Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we all took an oath in this Chamber to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is what this debate here today is really all about.

By allowing the Protect America Act to expire, we are extending constitutional protections to foreign terrorists. This bill does nothing to fix that problem.

We need to pass this Senate bill that passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. I worked in the Justice Department on FISA warrants. The statute was never designed to apply to foreign terrorists in a foreign country, as recently stated by admiral Bobby Inman, the principal author of the FISA statute.

I want to point out two articles that were in The New York Times today: ``Afghanistan: Taliban Destroy Cell Towers.'' ``Taliban Threatens Afghan Cellphone Companies.''

This is what is happening. We need to protect America now by making the Protect America Act permanent. The Taliban in their own words, their own statements, says the surveillance program has ``caused heavy casualties to Taliban'' in great proportions.

It is time to pass the Protect America Act.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 4 weeks have passed since the Protect America Act expired, and for 4 weeks our intelligence community has gone dark around the world. For 4 weeks, we are missing critical intelligence from foreign terrorists to better protect this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dereliction of duty. The most solemn obligation we have in the House is to protect the

American people; yet we have allowed this act to expire. A bipartisan bill has passed in the Senate; yet we in the House are denied democracy and the opportunity to have the people vote for this important legislation that will protect Americans.

I applied for FISA warrants in the Justice Department. This statute was never intended to apply to foreign terrorists in foreign countries. In fact, what we are doing is extending constitutional protections to foreign terrorists like Osama bin Laden. This turns the statute on its head; yet we have a majority leader who says there's no urgency. The chairman of Intelligence says we'll be just fine. It reminds me of an FBI agent who warned before 9/11, frustrated about the intelligence gap, ``Someday someone will die. 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 is Osama bin Laden and he is getting the most protection.''

I urge this Congress, this House, and the Democratic leadership to pass the Senate bipartisan bill and make the Protect America Act permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Protect America Act, and I urge the Democratic leadership in the House to bring to the floor the bipartisan bill that was passed in the Senate overwhelmingly which brought this act to permanency.

Unfortunately, last month what we saw was, on February 15, this act did not come to the floor; rather, it expired. The Democratic leadership failed to bring that to the House floor. And with the expiration of the Protect America Act, our intelligence communities went dark in many parts of the world.

This is a game of dangerous politics. It is putting the American people at great risk as every day passes. I urge again the Democratic leadership to bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor so that democracy can operate, because the American people support this bipartisan legislation that the Senate passed and we need to pass it now to protect American lives. If I can just step back and give this some context.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually passed in 1978, during the Cold War. It was a time, again, during the Cold War, not the threat that we face today, a very different threat. The FISA Act, because the technology now has outdated the law, needs to be modernized. And that is exactly what the Protect America Act does.

The Director of National Intelligence came to the Congress last year to tell us that we needed this modernization because there are dangerous loopholes and intelligence gaps in our collection capability, and that needed to be fixed. Many of us here in the House listened to that warning, answered that call, and voted in a very bipartisan way last August for the Protect America Act. Unfortunately, as I stated, last month, on February 15, the Democratic leadership allowed that act to expire, again placing Americans in grave jeopardy.

And what did we hear from the Democratic leadership at that time? Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, there really is no urgency here; the intelligence agencies have all the tools that they need. Chairman Silvestre Reyes at the time said, Things will be just fine. Things will be just fine.

But things aren't fine. And all you have to do is look at a letter that we received in the Congress from the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General pointing out the grave risk that this expiration is giving to the American people. They said: The expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act 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, they say, that is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired days ago without the enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill.

This is the Director of National Intelligence, a man who served under Democrats and Republicans. This is the Attorney General of the United States. They said we have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act. I submit that this is not only a failure to act; it is a dereliction of duty to the American people. We have the most solemn obligation first and foremost to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, we are failing in that obligation in the House today.

Intelligence is the best weapon we have in the war on terror. Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror. And, if I could step back to 1993 and tell a story.

I used to work in the Justice Department. I worked on FISAs. In 1993, an individual named Ramzi Yousef came in the country with a fake Iraqi passport, and he plotted to bring down the World Trade Center. Fortunately, he wasn't successful that day, although he did kill people. Innocent lives were lost, and he caused great damage to these buildings. He fled, ended up eventually in Islamabad in Pakistan, where he met up with his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad of course is the mastermind of September 11. There, they talked about the idea of flying airplanes into buildings.

Eventually, Ramzi Yousef was caught in Islamabad and brought back to justice. But the intelligence that we missed back then because some of the flaws in the system, the 9/11 Commission studied this and they made several recommendations. And, of course, at the time they analyzed what we passed in the PATRIOT Act to fix this problem, that being the fact that a wall separated the criminal division from the foreign counterintelligence. The left hand literally didn't know what the right hand was doing. This caused great consternation within the Justice Department and within the intelligence community. I remember working before the PATRIOT Act passed and I remember some of these frustrations myself.

There is a great quote from an FBI agent who was frustrated with this. He said: You know, someday someone will die and, wall or not, the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let's hope the national security law unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, Osama bin Laden, is getting the most protection.

I draw this analogy because the same principle applies to the FISA modernization, and that is that if we fail to pass this act, someday someone will die.

The biggest threat to us is Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda; and they are, unfortunately, now getting great protections. They are getting constitutional protections that they don't deserve. We are required to go to this FISA Court any time we want to listen to overseas intelligence. Foreign communications from a foreign terrorist to a foreign terrorist, we are required to go to a court in the United States with a showing of probable cause, giving a terrorist constitutional protections they do not deserve and putting not only Americans in the United States at great risk, but the war fighter abroad at great risk.

There is a great example last year. Three American soldiers were kidnapped. Because of the FISA restrictions, we had to get lawyered up, go to the FISA Court, apply for a warrant, and show probable cause for an emergency FISA warrant. Many hours expired. In the meantime, one of those soldiers was killed, and two we haven't heard from since. This is a tragic outcome. Again, this is putting Americans at great risk.

We talk a lot in the 9/11 Commission about connecting the dots. And the fact of the matter is, if we can't gather and collect those dots, there is no way we can connect the dots. And the gentlelady from New Mexico has stated so eloquently so many times that very point. I want to yield to her. The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has been the leader in the House on this issue. She was the one who really brought this issue to the attention of the Congress, and I believe America owes her a great deal of gratitude, so we can fix this intelligence gap we currently have in the law and ultimately save lives.

Mr. Speaker, as so eloquently stated by the gentlelady, this is about saving American lives, first and foremost. That is the issue at stake here. And it is also about protecting our war fighters so we don't have to go through a court in the United States to get a warrant to hear what al Qaeda is saying overseas about the threats to our military.

That is the absurd result of us failing to pass the Protect America Act in this body. It is putting our soldiers at grave risk.

These constitutional protections, to extend them to foreign terrorists, the FISA when it was enacted was not enacted to give foreign terrorists constitutional protections. It was enacted, if you are an agent of a foreign power in the United States, to give some protection.

I have quoted before Admiral Bobby Inman who is one of the principal architects of the FISA statute. Again, it was designed to, when we want to monitor an agent of a foreign power in the United States, go to a special court and get a warrant. It was not designed to apply to foreign terrorists overseas talking to terrorists overseas. And these constitutional protections that I suppose our friends on the other side of the aisle would like to extend to the terrorists turns the statute on its head.

What Admiral Inman says is 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 FISA on its head.'' This is the man who was principally responsible for writing the statute.

He says, contrary to some of the rhetoric coming from the Democrats, it is the members of al Qaeda, not American citizens, as our colleagues will say, it is al Qaeda who is the target of these intelligence- gathering activities.

I think the majority of the American people support the idea that we should be able to hear what al Qaeda is saying overseas without getting lawyered up and going to a court to get a warrant. We know this agenda is driven by many on their side of the aisle, the special interests, the ACLU, the trial lawyers, and it is such a dangerous policy.

You still need a warrant because the fourth amendment of the Constitution applies to persons in the United States. But the fourth amendment of the Constitution

does not apply to foreign terrorists overseas not in the United States.

That is the sort of root of this problem is that we are applying constitutional protections to overseas terrorists. Now how absurd is that?

I think if the American people really knew what was going on up here and really knew what this debate was all about, and I do think that they are rising by the day. We are getting letters and phone calls by the day, and I believe they are not going to stand for this kind of nonsense that puts the American people and the war fighter at risk.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to add to that, having worked on FISA applications, as the gentlelady has seen, it is a very cumbersome, paperwork-intensive process to establish probable cause and to get a court-ordered warrant. In many cases, it took us 6 to 9 months to get these warrants.

Now, it has been a little streamlined since 9/11, but it is still a very, very cumbersome process. And again, the statute was never intended to apply to this type of situation. That is why we need to fix this now.

Again, the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, says there is no urgency. There is no urgency. Tell al Qaeda that.

Chairman Silvestre Reyes, things will be just fine. Tell al Qaeda that. They must be celebrating. When they look at what we are doing with this statute, they must be saying to themselves, How naive. We are playing right into their hands, and this needs to stop.

I yield now to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I thank the gentleman for his comments. And reclaiming my time, there is an urgency here. We need to act in real time with real time intelligence. We can't afford to wait 6 to 9 months for a FISA Court to issue a warrant to a foreign terrorist overseas who has no constitutional protections.

Let's look at what the Director of National Intelligence said about this issue just recently since the expiration of the Protect America Act. 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 of any American who can read these words from our Director of National Intelligence, the man who heads up our intelligence communities, the man who served under both Democrats and Republican, and not have a chill run up your spine when you read this quote. The threat, the risk, the grave risk that the majority is putting this country in by allowing this act to expire. There is an urgency and we need to get it passed.

With that I am going to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I thank the gentleman for his comments. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. The Senate passed it overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way. In fact, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat, said this is the right way to go in terms of security of the Nation.

The gentlelady serves on the Intelligence Committee. We serve on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Dent and I. When you talk about the security of the Nation, you've got to leave your partisan politics and your special interests behind because protecting the American people deserves better than that. It doesn't deserve the partisan rhetoric.

Twenty-five attorneys general signed a letter, Democrat and Republican, please pass this act. So I do believe the time is now.

And the sad thing is, the most tragic thing is, we know good and well if this was brought to the floor today or tomorrow, that it would pass overwhelmingly. And yet the American people are denied that opportunity to vote on this bill, through their representatives, because special interests are holding this up.

Again, I point to the ACLU and the trial lawyers who want to take a shot at the companies, the private sector, who have carried out their patriotic duties, when the government asked them in a time of war to do their duty, to help the United States Government listen to terrorists overseas and somehow we should subject them to liability. I think that's crazy. If the government did something wrong then, of course, the government should be held accountable.

When companies are acting on behalf and certified on behalf of the Attorney General to do this, essentially a mandate to do it, they should not be held liable for those actions. So I think that is the real issue here, what's holding up this bill that would protect Americans.

I yield to the gentlelady from New Mexico.

I thank the gentlelady for her insight, and she's absolutely right that this terrorist surveillance program has protected Americans from the very scenario that you mentioned.

We all remember this day. It's etched in our memory forever. I will never forget this day, and every patriotic American will never forget what they did to us that day. But yet, every day this Act, since it has expired, with every day there's greater risk to this happening again.

There's a reason why this hasn't happened again. It's because we have been able to thwart and to stop plots against the United States to kill us. That's what this program does. That's what the Protect America Act did until the Democrats allowed it to expire almost 3 weeks ago.

Alluding back to Ramzi Yousef, very interestingly, and I know the FBI agents when they arrested him, when they busted down his door to talk about what the gentlelady talked about in terms of a sinister evilness about the terrorist, to get in the mind of the terrorist, what they found were about a dozen baby dolls, and those baby dolls were stuffed with chemical explosives. They were going to carry those on the airplanes and blow them up.

Now, chemical weapons we saw with the London arrest. They always go back to their old tricks. They attempted to sneak chemical explosives onto these airplanes. Fortunately, we had good intelligence. Without good intelligence, people die. Without good intelligence, we cannot fight this war on terror. Without good intelligence, we cannot protect the American people, and as we stated before, we put the war fighter at tremendous risk.

So, with that, I will yield again to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman, again, for his insight.

Because of the wall back then and because of the intelligence gap, people did die, 3,000 Americans. Haven't we learned our lesson? How many times do the terrorists have to hit us? We know before September 11 there were many attacks against American interests, whether it was Beirut, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Center, they went back to it again. When are we going to learn the lesson?

The 9/11 Commission came out with its recommendations, and yet I don't believe we're heeding the warnings from the 9/11 Commission today. When are we going to learn the lesson that we need the dots to connect them in the first place?

And I think it's worth repeating, for those who have just tuned in, again the FBI agent's frustration that Mr. Dent has referred to, and I can see this. Having worked with the FBI, I can see an agent who is pounding his head against the wall because some bureaucratic rule prevents him from coordinating with the intelligence side of the house and he can't get the intelligence he needs to protect Americans because the intelligence community knows that

two of these terrorists are in the United States but they can't tell the FBI about it. It is an absurd result, and he says, very, very frustrating, sending a letter to FBI headquarters, which could be a career-breaking act to do, very dangerous thing for an FBI agent to do, but he voices his frustration, saying someday someone will die. This is before 9/11. And law or not, the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain problems. They don't seem to understand the biggest threat to us now is Osama bin Laden.

That fell on deaf ears, and I'm afraid that this message is now falling on deaf ears again. It's certainly falling on deaf ears in this House when the majority fails and it's a dereliction of duty not to bring this bill that will protect American lives to the floor of this House.

I thank the gentlelady, and I couldn't agree more.

If, God forbid, we are hit again while we have this act expiring, while we're dark in many parts of the world, while we're losing intelligence all over the world, if we could have stopped it when it happens here again and the American people wake up and realize who is responsible for this, and if American blood is spilled once again, that blood will be on the hands of Congress, and I feel very passionately, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank my colleague, and he points out so eloquently how important good and accurate intelligence is.

Because we had an intelligence gap, September 11 occurred. What we're trying to do is to stop that from ever happening again. Without that, we fail, and it's the best weapon we have, the first line of defense in the war on terror. And yet, for some reason, the majority in the Congress are being denied the right to vote on this and pass it and, in turn, denying the will of the American people, who we know support it. They want us to know what al Qaeda is saying overseas, and yet what we're doing is we're extending protection, giving the trial lawyers authority and extending constitutional protections to foreign terrorists.

The Constitution does not apply to a terrorist in a foreign country, and that is the absurd result that we find ourselves in today. And with that, I will yield to Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman, and I have to make the analogy that prior to 9/11 it's almost like before Pearl Harbor; we as a country were a sleeping giant and alarms went off at various times, the flags went up, that the majority of people here in the United States really, we didn't understand it. We didn't heed the warning. We didn't listen to those alarms before they went off.

And then, of course, on September 11, the sleeping giant awoke, and we wanted to do everything we could possibly do to secure and protect this Nation. And I think the most tragic thing that could happen is for the sleeping giant to go back to sleep, and I believe that if we fail to pass this important national security legislation, that's exactly what's going to happen. And I yield to the gentlelady from New Mexico.

I thank the gentlelady for her eloquence, as always.

I would like to just add that, certainly during the Cold War at least, the principle of mutually shared destruction applied; we valued our lives and so did the Soviets. In this war against terrorism, in the day of suicide bombers, we can't say that. So real-time intelligence is absolutely critical to protecting the Nation.

I want to state again, from the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, he says, ``Expiration of this act will result in a degradation of critical tools necessary to carry out our national security mission. And without these authorities, there is significant doubt surrounding the future aspects of our operations.'' Again, that is a warning to the United States Congress that if you don't do your job, I can't do my job. Do your job.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Thank you, Mr. Dent, for your leadership as well. I see we just have a few minutes left.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico.

I thank the gentlelady.

I would like to close with a quote. Why is this debate so important? I think it's important to understand the threat and to understand who the enemy really is. Who is the enemy? Let's get inside the mind of the enemy. And our enemy says, ``The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals, nor Aristotle diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun. Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they always have been, by pen and gun, by word and bullet, and by tongue and teeth.''

The words I just read to you are the preface of the al Qaeda training manual. That is how it begins. That's in their words, not mine. That is the enemy. That is the threat. That is why it's so important we pass the Protect America Act on the House floor, and pass it now.

Mr. Speaker, I'm always inspired by the fact that we begin our business here in the Congress with a prayer to God and a pledge to this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great man, a man of God, a man of faith, a man who has devoted his entire career, indeed his entire life, to the service of his fellow man. Pastor Wayne Graumann, who offered this morning's prayer for the House of Representatives, is revered, admired, and loved by all in his congregation and by all those whose life he has touched. He is the voice and the shepherd of Salem Lutheran Church in Tomball, Texas.

Born in Granite, Oklahoma, Pastor Graumann became a pastor after completing his education at Concordia Theological Seminary in Springfield, Illinois. He eventually accepted a calling from Salem Lutheran in Tomball, Texas, and has served and strengthened his flock there for the past three decades.

Pastor Graumann has been married to his wife, Kathy, for more than 36 years. They have been blessed with two children and two beautiful grandchildren. Pastor Graumann also spends countless hours working on world missions for the health and well-being of others, particularly in Honduras, Kenya, and Mexico.

Everyone who knows Pastor Graumann knows him as a true messenger of Christ. In his words and in his deeds and, above all, in his heart, his example is a beacon of light which draws us all closer to our Creator. His faith and devotion to the life of Christ is an inspiration to us all.

I'm 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 thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for your great leadership on this very important issue and for having this debate tonight.

I think we are denying democracy its voice by not allowing the Members who represent the American people the opportunity to vote on the Protect America Act and to make that act permanent.

As the gentlewoman mentioned, I do have experience in the Justice Department in this area. I applied for FISA warrants while I was there. This statute was never intended to apply to overseas intelligence. It was solely intended to apply to agents of a foreign power who were in the United States.

This is a very dangerous game, and it's probably the most important debate that I've seen since I have been elected to the Congress. By allowing the Protect America Act to expire, by walking away from this Chamber 10 days ago and doing nothing about that, we see what the consequences are. We have heard the letters from the Director of Intelligence, from the Attorney General, and the failure now to be able to capture critical intelligence overseas.

In fact, some estimates are as high as 66 percent. In other words, we are going dark now in parts of the world where we should be paying attention. This is a dangerous game of politics; in my view it is partisan politics at its worst.

We are literally putting Americans at risk. The most solemn obligation we have as Members of Congress is to protect the American people. And there is a reason why since September 11 we haven't seen a September 11.

Intelligence is the best weapon we have, as the gentlewoman has mentioned, in this war on terror. And the idea that somehow when American soldiers are kidnapped in Iraq overseas by al Qaeda and yet we are denied the opportunity to listen in because we have to get lawyered up, and we have to go through the FISA Court to get that emergency warrant, and in the meantime one soldier is killed and two we have not heard from since, really saddens my heart as an American. And I believe, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, we are derelict in our responsibilities.

I want to share with the gentlewoman an editorial, an op-ed that I wrote with Admiral Bobby Inman. Why is Admiral Inman important? He was the Director of National Intelligence, the Deputy Director of the CIA under both Democrat and Republican administrations. Admiral Inman was one of the principal authors of the FISA statute. And in this editorial he says, to apply FISA to monitoring foreign communications, a suspected terrorist operating overseas such as Osama bin Laden and other key al Qaeda leaders, turns the original intent of FISA on its head. Turns the original intent of FISA on its head.

That is what a few key leaders on the other side of the aisle have done. By not allowing us to vote, they know that it would pass. It passed overwhelmingly in the Senate in a bipartisan way. And he goes on to say, 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.

I submit the question, don't you think that most Americans want us to be listening to what al Qaeda is saying overseas? Don't you think most Americans want to hear the conversations that we know they are having, because this is a long-term struggle, and we know that they are planning to attack us again? Don't the American people want us to be listening to that? And yet by failing to make this Protect America Act permanent, we are denying that opportunity.

If I can just by saying that if, God forbid, something happens between now and the time we can finally get this body together to pass this act, and American blood is spilled, that blood will be on the hands of all Members of Congress. We need to get this act passed.

Mr. Speaker, we will be engaging today in an important debate, perhaps the most important debate certainly since I've been in the United States Congress, and that is how to protect the American people, how can we capture intelligence overseas to better protect the United States.

I bring to this debate a unique experience. I worked in the Justice Department under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on FISA's national security wiretaps. This statute was never designed to prohibit us from capturing overseas intelligence from foreign targets. If Osama bin Laden is calling in to the United States, we, as Americans, have a right to know what he is saying.

This is, again, one of the most important debates, and the Senate passed yesterday a version of this which I urge the House to pass today, and also one that protects companies, patriotic companies, who help out the United States Government when the United States Government asks and gives the call to duty to help the United States in capturing this overseas intelligence.

The time to act is now, and extension in terms of intelligence is unacceptable. We cannot allow our intelligence to go dark in many parts of the world. We must pass the Senate version of the FISA bill.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress is engaged in an important debate, perhaps the most important debate certainly in recent years. Our most solemn obligation to this country is to protect the American citizenry.

In my view our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing a dangerous political game, and the American people are the pawns in this game. I bring to the Congress a unique experience. I worked in the Justice Department under the FISA statute. I have worked on national security wiretaps, and I can tell you that the statute was never intended to cover foreign targets in a foreign country. And if Osama bin Laden is on the phone calling into the United States, I think the American people want us to pay attention to that and to listen to that conversation.

Intelligence, good intelligence has stopped every threat to this country since 9/11. Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror. Without that, we cannot prevail in this war on terror, and we need to protect the American companies who we ask to protect the United States and the American people.

They stood up to the plate, and it is our time to stand up to the plate and now protect them. They were doing their patriotic duty in a time of war when America asked them.

If we do not protect them, then what company, American or otherwise, will dare help the United States of America in its greatest time of need, in a time of peril, in a time of war.

Yesterday, the Senate passed the FISA bill, which included this immunity and also protects Americans. I say we put that bill on the floor, let's pass that bill and let's make the Protect America Act permanent. Now is the time, not 21 days from now, not several months from now. For the American people, let's pass and protect the American people now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Katy High School football team of Katy, Texas, on their Class 5A, Division II Texas State football championship on Saturday, December 22, 2007.

Katy High School became the Class 5A, Division II State champions after defeating Pflugerville High School, 28 to 7, at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas.

Starting the season as the second-ranked team in Class 5A and ending the regular season as the top-ranked team, the Katy Tigers were a team expected to do great things, and they did. When the senior players were freshmen, they made it their goal to win a State championship game and with much hard work and determination this objective was accomplished. Always tough to live up to expectations, the Tigers did so and then some in claiming the Class 5A, Division II title in 2007 with a perfect 16-0 season record.

Throughout the season, both the offense and defense were dominant. Offensively, the Tigers scored over 43 points per game. Defensively, Katy allowed an average of only 8 points per game.

The Katy Tigers advanced to the championship game by easily defeating Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 51-18 in the bi-district playoff game, by defeating Houston Madison High School 42 to 8 in the Region 3 semi-finals, by defeating Pasadena Memorial High School 30 to 14 in the Region 3 championship, by defeating Fort Bend Clements High School 42 to 0 in the quarterfinal playoff game, and by defeating San Antonio Madison High School 66 to 21 in the State semi-final game.

The Katy Tigers rose to the challenge during the championship game against the Pflugerville Panthers, in San Antonio at the Alamodome. Katy scored 28 unanswered points after being down 7 in the first half. A hail mary at the end of the first half changed the momentum for the Katy Tigers to finish out the State championship game with a final score of 28-7, a truly outstanding accomplishment.

The win is Katy's fifth title all-time and fourth since 1997. More significantly, it is the first for head coach Gary Joseph, who ran his all-time win-loss record to 55-4 with the victory. It was not just a State title however, as the Tigers would find out about 30 minutes after the game's final whistle. Coach Joseph announced to a packed home locker room that the Tigers had been voted the No. 1 team in the Nation by ESPN. A roar of shouts, whistles and cheers filled the underground corridors of the Alamodome following that announcement as Katy returned to the top of the charts in Texas for the first time since 2003. In addition, Katy is ranked No. 4 in the USA Today Super 25 football rankings.

The success of these fine young athletes of Katy High School serves as an inspiration for their school and community. I know from my own experience how high school football teaches you not only how to win on the field but also how to succeed in life. It teaches you that through hard work, discipline, dedication, and teamwork you can dream any dream and achieve any goal. I know that these fine athletes will apply their success on the football field to their lives after high school to accomplish great things.

I officially recognize and honor the outstanding achievements and contributions by the 2007 Katy High School Varsity Football Team, coaches, school and loyal fans, for their exemplary representation of our community. Congratulations Katy Tigers. I commend you on a spectacular football year and wish you the best next season and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee has spoken and the result is positive. I appreciate the words of the Committee in the Statement of the managers accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations legislation specifically regarding the USAID and hunting conservation programs in Africa and around the world.

The initial problem that came to light earlier this year was language that denied USAID funding of recreational, sport and trophy hunting in its assistance programs in Africa. The language in the Statement of the Managers to accompany the Omnibus legislation offers out the opportunity for the USAID conservation projects to continue and states that they need to come before the Committee and explain these important conservation programs. I support this effort and commend the Committee on this language.

These USAID projects are very important tools in the effort to promote conservation. Tourist hunting in foreign lands has proven to be vital and critical to community-based natural resource management programs such as the CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe and the LIFE Plus Project in Namibia. The CAMPFIRE and the LIFE Plus Projects in Africa are just two examples of working conservation programs that involve controlled, regulated sport and trophy hunting. These programs literally support the entire tribal system in many areas of Africa. Without them, literally millions of acres that are properly managed now would fall prey to poachers and the land would prove to have no economic value. Animals in this environment would be killed for food, over-

hunted and poached. None of us want that result.

These programs provide conservation and social benefits like growth, revenue, poverty reduction, improved livelihoods and empowerment--all of which alleviate human suffering.

The facts are in: in twenty-three African countries that allow licensed, regulated hunting, approximately 18,500 hunters generate over $200 million annually in remote rural areas. The USAID programs are extremely important to the survival of many species worldwide and I thank the Appropriations Committee for recognizing the flaw in the House Report language and speaking to it appropriately in the Statement of the Managers that accompanies the Omnibus legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the most extraordinary towns in our country, Tomball, TX, and join them in celebrating their 100-year anniversary. This community began in the early 1800s as a farming community and has grown to be a town encompassing economic growth and core American values which makes our Nation a great place to live.

Tomball was first known as Peck but at the turn of the century, in 1907, the town was officially named Tomball in honor of Mr. Thomas Henry Ball; a Congressman, a lawyer, a proud father, and an honorable man.

Tomball saw their first boom in 1906 when the railroad came to town. The first freight train and the first passenger rail rolled through town in 1907. Today visitors can step back in time and enjoy the newly refurbished train depot, in the heart of downtown Tomball, as trains move through town as they did a century ago.

Tomball was also known as ``Oil Town U.S.A.'' in the early 1930's when oil was discovered in a big Texas way with a ``gusher.'' The city was quick to realize the extraordinary asset before them and negotiated a deal with Humble Oil and Gas allowing the company drilling rights within the city in exchange for free oil and gas to Tomball residents for the next 50 years.

Tomball has seen growth in all aspects of the community. Since the turn of the century, there has been the boom of the railroad, the great success of oil and gas, real estate growth, and road improvements all contributing to the strong economic base for this town. Tomball has always been a place with extraordinary schools, both public and private. The city possesses citizens with an eagerness to learn extending to higher education within the college system. Faith is important to this community and is the foundation that enables numerous churches to congregate within the area.

Tomball is an amazing town within Harris County, TX. It is the continued dedication to this town by its residents which makes it one of the friendliest places to live, not only in Texas but in the United States. Although Tomball has endured many changes over the last century one thing remains the same, the people. As we celebrate the first 100 years of Tomball it is with great joy I say thank you for being a wonderful and compassionate community. The devotion for this community is contagious and I am honored to be your representative, in fact I proudly display a sign in my office that says, ``I Love Tomball.'' I wish this city all the best in the next 100 years. Happy Birthday, Tomball and congratulations on reaching this remarkable milestone.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the most extraordinary towns in our country, Tomball, Texas and join them in celebrating their 100 year anniversary. This community began in the early 1800's as a farming community and has grown to be a town encompassing economic growth and core American values which makes our nation a great place to live.

Tomball is known for many things; it began as an agricultural community and has continued to grow expeditiously from day one. Originally this town was known as Peck, but at the turn of the century in 1907, the town was officially named Tomball in honor of Mr. Thomas Henry Ball; a Congressman, a lawyer, a proud father, and an honorable man.

Tomball saw their first boom in 1906 when the railroad came to town. The first freight train and the first passenger rail rolled through town in 1907. Today visitors can step back in time and enjoy the newly refurbished train depot, in the heart of downtown Tomball, as trains move through town as they did a century ago.

Tomball was also known as ``Oil Town U.S.A.'' in the early 1930's when oil was discovered in a big Texas way with a ``gusher.'' The city was quick to realize the extraordinary asset before them and negotiated a deal with Humble Oil and Gas allowing the company drilling rights within the city in exchange for free oil and gas to Tomball residents for the next 50 years.

Tomball has seen growth in all aspects of the community. Since the turn of the century, there has been the boom of the railroad, the great success of oil and gas, real estate growth, and road improvements all contributing to the strong economic base for this town. Tomball has always been a place with extraordinary schools, both public and private. The city possesses citizens with an eagerness to learn extending to higher education within the college system. Faith is important to this community and is the foundation that enables numerous churches to congregate within the area.

Tomball is an amazing town within Harris County, Texas. It is the residents continued dedication to this town which makes it one of the friendliest places to live not only in Texas but in the United States. Although Tomball has endured many changes over the last century one thing remains the same, the people. The people of this community have always been the most thoughtful and caring individuals a town could ever ask for. As we celebrate the first 100 years of Tomball it is with great joy I say thank you for being a wonderful and compassionate community. I wish this city all the best in the next 100 years, as I know only good things will come from such an amazing place. Happy Birthday Tomball and congratulations on reaching this remarkable milestone.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2074.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members who introduced the bill. I want to thank Chairman Langevin, who I have worked with very closely on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the passage of this resolution, which supports the goals and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. While I believe it is important to recognize the need for cybersecurity awareness, this is an issue that should not be limited to just one month. Cybersecurity should be on the minds of all of us throughout the entire year.

Computers and the Internet have become an integral part of American business, government and lifestyle. Over 200 million Americans use the Internet on a regular basis. Companies, both large and small, rely on the Internet to manage their business, expand their customer reach and enhance their connection with their supply chain.

Almost 90 percent of all youth use the Internet, and the vast majority of those use the Internet at school. It is important that these children are taught to use the Internet in a safe and secure manner. This will not only protect their own systems from attack, but will provide for their physical safety.

Cybersecurity is also a critical part of our Nation's overall homeland security. The systems that control and monitor our dams, power grids, oil and gas supplies, as well as our transportation systems and other critical manufacturing processes, are connected to the Internet.

Right now, a terrorist organization or a hostile nation-state could disrupt our critical infrastructure systems and do serious damage to our economy without even entering our country. Appropriate cybersecurity practices are essential to overall security.

The dangers associated with online behavior are becoming more and more common. These threats range from spam, viruses and identity theft to complex computer attacks created by organized crime, terrorist organizations and possibly nation-states designed to steal sensitive information through espionage.

Organizations, such as National Cyber Security Alliance, are making it their mission to increase awareness of cybersecurity and technologies to home users, students, teachers and small businesses. These organizations deserve to be recognized for their good work and be supported.

While there is much to do, cybersecurity awareness is growing. The Congress has a role to play in encouraging the use of proper cybersecurity practices and technologies throughout our country. National Cyber Security Awareness Month provides a solid platform from which to improve cybersecurity awareness in our country, and I am pleased that this Congress is supporting its ideals and its goals. We have much more work to do, but being aware of the need for cybersecurity is a necessary first step.

I want to thank Congresswoman Hooley for introducing this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor to it.

This study will be able to quantify the important benefits green schools provide by way of economic savings, environmental impact, and the health and academic performance of students. The building industry represents the largest economic sector in the United States, and school construction is the largest component of that sector. If all new school construction and school renovations went green starting today, energy savings alone would total about $20 billion over the next 10 years. It costs less than $3 extra per square foot to build a green school, but the payback occurs within 1 year based upon energy savings alone. With childhood asthma becoming more widespread in recent decades, this research is timely and necessary. According to the CDC, childhood asthma accounts for about 14 million missed school days per year.

This amendment authorizes $1 million over 5 years to undertake this important area of research. It is endorsed by the U.S. Green Buildings Council, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Institute of Architects.

I want to thank the Congresswoman again for introducing this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, our most solemn duty in the United States Congress is to protect the American people; and while this bill may be well intentioned, it fails to do that. In fact, just the opposite. It puts the American people in great danger.

Before running for Congress, I worked in the Justice Department. I worked on national security, wiretaps or FISAs. The intention of the FISA Act was never to apply to agents of a foreign power in a foreign country. It was to apply to agents of a foreign power in this country. This bill does just the opposite. It expands it to bar a collection of foreign intelligence on foreign targets in foreign countries.

FISA is a cumbersome and time-consuming process. I am concerned that if we cannot collect intelligence overseas that we cannot protect our war fighter in the battlefield. We put them in danger, and we put the citizens of this country in danger.

We all know that al Qaeda is looking at hitting us again. It may be very soon. And with the anniversary of 9/11 approaching, we must do everything we can to protect her.