Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. McCAUL. Let me thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment. My home State of Texas is the home to probably more active duty service and veterans than probably any other State in the country. I think this is a great idea, including Lackland Air Force Base, which provides a cybersecurity command. It is very straightforward. It adds veteran status as an additional item for consideration by NSF when it selects individuals for scholarships under its Cybersecurity Scholarships for Service program. Therefore, I strongly support the gentlelady's amendment, and I urge its passage. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCAUL. First let me say what a great amendment this is. As a Federal prosecutor, I encountered crimes against children and also as deputy attorney general for the State of Texas. While there, we formed an Internet crimes against children's task force. The threat to children, both from child pornography and online predators, as the gentleman knows, is very real. And while the Internet is a great tool for our youth, it also does present a vulnerability and a threat to them. That is why I am so glad to see this amendment. It simply clarifies when we are promoting and educating people on the importance of cybersecurity, we must include children and young adults along with the other targeted audiences. So let me again thank the gentleman for bringing this. I strongly support it, and encourage my colleagues to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. McCAUL. Let me first commend Ms. Clarke for this amendment, but also her great work on the Homeland Security Committee as the chairwoman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee. This amendment simply requires the present Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Report include an analysis of the capacity of the overall agency workforce to manage contractors providing cybersecurity support to Federal agencies. Contractors are a significant component of our cybersecurity efforts, and assessing their role and agencies' capacity to manage them is very, very appropriate. Therefore, I support this amendment. With the time I do have remaining, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

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

Mr. McCAUL. The gentlelady from New Hampshire's amendment is one that our side favored during the drafting of this legislation and one that we think makes the Scholarship for Service program at NSF even stronger. So I thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment. The intent of the program is to educate the Federal Government's future cybersecurity workforce. This amendment increases the amount of employment service a graduate will owe the Federal Government upon the completion of her or his education, ensuring a greater return on our initial investment. Therefore, I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCAUL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCAUL. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is our last amendment, and I want to commend the chairman for his perseverance through 25 amendments here today. This amendment simply adds national laboratories to the list of stakeholders that the administration should engage in developing its strategic plan for R&D. I think it's a good idea. I urge support. I urge my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, tonight I want to give a voice to one of my constituents by the name of Jennifer Heiden. She is a TEA party activist. She wrote me a letter. She said, ``My name is Jennifer Heiden. I am a wife, a daughter, a mother, a sister, business professional, and grassroots leader. ``We are dismayed at this Congress and its proposed health care legislation. You stress accountability and transparency, but fail to disclose to the American people that its 20-year costs are in the $4.9 trillion price range once you cut through the budget gimmicks. You avoid town halls and citizen gatherings since you found that we had questions you could not or would not answer. And you draft bills in secret and give no one sufficient time to read them or understand them. ``The majority of Americans do not want this bill, and you know it. Do what this country elected you to do. Scrap this legislation and give us health care reform that will help--not hurt--this country and its citizens.''

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. I thank the gentleman from Indiana and your great comments. And you're a true patriot to this country. I mean that very heartfelt. We've gotten so wrapped up in this political correctness, we're prohibited from calling this the war on terror. That's been taken out of the vernacular. And you wonder how a man like this could be transferred and then promoted. And with all the flags and contacts with al Qaeda recruiters, how did this happen? Why wasn't that information shared? Why, when these flags went up, weren't we able to act upon it? We know for years that al Qaeda has been targeting bases both in the United States and abroad. It's a homeland security threat, it's a national security threat abroad. They tried to do that with Fort Dix, and we stopped it with good intelligence. They tried to do it with other military installations in the United States. So when this evidence got out there, the real question I think we in the Congress need to ask is: Why didn't his superiors know about this? Or, when his colleagues heard the ranting and raving by him, having a business card saying he is a soldier of Allah, saying that his loyalty is first and foremost to the Koran, not the Constitution. And the gentleman from Indiana is right. I worked in the Justice Department, a Federal prosecutor at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. The National Intelligence Estimate says the most effective weapon we have is a moderate Muslim--the Muslim who will come forward and help us in the mosque to say there is an individual out here that we believe to be a threat to the security of the United States. Obviously, this man was. But, for whatever reason, nothing was done about it, and 13 soldiers are dead and 30 more are wounded. We in the Congress have a role, an oversight role to get to the answers, to fix the problem, to make sure it didn't happen. The whole point after 9/11 was to make sure that we shared intelligence and information to better protect the American people. And I see no greater homeland security issue than protecting our bases right here in the United States. As I said at the outset, when I visited the soldiers at Fort Hood for the memorial service, they say, Congressman, we see this in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't expect that to happen at home. Not in our home. Not on our base. This was not supposed to happen. And the question is: Is this man--did he infiltrate or was he a ``lone wolf'' acting on his own without any outside influence? We don't know the answer to those questions. We have been told that from the very day after this occurred that he was a lone wolf acting on his own. There's a term ``rush to judgment.'' In my view, I think that was a rush to judgment, the idea that he was acting as a lone wolf before we got all the evidence in front of us. All we are asking in the Congress is that we review the matter. I have great hope that the majority will work with us in a bipartisan way to provide that oversight that this body, this distinguished body, by the Constitution has the authority to: To get to the real answers for the American people as to whether this man had radicalized on his own, which he clearly did--he radicalized--or whether he is being facilitated by people on the outside, and whether al Qaeda had something to do with this. Because they got a playbook, and they go back to the playbook. They had the World Trade Center bomber. They went back to the World Trade Center. They tried to hit the Capitol. That's their playbook. They will, in my view, try to hit the Capitol again. Chemical explosives. Ramzi Yousef, when he was arrested in Islamabad, a very chilling story. He had multiple baby dolls that he had stuffed with chemical explosives. He was going to take those baby dolls onto airplanes, known as the Bojinka Plot, and blow up 12 commercial airliners simultaneously. They go back to that playbook. We've seen chemical explosives come up over and over again. Military installations are in their playbook. And we need to take the protection of our military installations both here in the United States and abroad very, very seriously. And when a man like this gets in and gets promoted and perpetrates what he did, one of the greatest acts of violence on a military base since Pearl Harbor, then we need the answers to these questions. There are so many flags in this case. Not only this individual, but what was he doing with Pakistan. What influence did Pakistan have on this individual. The American people need to know the truth. We need to know it not as a ``gotcha'' exercise, but as a way to look forward and say, How can we better protect the American people from individuals like this and our soldiers from people like this? How can we better protect bases here in the United States? We know he contacted many radical Web sites, posted very radical thoughts on these Web sites. It's time for us to stand up and have hearings on this matter and answer these fundamental questions. Tonight, to the families of the victims, our heart goes out. We hear the cries. As we saw the 13 combat boots, the rifle, and the helmet portrayed in that picture, it was one of the saddest days and darkest chapters, I think, in American history. As we go forward, I believe we need to get the answers to these many, many questions that are out there. Probably the hardest thing we have to do as Members of Congress is to comfort families who have lost their loved ones. I will never forget that day at Fort Hood at the memorial service, talking to the survivors, particularly some of the spouses who lost their husbands that day, to the mothers, fathers, and brothers and sisters; talking to the wounded victims who were shot by this man. As we comfort these families, as we have with soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and those who died, it is one of the most difficult things as Members of Congress, one of the most solemn responsibilities that we have. We know that words cannot give them back what they lost. We grieve their loss in the Congress. We stand by the families of the victims. With that, let me say God bless them. I know we have another colleague from Texas who I know is here. When he is ready to speak, I'd like to yield to my good friend from Texas. Then I will reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, tonight we rise during this leadership hour to remember the events of November 5, 2009, one of the largest attacks that was perpetrated at our U.S. military installation at Fort Hood, Texas, just north of my district, a very solemn occasion. Thirteen people were killed, over 30 people wounded, and an unborn child was killed that day. I went to the memorial service, thirteen pairs of combat boots put together with a rifle and a helmet on top, and the pictures of the victims who were killed in cold blood that day by a deranged gunman who, unfortunately, served in the United States military. In my view, simply put, it was an act of treason. Look, in a time of war, soldiers are killed. But when I visited Fort Hood for the memorial service, they said, Congressman, we never dreamed that they would be killed in our home. This is our home. This man killed his fellow comrades at our home. Very disturbing. And the words that he said as he pointblank shot them one by one, as 100 rounds went off from his semi- automatic pistol, 100 rounds into a crowd of defenseless soldiers and a few civilians, were ``Allahu Akbar, God is great.'' That's one of the most disturbing reports that we got from that tragic day.