[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2208-2209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 HOMELAND SECURITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, following the attacks of September 11, 
many Americans found themselves feeling, perhaps for the first time, a 
sense of vulnerability. Terrorists had successfully infiltrated our 
country, hijacked four of our jetliners, and committed mass suicide. 
Using simple tactics and superb coordination, they singlehandedly 
changed the American mindset in a matter of minutes.
  President Bush recognized that our way of life changed drastically on 
September 11. During an address to a joint session of Congress and the 
American people 9 days after the attacks, President Bush said the 
following:

       On September 11, enemies of freedom committed an act of war 
     against our country. Americans have known wars--but for the 
     past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except 
     for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties 
     of war--but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful 
     morning. Americans have known surprise attacks--but never 
     before on thousands of civilians. All of this brought upon us 
     in a single day--and night fell on a different world, a world 
     where freedom itself is under attack.

  For nearly 10 years prior to that, our country enjoyed unprecedented 
peace and prosperity. The economy grew at an unbelievable rate. We were 
at peace with our neighbors. We focused on health-care, welfare, 
education, and other domestic priorities. The fall of the Soviet Union 
eliminated the threat to our Nation. Our defense budget shrank; our 
intelligence resources dwindled; and our homeland defenses remained 
virtually nonexistent. The biggest problem our military faced was not 
how best to invade Iraq, but how to keep enlisted families off food 
stamps.
  Our mind simply was elsewhere. A number of blue-ribbon commissions 
tried to get our attention. The Bremer Commission pointed out the 
deficiencies of our intelligence collection efforts. The Gilmore 
Commission revealed how disconnected, disparate, and dysfunctional our 
homeland security efforts were. And, the Hart-Rudman Commission 
discussed how much our Federal Government needed to be restructured to 
better combat terrorism. Yet many of the recommendations from these 
commissions were pushed aside as being impractical, too expensive, or 
unnecessary. As it turns out, they were right, and on September 11, we 
paid the price.
  Since that dreadful day, we have made considerable progress. We have 
rid Afghanistan of its terrorists-run government, disrupted terrorist 
operations around the world, and taken steps to improve our homeland 
defenses. I was pleased last November when the Congress, after 3 months 
of debate, approved legislation to create the Department of Homeland 
Security. This Department will pull together 22 agencies and nearly 
200,000 Federal employees. It will not be an easy task. Tom Ridge, the 
new Secretary of the Department, will have his hands full for many 
years to come.
  The Department of Defense has also taken a number of measures to 
improve our homeland defense. The establishment of Northern Command was 
a significant organizational step toward fighting terrorism at our 
borders. The new commander, Air Force Gen. Ed Eberhart, will be 
responsible for the defense of the United States, including land, 
aerospace and sea defenses. NORTHCOM will also provide military 
assistance to civil authorities, including crisis and subsequent 
consequence management operations should such assistance be necessary.
  This past year the Congress went further when it created a new 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security within Department 
of Defense. The assistant secretary will be responsible for providing 
guidance and planning assistance to the various combatant commands, 
including NORTHCOM. The Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am 
a member, held a hearing today on the President's nominee, Paul McHale, 
for this position.
  Despite our efforts to build stronger homeland defenses, our country 
finds itself confronted by numerous threats on several different 
fronts. As we speak, thousands of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and marines 
are being deployed around the globe in such remote places as Southeast 
Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Horn of Africa. Just last week, 4,000 
soldiers from Fort Carson, CO, were given orders to deploy overseas.
  The war against global terrorism continues to require substantial 
resources and considerable foreign cooperation. The administration has 
made enormous progress in this area, but more remains to be done. Many 
al-Qaida operatives are at large, and several nations continue to 
support terror groups. We must remain vigilant and proactive if we are 
to prevent future terror attacks.
  With regard to Iraq, as the President said during his state of the 
union address, Saddam Hussein continues to hide his weapons programs, 
despite an aggressive weapons inspection regime. To many, the 12,000 
page Iraqi declaration given to the United Nations last December was 
duplicative of previous declarations and revealed little of value. It 
only served to highlight Saddam Hussein's determination to retain his 
weapons of mass destruction.
  The reports earlier this week by the U.N.'s chief weapons inspectors, 
Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, further demonstrated that Iraq remains 
unwilling to give up its weapons programs. In his statement to the 
United Nation's Security Council, Hans Blix emphasized this point. He 
said,

       Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate 
     its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of 
     creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to 
     have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the 
     disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to 
     carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in 
     peace.

  Iraq has hedged, delayed, and avoided complete disarmament for over a 
decade. There comes a time when diplomacy and sanctions become 
exercises in futility. There comes a time when only military action 
will succeed where negotiations have repeatedly failed. There comes a 
time when the President of the United States, as leader of the free 
world, must say enough is enough.
  Several press reports indicate that some U.S. allies, most notably 
France and Germany, may oppose military action against Iraq at this 
time. We should certainly take their thoughts into consideration. Our 
alliances should be both respected and preserved. At the same time, 
though, the President has an obligation to our country to do what is 
best for the United States--his primary responsibility is the safety 
and security of the American people. It is my hope that our friends and 
allies will recognize our determination to eliminate the threat posed 
by Iraq's weapons programs and support our efforts in the Persian Gulf.
  Just as we prepare to confront Iraq's growing arsenal of destruction, 
we cannot ignore the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear and 
ballistic missile programs. The Bush administration has sought to form 
a global consensus to deal with North Korea's WMD ambitions. Press 
reports indicate that the President wants the United Nations Security 
Council to deal with this threat to East Asia. I think this is a good 
first step.
  In many ways, the North Korean issue is different from the situation 
involving Iraq. There haven't been any U.N. resolutions calling for the 
disarmament of North Korea, nor have North Korea's allies, China and 
Russia, shown much interest in resolving this issue. A global consensus 
is now beginning to form. Our allies in the region,

[[Page 2209]]

South Korea and Japan, are only starting to realize the danger North 
Korea's WMD efforts pose to the region.
  Five years ago, North Korea test-launched a three-stage ballistic 
missile over Japan that could have reached parts of the United States.
  I think that is worth repeating.
  Five years ago, North Korea test-launched a three-stage ballistic 
missile over Japan that could have reached parts of the United States.
  This test ended a debate as to whether our country was vulnerable to 
ballistic missile attacks from countries of concern. It became a 
question of what we were going to do about it. Finally, after much 
debate, the Congress authorized in 1999 the development and deployment 
of a national missile defense system ``as soon as it was 
technologically feasible.''
  Since President Bush's election in 2000, the Department of Defense 
has made considerable progress on a missile defense system. With 
additional funding and less restrictions, the Missile Defense Agency 
has launched a broad effort to evaluate all potential options for 
missile defense, including ground-based, sea-based, and even space-
based defenses. The MDA now has a number of high-profile missile 
defense systems in development and is making progress in developing 
sophisticated sensors capable of detecting incoming missiles.
  As the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Strategic Programs and Operations, including missile defense, I have 
assisted the President in developing these systems. Last year, the 
Congress provided nearly $8 billion for missile defense.
  I am pleased that a number of projects are now nearing completion. 
The PAC-3, an enhanced version of the Patriot missile used during the 
gulf war capable of intercepting short and medium-range ballistic 
missiles, has entered into production. The Army's Theater High-Altitude 
Air Defense--THAAD--a system to counter medium-range ballistic 
missiles, is nearing production. And, perhaps most significantly, the 
ground-based mid-course interceptor system, which provides the United 
States with a limited defense against ICBMs, is scheduled to be 
deployed in 2004, as announced by President Bush on December 17 of this 
past year.
  Missile defense is not the only program that has received increased 
attention since President Bush's election. The DOD budget as a whole 
has grown substantially over the past 2 years. Last year, the Congress 
authorized over $390 billion in funding the department, an increase of 
nearly $40 billion from the year before. While much of this increase 
went to support our military operations overseas, some of this money 
was used to shore up our counter-terrorism efforts, improve our 
intelligence capabilities, and develop new technologies to counter the 
growing threats to our Nation. The department is expected to request 
similar funding for the upcoming fiscal year.
  The President and the Congress have worked hard over the past 2 years 
to reduce the threats to our Nation and prevent future attacks. It has 
not been easy. Partisan politics, divergent personalities, and 
conflicting perspectives frequently interrupt the process.
  I believe the President deserves much of the credit for this 
progress. He has stepped up and led our country in a very difficult 
time. His message has clearly resonated with the American people. 
Increased vigilance and enhanced security are essential in a time of 
uncertainty and perceived vulnerability. I share this message and will 
continue to work in the Senate to see that measures that are enacted 
actually increase the security of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, how much time have we remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight and a half minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________