[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4829-S4830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              BEING BETTER PREPARED FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I wish to address some of the issues 
raised by the White House's revelations last week that President Bush 
had been briefed on August 6 on Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and 
on plans by al-Qaida to hijack airplanes.
  I understand that there was no advance knowledge that al-Qaida was 
planning to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center 
or the Pentagon. I understand that there was no advance warning that 
this was to take place on September 11.
  I believe the President when he states that had he known that the 
World Trade Center and the Pentagon

[[Page S4830]]

were going to be attacked on September 11 by hijacked planes, he would 
have taken immediate action. Likewise, I believe none of my Democratic 
colleagues have suggested otherwise. I am certain that the President 
would have acted swiftly and effectively to prevent those attacks. In 
retrospect there are numerous actions which I am certain both the 
administration and the Congress wished we had taken when the Director 
of Central Intelligence first warned the President about terrorist 
attacks in the United States. An inquiry into what was done and what 
went wrong are legitimate questions which should be answered by the 
administration, and I hope will be.
  But rather than concentrating on the past, I would like to focus my 
remarks on what now needs to be done to prevent future attacks. I do 
not agree with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's recent conclusion that it 
is inevitable that terrorists will gain access to weapons of mass 
destruction and will use them. Our policy should be designed to deter 
terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction in the first 
place. If we have the right strategy and implement it effectively, then 
the eventuality Secretary Rumsfeld assumes will not take place.
  The administration is demanding that all agencies and departments 
produce performance plans and strategies to ensure that they are 
meeting their missions and using their budgets effectively. The 
Congress should be allowed to ask if the administration is managing 
homeland security effectively and meeting its mission. Three factors 
that can be used in judging success are transparency, public benefit, 
and leadership.
  Transparency refers to how the administration communicates with the 
public and policymakers. Is the administration sharing information 
effectively? Is the information easily found and understandable? The 
confusion surrounding the anthrax exposures and the spate of recent 
terrorist warnings indicate that it is failing.
  Public benefit refers to how clearly the administration establishes 
the cause and effect relationship between its actions and the general 
good. Do people feel safer in the aftermath of the administration's 
efforts? Is it clear that the administration's actions will result in a 
safer and more secure society? Vice President Cheney's remarks on 
Sunday that the question is ``when'' not ``if'' a terrorist will attack 
the United States suggests that the administration has not met its most 
basic mission of homeland security and the war on terrorism.
  Leadership is a broad term. Partly, it refers to using past and 
current information for future decisions. Leadership also refers to 
admitting when mistakes were made and identifying where failures 
occurred. Have we learned from past mistakes and are the lessons being 
used? Do the administration's actions inspire confidence in their 
ability to enhance our lives?
  The administration is right when it suggests that the Congress 
received many of the same warnings that it did in the months leading up 
to September 11. But it is the White House and executive branch 
agencies which have the responsibility and the capability of ensuring 
an adequate response to those warnings. One of the first hearings I 
held after becoming chairman of the International Security, 
Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee was a hearing on July 23, 2001, on ``FEMA's Role in 
Managing a Bioterrorist Attack and the Impact of Public Health Concerns 
on Bioterrorism Preparedness.'' Since that hearing, we have come some 
distance in improving our capability but we still have a long way to 
go.
  For example, the administration needs to implement a long-term 
homeland security strategy that matches the threats we face. The Office 
of Homeland Security is still a work in progress. When my colleagues 
suggest that the head of that office should be Senate confirmable, they 
are right.
  Governor Ridge is well-meaning but lacks the authority or the 
instruments to effect sufficient coordination and implementation by a 
diverse set of Federal agencies all charged with overseeing different 
aspects of homeland security. That is why I support S. 2425, introduced 
by Senator Lieberman, to establish a Department of National Homeland 
Security and the National Office for Combating Terrorism. I am pleased 
to note that the Committee on Governmental Affairs reported favorably 
the bill this week.
  I call on the administration to do the following: Carefully evaluate 
how agencies are structured to respond to terrorism. Eliminate 
fragmentation to achieve cohesive government operations. Reorganization 
alone will not fix communication problems.
  Ensure that Federal agencies have the information they need and know 
what to do to protect against terrorism. Government organizations must 
have the proper internal structure and resources to identify, share, 
and act upon information swiftly.
  Direct Federal agencies on what a ``high state of alert'' means and 
what agencies need to do to respond. Organizations lose the ability to 
respond if the agencies remain on a prolonged state of high alert. 
There needs to be clearer communication of a relatively lower state of 
alert so that agencies can respond more effectively. Agencies need to 
have accurate information so that they may ``stand down'' in periods of 
relative calm.
  The administration needs to clarify the proper role of the military 
in homeland defense responses before a massive attack requires its 
extensive involvement.
  Federal agencies should know what ``success'' means and have an idea 
of what the agencies need to accomplish to make progress.
  The most effective way to respond to terrorist attacks is to prevent 
them from happening. The only way to do this is through intelligence 
and coordination. This was the real failure prior to 9-11 and it 
continues to be a problem today. Communication and intelligence sharing 
between Federal law enforcement and the intelligence community are 
dysfunctional. Local and State leaders are crying out for some way to 
share information and intelligence.
  These are enormous challenges but these are critical times. I fear 
the atmosphere in Washington is still one of ``business-as-usual,'' and 
I am concerned that the administration is reluctant to make the changes 
which are needed in as timely fashion as is required if we are going to 
be better prepared for the ``perhaps more devastating attack'' which 
Vice President Cheney predicted would next come, or if we are going to 
avoid the type of attack by a terrorist with a weapon of mass 
destruction as imagined by Secretary Rumsfeld.

                          ____________________