Floor Statements

Madam Speaker: I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Matthew Allen, nuclear physicist from Sandia National Laboratories, for his outstanding service to the Nation. Matt has served with distinction as a Fellow these last two years on the House Committee on Homeland Security, and has worked closely with me for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology.

Matt has been instrumental in providing technical expertise to me on critical nuclear-related matters affecting the security of the homeland. He was an essential resource in the successful introduction and ultimately House passage of the ``Next Generation Radiation Detection Act of 2008.'' His oversight and legislative work on issues such as radiation detectors, national nuclear forensics capabilities, and the Securing the Cities program was thorough, well informed, and infused with good humor.

Always wanting to learn and to do, Matt took an interest in areas beyond his personal comfort zone, including biosecurity, cybersecurity, and the nuances of the legislative process. He took enormous pride not only in the details of his work, but in the concept that a laboratory scientist could be invited to serve the Congress in such a central capacity. He referred to his fellowship as a ``study abroad'' program, and, like an idealistic student, delighted in everything the Hill and Washington, DC had to offer.

I applaud Matt's service and hope, long after he has returned to the lab bench, for his continued engagement in policymaking.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Royce Hopkins of Waller County, who passed away on February 6, 2009.

Today we celebrate the life of a great man who was one of my heroes. Royce Hopkins was a dear friend and a gentle man in every sense of the word. He will always be remembered for his kindness, integrity and his optimistic and infectious smile. I can still see the twinkle in his eyes and his spirit lives on in all of us.

Like my father, Royce served in the Eighth Air Force in World War II. Like Dad, he flew on bombing missions in a B-17 known as the Flying Fortress. On December 4, 1944, Royce and his crew arrived in England. He flew 26 combat missions over Germany, 25 bombing and one weather mission. He earned four Air Medals, five Battle Stars, a Commendation Medal for a special assignment, a Purple Heart and two presidential Commendations for the group.

His generation saved the free world from the threat of fascism. Born during the Great Depression and tempered by war, they will always be known as the Greatest Generation. I remember going to Royce's WWII reunion and meeting the veterans with whom he served. And now, like my father and so many in their generation, he has passed on and returned to our heavenly Father. Perhaps they are together now talking about airplanes.

This Christmas I received an A-2 Bomber Jacket with Army Air Corps and Eighth Air Force patches. I thought of Royce and my Dad and I regret not having the chance to show it to Royce. But maybe he can see it from a better vantage point now.

I met Royce during my first campaign for Congress. He supported me when many did not and he was always there for me. I remember how much he reminded me of my own father and he was a shining example of how to live. Like many others in his generation, he taught us how to be courageous but with humility. He taught us how to have a sense of humor and I learned a great deal from him.

As we mourn our personal loss, we must also celebrate the life of Royce Hopkins, for it was a great life and he lived it to the fullest. To his wife, Mollie, and his children, Kim, Kit, Sharon and Mike, like you, we all loved Royce. It was hard not to, he was just that kind of person. I am fortunate God brought us together. He was my friend and I will miss him dearly.

I am reminded of the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus said, ``Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.'' May the peace of Christ be with you and may He hold you in the palm of His hand.

I will miss him dearly. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Madam Speaker on rollcall No. 598 I was unable to cast my vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple one. It would prohibit any funds appropriated in this bill from going to any projects named after a sitting Member of Congress. The amendment is based on my bill, H.R. 5771, which I introduced earlier this year, and has been cosponsored by 27 other Members.

One of the most egregious examples of pure vanity and arrogance that we see in Washington is the practice of naming projects after current Members of Congress, or, as I call them, monuments to me.

According to the latest polls, only 12 percent of the American public approves of the job we are doing in the Congress, and that sentiment is due, in no small measure, to the fact that the American public thinks that we care less about them than we do ourselves. That is really what is wrong with Washington today.

And a few examples I think illustrate this problem that we have with ethics today in the Congress. The Robert Byrd Center for Hospitality and Tourism, the Robert Byrd Lodge, office complex, the Ted Stevens International Airport, the Harkin Grants, the Harkin Wellness Grant Program, the Harkin Global Communication Center, the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center, the John Dingell Drive, the Cynthia McKinney Parkway, the Jack Murtha Highway, the James Clyburn Golf Center, the James Clyburn Pedestrian Overpass, the James Clyburn Intermodal Transportation Center, and the Charlie Rangel Center For Public Service.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is not about us. This bill is about our military and our veterans, as it should be.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. McCaul of Texas

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

I want to thank my colleague and friend from the Houston area for his support in this resolution.

I rise today in support of H. Res. 1315, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, otherwise known as NASA. NASA was founded on July 29, 1958. On May 5, 1961, the first American was launched into space on Freedom 7, and that was Alan Shepard. On July 20, 1969, President Kennedy's dream was fulfilled when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon at that time, and the first space shuttle Columbia launched on April 12, 1981.

NASA has inspired generations of interest in science and engineering in young people. I remember taking one of the astronauts through my school district all the way from Houston to Austin, Texas, and just the hope and the dreams that she and NASA's program inspires in our young people, particularly in the fields of math and science, is truly an inspiration, I think, for all of us as Members of Congress.

NASA's work has really led to technological and scientific advantages that benefit everyone in society, including satellite communications. We all use cell phones. Lord knows we all use our BlackBerrys here in Congress and elsewhere. We have a great understanding of the human body because of the knowledge gained during man's space flight.

This program, based at the Johnson Space Center in Mr. Lampson's district and not too far from mine, is an important part of the Houston area economy. More than 15,000 people are employed at the Johnson Space Center, and NASA's work is an example of how the government and the private sector can work together to make this world a better place.

It's vital that the Congress act, in my view, to minimize the gap between the retirement of the space shuttle and the start of Orion, to maintain our leadership role in space exploration. And through the International Space Station, NASA currently serves as a model of international cooperation.

NASA's work has greatly expanded our knowledge of our universe. The Hubble Telescope, as my colleague from Houston talked about, launched in 1990, is still providing us with useful data and bringing the schoolchildren the wonders of space. NASA has sent probes to eight different planets in the solar system.

We can't think about the space program without the President who launched it, President Kennedy, and when he explained why space exploration is so important and so necessary, he said, ``The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join it or not, and it is one of the greatest adventures of all time, and no Nation which expects to be the leader of other Nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space . . . We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for all people.''

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, let me say once again how proud I am have to have introduced this resolution. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Texas, my friend and colleague, and the support of the colleagues on my side of the aisle as well.

The NASA space program has proven to provide a great return on our investment in terms of Federal research and development dollars, and I would urge this Congress to continue that investment.

A recent article in The Washington Post today outlined that the U.S. finds it's getting crowded out in terms of dominance in space as other nations step up their efforts. China plans to conduct its first spacewalk in October. The European Space Agency is building a roving robot to land on Mars. And India recently launched a record 10 satellites into space on a single rocket. We cannot fall behind. That is not the intent, the purpose, the vision of NASA.

``Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing the final frontier is slipping away,'' according to this article, ``many experts believe.''

And although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth, experts say the Nation's superiority is diminishing and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace.

Michael Griffin said, ``We spent tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth.'' However, this agency's budget is down 20 percent since 1992. According to Mr. Griffin, ``We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead.''

We have authorized funding for NASA. I was proud to support that; I think we can do better. We need to continue to support this very important program which provides not only great scientists and engineers for this country, but allows us to be competitive globally in all areas, including science and technology and energy, but also in the wonders of space.

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

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

I'm proud today to cosponsor and to support this bill and extend my gratitude for the bipartisan cooperation that went into drafting this important legislation--Congressman Schiff, Chairman Thompson, Chairman Langevin.

The detonation of a nuclear device in an urban area of this country would be catastrophic to say the least. And with nuclear proliferation worldwide with such apparatuses as the A.Q. Kahn network reaching the Islamic jihad world, countries like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, the threat of a nuclear explosion and the threat of nuclear devices coming into this country is very real. This bill will help prevent that.

Reducing the risk of nuclear or radiological terrorism requires a layered system of defenses that involves deterring, detecting, disrupting and recovering from terrorist attacks.

We've spent a great deal of time in this Congress discussing the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security's Domestic and Nuclear Detection Office, or DNDO, to deploy radiation portal monitors at our Nation's ports of entry. These monitors, staffed by Customs and Border Protection officers, are the Nation's first line of defense against illicit trafficking of nuclear and radiological material.

I'd like to take this opportunity to commend the DNDO on their achievements in this area. But even with the best possible detection systems, the possibility remains that terrorists could beat the system and sneak something past one of our detectors and through a non- official port of entry. That is why defense against terrorism, especially nuclear terrorism, requires a multi-layered approach.

This bill will improve a critical layer in our Nation's system defenses against the risk of nuclear and radiological terrorism by codifying the role of the National Technical Nuclear Forensic Center, which already exists within the DNDO. By enhancing our nuclear forensic capabilities, we will be able to more easily identify the source of nuclear materials. And while getting the whole picture also requires good intelligence and law-enforcement style investigations, a credible attribution program could even serve as a deterrent against nuclear terrorism.

A main concern I have had is the decreasing number of qualified people into the fields associated with nuclear forensics. In recent years, the number of young people entering scientific fields has declined. The nuclear fields, in particular, are suffering, especially in fields relevant to nuclear forensics, which may have no commercial counterpart. I'm pleased that this legislation includes language designed to strengthen the pipeline of talented new scientists into this important field, especially from minority-serving institutions, so as to take full advantage of all the talent present in our universities.

This bill instructs the Department to establish a National Nuclear Forensics Expertise Development Program which is devoted to developing and maintaining a vibrant and enduring pipeline of technical professionals. This program will grant scholarships and fellowships from the undergraduate through the postdoctorate level of study in nuclear and geochemical science specialties, directly relevant to technical nuclear forensic.

This legislation is the first step in the right direction of reinvigorating the work force in an area critical to continued defense against nuclear and radiological terrorism.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and its goals to improve the state of nuclear forensics in this country.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers and am prepared to close.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close.

The threat of nuclear terrorism is real as we've heard. The intent, motivation from al Qaeda and the radical Islamic world is very real. They want to acquire this capability, and we know that with the proliferation of this technology with nuclear capability, through the A.Q. Khan network to many other countries, we know that this threat is literally on the doorstep. I believe this bill will go a long ways to protecting Americans which, after all, is our first and foremost obligation as Members of Congress to protect the American people as the Constitution requires.

And that is why I'm so proud that this was presented in a bipartisan fashion. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an American issue. It is about protecting the lives of the American people. And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, every now and then, as Members of Congress, we have one of those moments, a moment when we feel like we can truly make a difference. This, in my view, is one of those moments, and I want to thank Congresswoman Deborah Pryce for her leadership, her perseverance in this issue.

It's been a long, hard fight, but we got here. It's going to pass, and this is a great day. It's a great day for those who have suffered. It's a great day for those who have been in pain. It's a great day for the victims.

This bill provides a beacon of light. It provides a voice for the innocents who don't have a voice, for children whose eyes we have looked into who are dying from this dreaded disease, for victims of this disease like my constituents Tim and Donna Culliver who lost their son Adam at the age of 4, to Caroline who lost her life at the age of 9.

I think of my own daughter, Caroline, my five children, the countless other children out there who could be a victim of this dreaded disease. This bill will lead the path towards a cure for cancer.

And this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an American issue. It's an issue for the children, and it's a fitting tribute to you, Congresswoman Pryce, and your daughter, Caroline, for all the hard work and the efforts you've put into this.

I've been through the pediatric hospital, as many of us have, and there's nothing more painful than to look into the eyes of a child who is dying from this disease, who's afflicted with this disease, whose parents look at you as a Member of Congress and say: Isn't there something you can do? Can you stop this?

I watched my best friend in grade school die from cancer, and we have all been touched, as Deborah Pryce said, by this disease in some way or another. But this is a real monumental moment, a moment where we truly can make a difference. They often say the measure of a man's life or woman's life is the, do I leave this world in a better place than it was before I came in. I can truly say that with the passage of this bill, that this Congress and this brave Congresswoman, through her leadership and her legacy, will leave this world a better place.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that I support a military strategy to deal with the drug cartels. Having come from Texas, having worked counterterrorism with the Justice Department at the Mexican border, I know firsthand what a direct threat to the security of this Nation these drug cartels present. They export drugs. They poison our children. They export human trafficking. They bring special interest aliens into this country, some of whom are not caught. And in the post- 9/11 world, they present a threat that we can no longer ignore. And they must be dealt with. That is why I have been supportive of this initiative.

However, I believe that we need a strategy on this side of the border, as well. I believe we need a two-pronged approach, if you will, a comprehensive strategy that deals not only with the Mexican side but with the U.S. side. And for too long, our border sheriffs and our Border Patrol agents have been outmanned and outgunned. And if we are going to provide assistance to Mexico, it seems to me we ought to be providing assistance to our men and women on our side fighting this war every day.

I had a unique opportunity to meet with President Calderon. He told me that he is at war with the drug cartels. He is at war with these drug cartels. And we need to fight this war against the drug cartels.

And I believe the best way to do that is provide the military assistance, but also provide the resources necessary on this side of our border, which is why I offered an amendment at the foreign affairs markup of this bill to provide $1.4 billion, an equal amount, if you will, over 3 years for our Federal, State and local law enforcement, including the border sheriffs. And Chairman Berman was supportive of this amendment. The chairman sits on the Judiciary Committee. It was my sincere hope that this amendment would have been taken up by the Judiciary Committee when they marked up this bill, as well.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And the Judiciary Committee decided not to take up this bill. In addition, instead of having an open rule whereby it could offer this amendment on the floor, we have a closed rule, and this vote is now under suspension. I believe this is a missed opportunity. I believe it is a missed opportunity to have a really comprehensive bill that could have had strong bipartisan support, that had the approach and the strategy that I just outlined, a military strategy on the Mexican side of the border, and a beefed up law enforcement on this side of the border. That is how we are going to achieve true border security in this Nation. So I just wanted to present that objection.

It is my sincere hope we can fix this and add this amendment at some point in the process to give our law enforcement on this side of the border the tools that they need, also, to win this war against the drug cartels.

Madam Speaker, I wish to have my name disassociated with the following project. After this request was submitted to the House Armed Services Committee I instituted a personal earmark moratorium and do not want any earmarks in my name for Fiscal Year 2009.

I urge the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, as well as any conferees, to not put forward this earmark in my name or at my request in final Conference or Committee Reports.

Requesting Member: Congressman Michael McCaul.

Bill Number: H.R. 5856.

Account: Army RDTE (R-1 Line #133) PE 0605502A.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Applied Physical Electronics, LP.

Address of Requesting Entity: 5208 Electric Ave., Spicewood, Texas 78669.

Description of Request: The requested funding will be used for research to produce technology to support efforts against terrorist activities, to fund two endowed professors from the University of Texas for antenna design support and for signal and image processing, to acquire key capital laboratory equipment, and to hire 12 highly skilled professional engineers, as well as supporting staff. The UT professors will be funded to continue in their efforts to help design compact antenna structures, as well as the development of algorithms necessary for detecting and identifying explosives and controlling electronics used with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The necessary equipment and additional staff will further the development of APELC's technology into systems deployed for defense against IEDs and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), with the ultimate objective being the utilization of APELC's technology as integral components of future applicable DoD systems, including MDA, Army, Air Force, DARPA and the Navy.

Madam Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to claim time, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I rise in support of this amendment. I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Cuellar, for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I am honored to support it. He has a great deal of expertise in this area. We have traveled to the border towns together, both on the United States side and in Mexico, and I met with law enforcement on both sides of the aisle and with government officials and we served on the United States-Mexico Interparliamentary Group. He understands the importance of security at the border, and particularly in the post 9/11 world.

Currently, there is little Coast Guard presence on international waterways shared with Mexico. This amendment would require the United States Coast Guard to provide an analysis of their mission strength for the navigable portions of the Rio Grande River in Texas. The amendment also asks the U.S. Coast Guard to identify what resources would be needed to increase the Coast Guard's presence along the international boundary of the Rio Grande River.

One of the Coast Guard's most important functions is providing safety and security in international waters, and the safety of the international border is a national security concern as the level of violence in Mexico increases and continues to spill across our border. Contraband and undocumented people continue to pass and cross the

border into the United States, despite our best efforts. This amendment may also pave the way for future studies assessing the need for Coast Guard presence in other areas of the United States where waterways are shared on the border of Mexico and with Canada.

So having said that, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Cuellar, for bringing this amendment, and I rise in support.

I yield to my colleague from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, once again the Tax Man cometh. Today, April 15, is the day American taxpayers scramble to comply with a tax code, over 67,000 pages long.

In 2007, individual taxpayers spent an estimated 3.18 billion hours complying with the Federal income tax laws. Individuals spend $26.5 billion for tax software, tax preparers, postage, and other costs related to filing their Federal income tax, while corporations spend $156.5 billion to comply with Federal tax laws. Americans may send two and a half trillion dollars to the IRS, but the cost to our economy is much greater. Despite this, the majority party is forcing a $654 billion tax increase on the American people, the largest in American history.

It's time to scrap the IRS and this oppressive tax code. It's time to look at the fair tax or the flat tax as viable alternatives to our overly burdensome tax code. It's time to stop punishing taxpayers and pass fundamental tax reform.

Madam Speaker, once again, the tax man cometh. Today, April 15, is a day American taxpayers scramble to comply with a tax code over 67,000 pages long.

In 2007, individual taxpayers spent over 3 billion hours complying with the Federal income tax laws. Individuals spent $26.5 billion for tax software, tax repairs, postage, and other costs related to filing their Federal income taxes. And corporations spend over $156 billion to comply with the Federal tax laws.

Americans may send $2.5 trillion to the IRS, but the costs to our economy is much greater. Despite this, the majority party is forcing a $654 billion tax increase on the American people, the largest tax increase in American history. It is time to scrap this oppressive tax code. It is time to take a look at the fair tax or the flat tax as viable alternatives to our overly burdensome tax code, and it's time to stop punishing taxpayers and pass fundamental tax reform.

Madam Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the need for this Congress to act to reauthorize the expired Research and Development Tax Credit. The failure of Congress to extend this credit before the end of last year has created an uncertain environment for American companies that have used this provision in the past to fund the research needed to maintain our economic advantage in the global market.

A good example of how this impacts real companies is Applied Materials. This company in my district invests over $1 billion in research per year. Without this tax credit, they expect their tax burden to increase by nearly $10 million. Although this is a small percentage of that $1 billion investment, that amount helps employ a lot of people in my district.

Again, I ask that Congress take action to restore this important tax credit and not to jeopardize American jobs and economic competitiveness.

Forty-five days ago, the Protect America Act expired. Forty-five days ago, we began to lose critical intelligence overseas that could help better protect this Nation. Forty-five days ago, al Qaeda began to have the upper hand in this war on terror. Forty-five days ago, we started to

go dark in parts of the world. Why? Because the Democratic leadership will not allow this body to vote to make the Protect America Act permanent, as the Senate did many months ago.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous and reckless partisan play with the safety of the American people. It endangers the American people, both here at home and the warfighter abroad. We took an oath of office when we were sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. These are the foreign enemies. We are talking about foreign terrorists in a foreign country communicating foreign communications. This has nothing to do with the United States citizens. And yet, what the Democrats are allowing is to extend constitutional protections to people like Osama bin Laden and Khalil Sheikh Mohammad, al Qaeda leaders who are communicating about how they can perpetrate an act of evil like on September 11th.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why this has not occurred since 9/11. It is because we have had good intelligence. Good intelligence is the best weapon we have in this war on terror. Without good intelligence, we cannot protect this Nation. And this is what this debate is all about. We all remember where we were on this day. But many of us don't remember where we were when the London arrests were made to stop airplanes from being blown up over the United States. Many of us don't remember the countless acts of heroism our intelligence community has performed in protecting the American people from plots against the United States.

I, myself, when I worked at the Justice Department, worked on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants. They had to do with agents of informed power in the United States. Through the use of good intelligence overseas, without having to go through the FISA Court, we were able to stop a terrorist plot to blow up 10 American cities on the 4th of July. The voice that was intercepted said, ``Roast the Americans on Independence Day.''

Mr. Speaker, this is real. This is a real-life threat to the American people. You don't have to take my word for it. I want to read for you a letter that was sent to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes, from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence about the expiration of the Protect America Act. What he says, he says, ``Our experience since Congress allowed the Protect America Act to expire without passing a bipartisan Senate bill,'' the bipartisan bill that was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, that Senator Rockefeller supported, he says, ``demonstrates why the Nation is now more vulnerable to a terrorist attack and other foreign threats.''

He explained that both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence say in this letter to Chairman Reyes that the expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge, would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty, which could cause us to delay the gathering of, or simply miss critical foreign intelligence information, and then underlined and highlighted in this letter, they warn the chairman, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired 6 days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress's, by Congress's failure to act.

What is the response from the Democrat leadership here in the House in response to a letter that says that we have failed to act in the Congress, a dereliction of duty, in my view, by Members of the House. Steny Hoyer, the majority leader says, there really is no urgency. Let's all just calm down. Intelligence agencies have all the tools they need. Really? When the Director of National Intelligence says just the opposite.

Chairman Silvestre Reyes says, you know, things will be just fine. Things will be just fine. Tell the American people that if we get hit again. Tell the three American soldiers who were kidnapped by insurgents in Iraq, and because we had to get ``lawyered up'' and go through a court in the United States because the time expired, one of those soldiers was killed and two we have not heard from since. You tell the families that there is no urgency and that things will be just fine.

Winning this war on terror, as the 9/11 Commission said, has everything to do with connecting the dots. But if we are not allowed to collect the dots, there is no way we can connect the dots. That is what this debate is all about. It's about being able to capture overseas foreign intelligence by terrorists, by people who wish to do us harm, who every day are hoping that this will happen again.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from New Mexico, who has really led the fight in the House on this issue, Congresswoman Heather Wilson from New Mexico. I would also be interested in your account of when this intelligence gap, if you will, this terrorist loophole first came to your attention.

With that, I yield.

If I can ask the gentlelady that serves on the Intelligence Committee, we are talking, are we not, about foreign communications by a foreign target in a foreign country, but just because of the new technology, that it may touch a wire in the United States, it requires us to get attorneys to go before the FISA court to get a warrant. Is that correct?

I thank the gentlewoman. So the threat is not only to the safety of American lives, in my view it is a threat to democracy. If this bill was allowed to come to the floor, it would pass overwhelmingly, as it did in the Senate.

Briefly before I yield, the gentlewoman talked a lot about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I practiced law under that.

Admiral Inman, who is a supporter of mine, a friend in Austin, Texas, was the Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the NSA. He was one of the principal authors of the FISA statute. When we talked about the application of this, having to apply the FISA overseas to foreign terrorists, that we are extending constitutional protections to terrorists in foreign countries, what he said, and he wrote an op-ed with me, he said, ``To apply FISA to monitoring foreign communications of suspected terrorists operating overseas, such as Osama bin Laden and other key al Qaeda leaders, turns the original intent of the FISA statute on its head. Contrary to some of the rhetoric coming from the Democrats, it is the members of al Qaeda, not American citizens, who are the target of these intelligence gathering activities.''

As the gentlewoman mentioned, in my view the driving force behind this dereliction of duty, this stopping democracy, is driven by a narrow special interest, and that is the ACLU and the trial lawyers pushing their agenda in a dangerous way that will put the American people at grave risk.

With that, I would like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Yet when it comes to national security, it should be bipartisan. We are Americans first, before we are Republican or Democrat, yet there is a special interest driving this agenda, as the gentleman mentioned. The trial lawyers have filed a lawsuit in San Francisco against the telecommunication companies, and I would like for the gentleman from Pennsylvania maybe to expand a little bit on that.

I think most Americans don't quite understand how trial lawyers could drive the agenda with the Democratic leadership such that they will be placing the American people at grave risk and jeopardizing the safety of Americans.

I think we should be thanking these companies for their patriotic service in a time of war, not slapping lawsuits on them or putting the trial lawyers' interests above the warnings of the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General. Not just the U.S. Attorney General, but 25 State Attorneys General have signed a letter calling upon this Congress to act and pass the Protect America Act and make it permanent. So I would put more stock in the top law enforcement leaders in 25 of our States and the U.S. Attorney General over the special interests.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) who sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction and deals with a lot of the issues regarding telecommunications companies.

I thank the gentlelady. And I couldn't agree more that real-time intelligence is the best weapon we have. We can get the intelligence; but if it is not in real-time, it endangers our ability to protect the American people, as the gentlelady pointed out with the three American soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division who, unfortunately, one now is no longer alive and two are missing.

But I think it is important to give this an historical context and maybe take you back to a gentleman named Ramsey Yusef who came into the United States in 1992. He was detained; but because there wasn't enough detention space at the time, they let him go. And, from there, he conspired with the first al Qaeda cell in New York to take down the Twin Towers. And the idea of the plot was that one tower would fall, toppling over the other, and bring down the symbol of the economic superpower. They got a Ryder van, they loaded it up with explosives, went into the underground parking garage, and blew it up. Fortunately, the Towers survived that day. Although several people were killed, they didn't achieve that goal. That day would come later.

Ramsey Yusef escaped afterwards, went to Islamabad where he was in Pakistan, the Philippines. Then he hooked up with his uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It is all in the family. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we would find out, would be the mastermind of September 11th. When they talked about in the mid-1990s flying airplanes into buildings, wouldn't it have been good to have that real-time intelligence? They talked about that. They talked about how they could take down the United States of America. And when Ramsey Yusef was finally arrested, he was arrested in a hotel room in Islamabad, they found something very eery. And I have worked with the FBI agents who arrested him, and it always left a very chilling sort of view in my mind, and that was, they found about a dozen baby dolls and these baby dolls were stuffed with chemical explosives. Mr. Yusef gives you great insight into the mind of the terrorists: Simple, brilliant, but evil genius. The same evil geniuses that perpetrated 9/11. He was planning to take those baby dolls on airplanes and blow them up. Of course, with the London arrests, later we would find they were back to their same game of using chemical explosives to blow up airplanes. Fortunately, our intelligence stopped that plot against the United States.

But we all know what happened on September 11th. We also know there was a secret meeting that took place overseas, and that the CIA was possibly aware of two of these people entering our country. And at that time, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing all the time because the criminal division couldn't talk to the foreign counterintelligence division in the FBI. And I will never forget a quote from an FBI agent, because his words prior to 9/11 about his frustration apply the situation that I find and I think we find ourselves here in the House.

He wrote to FBI Headquarters, which was a gutsy move for a line FBI agent, and he said, ``Someday, someone will die, and the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain problems, especially since the biggest threat to us now, Osama bin Laden, is getting the most protection.''

We are not throwing every resource that we can now at this problem. We are turning a blind eye to this problem. And if American blood is spilled while our watch is down, while we have allowed this Act to expire, that blood will be on the heads of Members of Congress who did not allow this to go to the floor for a vote. And, yes, the foreign terrorists now are getting protection. They are getting constitutional protection that the FISA statute never intended for them to get in the first place.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from New Mexico who is on the Intelligence Committee, Ms. Heather Wilson.

I thank the gentlelady for her eloquence on this issue. And I think it is worth repeating again that we are talking about foreign targets in foreign countries overseas. I think the American people want us to be listening to what al Qaeda has to say. In fact, I think they expect that, and I think they would be shocked if they learned that our capabilities were put in jeopardy because of partisan politics and special interests. It is irresponsible. And, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has often said, it is a dereliction of our duties here in the House to protect and defend the American people from enemies overseas.

The gentlelady talked about the war with the Soviets. In some ways it was a more predictable enemy, and the concept of mutually assured destruction applied to the Soviets because they valued their own life. The concept of mutually assured destruction does not apply to the Islamic jihadists, because they won't think twice about blowing themselves up if it means they can take other lives, particularly American lives. They won't think twice about flying airplanes into buildings and killing almost 3,000 people, including themselves, because, in their extreme fanatical view, that means the rewards in heaven are greater. That is the mindset of the enemy that we are working with.

Satellite imagery was very important in the Cold War. But in this war, this war on terror, intelligence is the best weapon that we have. And if that is taken away from the intelligence community, as the Democratic leadership is trying to do, if they take that capability away, as they did when they allowed the Protect America Act to expire, they are tying the hands of our intelligence community to better protect the United States of America. And I believe that is treasonness.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The gentlelady is correct. The Constitution applies to persons in the United States. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreign terrorists in a foreign country. I think that is the central heart of this debate that we are having here tonight.

As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, Mr. Moussaoui retained information on his computer that could have helped prevent this from happening. He is a person in the United States; and as such, properly the FBI and the Department of Justice went through the FISA court. The initial FISA application was turned down by the Office of Intelligence Policy Review. We lost critical time in processing that application. My point being, the FISA court is very document intensive, cumbersome and time-consuming.

We should not apply FISA court standards to foreign terrorists in a foreign country when real-time intelligence can stop something like this from happening here in the United States.

You know, when the wall was in place, one intelligence community was aware of these two individuals in the U.S., yet the FBI was not made aware and they could not track them down.

The FISA Court of Review issued an opinion about the wall when it finally struck it down and said that effective counterintelligence, we have learned, requires the whole-hearted cooperation of all of government's personnel who can be brought to the task. A standard which punishes such cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security. So a lack of coordination and cooperation is dangerous to national security.

And if we can't work with the private sector, and in fact we cannot obtain this intelligence without the private sector; and if we will subject them to liability and to lawsuits for doing their American patriotism, we indeed will lose the private sector as a partner.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady.

The gentlelady is correct. What is at grave risk is not only in the war on terror capturing intelligence overseas, but if the private sector would be subject to liability and lawsuits, and they say to the government, ``I am not going to cooperate with you anymore,'' they don't have to. Then we place at jeopardy domestic investigations that could include child predators, organized crime, and a whole myriad of criminal activity in the United States. So this is setting a very dangerous precedent.

The gentlelady is correct. Then you have real- time information that is relevant to a case to stop a criminal act from occurring.

What the Democrat leadership has done in this case is prevented us from obtaining intelligence critical to the safety of the United States overseas in a foreign country.

The grave risk is that they will not cooperate on any investigation, whether it be overseas or domestically, because there is no incentive for them to cooperate with the FBI here or with our intelligence community abroad if we are going to subject them to liability and to lawsuits.

If there is wrongdoing on the part of the government, that is one issue. But

when the telecommunication companies are told that they need to cooperate in the interest of the national security, I don't think we should be slapping them with a lawsuit, we should be thanking them for protecting this Nation.

I want to go back to the gentleman's comments about the 9/11 Commission. After this occurred, we all were scrambling to do everything within our power to prevent this from happening again. The President met with his advisors, and the 9/11 Commission met. And they made recommendations and they talked about connecting the dots. The problem is that we cannot connect the dots, and we are not putting this information together.

What is at risk here tonight, as every hour passes that the Protect America Act has expired, is we cannot collect the dots to connect them.

I would like to draw on a quote, a letter from Attorney General Muskasey and the Director of National Intelligence McConnell to Chairman Reyes. He says, ``Our experience in the past few days since the expiration of the act demonstrates that these concerns are neither speculative nor theoretical. Allowing the act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill has had real and negative consequences for our national security. Indeed, this has led directly to a degraded intelligence capability.''

I don't know about you, but when I read that language from the experts in the intelligence community and our top law enforcement officer, it sends a chill up my spine. We need to pass this bill, and we need to do it now.

Reclaiming my time, this issue goes well beyond what the gentleman is referring to. This issue goes to our capability to intercept communications from foreign terrorists in foreign countries. Again, I think the American people would like to know what al Qaeda is saying when they conspire to perpetrate something like this. They would like to know what Osama bin Laden is saying, and what his lieutenants are saying.

I know my time is starting to run out.

I thank the gentleman.

Before we passed the Protect America Act, the Director of National Intelligence came to us and he said, ``I'm losing two-thirds of the intelligence out there.'' Well, now with the expiration of the Protect America Act, we can only imagine going back to that scenario. We were going dark in parts of the world. We were losing critical foreign intelligence from our enemy to better protect this Nation from another terrorist attack.

And to put to you, I think, one of the best quotes I've read, it really puts you in the mindset of who is the enemy and what is the real threat to the United States, I'd like to leave you tonight with the following words. And this is in their words, not mine.

``The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates, Plutonic ideals, nor Aristotle's diplomacy. But it does know the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and the machine gun.

The Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperate councils. They are established, as they always have been, through pen and gun, by word and bullet, and by tongue and teeth.''

The words that I just read to you are the words found in the preface of the al Qaeda training manual. They are the words of the enemy. That is what the enemy is telling us. We need to win in this war on terror and stop this enemy and protect the United States from this ever happening on American soil again. It is time to pass a bipartisan Senate bill.