Improving America's Security Act of 2007--Continued
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - March 01, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, and I know he cares a great deal about protecting our country. But with all due respect, I cannot stand here and say that the SAFE Port Act does enough. The SAFE Port Act says that 100 percent scanning must be imposed ``as soon as possible.' It might as well say whenever DHS feels like it.
For somebody like myself and my colleague from New Jersey and my colleague from New York, we have been waiting for DHS to do this ``as soon as possible' for 4 years. We have been alerting DHS to this terrible potential tragedy we face--a nuclear weapon being smuggled into our harbors, a nuclear weapon exploding on a ship right off our harbors--for years. DHS just slow-walks it. Why?
Part of the reason is that they are never adequately funded, which is no fault of my colleague from Connecticut. But the administration does not like to spend money on anything domestic. They never put the adequate money into it. It is amazing to me that they will spend everything it takes to fight a war on terror overseas. Some of that is well spent and some, I argue, is not. Nonetheless, they spend it. They won't spend hardly a nickel, figuratively speaking, to protect us on defense at home. So the progress has been slow.
This is not the first time I have offered amendments to prod DHS to do more on nuclear detection devices, on port security. I don't know why anyone in this Chamber, faced with the potential tragedy that we have, would decide to leave it up to DHS. But that is just what this base bill does. I don't know what people are afraid of. Yes, we have people with shipping interests who say don't do this, it will cost a little bit more. Terrorism costs all of us more. To allow a narrow band of shippers to prevail on an issue that affects our security is beyond me.
Is the technology available? I will be honest with you that there is a dispute. Either way, the amendment the Senator from New Jersey and I have introduced makes sense. If it is available, they will implement it. If it is not available, they will perfect it and get it working because they have a deadline. Nothing will concentrate the mind of DHS like a deadline. But vague, amorphous language that says ``as soon as possible'--their view of ``as soon as possible' is not enough to safeguard America.
Very few things that we do in the Senate frustrate me more than this. Why don't we force DHS and force the administration to make us safe against arguably the greatest disaster that could befall us--one that we know al-Qaida and other terrorists would like to pursue? Why do we allow laxity, just obliviousness, and a narrow special interest to prevail over what seems to be so much the common good?
I am aghast. This amendment should not even be debated by now. Maybe in 2003, maybe in 2004. But it is now 2007, and we are still not doing close to what we should be doing. Just last night, I spoke to an expert who said the technology is there. If there is a will, there is a way. Again, I say if you believe the technology isn't there, the answer isn't to let DHS proceed at the same lackadaisical pace, when one of the greatest dangers that could befall us could happen.
My colleagues, nobody wants to wake up in a ``what if' scenario. After 9/11 occurred, we were all ``what-ifing'--what if we had done this or what if we had done that. It was hard before that because nobody envisioned that somebody would fly a whole bunch of airplanes into our buildings. We know the terrorists want to explode a nuclear device in America or off our shores. That is not a secret. I argue that that is as great a danger to us as is what is happening in Iraq. Will my colleagues say we should not spend all the money when it comes to fighting a war on terror overseas? Of course not.
The other side of the aisle says spend every nickel we need. Here, when it comes to homeland security, they are either defending an administration that has botched this issue like they botched so many others or because maybe some shipping interests complain or because they truly believe the technology is not available, and we continue to slow-walk this issue.
I will have more to say in a few minutes. I will yield the floor so my colleague from Maine and my colleague from New Jersey can have a chance to speak.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Maine for helping make our case. She says the technology for detecting radiation is available. Who in God's name thinks if we didn't set a deadline or if the President didn't order DHS to make it the highest priority that we wouldn't find a way to scan all containers within 5 years?
Of course we would. This is just defense of DHS. I say to my colleagues, DHS has a terrible track record in this area, like so many others. They have been asked to do this for years already, and they are nowhere.
Now, my good friend from Connecticut says: Well, on October 13, we passed legislation. Well, that is 3 years after 9/11. What is wrong, my colleagues? Why isn't everything right with a deadline that says you better move as quickly as you can? Yes, if they should need, if they come to us 3 years from now and we are convinced that they have done everything they can, that the money has been spent, that the experts have been contacted and used appropriately, then we can delay it. Instead, we have this approach which seems to me to be backward--let us delay another 2 or 3 years, and if they do not do a good job, we can then put in a deadline.
No one is arguing we shouldn't have deadlines. The argument boils down to, do you trust DHS to do the job or would you rather have an immutable deadline on something which is the most damaging thing? I can't think of anything worse or close to it than a nuclear weapon exploding in America or off our shores. The technology is there, my colleagues. Yes, DHS doesn't want to spend the money necessary. Yes, DHS has not had very good people in this Department.
How are my colleagues going to go home and tell their constituents that when there was a chance to really move an agency and set a deadline, as the House did--this is not some crazy idea; the House voted by a significant majority for it--that they didn't do it, they didn't do it because they had faith in DHS? I don't know who does. How do my colleagues say they didn't do it because their port or a shipping company said they didn't want to do it or they didn't do it because they didn't think it was that big a problem? I don't think any of those reasons stand up. I don't think any of them stand up.
I have to say I have listened carefully to my colleagues, and I have great respect for them and the jobs they do, but their arguments just don't wash: Let's give them another chance. My colleagues, when it comes to this problem, we can't afford to give them another chance.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/