[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8435-S8437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the imminent 
release of the final report of the 9/11 Commission. The Commission's 
report will be the final product of a long and comprehensive process 
that has at times deeply touched the families of those who were lost on 
9/11 and has questioned the ability of our Government to defend against 
a new terrorist threat.
  As the Commission issues its report, the state of the Union on 
homeland security is not good enough. Are we better off than we were on 
9/11, as my colleague from Texas has mentioned? Yes, we are. Are we 
doing everything we can to protect ourselves? Absolutely not. Are we 
putting the same energy in the homeland to defend ourselves that we are 
putting into the war overseas? No, unfortunately not.
  Time and time again, on homeland security, we are not doing enough. 
And the view of the White House is that it takes a back seat to 
fighting the war on terror overseas. Dollars that are needed for so 
many projects are not

[[Page S8436]]

forthcoming in this administration's budget or from the Congress, for 
that matter. That is a bad thing and a sad thing for America.
  That is why this report that the Commission is issuing is so 
important. It is my hope, it is my prayer, that it importunes us to do 
more so that another 9/11 will never happen.
  First, I would like to address the Commission itself. They have done 
a remarkable job. This Commission, as we know, was created with a 
mandate of exploring how the United States became vulnerable to a 
terrorist attack as large and as complex as that attack which so hurt 
us on 9/11. The Commission was resisted by the White House and by some 
in this body. But it was the families that forced it to happen: the 
four brave widows from New Jersey who said they would not rest until 
there was a commission. Those families and many other families of the 
victims in New York, my State, were relentless in not only forcing a 
commission to occur, but in forcing it to be a bipartisan commission, a 
nonpolitical commission that had full power to get to the bottom of 
what happened.
  I can tell you, having spoken to many of the family members, they 
only had one mission. They are Republicans and Democrats; they are 
conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Their mission was a simple one. 
Walking with holes in their hearts because their loved ones had been 
taken from us in such a cruel event, their mission was a generous one, 
I might say a noble one: that this never happen again. Their view, 
which I think America has accepted, is that the only way we can prevent 
a future 9/11 is to learn of the mistakes that were made before 9/11.
  The Commission was led by two remarkably nonpartisan figures: 
Governor Thomas Kean, Republican of New Jersey; Congressman Lee 
Hamilton, Democrat of Indiana. They steered the Commission away from 
finger-pointing, away from blame, away from partisanship but, rather, 
toward ``just the facts, ma'am,'' as Jack Webb said on ``Dragnet.'' 
Just the facts is what they wanted to find out so we could then learn 
of the mistakes that were made--not to excoriate, not to blame, but, 
rather, to correct and make sure it does not happen again.
  The Commission dutifully pursued this task, despite resistance from 
many quarters in Washington. It did not shirk from even the most 
troubling aspects of its investigation.
  The final report is about to be released this week. It is important 
that every one of us, that every American, learn of its findings, and 
we make sure our Government, without delay, examines those 
recommendations and then acts to make us safer still.
  There are a couple of things that have come out already about what 
the Commission wants. They have recommended there be a Cabinet level 
appointee of the President to be in charge of all intelligence. It 
makes eminent sense, in my judgment. We cannot even count the number of 
intelligence agencies there are. And so many of them are too interested 
in turf. One agency finds out something and does not tell another so 
they might gain a leg up. There is a lack of coordination, even the 
fact that their computers do not talk to one another. It all hurts 
every one of us in terms of our desire to be secure and make sure 
another terrorist attack does not occur.
  By having one Cabinet officer in charge of all intelligence, with 
budgetary authority, that Cabinet officer can enforce a regime which 
will require all of the agencies to cooperate with one another.
  There will also be some structural changes within the agencies. In 
the FBI, an agency I have been very interested in, I am hopeful the 
Commission will recommend something I know they considered, and I think 
may well recommend, which is there be a separate part of the FBI 
dealing with counterterrorism.
  The FBI's mission in the past has always been to find out who did 
crimes and prosecute them. The FBI does a very good job of that. But 
counterterrorism is different. We have to prevent crimes. It requires a 
different mentality. It is my hope we will rearrange the FBI. Some have 
recommended a separate agency for counterintelligence. I think that may 
go too far. But to have a reorganization within the FBI makes a great 
deal of sense.
  Now, these are a few of the recommendations that will come out. There 
are going to be many more. Let me just say, the tendency of some here 
in Washington, some in the White House, when they hear news they 
disagree with or that points to an error that was made, instead of 
responding on the merits and saying, Here is why you are wrong, or here 
is why we want to do it differently, they disparage the messenger. They 
call them not patriotic. They call them political. They call them 
partisan.
  This Commission, if ever, is not partisan and is not political. We 
should listen to their recommendations, and I hope there is not delay. 
Some are going to say: Let's wait until next year on their clear-cut 
recommendations. If the rumors are correct, the Commission will be 
unanimous. All the Democrats and all the Republicans will have one set 
of recommendations. So, again, it is not partisan, and there is an 
equal number of each party on the Commission. We should not wait. To 
wait until next year--a new Congress, maybe a new President--will delay 
us. These recommendations should not be put in a political context and 
should not be looked at in light of the political calendar that is upon 
us. We should immediately move, in September, when we return, to enact 
these recommendations. We may choose to modify them. Perhaps the body 
will reject them.
  There is a lot of talk that the Defense Department and the CIA will 
oppose having an overseer above them. We will have to debate that. I 
hope we listen to the Commission. But to delay would be delaying our 
safety.
  So I hope and pray we will move quickly and move forward and not 
either kneecap the Commission--because already I saw some column by a 
very conservative gentleman who said: The Commission, forget about it. 
All this writer was interested in was saying the President did 
everything right.
  Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, whether you are a liberal 
or a conservative, we know that neither this President nor prior 
Presidents of both parties did everything right or we would not have 
had a 9/11.
  So, again, let us not put our defensive shields up and hunker down 
for a fight. Let us make this one of those rare moments of 
bipartisanship, as the Commission itself has, and adopt their 
recommendations.
  Now, let me say, as somebody who cares a great deal about homeland 
security, there are a number of areas where we are not doing enough. I 
don't know if the Commission will address these, but I hope so. We have 
done a pretty good job on air security. Flying is a lot safer and less 
prone to terrorism today than before 9/11. But we have not done 
everything there. One big problem is shoulder-held missiles. We know 
terrorists have them. God forbid, they smuggle some of those into the 
United States and shoot down 5 or 10 planes at once in Boston, or New 
York, or Houston, or Seattle, or Denver, or Chicago. We are not doing 
enough there.
  We are doing far too little on port security. The percentage of the 
big containers that come into our Pacific ports, Atlantic ports, and 
gulf coast ports that are inspected is too few. The technology has not 
been implemented as quickly as it might be.
  On truck security and rail security, Madrid was a wake-up call. We 
are far behind what we should be doing.
  The unfortunate problem is that the terrorists have access to the 
Internet just as we all do. They are on it diligently looking for where 
we are weak. If we strengthen air security, they will look to the 
ports. If we strengthen the ports, they will look to the rails. So we 
have to have a multifront war. We are not doing enough.
  On so many of these issues, as somebody who comes from New York and 
still lives with the grief that so many of my constituents feel, I can 
tell you we are not doing close to enough. Oftentimes, it is not that 
we don't have the technology and not that we don't have the ability; it 
is that we don't put in the money that is needed. I think if you ask 
most Americans what their priorities are, homeland security would be at 
the top of the list. Unfortunately, we get a lot of talk and not much 
action.
  Another place where we are way behind is how we give out our homeland 
security funds. To its credit, the first

[[Page S8437]]

year, the administration really allocated the money on the basis of 
need. My State of New York got about a third of the funds, which is 
probably right. But then they abandoned ship. Once Mitch Daniels left, 
who was head of OMB, a true conservative who didn't want to spend 
money, these homeland security funds became pork battle and they are 
spread thin.
  I say to the Chair, I know everybody has some needs, but to have his 
State get, on a per capita basis, far more dollars than mine in terms 
of homeland security, I don't think seems right, much as I want to 
protect both. Over and over again, on homeland security funds, we have 
not allocated it to the places of greatest crisis. That, too, is a 
problem.
  So the bottom line is this: I hope this report will be what it should 
be, a wake-up call--a wake-up call that, on intelligence, our agencies 
are too disparate, they don't talk to one another or coordinate with 
one another. They are not doing the job they should and we have to 
correct that. I hope it is a wake-up call that here at home on homeland 
security we are not doing enough. It is common knowledge that, as so 
many say, to win a basketball or a football game you need both a good 
offense and a good defense. We have an offense out there all right. I 
have been largely supportive of that offense. But we are not doing 
enough on the defense. You cannot win a game without a good defense. I 
hope it is a wake-up call on defense as well. I hope it is a wake-up 
call.
  I hope the report will be comprehensive, and that it will talk about 
so many things--immigration, rail, port, truck security, and air 
security. It will talk about all of the things that we did wrong before 
9/11. Again, instead of finger-pointing, instead of seeking blame, 
instead of ducking, let's hope this report importunes the Congress, 
importunes the White House to one of its finest hours in that we spend 
some time in September, after having had plenty of time to analyze the 
report, to implementing its recommendations--at least the ones the 
Congress sees fit. It would be unacceptable for us to just look at the 
report for a day and then do nothing. That would be a dereliction of 
our duty to our citizens to do what we are required to do, that which 
the Constitution requires us to do--protect the security of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have under the order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Ten minutes.

                          ____________________