National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am here today on the eve of the debate that will be occurring on Thursday evening. I know most Americans will be watching. I think they are probably the most important debates, certainly, since the Kennedy-Nixon debate, which was the first one.

The issue, of course, is related to the security of the country. I am going to focus my few remarks on security here at home, in terms of homeland security.

Whatever you think of the war on terror abroad-and there are many different views and we will hear some of those on Thursday night-my view-and I tend to be hawkish-is that hawks should be as angry or more angry with the President than doves, because the bottom line is that Iraq wasn't thought through. We don't have a plan and there is nowhere really to go. The idea of keeping faith and saying, well, there will be elections in January and that will make everything better, that is similar to the idea that we will win the war in 3 weeks and that will make everything better. It is simply not thought through and there are all these chimerical sort of wishes and hopes.

First, the election will not be held in many parts of the country. Second, I don't think it is going to make the basic problems go away. A devastating commentary on the war in Iraq is that we have been unable to spend money on infrastructure. One of the whole theories is that we were going to rebuild the country and show the Iraqis a better life. Because the terrorists who are there-who are despicable-have been able to do so much in terms of sabotage and criminal activities, in terms of taking those workers who would rebuild Iraq and treating them so brutally, it has made it basically impossible to rebuild. The President and his administration admitted as much when they took back the money for rebuilding and are now putting it into security.

Again, what everyone thinks about the war overseas-and there are many different views, and I believe John Kerry will enunciate a view that is far more consonant with the American people than what President Bush has done so far. I say that as somebody who supported the $87 billion and the vote to go to war, because I believe we need a strong, aggressive foreign policy.

I believe the war on terror is the vital discussion of this decade and of our generation, probably. To win the war on terror, you need a good offense and a good defense. On defense, I regret to say, basically, this administration has not come close to doing what is necessary.

When you ask why, the bottom line is very simple: They don't want to spend the money. Their idea after idea after idea about air security, port security, rail security, truck security-we have the technology, not to make certain a terrorist attack doesn't occur but certainly to decrease the odds of it. When you go to the people in the agencies and ask why are you not doing this or that, they say: We don't have the money. When we come to the floor and argue about homeland security-as we just did when the Appropriations bill on homeland security came forward-we were told by my friend from Mississippi, the chairman, that we are spending enough. Let me tell you, we are not spending close to enough in any one of these areas.

Let's say, God willing, we manage to wipe out al-Qaida in the next year or two, and let's say the problems in Iraq subside-in my view, because KERRY will be elected and will handle them a lot better than President Bush has-we are still going to have new terrorist threats.

Terrorism can be described in a single sentence, which is that the very technology that has blessed our lives and accounted for so much of the prosperity we have seen over the last two decades has an evil underside; namely, that small groups of bad people can get ahold of that technology and use it for terrible purposes. So if al-Qaida is gone-and let's hope they will be-and if terrorism in Iraq greatly declines-and let's hope that occurs-there are going to be new groups that start using this terrorism and using it against us and trying to use it in our homeland. It could be Chechnians; maybe they will have a meeting and decide that instead of blowing up movie theaters and airplanes in Moscow, the real answer is to go after the United States. Maybe it will be East Timorese, who have been fighting for independence in east Asia. For all we know, it could be skinheads in Montana who decide to do this-a couple of them did it in Oklahoma City-but in a more structured and destructive way, God forbid. So we cannot even keep track of the various groups that could hurt us.

The sad fact is, if 500 random people around the world, with some leadership, were injected with an evil virus and they were to decide, fanatically, they would devote the next 5 years of their lives to figuring out how to hurt America and try to implement it, the odds are too high that they could succeed.

So do we need a good offense? Yes, we do. Do we need a good defense? You bet. On area after area after area, we are not doing enough. Let me catalog a few.

Air security, here we are doing something of a better job than we have done in the past. The screeners, for all the problems they have, are a lot better than they were before 9/11 when they were paid minimum wage by private security companies. Some didn't speak English adequately. We are inspecting cargo.

But probably the No. 1 way terrorists could now hurt us as we travel in the air is by using shoulder-held missiles. We know the terrorists have them, al-Qaida has them, and they are available on the black market. We are slow walking any attempt to put on our commercial airplanes the mechanism to deflect the rockets, the heat-seeking rockets that emerge from shoulder-held missiles.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.

Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that on at least five different occasions we have had votes on the Senate floor where we have asked for increased funding for homeland security and the Bush people have turned it down through various ways? I amplify that by saying these are all set forth in Senator Byrd's best-selling book. Is the Senator aware we tried to get money for real homeland security-not security in Iraq but security for the American people-and this has been turned down; is he aware of that?

Mr. SCHUMER. I am aware of it, and it frustrates me to no end. Senator Byrd has had amendments, Senator Murray has had amendments, Senator Corzine has had amendments, Senator Clinton and I have had amendments, one after the other, and they are turned down.

I say to my colleague from Nevada, I have asked people in the administration, both present and former-a few who quit in disgust-are President Bush and his people not aware of the dangers? They basically say, no, they are aware of the dangers, but they don't want to spend any money here at home. They would rather have all the money go to tax cuts, and so it is not that they do nothing in each of these areas; they do the bare minimum: Let's have a study and let it take 2 years. Let's decide on what to do down the road.

For every year we wait, we become more vulnerable.

Mr. REID. Being more specific, is the Senator aware we have tried to address rail security and Amtrak security? Turned down. On several occasions, port security, turned down. Is he aware we have tried to get specific money to first responders? Turned down. The Senator is aware of this and other measures-for example, hazardous chemicals security, which Senator Corzine has pushed so much. The Senator is aware of each of these, and we have had votes and have been turned down on the floor by the majority on all requests.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am aware, to answer my good friend from Nevada, of this. I am frustrated by it, and, frankly, I am befuddled by it because an administration that is so aggressive when it comes to taking the war overseas and will ask us for billions and billions more at the drop of a hat-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Presiding Officer.