[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 70 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5505-S5506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MENENDEZ:
  S. 3456. A bill to ensure the implementation of the recommendations 
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States; 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleagues in 
the House, Representatives Shays and Maloney, for their hard work on 
this legislation and for introducing H.R. 5017, the companion 
legislation to the bill I am introducing today.
  Almost 5 years ago, our country was attacked by terrorists on 
September 11, 2001. This attack on our cities, on our symbols, on our 
democracy, and on our way of life killed nearly 3,000 Americans and 
over 700 people from my home State of New Jersey. But this attack could 
not kill our determination to preserve our freedom, our values, and our 
democratic system.
  Almost 2 years ago, the 9/11 Commission published their riveting 
account of what happened on that terrible day and made 41 unanimous and 
bipartisan recommendations to make our country safer from future 
terrorist attacks.
  Six months ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project published a 
disturbing report card giving more F's than A's on the implementation 
of those 41 recommendations.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to finally and fully implement 
the 41 bipartisan and unanimous recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. 
The former Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, and the former 
Vice Chairman, Lee Hamilton, endorsed this same legislation in the 
House, H.R. 5017 Shays-Maloney. In a letter, Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton 
said that the legislation ``represents a comprehensive approach to 
carry out each of the recommendations of the Commission . . . [and] 
focuses on urgent unfinished business before the Nation
. . .''
  It is the responsibility of the Congress to carry out this urgent 
unfinished business. We certainly need this comprehensive legislation 
at a time when the disastrous Dubai Ports World deal made it clear that 
our ports are not safe and those who live and work near them are not 
secure; the Department of Homeland Security is increasing homeland 
security funding for small cities while cutting it to New York and 
Washington, DC; first responders still don't have the ability to 
communicate with each other during a disaster; nuclear weapons in the 
hands of a terrorist remain one of the greatest threats to our Nation, 
yet the 9/11 Public Discourse Project gave the administration a D on 
progress towards fixing this problem; and hundreds of Afghans have been 
killed in the recent violent resurgence of the Taliban.
  Since immediately after September 11, many of us in Congress have 
been working to learn the hard lessons from those attacks so we can 
prepare for and prevent future terrorist acts. Shortly after the 
attacks, I introduced comprehensive homeland security legislation and 
served on the first ad-hoc Homeland Security Committee in the House.
  I was a strong supporter of the creation of the 9/11 Commission and 
introduced a proposal on the House floor to fully implement the 9/11 
Commission recommendation in 2004 during the initial debate on the 
recommendations. I then served as a House negotiator on and helped 
secure passage of the final landmark intelligence reform bill that was 
the first step in implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. 
Introducing this legislation today is the next important step in 
protecting our country against terrorism. I certainly agree with the 
former heads of the 9/11 Commission that passing this bill should be a 
top priority for this Congress.
  I think all of us were shocked last week when the Department of 
Homeland Security actually slashed overall homeland security grant 
funding for New York, Washington, DC, and New Jersey, while increasing 
funding for much smaller areas with fewer terrorist targets.
  DHS slashed these funds in spite of the 9/11 Commission 
recommendation which said that ``Homeland Security assistance should be 
based strictly--strictly--on an assessment of risks and 
vulnerabilities.''
  And that is exactly what I fought for when I introduced the Menendez 
substitute to the intelligence reform bill in 2004. That is exactly 
what I fought for in the conference report on that legislation and what 
I sought to accomplish in the House when I introduced the Risk-Based 
Homeland Security Funding Act with Senators Corzine and Lautenberg. And 
that is exactly what the legislation I am introducing today would do.
  As many of you know, New Jersey faces unique terrorism threats that 
require a greater portion of homeland security aid due to its proximity 
to New York City and to its vast number of potential targets of terror, 
such as the largest container seaport on the east coast, one of the 
busiest airports in the country, an area known as the ``chemical 
coastway,'' our four nuclear power plants, and the six tunnels and 
bridges that connect New Jersey to New York City.
  And if that were not enough, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 
placed more than a dozen New Jersey sites on the National Critical 
Infrastructure List and has called the area in my former congressional 
district between Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport the 
``most dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to 
terrorism.'' An article in The New York Times pointed out that this 2-
mile area provides ``a convenient way to cripple the economy by 
disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage 
tanks and refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communications networks 
and highway system.''
  The bottom line is that States and municipalities, like New Jersey, 
which are under the greatest risk should receive homeland security 
dollars based solely on that risk. The funding awarded to Newark and 
Jersey City clearly proves that New Jersey is well served when Federal 
homeland security dollars are awarded based on risk. Yet I

[[Page S5506]]

cannot understand why the Department of Homeland Security would not use 
a risk-based formula when awarding all of their grants. So long as 
Homeland Security grants are awarded based on factors other than risk, 
those States most at risk will continue to lack the necessary resources 
to protect the people they serve.
  I know that many Americans would also be shocked to learn that almost 
5 years after 9/11 and almost 1 year after Hurricane Katrina, many 
first responders still cannot communicate with each other during a 
disaster.
  In fact, when I speak to firefighters in my home State of New Jersey, 
they consistently tell me that this remains a serious impediment to 
their work. In our port in New Jersey, the largest container port in 
the east coast, firefighters, Coast Guard, police, and other law 
enforcement officials often still cannot communicate with each other. 
When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at least five 
different channels and were hampered in communicating with one another. 
As the Washington Post reported on September 2, 2005, ``Police officers 
and National Guard members, along with law officers imported from 
around the State, rarely knew more than what they could see with their 
own eyes.''
  It is astonishing that our firefighters, police, and paramedics still 
do not have the ability to communicate in an emergency. How is it 
possible that almost 5 years after September 11, our local first 
responders still do not have interoperable communications systems that 
can talk with each other as they carry out their lifesaving work?
  That is why my legislation would provide adequate radio spectrum for 
first responders and a status report on creating a unified incident 
command system during disasters.
  In its final report card, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project gave the 
administration a D for its efforts to secure WMDs. The former 
Commissioners then recommended that the U.S. Government make this issue 
the top national security priority to counter what it called ``the 
greatest threat to America's security.''
  I certainly believe that a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist 
is one of the greatest threats to our national security. Osama Bin 
Laden himself has said that it is al-Qaida's ``religious duty'' to 
acquire weapons of mass destruction.
  According to CNN, in January 2002, documents found in a house in 
Kabul, Afghanistan, reportedly used by al-Qaida operatives included a 
25-page document filled with information about nuclear weapons. That 
document included a design for a nuclear weapon that would require 
hard-to-obtain materials like plutonium to create a nuclear explosion.

  One document appeared to be plans to create a nuclear device. 
Although experts contended that the design in this document labeled 
``superbombs'' is unworkable, the author, noted CNN, was clearly 
knowledgeable of various ways to set off a nuclear bomb.
  In combination with the discovery of AQ Khan's clandestine nuclear 
supermarket, the potential of al-Qaida building a nuclear weapon is not 
a fairytale. In fact, according to CNN, al-Qaida may have had some help 
in its efforts to develop a nuclear device from two Pakistani nuclear 
scientists.
  This bill works to ensure that the fairytale does not become a 
cataclysmic reality.
  The bill specifically implements the 9/11 Commission's recommendation 
to expand programs to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction. 
With this legislation, the United States would also be able to extend 
our assistance to help countries control, protect, and dismantle their 
nuclear programs to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. It 
would also create an Office of Nonproliferation Programs in the 
Executive Office of the President to prevent terrorist access to WMDs. 
Finally, the bill includes a provision to enhance the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative and would require the President to establish a 
Department of Energy task force on nuclear materials removal.
  I believe we all want to make sure that a nuclearized al-Qaida never 
becomes a reality. And we should spare absolutely no effort in pursuing 
this goal.
  Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of 
the Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. Over 
just the past few weeks, over 250 people have been killed in the 
upsurge in violence, and we see techniques borrowed from Iraq, like the 
use of improvised explosive devices, in Afghanistan. According to the 
New York Times, Pentagon officials say that 32 suicide bombs were 
exploded in 2006, which is already 6 more than exploded in all of 2005. 
Roadside bombs are up 30 percent over last year, and the Taliban are 
fighting in groups triple the size of last year. And after a deadly 
traffic accident involving the U.S. military, an anti-American riot 
exploded in Kabul last week.
  The 9/11 Commission made it clear in their recommendations that 
Afghanistan must be a priority stating that the ``United States and the 
international community should make a long-term commitment to a secure 
and stable Afghanistan to improve life and make sure it is not a 
terrorist sanctuary.'' Unfortunately, we are clearly a long way from 
achieving that goal.
  The administration never finished the job in Afghanistan, the 
birthplace of the Taliban, the home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin 
Laden, and the place where the attacks of 9/11 were planned.
  That is why this legislation is an important step to help us move in 
the right direction in Afghanistan. My bill urges a new commitment to a 
long-term economic plan to ensure Afghanistan's stability as well as a 
report on progress towards achieving the goals in the Afghanistan 
Freedom Support Act.
  This bipartisan, bicameral legislation is the next step to finally 
implementing all of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. 
Their report was a call to action. Their report card was a reminder of 
what still needed to be done. Their work cannot be left unfinished.
  We must all heed advice of the 9/11 Commission and learn from the 
hard lessons of 9/11. We cannot wait any longer to take action, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______