vulnerable. And when we had hearings on the issue, we heard that just about every Federal agency, in fact every one, including the Pentagon, had been hacked into and this institution had been hacked into. And there have been major data dumps where information was stolen from countries that we cannot speak of in the well of the floor right now, but foreign countries stealing information from the United States Government.

There are really several areas. There are criminal enterprises who use cyberattacks to steal intellectual property, and then there is the realm of espionage, where we have countries that go in and steal information from the United States Government, intellectual property, secrets within the government, data dumps the size of the Library of Congress. We had a classified program that was subsequently declassified that showed that through the click of a mouse power grids could be blown up.

Every critical infrastructure is tied to cybernetworks. Whether it be our utilities, our power grids, our financial institutions, whether it be air traffic controllers, virtually every sector is tied to the networks, to the Internet, and, therefore, is vulnerable. This bill I think is a good step forward in helping to protect our networks, certainly in the Federal Government.

Last year, I joined with Congressman Jim Langevin from Rhode Island, working with CSIS, who had worked on the Iraq Study Group as well, to put together a team, a commission of experts across the Nation of cyberexperts to make recommendations to the next President of the United States. We made those recommendations to President Obama. I am pleased that this bill actually fulfills one of the main recommendations in that report, and that is to provide improving Federal cyberworkforces within the Federal Government. And this bill does a lot more than that.

Improving research and development, this bill establishes cybersecurity R&D grant programs that focus on technical and human behavioral aspects of cybersecurity. It improves our Federal cyberworkforce. It creates a scholarship program at NSF that can be repaid by Federal service. And, it improves coordination in the government. It gives NIST the authority to set security standards for Federal computer systems and develop checklists for agencies to follow. I think this is a very, very important point, because in our hearings, when we asked the Department of Homeland Security or representatives from the Department of Defense or NSA who is in charge of defending our networks, who is in charge, they couldn't answer that question, because there isn't one person in charge.

One of our recommendations was to have someone at the White House level be put in charge to coordinate the various agencies. And because there is no one in charge, there is the lack of coordination. So the very entities that have the offensive capability for cyberattack are not coordinating with the agencies that are tasked with defending the Nation from a cyberattack. I think that giving NIST the authority to set these standards for the first time is going to go a long way in protecting our networks inside the Federal Government.

It also reaches out to the private sector, which I particularly like about this bill. It emphasizes the implementation of checklists by Federal agencies that they should remain flexible and technology neutral in working with the private sector. It improves coordination outside the government by creating a task force of the Federal Government universities who know this issue very well and the private sector to coordinate the research and development.

I think the idea of a public-private partnership rather than having bureaucrats in Washington make all these decisions is vitally important, to bring in the expertise of the private sector and the technology sector who know this issue very well. And, as Chairman Gordon mentioned, this has broad-based support from business groups outside in the private sector and from the technology sector in particular.

So with that, I think this is a great first step towards protecting our Federal networks. I again want to commend the great leadership on both sides of the aisle for making this happen today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Just in closing, I co-chair the Cybersecurity Caucus with Congressman Langevin, and I want to commend him for his great work not only on the CSIS Commission but also on the caucus to try to raise awareness of this issue. It is a very, very important issue. I also want to thank Chairman Gordon, who I know is going to retire. We're going to miss him. But just the bipartisan spirit in which he has conducted himself on this committee to allow us to work together with the majority to get good legislation out of the Congress. As I said earlier, I think that's what the American people want. It's what they deserve. Certainly, there's no greater issue where Republicans and Democrats should come together than on issues impacting national security, which this bill does. We are Americans first. Again, this bill is a great step forward into furthering and protecting our Federal networks.

I hope, as with what happened with 9/11, we don't turn a blind eye and wait until there's a major denial of service attack before we start to pay attention to this issue. I think this bill, which I anticipate will pass the House overwhelmingly, is a great statement by the Congress that cybersecurity is important and that we can work together on this. I think, as Congressman Wu talked about the attacks on Google recently, last Fourth of July we had a denial of service attack emanating that hit Korea and the United States. The disturbing thing about that attack was it was not to phish or to steal information, or perhaps espionage. Rather, it was intended to do harm. That denial of service attack was intended to shut down our networks. It was relatively unsophisticated.

But as we examine the denial of service attacks that we saw in Estonia, the denial of service attack in Korea and the United States just last Fourth of July, to me, that is an eye opener. It's just like before 9/11 we saw signs that the Congress needed to pay attention to. I think we have seen signs of that in the cyber-realm, and I hope we can work together across the aisle to further enhance and strengthen our cybernetworks, and in the private sector as well, so that we can avoid a cyber-9/11 attack in the United States.

So this is, again, a very important issue that, when you talk to leaders in the military, they get it. They recognize it. They want to work with the Congress to better improve our cybersecurity. Again, let me just give my thanks to Chairman Gordon for allowing this to come out of the committee and come to the House floor. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Hastings and my colleague from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) are making improvements to this bill to ensure that the strategic plan takes into consideration the talents of women and minority populations in the cybersecurity workforce and that the University-Industry Task Force includes representatives from minority-serving institutions. I therefore urge support for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose this amendment.

As part of the Scholarship for Service program at NSF, scholarship awardees are to receive internships at Federal agencies. This amendment simply gives the director the discretion of allowing them to intern in the private sector. So, therefore, I support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I also support the gentleman's position on earmarks. This amendment would prohibit the earmarking of the NSF and NIST cybersecurity activities authorized in this bill. It is well understood that awarding grants through merit-based competitive processes is the best way to fund science and technology, and cybersecurity is certainly no exception. This insulation from political influences is, in fact, an important reason why NSF and NIST have such a strong reputation overall both within and outside of the Federal Government.

Mr. Flake's amendment will help ensure that this model is being protected by incorporating it specifically into the statute. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.

Madam Chair, NSF computer and network security research grants are intended to enhance computer security through basic hardware and software research in numerous areas, including the ability for law enforcement to detect, investigate, and prosecute cybercrimes.

This amendment merely highlights crimes against children and organized crime, such as cybercrimes, where these investments should be made. So I fully support this good amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to strongly support this amendment. Our Nation's community colleges have played a crucial role in our technology and educational workforce. This amendment makes sure they are able to make recommendations and give advice to the Federal Government on the strategic plan. It emphasizes their eligibility as a potential institutional partner under the Scholarship for Service Program and really puts them at the table of the University-Industry Task Force.

So, with that, I strongly urge support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

This amendment directs NIST to work with Federal, State, and private-sector partners to develop a framework that States may use to improve their cybersecurity posture. Developing such a framework for use in assisting States is certainly consistent with NIST's expertise and capabilities, and there is clearly a need for this expertise at the State level.

I should note, in working with the States, that we should, of course, expect that the NIST role remains limited to the development of guidance that the States may use, if they choose, avoiding any activities that are mandatory or binding in nature.

I'd like to yield to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) to say if that's a correct statement. That is my understanding of this amendment.

Reclaiming my time then, I'm comfortable with the language in this amendment as written and very much support its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The Internet knows no boundaries. This is not just an issue for the United States; it's a global issue that we need to address. This amendment simply states that the interagency cybersecurity R&D plan required by the legislation outlines how the United States can work strategically with international partners on cybersecurity R&D.

Cybersecurity issues are certainly global in nature. Many of our closest allies face the same threats and vulnerabilities that we do. Thus, it makes sense that we should work to cooperate more closely with our international partners, and that is what this amendment will do. Therefore, I strongly urge support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I'm not opposed to it.

This amendment simply provides an establishing or enhancing cybersecurity collaboration between community colleges, universities, and NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers, and is among the most eligible activities that may be supported by NSF cybersecurity research grants.

This collaboration between researchers and those that provide technical support regarding cybersecurity best practices is benefiting and should be encouraged. And therefore, I support

the gentlelady from Pennsylvania's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment although I am not opposed to it.

This amendment specifies that as part of its outreach and education efforts NIST may host regional workshops on cybersecurity risks and best practices for businesses, State, and local governments and educational institutions.

I think that's a good thing, and while I do not oppose this amendment, I'd like to note that NIST has a very modest budget for cybersecurity activities, of which outreach and education is just a small fraction.

Accordingly, in carrying out the section of this bill is my expectation that this should work to leverage this funding to benefit the largest number of entities and individuals as it can. I recognize workshops can also serve as a useful outreach tool and should be an option.

So with that point in mind, I do not object to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, but do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply States that the NIST Cybersecurity Awareness and Education Program established in the bill helps makes the technical standards and best practices more usable for everyone, especially those new to computers: The elderly, those with low incomes, and those that may not have broadband quite yet, such as rural areas. Therefore, I do not oppose this amendment.

I would like to join Chairman Gordon at this point in time to offer my sincere condolences as well to the family of Judy Ruckel.

Judy served as a printer for the Science and Technology Committee since 2001 under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Day in and day out, Judy carried out her job with style and grace and never did she allow her struggle with diabetes to diminish her presence nor her performance.

Judy worked from home, but during her visits to our offices each week, she took time to look in on staff, inquiring about our families and challenges, always leaving a smile on the faces of those she came in contact with.

The job of managing countless hearing transcripts and markups and transforming them into permanent records is absolutely critical to the life of our committee, and Judy did it to perfection. She is irreplaceable. Judy's suffering has ended, and we will miss her very deeply, and God be with her.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to this amendment.

This amendment would include some additional factors to be considered in the assessment of the cybersecurity workforce and barriers to entry into that workforce. Job security clearance and suitability requirements are important factors to consider in this assessment. I thank the gentlelady for a constructive amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Let me tell you it is a point of personal privilege to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for all of his great work in this particular area and how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman, co-chairing the CSIS commission and also co-chairing the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus. So thank you.

This amendment would modify the section of the bill requiring the President to transmit a cybersecurity workforce report to Congress, specifically by requiring that the President's review consider the potential for temporary assignment of private sector cybersecurity professionals as a means through which to meet Federal workforce needs.

These types of mechanisms, such intergovernmental personnel agreements, have long been used by Federal agencies in various capacities; and they provide a flexible means through which to address workforce needs expeditiously.

Accordingly, it makes sense for the President's workforce assessment to consider and report on these mechanisms. So therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Let me say first I commend the gentlelady from California for the emphasis on the private sector.

I think too often when we deal with this issue, we focus mainly on the government and not enough on the private sector where the majority of the critical infrastructures are in this country. So let me commend the gentlelady for bringing this forward.

This amendment makes two changes to the bill which I believe are good changes. First, it requires that the cybersecurity R&D strategic plan describe how interagency efforts will facilitate access to realistic threat and vulnerability data by academic researchers. Secondly, it tasks the university-industry R&D task force created by the bill to consider how best the public and private sectors can share ``lessons learned on the effectiveness of new technologies.''

Both of these provisions make changes to the underlying bill that I believe improve the bill, and therefore I fully support its passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. However, the good news is, Mr. Cuellar, I do not intend to oppose it.

Let me first commend the gentleman from Texas, my dear friend and colleague, Mr. Cuellar, on the outstanding work he has done in this area and on the Homeland Security Committee, and also his work with the Center for Excellence, in San Antonio, for cybersecurity. It is great for our great State of Texas.

This amendment requires a strategic plan to describe how the program will strengthen cybersecurity education and training efforts in order to ensure an adequate, well-trained workforce. The bill already has in place a robust workforce assessment requirement, but the robustness of our future cybersecurity workforce I believe is important enough to reemphasize it.

With that, I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I strongly support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

The gentlelady from New Hampshire's amendment is one that our side favored during the drafting of this legislation and one that we think makes the Scholarship for Service program at NSF even stronger. So I thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment.

The intent of the program is to educate the Federal Government's future cybersecurity workforce. This amendment increases the amount of employment service a graduate will owe the Federal Government upon the completion of her or his education, ensuring a greater return on our initial investment.

Therefore, I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Let me first commend Ms. Clarke for this amendment, but also her great work on the Homeland Security Committee as the chairwoman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee.

This amendment simply requires the present Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Report include an analysis of the capacity of the overall agency workforce to manage contractors providing cybersecurity support to Federal agencies. Contractors are a significant component of our cybersecurity efforts, and assessing their role and agencies' capacity to manage them is very, very appropriate. Therefore, I support this amendment.

With the time I do have remaining, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

This amendment would require a National Academy of Sciences study on the role of community colleges in cybersecurity education, with an aim toward identifying best practices related to improving cybersecurity education through better linkages between community colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. It is important not to overlook the contributions of community colleges, as the gentleman stated, to our overall technical workforce, including those involved in computer and network security. This amendment is intended to help address that issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

First let me say what a great amendment this is. As a Federal prosecutor, I encountered crimes against children and also as deputy attorney general for the State of Texas. While there, we formed an Internet crimes against children's task force. The threat to children, both from child pornography and online predators, as the gentleman knows, is very real. And while the Internet is a great tool for our youth, it also does present a vulnerability and a threat to them. That is why I am so glad to see this amendment.

It simply clarifies when we are promoting and educating people on the importance of cybersecurity, we must include children and young adults along with the other targeted audiences. So let me again thank the gentleman for bringing this. I strongly support it, and encourage my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Let me thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment. My home State of Texas is the home to probably more active duty service and veterans than probably any other State in the country. I think this is a great idea, including Lackland Air Force Base, which provides a cybersecurity command.

It is very straightforward. It adds veteran status as an additional item for consideration by NSF when it selects individuals for scholarships under its Cybersecurity Scholarships for Service program. Therefore, I strongly support the gentlelady's amendment, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

I thank the gentlelady for this amendment. Certainly, our youth know the Internet and how to operate on it more effectively than anyone in this Chamber. This amendment adds an outreach to high schools and community colleges component to the characteristics of the Scholarship for Service program in an effort to attract more students to the program. I think it's a good idea. I support this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not intend to oppose it.

This amendment simply clarifies that NSF's support for cybersecurity-related curriculum development at universities includes ``curriculum on the principles and techniques of designing secure software.'' It's a good amendment that codifies and clarifies NSF's role in support of computer security curriculum development. I support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed.

While the statute that we are amending today already authorizes the director of NSF to provide grants for computer and network security research centers, I believe that the establishment of a National Center of Excellence dedicated solely to cybersecurity can only increase our defensive capabilities, provided that any funding that does go to the National Center does not come at the expense of other Centers of Excellence, of course. With that, I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply ask the General Accounting Office to examine the current cybersecurity infrastructure and report to Congress with recommendations on how to address any failings or weaknesses within the infrastructure and the technology available to do so. Therefore, I support this amendment, and I also urge my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply states that ``technologies to secure sensitive information among Federal agencies'' shall be among the technologies addressed in the interagency cybersecurity R&D plan required by the bill. As I understand it, the gentleman's amendment is referring to information controlled by the Federal Government that is not classified but is still sensitive and particularly important to protect. This class of information is very substantial in numerous Federal agencies, including our research and development agencies, and I believe it's reasonable and appropriate to consider how best to pursue technologies that may assist in better protecting it without classifying the information outright. So therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is our last amendment, and I want to commend the chairman for his perseverance through 25 amendments here today.

This amendment simply adds national laboratories to the list of stakeholders that the administration should engage in developing its strategic plan for R&D. I think it's a good idea. I urge support. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to personally commend the gentleman for the authorship of this bill. I was proud to be a lead sponsor of the bill. When it comes to security matters and, I think, a lot of science and technology matters, we work in a very bipartisan way. Again, I think that's what the American people really want and deserve out of this Congress. So I am glad that we saw a little bit of that bipartisanship here today on the House floor. And thank you for your leadership.

Madam Speaker, tonight I want to give a voice to one of my constituents by the name of Jennifer Heiden. She is a TEA party activist. She wrote me a letter. She said, ``My name is Jennifer Heiden. I am a wife, a daughter, a mother, a sister, business professional, and grassroots leader.

``We are dismayed at this Congress and its proposed health care legislation. You stress accountability and transparency, but fail to disclose to the American people that its 20-year costs are in the $4.9 trillion price range once you cut through the budget gimmicks. You avoid town halls and citizen gatherings since you found that we had questions you could not or would not answer. And you draft bills in secret and give no one sufficient time to read them or understand them.

``The majority of Americans do not want this bill, and you know it. Do what this country elected you to do. Scrap this legislation and give us health care reform that will help--not hurt--this country and its citizens.''

Madam Speaker, tonight we rise during this leadership hour to remember the events of November 5, 2009, one of the largest attacks that was perpetrated at our U.S. military installation at Fort Hood, Texas, just north of my district, a very solemn occasion. Thirteen people were killed, over 30 people wounded, and an unborn child was killed that day. I went to the memorial service, thirteen pairs of combat boots put together with a rifle and a helmet on top, and the pictures of the victims who were killed in cold blood that day by a deranged gunman who, unfortunately, served in the United States military.

In my view, simply put, it was an act of treason. Look, in a time of war, soldiers are killed. But when I visited Fort Hood for the memorial service, they said, Congressman, we never dreamed that they would be killed in our home. This is our home. This man killed his fellow comrades at our home. Very disturbing. And the words that he said as he pointblank shot them one by one, as 100 rounds went off from his semi- automatic pistol, 100 rounds into a crowd of defenseless soldiers and a few civilians, were ``Allahu Akbar, God is great.'' That's one of the most disturbing reports that we got from that tragic day.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana and your great comments. And you're a true patriot to this country. I mean that very heartfelt.

We've gotten so wrapped up in this political correctness, we're prohibited from calling this the war on terror. That's been taken out of the vernacular. And you wonder how a man like this could be transferred and then promoted. And with all the flags and contacts with al Qaeda recruiters, how did this happen? Why wasn't that information shared? Why, when these flags went up, weren't we able to act upon it?

We know for years that al Qaeda has been targeting bases both in the United States and abroad. It's a homeland security threat, it's a national security threat abroad. They tried to do that with Fort Dix, and we stopped it with good intelligence. They tried to do it with other military installations in the United States.

So when this evidence got out there, the real question I think we in the Congress need to ask is: Why didn't his superiors know about this? Or, when his colleagues heard the ranting and raving by him, having a business card saying he is a soldier of Allah, saying that his loyalty is first and foremost to the Koran, not the Constitution.

And the gentleman from Indiana is right. I worked in the Justice Department, a Federal prosecutor at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. The National Intelligence Estimate says the most effective weapon we have is a moderate Muslim--the Muslim who will come forward and help us in the mosque to say there is an individual out here that we believe to be a threat to the security of the United States. Obviously, this man was. But, for whatever reason, nothing was done about it, and 13 soldiers are dead and 30 more are wounded.

We in the Congress have a role, an oversight role to get to the answers, to fix the problem, to make sure it didn't happen. The whole point after 9/11 was to make sure that we shared intelligence and information to better protect the American people. And I see no greater homeland security issue than protecting our bases right here in the United States.

As I said at the outset, when I visited the soldiers at Fort Hood for the memorial service, they say, Congressman, we see this in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't expect that to happen at home. Not in our home. Not on our base. This was not supposed to happen. And the question is: Is this man--did he infiltrate or was he a ``lone wolf'' acting on his own without any outside influence?

We don't know the answer to those questions. We have been told that from the very day after this occurred that he was a lone wolf acting on his own. There's a term ``rush to judgment.'' In my view, I think that was a rush to judgment, the idea that he was acting as a lone wolf before we got all the evidence in front of us.

All we are asking in the Congress is that we review the matter. I have great hope that the majority will work with us in a bipartisan way to provide that oversight that this body, this distinguished body, by the Constitution has the authority to: To get to the real answers for the American people as to whether this man had radicalized on his own, which he clearly did--he radicalized--or whether he is being facilitated by people on the outside, and whether al Qaeda had something to do with this. Because they got a playbook, and they go back to the playbook.

They had the World Trade Center bomber. They went back to the World Trade Center. They tried to hit the Capitol. That's their playbook. They will, in my view, try to hit the Capitol again. Chemical explosives. Ramzi Yousef, when he was arrested in Islamabad, a very chilling story. He had multiple baby dolls that he had stuffed with chemical explosives. He was going to take those baby dolls onto airplanes, known as the Bojinka Plot, and blow up 12 commercial airliners simultaneously. They go back to that playbook. We've seen chemical explosives come up over and over again.

Military installations are in their playbook. And we need to take the protection of our military installations both here in the United States and abroad very, very seriously. And when a man like this gets in and gets promoted and perpetrates what he did, one of the greatest acts of violence on a military base since Pearl Harbor, then we need the answers to these questions.

There are so many flags in this case. Not only this individual, but what was he doing with Pakistan. What influence did Pakistan have on this individual. The American people need to know the truth. We need to know it not as a ``gotcha'' exercise, but as a way to look forward and say, How can we better protect the American people from individuals like this and our soldiers from people like this? How can we better protect bases here in the United States?

We know he contacted many radical Web sites, posted very radical thoughts on these Web sites. It's time for us to stand up and have hearings on this matter and answer these fundamental questions.

Tonight, to the families of the victims, our heart goes out. We hear the cries. As we saw the 13 combat boots, the rifle, and the helmet portrayed in that picture, it was one of the saddest days and darkest chapters, I think, in American history. As we go forward, I believe we need to get the answers to these many, many questions that are out there.

Probably the hardest thing we have to do as Members of Congress is to comfort families who have lost their loved ones. I will never forget that day at Fort Hood at the memorial service, talking to the survivors, particularly some of the spouses who lost their husbands that day, to the mothers, fathers, and brothers and sisters; talking to the wounded victims who were shot by this man.

As we comfort these families, as we have with soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and those who died, it is one of the most difficult things as Members of Congress, one of the most solemn responsibilities that we have. We know that words cannot give them back what they lost. We grieve their loss in the Congress. We stand by the families of the victims. With that, let me say God bless them.

I know we have another colleague from Texas who I know is here. When he is ready to speak, I'd like to yield to my good friend from Texas. Then I will reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Again, reclaiming my time, I think I speak for most Americans, we do not want to see this thing swept under the rug. We don't want to see the rush to judgment that it was the act of one man--and perhaps it was--but the American people need to know the truth, and they need to know who he was talking to. And when the reporting came out that he was talking to the top al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen by emails and that there were communications in Pakistan, that raises big flags in this case. We cannot ignore that.

It is our constitutional duty to ask the tough questions to get to the bottom of this case so that the American people, through their representatives, can find out what really happened that tragic day on November 5. And if we don't do that, and if the majority does not want to do that and bows to the President and his request, I think we are being derelict in our responsibilities.

Again, this is a man who places allegiance more to the Koran than the Constitution, in his own words. ``Son of Allah'' on his business cards, dressed in the Pakistan garb, classic of the suicide bomber techniques to will your possessions away, wear the dress the morning of. I think he fully expected not to survive the incident. He did. And the best evidence we have is inside his head.

Of course the first thing he did was ask for an attorney, and he is not speaking. That is the same thing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked for. When he first got arrested, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked for two things: I want a lawyer, and I want to be taken to New York City. And unfortunately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got his wish that day because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to be brought to New York now under the President's new guidelines.

I think getting to the bigger picture of all this, as we've taken ``war on terror'' out of the vernacular, we are moving back to this Clinton era where these terrorists are treated not as enemies of war but as criminal defendants. We are in a war, like it or not. We are in a war. We need to treat these people who mean to do us harm as enemies of war. The military tribunals are the best way to prosecute. We are going to bring Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into the United States to the very city where 3,000 people were killed at his hands.

I was a Federal prosecutor. The Southern District of New York is one of the finest U.S. Attorney's offices and is probably best equipped to handle that prosecution, but the Federal rules of evidence are very different from the military tribunals. It's going to withhold evidence from trial. It will not protect classified information. It will turn to a showcase. And as in the case of Moussaoui, whose computer records were ruled inadmissible, he got life imprisonment. Ramsey Yousef, the perpetrator of the '93 World Trade Center got life imprisonment. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed deserves the death penalty. It was an act of war.

Now, I don't know if the administration is saying, you know, basically that the war on terror is over, it's over so let's just go ahead and bring these people in and treat them like criminal defendants, but I think they are making a serious mistake, not only compromising the prosecutions of these terrorists but bringing them into a city that has been a target for quite some time. It's only going to heighten the state of alertness in New York City and become a mecca for jihadists around the world to come to New York to see the spectacle of a show trial. They ought to be tried in Guantanamo. Guantanamo never should have been closed or the order should never have been sent out to close it, and a military tribunal is best equipped to prosecute these individuals.

Just let me say in closing, we've been dealing with the health care legislation. It is very important for the Nation, but we were struck by a heavy blow last week, November 5, at Fort Hood. We never expected it to be one of our own. We never expected an act of treason on that level, killing 13 soldiers and wounding 30 others, firing off 100 rounds, yelling out ``Allahu Akbar,'' talking to known al Qaeda operatives in Yemen and possibly Pakistan. There are too many questions in this case, too many red flags, and the American people deserve the answer. We in the Congress--and I know my good friend from Indiana stands with me--we're not going to sit back and follow the orders of this President to stand down and not exercise our constitutional responsibility.

There is a separation of branches of government under the Constitution for a good reason. The executive branch can't sweep things under the rug. The American people, through their representatives, need to find out what really happened. The American people deserve the truth in this case. They deserve hearings, a full investigation and the truth to come out.

I commend our great fighting men and women. I have had so many constituents who have gone through Fort Hood on their missions to Iraq and Afghanistan. They were serving very bravely and nobly in a very, very important struggle between radical Islam and freedom, between the jihadists and democracy. We will eventually win that struggle. We pray for the victims' families, and we pray that God holds their loved ones in the palms of his hands.

Will the gentleman yield?

Are we not in a war on terror, in your view?

Are we not in a war on terror?

My point is that that language has been taken out of the vernacular by this administration for whatever reason. We have our points as to why, but this is not being viewed as a war. What happened by the decision to bring in the mastermind of 9/11 to the very city where 3,000 Americans were murdered basically was a signal by this administration that the war on terror is over, that we are no longer going to treat terrorists as enemies of war; but, rather, we're going to go back to the Clinton administration years where we're going to treat them as criminal defendants, like Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, a criminal defendant. Not an act of war, but he is a criminal defendant.

By the way, Ramzi Yousef did not get the death penalty. And he went to talk to his Uncle Khalid Shiekh Mohammed about flying airplanes into buildings, and look what happened. Moussaoui did not get the death penalty because a lot of evidence was held to be inadmissible in a Federal court.

If they are true enemies of war, the best venue to try them is, as we did in World War II, by military tribunals. And the rules of evidence, as you know, Judge, I was a Federal prosecutor in the Justice Department, Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney, one of the finest in the country. But the fact is you bring them on American soil, give them all rights under the Constitution, as my good friend from Arizona stated, why does Khalid Shiekh Mohammed get constitutional rights?

If the gentleman would yield, what was the first thing that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed said when he was apprehended in Islamabad? It was two things.

One, I want an attorney, and, number two, Take me to New York. And you know what? President Obama and this administration gave him his wish.

I just want to end my comments by saying you and I have tried cases. This is going to be a circus, a show trial of the maximum. The motions to transfer venue, the motions to suppress the evidence, none of the information we got from Khalid Shiekh Mohammed using water-boarding, which has protected American lives, which, by the way, this administration wants to investigate and put those CIA and intelligence people in jail. The discovery alone, as the gentleman from Arizona stated, will keep this thing alive for years to come, will involve classified information that will not be properly protected as it would in the military court.

Finally, on the security issue, I think the gentleman from Texas is right: this will become a Mecca for the terrorists, not only to al Qaeda but homegrown, radicalized homegrown, whether Mr. Moussaoui is homegrown, radicalized, or not, people like him will come to New York to blow buildings up and to prey on the jury perhaps or the judges.

If the gentleman would yield, this was clearly evident early in this administration under their global justice policy that no longer would apprehended terrorists captured on the battlefield be treated as enemies of war.

Precisely. And what came out in a shocking story that has not been told enough, in my view, was that FBI agents were there at the detention facilities reading them the Miranda rights. This is where this administration has shifted towards treating them as criminal defendants in Afghanistan, with full rights of the U.S. Constitution in Afghanistan. And I believe it is a sad day for America when we bring this mastermind of 9/11 to the very city where he killed 3,000 Americans.

And you're going to bring him into New York. And Osama Bin Laden, in the late 1990s, declared war against the United States. He actually declared war against the United States.

Political correctness. And when has the Constitution of the United States been applied to enemies who are captured on the battlefield outside of the United States? I don't think that's ever been done. I'm not sure if that has ever been done.

And this administration again wants to take the vernacular war on terror, they want to just erase the last, you know, 4, 8 years. No, it was never a war. These are just criminal cases that need to be prosecuted and we need to treat them that way.

As the gentleman knows if he will yield, a criminal defense lawyer in a civilian court is going to use discovery at every opportunity to embarrass the United States of America and to blame America first for the acts of a terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And what concerns me the most is that they're going to make a mockery of our criminal justice system here in the United States and use it as a propaganda weapon in what I still refer to as this war on terror. This was one of the biggest mistakes this President has made. The decision to close Guantanamo Bay--I saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed down in Guantanamo; it was one of the most chilling things I've ever seen, as he prayed, bowed over his prayer rug, to Mecca. We haven't broken his spirit.

And this administration again just granted him his wish. He gets his lawyer now, and he gets to come to New York City, just like his nephew, Ramsay Yusef did, who, by the way, did not get the death penalty. And as I close, as I move on, I sincerely hope that--this was a huge mistake--but I sincerely hope that this man is given the ultimate punishment so he can--not only here on earth but move on to the next world.

Mr. Speaker, in the 72 hours we were allowed, Republicans weeded through thousands of pages of bureaucratic provisions, mandates, programs and spending. Despite its monstrous size, this health care takeover has come down to a few clear, evident points: it raises taxes, raises premiums, increases health care costs, and dumps trillions of dollars of debt on our children and

grandchildren. Small businesses and families will bear the weight of this bill for generations.

We all agree that health care reform is urgently needed, but this bill destroys the American health care system as opposed to improving it. Instead of incentivizing the private market to offer more affordable health care coverage options, it punishes small businesses and their employees. It threatens jail time for individuals who do not purchase insurance and could soon lead to the rationing of care, depriving Americans of life-saving treatments that are not deemed ``cost-effective.'' Even doctors, the most experienced in this health care debate, oppose this proposal and have shared concerns of the many clinics and hospitals that will be forced to reduce or deny services.

The over 2,000 page spending plan imposes nearly $800 billion in new taxes on individuals, families and small businesses. It places mandates on both individuals and employers which, according to the President's Economic Advisor, will result in the loss of up to 5.5 million jobs. These mandates will also discourage the hiring of low-wage and minority workers. In the face of both a recession and a 10.2% unemployment rate, Speaker Pelosi's unprecedented tax-and-spend approach will come at the expense of American citizens.

Moreover, while the majority of Americans are happy with their health care coverage, an estimated 114 million Americans will lose their insurance under Speaker Pelosi's plan and be dumped into the government-run option. The plan also cuts more than $170 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, jeopardizing millions of seniors' existing coverage. The bill puts the government in the middle of Americans' personal health care decisions, as opposed to reform based on improving the quality and affordability of health care.

While Democrats have continually touted the benefits of a public option, they themselves voted against an amendment to require enrollment for Members of Congress. This speaks volumes to the true quality of a government plan, as what I view as adequate coverage for the American public would also be adequate for my family. Furthermore, the bill also abolishes the private health insurance market, forcing all individuals to purchase coverage through a government-controlled Exchange and eliminating choices from the health care system. While this bill takes care of Members of Congress, it eliminates the freedom of choice for the American public.

Republicans have introduced numerous bills to provide improvements in the cost and delivery of health care, but we have been denied a seat at the table. Behind closed doors, the Democrats crafted a monstrosity of a bill to take over one sixth of the economy, and then limited floor debate to four or five hours on one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation we have ever seen.

The Republican alternative provides a common-sense approach to the main problems in our health care system. It would lower premiums, decrease health care costs, reign in federal spending, and allow for more options, choice, and innovation in the health care system.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that average premiums under the Republican alternative would be almost $5,000 less than under the Democratic plan in 2016. It would provide incentive grants for states to further lower premiums, and allow businesses to innovate ways to promote health and wellness and curb health care spending. The alternative would also expand high risk pools, prohibit insurance companies from denying individuals with pre- existing conditions, and ensure inter-state purchasing of health insurance. These reforms would drive down the costs of health care to make it more affordable for Americans while also protecting the choice and numerous options that citizens need.

I have spoken to many health care professionals in my District as well as held town halls with my constituents, and both have expressed not only their opposition, but their fear, of this government takeover of health care. We are not listening to Americans, and we are missing the opportunity to use insight from the experts in the field to enact meaningful reform. This bill is not what Americans have asked for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked a dark and painful chapter in American history and for the State of Texas. People all across this Nation were devastated when they heard the news that soldiers and civilians of the United States Army at Fort Hood, Texas, were attacked by the least likely of assailants. It wasn't short an act of treason.

I want to first thank my colleague and good friend, John Carter of Texas, who represents Fort Hood in his district, for introducing this legislation to give all Members of Congress the opportunity to stand here today in support of the brave men and women at Fort Hood and their families in such a time of trial. Fort Hood lies just north of my district, just north of Austin. It's in central Texas. Many of us all across this Nation have constituents who have gone through Fort Hood to train for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have had many of my constituents trained at Fort Hood.

But yesterday was a dark chapter; and in the aftermath, we learned that 13 of our finest Americans were killed, and several dozen more were wounded. This senseless act of horror betrays our respect and deepest dignity for life. Our deepest thoughts and prayers are with each of the families affected by this great tragedy. During this tragedy, there were reports that many soldiers provided heroic aid to their fellow soldiers who had been wounded, several of them already wounded themselves. These selfless acts saved the lives of many, and so many in central Texas have come forward to donate much-needed blood and offer themselves to help in this time of need.

This selfless service and determination is a testament to our servicemen and -women and stands in bold opposition to the horror of yesterday's events. And today as Fort Hood observes a day of mourning, we offer our prayers and support in this hallowed Chamber in the Congress to all those touched by this tragedy, including our soldiers, civilians, military families and the central Texas community.

Mr. Hasan, the suspect responsible for these acts of violence, these senseless acts of violence, was reported to have yelled out, ``Allahu Akbar,'' as he murdered innocents, as he wounded innocents. Translated that means God is great. To me, that's very disturbing. That is not my God. That is not our God. That is not the God of our fathers and Founding Fathers who have served in the military. May our God reach out to the families and the victims. May our God provide comfort in this great time of need. May our God hold them in the palm of his hand.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I'd just like to say, when things like this happen, you have to ask the question, many ask the question, why? Why did this have to happen? Why such a senseless act of violence that killed 13 people and wounded 30? Why did they have to die, our men and women serving in uniform? And there will be an investigation into why, what was the motivation of Mr. Hasan, but that's for a later day.

Today we honor these fallen heroes. And when I think about them, I think about the mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters who have lost their loved ones both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the hardest thing we have to do as Members of Congress is to comfort these families who have lost their loved ones and try to make some sense out of it. They know that they have died for a just and noble cause. And, as Mr. Edwards knows, my good friend and colleague from Texas who knows so many people from the State of Texas that have gone through this training facility, one of the greatest in the world, the largest military installation in the United States, they are brave.

I know there are many families at home today, many families watching the television, some maybe watching this on C-SPAN who are in tears, whose hearts are broken, who know that they can't get back what they lost. But to those families, know that we in the Congress hear their tears. We hear their cries. This resolution stands in strong support of them. We emotionally stand behind them, that we have passed legislation for both the veterans and active-duty servicemen, in addition to posttraumatic disorder.

There are many issues regarding our veterans and our active-duty men and women. We are addressing those in this Congress. We are taking care of them. In my view, our most solemn obligation under the Constitution is for the Congress to not only take care of our veterans returning home but to fully support our active men and women serving both in the United States and abroad.

With that, let me end by saying God bless them and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the provision authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to be subjected to civil suits by uninjured third parties. If complaints have been made against the Secretary for failing to enforce the law, the inspector general of DHS can already initiate an investigation. If that is insufficient, then Congress can act.

Allowing any third party--anybody--to sue the Secretary is both reckless and unnecessary. This provision would be a boon to trial lawyers and to environmentalists at the expense of the Department of Homeland Security and national security interests. Citizen suits have no place in a national security context, and this would be the very first time that Congress would be authorizing such suits in the homeland security arena.

Environmentalists file hundreds of citizen suits annually, and they consume substantial governmental resources and taxpayer funds. Some agencies expend almost their entire annual budgets simply responding to these lawsuits. For instance, in May of 2008, The Washington Post noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service had been caught in a legal vise that has forced it to spend most of its time responding to lawsuits and following judges' orders while its mission has slowed to a near halt. We cannot afford the same consequence with the Department of Homeland Security. In the meantime, the mission of the agency falls by the wayside.

This bill currently allows a citizen suit by any person. There is no requirement that the person be harmed or that the person be a local resident or even a United States citizen. The Congress has always treated national security as an inherently governmental matter and one in which sensitive security-related information has been rigorously protected. This marks the first time that citizen suits may result in the disclosure of very sensitive chemical facility vulnerability information.

The Department of Homeland Security also opposes the civil suit provisions. Deputy Under Secretary Philip Reitinger, who I had the pleasure to work with at the Department of Justice, testified that it is true that any civil suit provision at least raises a specter of some diversion of resources. As a former longtime litigator in the DOJ, he also testified that, inevitably, there is some risk of disclosure of information, and this information is very sensitive. That means sensitive security information could easily get into the wrong hands. I think yesterday is a reminder that we need to stay vigilant.

Committee staff spoke just this Tuesday with DHS staff to see if their position on this citizen suit provision had changed. It had not. They are still strongly opposed to this provision.

Introducing these provisions in the national security arena has the potential not only to divert DHS from its security-related missions but to also result in the disclosure of protected sensitive information. This entire bill, including the provision I am trying to strike, will inadvertently have an impact on the private sector, on business, and on the overall economy at a time when we can least afford it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Very quickly, to my good friend from New Jersey, courts have broadly and loosely interpreted the constitutional standing requirement to virtually allow anyone with any evidence of perceived harm to bring a lawsuit under these citizen suits.

With respect to sensitive information, we are now going to turn that over into the discovery process as to what is sensitive and what information is not.

With respect to the groups that my good friend mentioned, it is my understanding, while they are not opposed to the bill, they have certainly not endorsed this bill.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Will the gentleman yield?

They certainly will receive attorneys' fees. They're being paid by these organizations to bring lawsuits.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a message today for the 52 Blue Dog Democrats out there, 40 of whom are conservative Democrats in districts that President Bush carried, and my message is loud and clear for them today, and that is that your leadership is making you walk the plank on this health care bill. Don't do it. Don't fall for it. Don't take the bait, for it will be your political suicide.

Stand with us on the Republican side. Stand with us conservatives to defeat the Pelosi health care bill. You have the power to defeat this government takeover of our health care system and the takeover of one- sixth of our economy. You have the opportunity to do something right for America. Stand with us. Stand with us as conservatives. Stand up for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, last August we went home to our constituents and we listened to the American people. The American people were loud and clear in their message, and it was: Congressman, we do not support the government's taking over our health care system.

Then we came back to Washington, D.C., away from our constituents. We've been up here for about 2 months now, and what are we seeing? We're seeing the public option being put back on the table.

And what did the President say? Well, we know what he said on the campaign. He said basically, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big old table and we'll have the negotiations televised on C-