Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I am honored to take this opportunity to discuss a recent event in DC on an issue that has always been of particular significance to me. On September 16, 2010, I hosted a Childhood Cancer Summit with Congressman Joe Sestak on behalf of the Pediatric Cancer Caucus. We held the Summit in September to honor Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Our goal was to raise awareness among Members of Congress and to advance policies to better treat and prevent this disease. Pediatric cancer is the leading killer by disease of our nation's children. Thirty-five children, or the equivalent of an entire school classroom, are diagnosed every day. However, pediatric cancer research remains woefully underfunded. To compound this problem, the small patient population creates no market incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop pediatric cancer drugs. Therefore, there exists a lack of available treatments and drugs tailored specifically to childhood cancer. Only one drug has been manufactured particularly for pediatric cancer since the 1980s. In addition, three out of every five survivors face devastating long-term effects from their disease or their treatments. Pediatric cancer is a chronic disease, and we have much to learn before diagnosed children are guaranteed to lead full and normal lives. It is the goal of the Pediatric Cancer Caucus to raise awareness for these issues, as well as to advocate in support of measure which will improve the lives of patients, and work toward eliminating this disease as a threat to all children. The Caucus now has about 80 members, and is steadily growing. The Childhood Cancer Summit included a panel discussion between childhood cancer experts from around the nation. Participants came from many of the premier pediatric cancer centers, including MD Anders Cancer Center, Texas Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. The panelists discussed the unique challenges facing childhood cancer patients and their families compared with adult cancers, including the development of better treatments for kids with cancer and initiatives to improve the quality of survivorship. It is my goal to use the recommendations from these panelists to shape an effective legislative agenda, and gamer the support of my fellow policymakers. As policymakers, we have a responsibility to the many children and families suffering from this devastating disease.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res.1588, concerning the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan during and after the upcoming referenda. We are now less than 100 days away from one of the most crucial dates in Sudan's recent history. On January 9th, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement will expire and the citizens of Sudan will have the opportunity to vote both on the referendum on self-determination for Southern Sudan and the referendum on whether Abyei will remain in the north or join the south. This resolution highlights the importance of these votes and the many challenges currently facing Sudan, from continued violence in Darfur to questions about resource allocation. We are concerned about the repeated lack of attention and focus placed on Sudan in the months leading up to the referenda. The Administration must engage further with the local groups and governments to ensure these votes are fair and free and that all citizens have the ability to determine their future. Many issues including borders, oil and revenue sharing, and right of return for refugees still need to be discussed in advance of the votes and resolved in a manner that satisfies the concerns of all of the groups involved. Even as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement expires, we must work to facilitate continued dialogue on these important issues. This is a critical time for the future of Sudan, and we must not put ourselves in a position where we look back in January and regret not taking action sooner. No matter the outcome of the referenda, we need to encourage the people of Sudan to continue to take positive steps towards a peaceful future. This resolution lays out our specific recommendations for how the Administration can encourage this outcome, and I hope you all will support it.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, as we go back home to our districts to honor the veterans on Memorial Day, today I rise to honor a true American hero, Corporal Jeffrey Johnson, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Division. Born January 27, 1989, in Charleston, South Carolina, Jeffrey joined the Marines in July of 2007. He was killed on May 11, 2010, in the Helmand province in Afghanistan, where we have seen some of the fiercest fighting in the war as the surge moves forward to victory. He was 3 weeks into his second deployment when he was killed by an IED while on patrol. Corporal Johnson is a graduate of Waller High School and is now being touted in the media as a son of Tomball, Texas. Jeffrey loved Ford trucks and he loved the outdoors, especially hunting and fishing. Corporal Johnson joined the military to provide education and other options. He wanted to attend the University of Texas and become either a game warden or a State trooper. Katy Anguish, his wife, wanted people to know that Jeffrey was a creative person. He loved to have fun. I spoke to the family the day Jeffrey was brought home to his final homecoming to offer my condolences on behalf of a grateful Nation and to give them flags flown over the United States Capitol in his honor. To his wife, Katy Anguish; his father and stepmother, Jerry and Kelly Johnson; his mother, Dawn Hardwick; sisters Ashtian Bennett and Kassidy Johnson; his brother, Jason Martin; his grandparents, Delores Campbell, Glenda Schneider, John Farmer, and Jerry Tyner, it's hard to put in words how you must feel, but know that the United States Congress and the American people are so grateful for your son's service. Unfortunately, I have attended too many military funerals, as many Members of Congress have, but I have never seen such an overwhelming support and love in the welcoming home of this fallen hero. He arrived by airplane from Afghanistan in Tomball, Texas. He was greeted by the marines, who carried his casket to the hearse. It reminded me of the greatness of this country. It was so inspiring to me that at a time of great tragedy and sorrow that over 30,000 people in a small town showed up to pay their respects, to show their appreciation for a man who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, to signal to the rest of the Nation that patriotism and love of country are still alive and well in America, and it restored my faith in America. The Tomball Fire Department hung a large U.S. flag from two extended ladder trucks as Corporal Johnson's body traveled by motorcade to the funeral home. Thousands of friends, veterans, school children, and ordinary citizens, showed their support and lined the streets waving American flags. This is what it's all about. As a Member of Congress, the hardest thing we have to do is to comfort families when they have lost a loved one in a time of war. My heart goes out to the family. But Jeffrey did not die in vain. He was part of something greater than himself. He was on a mission for freedom and liberty, on a mission to liberate the world from the scourge of terrorism. My father, a World War II veteran, was part of what we now call the Greatest Generation. Jeffrey is now part of a new great generation of heroes. His life embodies what we see in the Gospel of John, Chapter 15:13, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' Jeffrey, you are home now with God. Well done, good and faithful servant. May God bless you and may he hold you in the palm of his hand. I would like to close with a quote from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address, which I read to the family the day of the homecoming. His words are as timeless today and relevant as they were so many years ago, when he said, ``The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.'' God bless you, Jeffrey.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to recognize Sam Houston's contributions to Texas and our Nation. Sam Houston was a statesman, military leader, and politician who made remarkable contributions to Texas and our Nation. His achievements include representing both Tennessee and Texas in the U.S. Congress; defeating Mexican President Santa Anna to secure Texas' long sought independence; and being named the first President of the Republic of Texas for two terms. Additionally, he was the only person in U.S. History to have been the governor of two different states, Texas and Tennessee. The State of Texas has recognized Sam Houston's achievements with the naming of the City of Houston. His is also remembered by a memorial museum, a U.S. Army Base, a national forest, a historical park, a university and the largest free-standing statue of an American figure. The patriotic spirit of Sam Houston is carried by every Texan, and is especially seen in his great grandson, Sam Houston the 4th. I am proud to say this gentleman is my constituent. I have seen Sam Houston 4th every year at Texas Day of Independence celebration and feel that his vote is the best endorsement I have ever had. Please join me in acknowledging Sam Houston's accomplishments with this resolution.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, in a desperate effort to pass a sweeping government takeover of our health care system, Democrats held Congress in session throughout the weekend to pass H.R. 3590, The Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act along with a package of desired ``fixes,'' H.R. 4872, The Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. In a purely partisan fashion, the Democrats have now passed the largest tax increase in history, a massive expansion of entitlements, and policies which will put the health care system at the whim of the Federal Government. One of the most distressing aspects of this legislation is the dishonesty which has been utilized for its passage. While I am pleased that the Democrats forfeited the ``Deem-and-Pass'' ploy to hide a vote on the Senate health care bill, I am shocked that they support this 2,700 page monstrosity, complete with its slew of sweetheart deals that benefit home states of members who once opposed the bill. Despite the backlash that rightfully followed these deceitful kickbacks, the Democrats included even more million-dollar deals for specific members in the reconciliation package. This tactic is an abuse of power, an abuse of taxpayer money, and abandons the integrity that the American public expects from their Congress. The numbers in this Democratic health care package are astounding. The bill costs about $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, imposes almost $570 billion in new taxes on the American public, and cuts the Medicare program by over $500 billion. As our economy attempts to recover from the largest recession since the Great Depression, this bill's laundry list of new taxes is deplorable: $32 billion in taxes on health care benefits, $52 billion in taxes on employers, $17 billion in penalties on individuals, $210.2 billion in an unprecedented Medicare tax on wages, self-employment income, and certain investment income, and many more. While these taxes will be in effect immediately, 98% of the bill's provisions do not begin until 2014. Therefore, Americans will be paying for health reform for four years without ever seeing the government return the favor. Unbelievably, the bill's true ten-year cost when fully implemented totals about $2.4 trillion dollars. To pay for this spending, it proposes half a trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage, robbing the benefits our seniors deserve. What may be worse than the vast cost of this bill are the budgetary gimmicks used in its scoring. The authors use ten years of revenue to pay for only six years of government spending. They also double count savings from Medicare cuts to simultaneously pay for Medicare entitlements and the bill's new entitlements. Furthermore, the bill does not include the ``doc fix,'' legislation that will likely be passed separately to ensure doctors do not incur a huge cut in reimbursements--and costs an additional $371 billion. These methods were used to dupe the American people, a smoke-and-mirrors strategy to uphold President Obama's pledge that health care reform will ``not add a dime to the deficit.'' Unfortunately, if one omits these budgetary tricks from the bill's cost, it will actually increase the deficit by almost $600 billion in the first ten years. The structure of this bill is a clear effort to give the government complete control over health care--it takes choice and flexibility from American citizens while also making them pay more. For example, the bill instructs the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to determine what constitutes a ``minimum benefits package'' for all Americans and then requires all citizens to purchase it. This mandate will be enforced by a massive expansion of the IRS, which will fine those who do not comply two percent of their income. I believe that individuals can best determine for themselves how comprehensive their health care insurance should be, and that Americans have many different needs which cannot be defined by a one- size-fits-all package. Unfortunately, H.R. 3590 sets the stage for mandated, standardized health care. The provisions in H.R. 3590 will hurt families, businesses, and kill jobs at a time when we can least afford it. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reported that this health care package will most likely raise premiums for millions of families by $2,100 per year. It also taxes employers if they cannot provide health insurance and their employees receive federal subsidies--this provision will cause employers to lay off employees due to cost increases, and it discourages companies from hiring low-wage workers who are more likely to qualify for subsidies. Furthermore, Democrats have promised that Americans may keep their health insurance if they like it, but the CBO has predicted that up to 9 million Americans will lose their employer- based coverage. Additionally, the bill imposes an unfunded mandate on Texas by drastically expanding the Medicaid program, costing Texas an estimated $24.3 billion dollars in the next ten years. Unfortunately, the reasons why this bill will hurt this country abound. This legislation fails to ensure federal funding is not used for elective abortions. While the President has promised to issue an Executive Order for political effect, the President cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says. The bill also fails to include proper verification procedures to ensure illegal immigrants do not receive federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Furthermore, it lacks protections for 9.2 million military personnel, families and retirees that their health insurance will not be affected. These pitfalls explain why Americans have flooded the DC area in protest, a visual testament of the public opinion on the Democratic health bill, which has become largely opposed throughout the debate. Unfortunately, the Democrats have not listened, and in one of the largest abuses of majority power, have forced their hand on the American public. My fellow Republicans and I have been willing to work on health care reform from the beginning of this debate. We have introduced numerous proposals emphasizing free market solutions and cost-cutting strategies to make health care insurance readily available and more affordable to Americans. We were present when the President called us to discuss health care reform, but our willingness to start over and work together was ignored by our colleagues. I am disappointed by the events of tonight, but I have not given up and will continue to work for true reform that will lower costs instead of simply shifting those costs onto the government.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, the American people have spoken loud and clear on this issue as recently as the Massachusetts election. They want health care reform, but they reject this bill. This administration and the Democrat majority have been tone deaf to this message. Speaker Pelosi just said, ``We need to pass this bill to see what's in it.'' I don't quite understand what that really means. But I will tell you what's in this bill: there's over $500 billion in tax increases, a cut to Medicare by $500 billion, a new form of government-run health care insurance by the Office of Personnel Management, a cut to Social Security by $4.2 billion, and sweetheart deals, basically legalized bribery, to buy off votes of the Senate by the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback and the Gator aid. To those Blue Dog Democrats, 40 sitting in conservative districts, do the right thing. Don't walk the plank on this bill. This is still the United States of America, and we're going to take this country back.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. If the gentleman would yield. We had the information in both the Hasan case and the Christmas bomber. I made all the points about the Hasan case, all the flags that popped up, a failure to act upon those red flags. Indeed, in the Christmas bomber case you had a State Department cable coming out that warned the father had come in warning that his son was in touch with Islamic extremists in Yemen. Yet, when I asked the Under Secretary of the State Department, Mr. Kennedy, in God's name when he found that out, why didn't he revoke his visa, his response was, You know, a lot of people come into embassies and a lot of people give us tips, and they are not all credible. And I said, Well, this was not some anonymous source coming in, it was his father. Meanwhile, in the intelligence community there is specific threat information coming in about this individual. The State Department has got the cable, the intelligence community has got the threat information. It is not put together. Both sides could have acted on it. The intelligence community could have asked the State Department, Does this guy have a passport? Does he have a visa? Can we revoke that? And the same with the State Department. Yet, that doesn't happen. We need to move forward to make sure the Christmas bomber never happens again, and to make sure, with all the evidence coming in with Mr. Hasan, to make sure that with individuals like this the evidence isn't swept under the rug out of political correctness.

Mr. McCAUL. I thank the gentleman from Texas and your hosting this leadership hour and your great leadership on this issue. You and I see this the same way. You were a judge. I was a Federal prosecutor. We respect the rule of law, but we respect the truth. We call it like it is. We call it like we see it. That's what Texans do. And the way I see it is this matter has been swept under the rug; we're not calling it what it is. You and I, I think, were some of the first two Members of Congress to stand up and say, you know what, that was an act of terrorism that occurred the other day at Fort Hood. That was an act of a terrorist. Not some criminal defendant. This was an act of terrorism. You stood up, in representing Fort Hood in your usual way, and said that's what it was and I stood up and said the same. And it took months before the Secretary of Homeland Security came before our committee and finally acknowledged what we had said all along and that this was truly an act of terrorism. I want to congratulate you for your bill, which essentially acknowledges it for what it was, and that was an act of war on U.S. soil, combat, recognizing the victims and their families, giving them the combat pay that they deserve. You and I were at the ceremony, the memorial service, one of the most dramatic memorial services I think I've ever attended. I know the gentleman feels the same way. I just wanted to hold up a picture of that tragic day, where we had 13 pairs of combat boots, 13 rifles with 13 helmets honoring the dead and, of course, one unborn child; 43 injured, two of those injured standing next to me in this photograph. I asked them the question, because they are the best evidence, what happened that day? They were shot by him. What did he say to you? And these two said: Congressman, he said ``Allahu Akbar.'' He screamed ``Allahu Akbar'' as he gunned down my colleagues in cold blood, as he wounded 43 soldiers on the base, the largest military installation in the country. And who is this man? I met with General Cone at the ceremony and I said, Would you have liked to have known that a major on your base was making communications with the top al Qaeda operative? Sure I would have. What happened that day? The Joint Terrorism Task Force who I used to work with when I was a prosecutor had that evidence; a Department of Defense representative on the JTTF had that evidence; but for a variety of reasons--and I've questioned witnesses on this--did not want to share that with the commander of Fort Hood; for a variety of reasons. But for God's sake at least let the commanding officer know that he's got a major--this is not some ordinary event--a major on his base talking to an al Qaeda operative in Yemen, a man who it has come to our attention in a big way recently with the Christmas bomber, the same radical cleric who talked to the Christmas bomber. But who is Mr. Hasan? And thank God he's a terrorist that is going to face a military tribunal. Well, he was born of Jordanian immigrants. Each of these, as the case unfolded, if you will, raised a flag as to who is this man. We talk a lot about connecting the dots, but these were dots that popped up that were failed to be acted upon. Why weren't these dots acted upon? A man who said his allegiance was to the Koran, not the Constitution. A man who described the war on terrorism as a war against Islam, according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him. A man who argued that Muslims are being targeted by U.S. anti-terror campaigns. A former classmate said of Mr. Hasan, he was very vocal about the war; very up-front about being a Muslim first and an American second. And if that's politically incorrect for me to say that, all I'm saying here in this Chamber is the truth. You take it for what it is. He was also concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted. On his business cards--this is all the evidence of this man--his business card said Soldier of Allah. We know that the morning of the shooting he wore traditional Pakistani garb at the 7-Eleven that morning. He was known to wear that off-duty. Certainly there are religious protections in this country for that. But all these flags put together shows us an individual who was presenting a threat to the soldiers. We know al Qaeda has targeted military installations. We know they targeted Fort Dix. The question that General Cone asked me was, We just don't know how many more Hasans are out there. How many more Hasans are out there who are a direct threat to our military installations? The cleric in Yemen basically said that Hasan trusted him and praised him as a hero after the shooting. ``God is great,'' that's what he screamed when he shot those men in cold blood. I can't think of anything more sickening to my heart as a God-fearing man, a Christian, or anybody who believes in God, to believe in a God where you could say, ``God is great'' as you're killing somebody. That's a perverted, twisted religion. That is what we are dealing with. I have asked the Homeland Security Committee through letters. I am ranking on the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. I asked Chairwoman Jane Harman to hold hearings on this. We asked Bennie Thompson, the majority chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, to hold hearings on this matter, because the American people are entitled to know what happened that day. And yet we got a report, a report that really didn't say a whole lot, a report that was so politically correct, it didn't even mention radical Islam. Well, in my view, that's what this war is all about that we're in right now, is a war against the extremists, against a radical, perverted teaching of Islam that says it's okay to kill in the name of Allah. The day we recognize that in this country, I think is the day we're going to be a lot safer. I have a lot more to say, but I know the gentleman probably has some comments, but I do want to thank you for being one of the first ones to step out of the box and say this was an act of terrorism. I'm glad that Napolitano has come around to that same conclusion. And I want to thank you also for your steadfast support for our troops. You represent a base that has more soldiers than any in the world, and I know how proud you are of them and how well you represent them, and I want to personally thank you for that.

Mr. McCAUL. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. McCAUL. It was refreshing to see that. And I don't always agree with her either, but she had the courage to call it like it is, like you and I called it for quite some time. The sad thing is there are 13 dead, one unborn, and 43 wounded because people didn't have the guts to stand up and call it what it was. You know, the day that happened it seemed to me there was a systematic process of trying to--like you said, I was a prosecutor too. If you can't win this case, you know, you need to get out of the business. The sweeping under the rug and not wanting to hold hearings on this issue and not willing to brief us. We finally got a briefing on this just a couple of weeks ago for the first time. And you saw the impact this administration was trying to have on this whole thing that no, this wasn't--you know, we can't really call it what it is because we don't want to offend anybody. Well, that is the same type of attitude that led to this monster killing 13 people to begin with. It was when all these red flags popped up and these dots, if you will, when they popped up, no one had the guts to act on it. And they want to sweep it under the rug, and they swept his promotion. They promoted him, even though all this was out there, swept it under the rug. And now even after the tragic events that happened that day, there is an attempt, in my view, to try to sweep all this under the rug and trying to move forward. You know, this is one example of many things that have happened this past year. I always said that they like to attack a President in the first year of office, al Qaeda. They did it with Bill Clinton, '93 World Trade Center. They did it with George W. Bush with 9/11. And I predicted that this was going to happen under this President's watch this year. And not only did this happen, but we had the same radical cleric tied to the Christmas bomber. Fortunately, Mr. Hasan will face a military tribunal. The Christmas bomber, on the other hand, will not. We had several events over the last year of threats to the United States and multiple attempted terrorist attacks on the United States of America. And I think it is high time we recognize it and see it for what it is to better protect the American people and our military bases that we know are being targeted right now. The idea that the Joint Terrorism Task Force and, again, these are friends of mine, that they had this information and they didn't--I understand compromising investigations. But you could at least let the general at the base know that he has an individual, a major, in his outfit talking to a top al Qaeda recruiter, and you may just want to put him under observation. You don't have to question him, you don't have to dig into his files, you don't have to put him on alert that we are looking at him; but you may want to kind of just monitor his actions because there is some radical stuff going on, and potentially he could be a threat. This man did not believe in the mission. The irony of Mr. Hasan is he was the man trained and paid for by the taxpayer in the United States Army to counsel people coming back from the theater of war, and he didn't believe in the mission. I can only imagine what kind of counseling he was giving to these troops coming back from the war theaters that you and I have been to in Iraq and Afghanistan and what he was telling them when he himself didn't believe in the mission they were sent to do. That is the absurd irony of Mr. Hasan. And, again, as General Cone asked, how many more Hasans are out there? I think we have a duty in the Congress. I think the Department of Defense has a duty. I hope the Webster report will uncover more of this. But we have a duty to better protect our soldiers not only abroad, but right here in the United States. And that is the great, awful tragic event of what happened was that it happened on American soil and it happened in their home. That is just not supposed to occur in this country. It needs to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be swept under the rug. And I think we should continue to do this and continue to ask the majority to hold hearings on this. And you know, as Secretary Napolitano admitted, it was a violent Islamic terrorist attack. I think the Department of Defense needs to come forward with that as well, and I think we have an obligation to the American people not to sweep this under the rug, to prevent future actions from occurring. Our oversight responsibilities under the Constitution I take very seriously, and we have a duty here in the Congress to hold those hearings and get to the bottom of this case so we can stop it in the future. I went down to Guantanamo after the President decided to close it down, and I saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And it was during prayer hour. And he was laying on his rug, bowing to Mecca. And it was one of the most chilling things I have ever seen in my life. A man responsible for killing 3,000 Americans, and the idea that we are going to bring him into the United States. And look, I am a Federal prosecutor. The Southern District of New York is one of the best U.S. Attorney's offices in the country. But are we going to treat these people as criminal defendants or enemy combatants? Are we going to say that this is a war or a criminal prosecution? It seems to me that we are slipping back into the Clinton years, where we really looked at these as really just illegal criminal prosecution, not an act of warfare perpetrated against the United States of America. It seems to me, particularly with the top 16 al Qaeda operatives, many of whom were responsible for 9/11, that was an act of warfare, and it should be treated as such.

Mr. McCAUL. If the gentleman will yield. It was preventable. There is a lot of information coming in, and we have a lot of good men and women working counterterrorism. They have got a tough job. There is a lot of information coming in. But we had these two major focal points that just were never acted upon and never put together in the Christmas bomber case. And Mr. Hasan, my God, how many points of error popping up on him? How many red flags are popping up? And why weren't they acted upon? I think it goes back to your original point: We didn't want to hurt someone's feelings. And do you know what? We see this in the Federal Government. They would rather just kind of promote and move on somebody rather than have to deal with the problem. Gee, we have someone who is making these radical statements, but I would rather not deal with the problem. Let's just push them along in the system. Let's transfer him from Walter Reed, where he was a major problem--we know that, poor performance evaluations--to one of the largest military installations in the country, and let's promote him to major in spite of the fact all these points of evidence were out on him. I think that is the real tragedy. I know my good friend from Texas has probably one of the most difficult jobs out of any Member in this body, and that is because you have more soldiers in your district than any other, and you are the one who has to comfort them, as we all do, but you, many more times than any other Member, have to comfort the loved ones whose son or daughter has been killed in a time of war. I know you personally have comforted the families of the victims here and Fort Hood, and the biggest tragedy is that it could have been prevented. With that, I yield back.

Mr. McCAUL. If the gentleman would yield, I was proud to be a cosponsor of your bill. I hope we see it pass in short order. I agree with you. That was an attack on American soil by the terrorists. According to the Secretary of Homeland Security, so was Fort Hood, and American soldiers were killed. So how can we differentiate between the Pentagon and Fort Hood? Both are symbols of military might and power in the United States. I think it is fitting to the families. I would hope the majority would see it the same way, that this was an act of terror perpetrated on American soldiers and on a symbol of military might and power, and give them the just compensation that they gave the victims of 9/11 and the Pentagon. I can think of no reason why that legislation should be blocked by the majority.

Mr. McCAUL. I agree. I think this is, in some ways, worse than 9/11 because, there, the enemy was foreign, radical Islamic terrorists. In this case, these soldiers are saluting their colleagues who lost their lives, who were killed by a major in the U.S. Army who was wearing the very same military uniform that they are. And the idea that he could betray his soldiers like this, and not only betray, but kill them, that's what I think makes it so very, very hard to accept. Aulaqi, the Yemeni cleric, said that Hasan trusted him. The radical cleric said that Hasan trusted him. Unfortunately, the Army trusted Mr. Hasan and promoted him through the ranks. Because of political correctness, he was never called out for his behavior, which we know was a problem. We know the flags were raised. I'm not making this stuff up. He had business cards that said ``soldier of Allah,'' the jihadist line he used when he killed them in cold blood, talking about the war on terrorism is a war against Islam. It just makes you wonder how could we have promoted someone in the United States Army and the United States military with these types of flags going up? He said his allegiance was to the Koran and not the Constitution. Judge, you are absolutely right. The morale, which is so important in a time of war that we are in, is critical here. And if we can't act upon cases like this in the United States Army in the United States out of fear that we won't be politically correct and we may hurt someone's feelings, where have we gone in this country? We can't call it out like it is and say it for what it is, that this man did not love his country, that he had more loyalty to radical Islam, and that is precisely why he killed those 13 soldiers that day.

Mr. McCAUL. I point to the same radical cleric who praised Mr. Hasan's actions and called him a hero is the same radical cleric who is behind the Christmas bomber. This is no coincidence here. It is connecting back to a radical al Qaeda operative out of Yemen. Why in the world General Cone didn't know about this, a major on his base, is really beyond me. And that's what we have got to fix looking forward with the JTTFs and with the Department of Defense. We have talked to them about the Christmas bomber. But how many Christmas bombers are out there? How many more people is the radical cleric Aulaqi influencing? Jihad Jane and others, they all go to these Web sites. And not only do we have to deal with the al Qaeda operatives overseas, but this kind of act inspires them, and the fact that we could have let this happen inspires them. And then how many more radical homegrown terrorists are potentially out there in the United States? We know that the radical cleric has now said just one man, one incident. They are decentralizing. They are saying one man can carry out, take a gun, take an explosive device. That is in a very radical departure from how al Qaeda had worked in the past, and it is coming from the same individual who is tied to Mr. Hasan and the Christmas bomber, and we better wake up to that.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I thank the gentleman from Austin, Mr. Doggett, for introducing this resolution. We share Austin, and we share in our grief and share in these tragic events that occurred on February 18. I was in Austin. I was driving, and I saw a bunch of smoke coming out of some Federal buildings where I used to work with the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI, right next door to the IRS building. I called the police chief that day, and I said, What happened? Police Chief Acevedo said that a plane had flown into the Federal building, and I said, Well, do you know if it was an accident? He said, No, Congressman, it was intentional. And at that point in time, we knew that this was not just some accidental mishap, airplane getting off course, mechanical problems, but rather an intentional act of violence. What I saw at the scene was quite astounding, and I'm sure the gentleman from Austin saw it as well. The airplane was a rather small aircraft, yet the damage that was done was massive, almost bringing the entire Federal building down. As it was in flames that fateful day, it reminded me a bit of Oklahoma City. It also looked like a sort of smaller version of 9/11. As the flames went up, as the glass blew out, a technician by the name of Robin De Haven, probably one of the great heroes that day, removed glass from the back side of the building and saved five employees of the IRS. Our thoughts and prayers go to the Hunter family. Vernon Hunter served his country and served in the IRS. He also served in the United States Army for 20 years. His office was right above where the airplane crashed into that building. The plane literally skipped off the top of a car and went into the first floor of the building in an intentional act to kill people. And I was asked a question at the press conference with the police chief and the fire department, Well, Congressman, was this an act of terrorism? Well, I guess it's all how you define ``act of terrorism.'' But what I said was, Anytime somebody flies an airplane intentionally into a Federal building to kill people, I think that is an act of terror. And if you ask the Federal employees that day what they thought, well, they certainly thought it was an act of terror as well. We need to stop this in this country. We need to stop this. The heroism on the part of the Austin Police Department, the fire department, the FBI and the first responders in responding to this tragic scene and saving so many lives when we saw this massive destruction, the great miracle that day was that more people were not killed. Those first responders saved countless lives, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their great, great service to not only the city of Austin but to the American people. So with that, let me again thank the gentleman from Austin for introducing this resolution. It's very timely. We do share that city together. We work well together, and I think, again, we share the grief of the loss. We share the tragic event, and we also share the belief that this was really an intentional act, an act of terror that we need to stop in this country.

Mr. McCAUL

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

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Let me first commend the gentleman from Texas, my dear friend and colleague, Mr. Cuellar, on the outstanding work he has done in this area and on the Homeland Security Committee, and also his work with the Center for Excellence, in San Antonio, for cybersecurity. It is great for our great State of Texas. This amendment requires a strategic plan to describe how the program will strengthen cybersecurity education and training efforts in order to ensure an adequate, well-trained workforce. The bill already has in place a robust workforce assessment requirement, but the robustness of our future cybersecurity workforce I believe is important enough to reemphasize it. With that, I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I strongly support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCAUL. Let me say first I commend the gentlelady from California for the emphasis on the private sector. I think too often when we deal with this issue, we focus mainly on the government and not enough on the private sector where the majority of the critical infrastructures are in this country. So let me commend the gentlelady for bringing this forward. This amendment makes two changes to the bill which I believe are good changes. First, it requires that the cybersecurity R&D strategic plan describe how interagency efforts will facilitate access to realistic threat and vulnerability data by academic researchers. Secondly, it tasks the university-industry R&D task force created by the bill to consider how best the public and private sectors can share ``lessons learned on the effectiveness of new technologies.'' Both of these provisions make changes to the underlying bill that I believe improve the bill, and therefore I fully support its passage. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCAUL. Let me tell you it is a point of personal privilege to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for all of his great work in this particular area and how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman, co-chairing the CSIS commission and also co-chairing the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus. So thank you. This amendment would modify the section of the bill requiring the President to transmit a cybersecurity workforce report to Congress, specifically by requiring that the President's review consider the potential for temporary assignment of private sector cybersecurity professionals as a means through which to meet Federal workforce needs. These types of mechanisms, such intergovernmental personnel agreements, have long been used by Federal agencies in various capacities; and they provide a flexible means through which to address workforce needs expeditiously. Accordingly, it makes sense for the President's workforce assessment to consider and report on these mechanisms. So therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply States that the NIST Cybersecurity Awareness and Education Program established in the bill helps makes the technical standards and best practices more usable for everyone, especially those new to computers: The elderly, those with low incomes, and those that may not have broadband quite yet, such as rural areas. Therefore, I do not oppose this amendment. I would like to join Chairman Gordon at this point in time to offer my sincere condolences as well to the family of Judy Ruckel. Judy served as a printer for the Science and Technology Committee since 2001 under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Day in and day out, Judy carried out her job with style and grace and never did she allow her struggle with diabetes to diminish her presence nor her performance. Judy worked from home, but during her visits to our offices each week, she took time to look in on staff, inquiring about our families and challenges, always leaving a smile on the faces of those she came in contact with. The job of managing countless hearing transcripts and markups and transforming them into permanent records is absolutely critical to the life of our committee, and Judy did it to perfection. She is irreplaceable. Judy's suffering has ended, and we will miss her very deeply, and God be with her. I yield back the balance of my time.