Important Strategies for Fighting the War on Terror

IMPORTANT STRATEGIES FOR FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR -- (House of Representatives - September 29, 2004)

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his efforts and for leading our intelligence task force in all the work we have been doing here under the gentleman's leadership on this issue, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who we will hear from next.

Having been in law enforcement for many years, and having founded the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus here, we are now looking at the third anniversary of September 11, and the question on many Americans' minds is: Are we safer? Is America safer today than we were on 9/11? The current administration says we are safer. The Republican leadership in Congress says we are safer. But just because they say we are safer, does not make it so.

For instance, when we are talking about our northern border, I come from Michigan and I border Canada. President Bush said on January 25, 2002, "We are analyzing every aspect of the border and making sure that the effort is seamless, the communication is real, that the law enforcement is strong." He also said on February 2, one week later, "We are focusing on the heroic efforts of those first-time responders. That's why we want to spend money to make sure the equipment is there, strategies are there, communications are there to make sure that you have whatever it takes to respond."

The Bush administration has mastered the rhetoric. They talk a great game about homeland security, but the numbers reveal a stark reality. Here are a few points: we are 2,000 border patrol officers short along the northern border with Canada, and the President's budget request fails to include additional funding to make these border patrol officers a reality.

Only 5 percent of passenger planes are screened for explosives, according to the GAO. And the President wants to cut the number of air marshals by 20 percent this year.

Our maritime security efforts are severely understaffed and underfunded, allowing us to screen only 5 percent of the nearly 8 million seaborne containers entering the U.S. each year, and $7.5 billion is needed over the next 10 years in order to secure our ports and waterways. The Bush administration has distributed a mere $441 million for this purpose.

This year's budget is the first time the Bush administration has ever asked for any port security grant money. Without the Bush administration's support, Congress has provided only $587 million for port security since 2001. That is less than 10 percent of the money we need to do the job.

The President has cut overall funding for adequate protective gear and training for first responders. And this year is no different. He proposed more than a 20 percent cut in first responder training and State grants for training, equipment, and other homeland security needs. More than 40 percent of our Nation's firefighters have not received training for responding to nuclear, biological, or radiological attack.

Finally, national reports on the 9/11 emergency response found that the inability of our first responders from different agencies to talk to one another was a key factor in the deaths of at least 121 New York firefighters at the World Trade Center.

The independent 9/11 Commission report said "funding interoperable communications should be a Federal priority." Here is what they said, the 9/11 report says: "The inability to communicate was a critical element of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County, Pennsylvania, crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at three very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the State, local, and Federal levels remain an important problem. Federal funding for such interagency," interoperability as we call it, "units should be given high priority."

Here is what the President said: "It is important that we understand in the first minutes and hours after attack. That is the most hopeful time to save life, and that is why we are focusing on the heroic efforts of those first-time responders. That is why we want to spend money to make sure equipment is there, strategies are there, communications are there to make sure you have whatever you need to respond."

Strong language from the 9/11 Commission; strong language from the President. The reality is what it costs to get interoperability going in this country 3 years later is $18 billion. What has President Bush requested since 2003? He has requested $100 million.

The President even has zeroed out these accounts in the Department of Homeland Security budget over the past 2 years. At the rate we are going, according to the Department of Homeland Security officials, it will be another 20 years before our Nation's first responders are interoperable, where they can talk to each other, communicate with each other. Madam Speaker, we do not have 20 years to wait.

Earlier this year, on this floor, I asked how much in the formula grants provided for State homeland security has gone to interoperability. The Department of Homeland Security could not tell me. They committed to let Congress know the answer soon. We have recently found out that it is going to be about another year before we can even get an answer as to where the money has been spent, if it has been spent at all on interoperability. That does not say much about the oversight or planning in the Department of Homeland Security, and about where the billions of dollars of State grant formula money is going.

Madam Speaker, the problems I have outlined are occurring because of a lack of commitment on this administration to homeland security. Even the Department of Homeland Security still has not hired some 30 percent of the needed staff to properly run the agency. The homeland security challenges we face, whether it is border, airline, rail, or port security all require the same approach: real solutions instead of rhetoric, real resources and not political pronouncements.

Day after day we are told our Nation is better prepared against a terrorist attack than it was 3 years ago; but when only 4,000 Americans guard a border over 4,000 miles long, I cannot agree our Nation's northern border is secure. When our ports are not secured from the entry of a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack, I cannot take the word of anyone when they tell me my family and constituents are well protected.

And there is no comfort in the fact that our first responders are no closer now than they were after 9/11 to be able to talk to each other in times of natural disaster or terrorist attack. So how safe are we? The administration points to the toppling of Saddam Hussein. That does not make it. How does that make us safer when he was not an imminent threat, when there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we have diverted so much of our military and intelligence operations to Iraq. Osama bin Laden is still out there. Iraq is now a haven for new terrorist groups. Our country internationally is hated more than ever. We have alienated our allies, so exactly, how are we safer?

In the meantime, the current administration and the Republican Congress refuse to give our local, State and Federal agencies what they need to protect our borders and our communities. We will not even give them the equipment to talk to each other. On these issues, sure the present administration has mastered the rhetoric, but when looking at facts, we are dangerously behind in securing our borders to help prevent another attack or be ready when one comes.

As head of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, we are going to have a hearing next week on intra operability. There are technologies which could be implemented today where police officers, State, local, and Federal, could talk to each other because of software developed by some of these companies. It is there. We should not have to wait more than 3 years after 9/11 for something as simple as allowing people to talk to each other. We hope we do not have another terrorist attack, but if we do, maybe we can tell those brave first responders, say, with the second building at the World Trade Center, the building is about ready to come down, get out. We could have saved 120 lives if we had the ability to communicate. Having been involved with law enforcement for over 30 years, it is time to look at reality. This administration is not doing the job. We are not safer at home than we were before, at, during or after 9/11.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for heading up our homeland security task force in our committee, and I look forward to working together in the future. Maybe together we can convince this Congress and the American people something as simple as first responders being able to talk to each other would save so many lives if we only had a commitment. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.