[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5454-5460]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             REAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the Preamble to our Constitution lays out 
the basic functions of government and notably featured is the need to 
provide for the common defense.
  National security is the single most important purpose of government; 
all of the other blessings of liberty flow from it. Throughout much of 
this country's history, Senator Arthur Vandenberg's famous maxim that 
``Partisanship must end at the water's edge'' has guided the 
formulation and execution of America's national security policy.
  Unfortunately, over the past several years that bipartisan tradition 
has been undermined by the Republican Party which has sought to 
convince Americans that only one party could be entrusted to preserve 
our Nation's military strength and its position as the world's 
preeminent power.
  This unwillingness to listen to other voices has reached its zenith 
under the current administration, which took office with one overriding 
principle, that was to guide American national security policy. Yet 
when the previous administration, that of President Clinton, was for 
it, they were against it. The result is an America that is less safe 
than it should be and less safe than it needs to be.
  Our military has been stretched to the absolute limits in Iraq, 
leaving us precious little ability to respond to other contingencies 
around the globe. Overseas, we are less often seen as a force for good 
in the world, and surveys of public opinion consistently show that we 
as a Nation are viewed negatively, even by our friends in Europe.
  At home, we have frittered away the 4\1/2\ years since September 11 
instead of making real strides in safeguarding the Nation from 
terrorist attack.
  In Iraq, a stubborn refusal to commit enough troops to save the lives 
and pacify the country in the months after the invasion has led to a 
protracted fight against the Baathists and Islamist insurgents that has 
claimed now more than 2,300 American lives.
  And finally, we have failed to reckon with the Achilles heel of our 
national security, our reliance on foreign oil to supply our energy 
needs.
  Clearly, Americans want and deserve change. Last week, Members of our 
party from both the House and the Senate unveiled a comprehensive 
blueprint to protect the American people and to restore our Nation's 
position of international leadership.
  Our plan, Real Security, was devised with the assistance of a broad 
range of experts, former military officers, retired diplomats, law 
enforcement personnel, homeland security experts and others, who helped 
identify key areas where current policies have failed and where new 
ones were needed.
  During the next several weeks, Democratic Members of the House will 
be doing a series of 1-hours where we will discuss the particulars of 
the Real Security plan. Tonight, we will give an overview of that plan, 
and in the following weeks we will flesh out each of the five pillars 
of the Democratic Real Security plan for the country.
  It is a tough and smart strategy to rebuild our military, equip and 
train our first responders and others on the front lines and here at 
home, provide needed benefits to our troops and veterans, fully man and 
equip our National Guard, promote alternative fuels and reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, restore Americans' confidence in their 
government's ability to respond in the face of a terrorist attack or 
natural disaster.
  To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the 
recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and 
finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit 
systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water 
supplies from terrorist attack.
  After September 11, all Americans trusted the President to take the 
steps necessary to keep our country safe. Since then, inadequate 
planning, sometimes incompetent policies, have failed to make Americans 
as safe as we should be. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina showed that 
the Federal Government was still not prepared to respond.
  Under the administration's leadership, the war in Iraq began with 
intelligence that was at best wrong and at worst manipulated. 140,000 
of our finest young people were sent into Iraq without an adequate plan 
for success.
  Our ports and other critical infrastructure remain vulnerable, while 
both soldiers in the field and first responders at home lack the basic 
equipment and resources they were promised.
  Both in the Persian Gulf and on our own gulf coast, lucrative, no-bid 
contracts have gone to companies like Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown&Root 
and others with friends in high places.
  Despite record high fuel prices, our country remains heavily 
dependent on foreign oil because of an energy policy that benefits the 
big oil interests.
  The Real Security plan rests on five pillars that my colleagues and I 
will introduce to you tonight. They are the creation of a 21st-century 
military, a smart strategy to win the war on terror, a plan to secure 
the homeland, a plan to move forward in Iraq, and a proposal for 
achieving energy independence for America by 2020.
  Under Real Security, a Democratic Congress will rebuild a state-of-
the-art military by making needed investments in equipment and manpower 
so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever 
necessary.
  We have all heard the stories of parents using their own money to 
purchase body armor for their own children serving in Iraq. I 
personally asked Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about the shortage of 
body armor, about the lack of adequately armored vehicles, and the 
holdups in development of equipment to counter roadside bombs that have 
killed and maimed so many of our troops. Despite his assurances, there 
are still problems and young Americans are still paying the price.
  Under Real Security, Democrats will guarantee all of our troops have 
the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never 
sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success.
  I have been to Iraq now three times; and I visited our wounded troops 
here at home, there, and in Germany. I have spoken at the funerals of 
my constituents who have been killed in Iraq, and I have sat with their 
families as they have mourned. These experiences have reinforced my 
sense of commitment to ensuring the well-being of America's soldiers 
and their families and our veterans.
  Democrats will enact a GI bill of Rights for the 21st century that 
guarantees our troops, active, reserve and retired, our veterans and 
their families, receive the pay, health care, mental health services, 
and other benefits they have earned and deserve.
  Our active military are stretched to the breaking point, but our 
Guard and Reserves have also been ground down by multiple deployments 
and falling enlistment and reenlistment. This has, in turn, added to 
the stress on the active Army and Marines.
  As part of our Real Security plan, Democrats will strengthen the 
National Guard in partnership with our Nation's Governors to ensure it 
is fully manned, properly equipped, and available to meet missions at 
home and abroad.

[[Page 5455]]



                              {time}  2100

  The next pillar of Real Security is a broad strategy to win the war 
on terror. Four and a half years after 9/11 Osama bin Laden is still at 
large, and al Qaeda has morphed into a worldwide amalgam of discrete 
cells that are more difficult to track down.
  When Democrats are in charge, we will make the elimination of Osama 
bin Laden our first priority. We will destroy al Qaeda and other 
terrorist networks, and we will finish the job in Afghanistan and end 
the threat posed by the Taliban. We propose to double the size of our 
special forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and 
ensure that our intelligence is free from political pressure.
  Despite their vow to drain the swamp, the administration has done 
little to eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the 
economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to 
thrive. Democrats will fight terrorism with all means at our disposal 
by leading international efforts to uphold and defend human rights and 
renew the long-standing alliances that have advanced our national 
security objectives.
  Under Real Security, we will confront the specter of nuclear 
terrorism by greatly accelerating the pace at which we are securing 
nuclear material that could be used to make a nuclear weapon or a dirty 
bomb. Our goal is to secure loose nuclear material by 2010. We will 
also redouble our efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran 
and North Korea. While Democrats understand that no option can be taken 
off the table, we are committed to a muscular diplomacy as the best 
option for curbing Pyongyang and Teheran's nuclear ambitions.
  The third pillar of Real Security is homeland security. In the wake 
of 9/11, there have been numerous commissions and investigations at the 
Federal, State and local level, as well as a multitude of private 
studies. All of them have pointed to the broad systemic and other flaws 
in our homeland security program. Almost 2 years ago, the independent 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission published its report, but most of its 
recommendations have yet to be implemented.
  As part of Real Security, Democrats will immediately implement the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including securing national 
borders, ports, airports, and mass transit systems. We will implement 
the screening of 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. 
in ships or airplanes at the point of origin, and we will take steps to 
better safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants and our food and 
water supplies.
  Democrats will prevent the out-
sourcing of critical components of our national security 
infrastructure, such as ports, airports, and mass transit to foreign 
interests that could put America at risk. Under Real Security, 
Democrats would provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police 
officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, 
staffing, equipment and cutting-edge technology they need.
  While the immediate threats to our national security come from 
terrorists, we face other dangers as well. Democrats are committed to a 
security strategy that will protect America from biological terrorism 
and pan-
demics, including the avian flu, by investing in the public health 
infrastructure and training public health workers.
  The fourth pillar, and the one that will have the most immediate 
effect on our security, is to chart a new course in Iraq that will 
ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi 
sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for 
securing and governing their country with a responsible redeployment of 
U.S. forces. Democrats will insist that Iraqis make the political 
compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency, 
promote regional diplomacy, and strongly encourage our allies in other 
nations to play a constructive role.
  As a part of Real Security, Democrats intend to hold the 
administration accountable for its manipulated prewar intelligence, 
poor planning, and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at 
greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
  Our security will remain threatened as long as we remain dependent on 
Middle East oil. The fifth pillar, and the one with the most far-
reaching ramifications for our country and the world, is to achieve 
energy independence for America by 2020.
  Under Real Security, Democrats will increase production of alternate 
fuels from America's heartland; biofuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel 
cells, solar and wind, promote hybrid and flex-fuel technology and 
manufacturing, enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives. 
All this we will do, and more, to meet the real national security needs 
of the country.
  And now, I would like to turn to some of my colleagues who have been 
leaders on national security issues. I would like to begin by 
introducing my colleague from California (Susan Davis) to hear her 
thoughts on one of the five pillars.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my 
colleague, Mr. Schiff, for bringing us all together this evening so we 
can talk about real security for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, America has the absolute finest military in the world, 
and that wouldn't be possible without the people who wear the uniform. 
I want all Americans to know that it doesn't matter to me whether they 
call themselves a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or anything 
else. I stand here tonight to simply tell Americans that there are 
indeed Democrats in Congress who are strong on national security. We 
get it, and we have a plan to get America back on track.
  Let me be just clear at the outset. Support for the troops has no 
party affiliation, and that is definitely true here in Congress. There 
are hundreds of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, who want to do 
right by the troops who are in harm's way right this minute all around 
the globe. I am convinced, however, that the Democratic plan to protect 
America is the path this Nation needs to embark upon now, and I say 
that because the Democratic plan for a 21st century military focuses on 
the same resource that the military itself focuses on, and that is the 
people. It is about the people who volunteer to wear that uniform.
  I have been very proud to serve in Congress as a Member of the House 
Armed Services Committee since I was first elected to represent the 
people of San Diego. As anyone from San Diego can tell you, we are the 
epitome of a military town. San Diegans have a deep and long-standing 
relationship with the military that gives our community a very unique 
level of interaction and familiarity with the Armed Services. San 
Diego's operational bases provide a valuable network of military 
resources that, taken together, equate to bottom-line military 
readiness. We host the Pacific fleet's largest concentration of 
carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, amphibious ships and 
submarines, and our regional training and support facilities supplement 
these resources superbly.
  But at the end of the day, while these are valuable assets, what it 
really comes down to is the people. Outside their uniforms and off the 
battlefield, these brave men and women serve double duty. They are our 
neighbors, they are our Little League coaches, they are our PTA 
presidents, and they are our community volunteers. In short, our 
military servicemembers are extraordinary people who lead ordinary 
lives, just like you and me.
  For those people and communities who are not as familiar with the 
military, I think it may be easy sometimes to think of them in a more 
desensitized, mechanical way, almost as if the troops themselves are 
made of the same steel and weaponry they use to accomplish their 
missions and protect themselves with. But this couldn't be further from 
the truth. Our troops are a mirror image of the American people 
themselves. They find strength in their convictions as Americans. They 
are strong in their education and training and they are strong in their 
diversity and their mutual respect for one another.

[[Page 5456]]

  Mr. Speaker, you may wonder why I would choose to spend so much time 
this evening talking about the human characteristics of our military 
personnel in the context of a Democratic plan to protect America. But 
the people who make America's military great are really the heart of 
the Democratic plan. Americans expect their elected leaders to take 
care of the troops, and that is exactly what Americans and what 
Democrats here today are prepared to do.
  First, that means having enough people. This administration ignored 
the advice of respected senior military leaders by sending too few 
troops to Iraq. No matter how you look at it, that was a serious 
miscalculation. It impaired America's ability to accomplish its mission 
quickly. Democrats will insist on 21st century military forces that are 
large and strong enough to meet any challenge America may face in the 
future without creating neverending states of deployment.
  A 21st century military also demands fully equipping and supplying 
our troops, and that is exactly what the Democratic plan would do. 
Democrats will fight to ensure America's troops are never 
underequipped. The Democratic plan is a plan that would emphasize the 
body and vehicle armor our troops need before they find themselves in 
harm's way. Moreover, we must rebuild and replace the equipment that 
has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan so our troops can continue to 
rely on it with confidence in the future.
  The Democratic plan also means a renewed investment in research and 
development. We simply must invest in technology today that will lead 
to advancements for the battlefield that will keep on protecting our 
soldiers and sailors and will keep on helping them to accomplish their 
future missions.
  Similarly, we must continue to make investments in the way we educate 
and train our military personnel. Training and education is a key 
component in the dominance and success of America's military, and this 
will be no different for a 21st century military. We must commit to 
providing superior ways to continue expanding and advancing the minds 
of our military professionals.
  The Democratic plan for a 21st century military also envisions a 
renewed commitment to the National Guard and Reserve. Our efforts must 
reflect the level of respect and commitment our reserve components have 
earned and deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan for a 21st century military 
encompasses many more components, including increased human 
intelligence, honoring veterans and retirees, and making good on 
America's promise to take care of the health and well-being of our 
soldiers and also their families. It is really about the people: Our 
training them, equipping them, and our support for them. The troops 
demand better, Mr. Speaker, and Democrats are poised to provide it to 
them.
  I am happy to return to Mr. Schiff and join with my colleagues as we 
discuss the rest of the Democrat plan and the pillars of security.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman from California for all her work 
in this area, and I know that you represent a very large constituency 
of servicemembers in your district, probably one of the largest in the 
country. Undoubtedly, you have had the opportunity to visit with a lot 
of the families of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and know 
firsthand some of the demands being placed on our active duty but also 
on our guard and reserve.
  Many of them pulled out of their jobs, earning a lot less on active 
duty than they were in their civilian occupations. This must be a 
tremendous hardship for families.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I think it is, and because our families 
prepare as well as the men and women who actually go into war, it 
provides a particular burden on all of them. And I think that is why it 
has been, in a community like San Diego, why we have felt this so 
acutely.
  And know how important it is for people to have a sense of comfort 
that they have the equipment they need and that once deployed and 
coming home, particularly for the guard and reserve, that they will not 
see these kind of endless deployments. That has been very important and 
it has been really hard for the families to sometimes get a really good 
handle on that.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I imagine that you have had the experience that I have 
with some of my constituents in talking to their families, those that 
are serving in Iraq and the concerns that they have, and in talking 
with the soldiers when they return about whether they had the up-
armored vehicles that they needed, and finding out from them firsthand 
that, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary by the Pentagon, 
that in fact they often didn't have up-armored vehicles. I still have 
people coming back telling me of the inadequacy of materiel they have 
to work with and to keep them safe.
  But I thank you so much for all your leadership on this issue. You do 
a tremendous job on behalf of your constituents in the San Diego area 
and in the armed services area for all the rest of our country. Thank 
you.
  I would like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to one of my close friends and 
colleagues here, David Scott of Georgia. We cofounded, along with Steve 
Israel, the Democratic Study Group on National Security. He has been a 
strong voice and a great leader on national security issues. We are 
very grateful for your joining us this evening.
  The gentleman from Georgia.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be on the floor 
with Mr. Schiff. I commend his leadership on the national security 
issue. It is so important for the American people to be able to 
understand and know wholeheartedly that Democrats are the strongest 
party on national security. Our record speaks to it, all the way from 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt who shepherded us through World War II and 
built up our Army, to Truman, all the way up to John Kennedy. No 
stronger Presidents have we had on national security.
  Democrats are very strong on national security. I want to spend my 
remarks here speaking from my own experience. I have been overseas 
visiting our troops on four different trips, to Iraq, Afghanistan, 
Pakistan and to Lithuania, into Germany, visiting them at Ramstadt 
Hospital and the air force base. I have been to Camp Victory at Baghdad 
on the front lines, as well as with our group on national security to 
which every Thursday we bring in the experts. We bring them in whether 
they are Republicans or Democrats, from Newt Gingrich to Sam Nunn to 
Andrew Young. We have had people there with experience because we want 
the American people to know that this Nation is secure, has been 
secure, and will be secure in the future in the hands of Democrats.
  I want to spend just a few moments in talking about where we are in 
this 21st-century of our military. We have the finest military in the 
world, but since 9/11 our Nation's Armed Forces have become 
overextended. There is no mistake about it. Some of our recruiting 
goals have not been met.
  But under Democrats we will make sure, and we have already begun the 
process to make sure, that our Armed Forces are not overextended and to 
make sure we have policies and procedures in place to help us meet our 
recruitment goals.
  As you well know, Mr. Schiff, we have an all-volunteer Army. The 
draft is no longer applicable, nor will it be in the foreseeable 
future. With the advances in technology, we are going to be competing 
at a high level with private industries and others to get those high-
caliber individuals to volunteer. Even the M-116 rifle is basically a 
computer. We must have soldiers who are well equipped, well prepared. 
So we have to go out and compete for those soldiers, and we have to 
realize what this 21st century means.
  The men and women of America's Armed Forces and our first responders 
here at home have met every challenge with skill, with bravery, and 
selfless dedication. They along with veterans, military retirees, and 
the families of those who have given their lives to defend our country 
deserve our utmost

[[Page 5457]]

gratitude; and we give it to them with our support. That is why we 
Democrats are launching our effort here. We want to make sure that 
America knows this country will be safe with us, that we have the 
record and we have the program.
  Much has been said and, yes, we have criticized the President. We 
have criticized the Republicans because it is due, because there has 
been failure after failure and bad planning. We know that now. And bad 
intelligence. But I assure you, if Democrats are in control, we will 
never send our troops into harm's way with inaccurate intelligence and 
not equipped with the body armor that they need to do their job.
  It is important for the American people to know what we are doing now 
and what we plan to do. The whole world sees what is wrong step by step 
with our policies. I want to point out to the American people some 
facts they may not know about what Democrats are doing now and what our 
record has been.
  We are committed to strengthening our military, but we have been 
fighting to make sure, we have been at the leadership in making sure 
that our troops have been fully equipped. Every step along the way, it 
has been Democrats who have sought to ensure that our troops were fully 
equipped for this war in Iraq. It was not a war of our choosing, but it 
was a war that was decided upon based upon incomplete and inaccurate 
information that we know now, but did not know then.
  And Democrats stood strong and said we have to go based upon our 
information. But once our troops were in harm's way, once they were 
sent and it was found out that they did not have the body armor and 
their Humvees did not have the equipment to sustained the underbellies 
for the improvised explosive devices, it was Democrats who provided the 
leadership.
  For example, because of Democratic efforts, the 2003 Iraqi 
supplemental budget included more funds for Humvees, body armor, and 
jammers to prevent the detonation of explosive devices. It was 
Democrats who offered amendments to shift $322 million from 
reconstruction for safety equipment for U.S. troops in Iraqi. It was 
Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut who led that fight, and to 
shift $4.6 million from Iraqi reconstruction for support and safety of 
our troops, including critical funding for repairing and replacing the 
critical equipment for combat in Iraq. That was Mr. Obey, our ranking 
member on the Appropriations Committee that led that fight.
  Although both of those efforts were at the need, when they needed 
that armor, that is when Democrats stepped forward. It was Republicans 
who rejected those amendments. But we Democrats did succeed in 
requiring the Department of Defense to at least reimburse those 
servicemembers for the cost of their protective safety and health 
equipment that had to be purchased by them and their families.
  You remember the newscasts. We had our soldiers searching through 
dung heaps, land fields and junkyards in Iraq and the Middle East 
trying to find metal to protect themselves. It brought tears to my eyes 
to think that this Republican administration would send our young men 
and women in harm's way and not have them armed with body armor. They 
were writing back home to mom and daddy saying, send me some money so I 
can buy something to protect myself. Never again can we let that 
happen, and it is we Democrats that are providing the way on this.
  I want to make sure we cover one other point.
  We are going to vote on a budget at some point. Luckily, they didn't 
have the votes tonight; but just to show you cut after cut after cut, 
$1.5 billion cut to veterans. The Democrats will treat our veterans 
with the respect they deserve, and we will put together a GI Bill of 
Rights. We will get rid of the military tax on widows. We will increase 
the benefits, and we will make our military proud and strong. And we 
will make sure that the rotation cycle is not two and three and even 
four tours of duty at a time, because our military is stretched thin.
  We will strengthen our military. We will move us into the 21st 
century, and Democrats will provide that leadership. I am proud to be 
with you here tonight and my colleagues.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Scott, we are proud and grateful to have you here. 
You mentioned the proud history of the Democratic Party and national 
security under the leadership of Presidents like Roosevelt and Truman 
and Kennedy and others.
  Today we saw in the press reports that the President authorized Mr. 
Libby, the chief of staff of the Vice President, to disclose classified 
information, national security information, for a political purpose. 
Can you imagine Roosevelt or Kennedy or Truman doing that? Can you 
imagine, for political reasons, any of them disclosing classified 
intelligence information for a political reason?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Absolutely not. Our President, it brings chills 
to me when I remember what President Roosevelt said: ``We have nothing 
to fear but fear itself,'' to raise people, our people, to that level. 
Or President Kennedy saying: ``Ask not what your country can do for 
you; ask what you can do for your country.''
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  It gives me great pleasure to yield to Mr. Bennie Thompson, our 
ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, someone who has 
brought great intelligence, foresight, and determination to protecting 
America, to ensuring we have port security and airport securing, and 
that we plug many of the gaping holes here in the homeland. I yield to 
the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Schiff for 
putting this Special Order together to give us an opportunity to talk 
about real security from the Democratic standpoint.
  As you know, unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we 
have a plan. That plan is very simple. If we can get additional 
support, we can make this country safer. But for this hour, let us talk 
a little bit about homeland security.
  First of all, I want to take you to the notion that as a grandfather, 
I spend a lot of time reading children's stories. It may be because I 
am the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, but recently 
I was reading the ``Emperor's New Clothes,'' and I could not help but 
think about the Department of Homeland Security.
  For those of you who are not familiar with the story, it is about a 
ruler who loved to dress up in the finest threads. One day some folks 
came by and promised to make him the finest suit he had ever seen. As 
they made it, they kept asking him what he thought about the beautiful 
cloth and the fine design. Not seeing anything but feeling a little 
naive, the emperor said it was beautiful.
  When the day came for him to wear the suit out in public, he called a 
big parade and put on the so-called outfit. Everyone ``oohed'' and 
``aahed'' until one small child spoke out and said those magic words, 
``He doesn't have anything on.''
  Why does that story remind me of the current administration's 
homeland security efforts? Because DHS is like the naked emperor. 
Despite the Department's many press releases of success, the agency's 
efforts are not enough to cover our Nation's critical parts. Like the 
citizens of the emperor's town, we all want to believe what we are 
hearing and seeing is sufficient. But let me tell you, it is not.
  If you have any doubts about this, just look at the government's 
response to Hurricane Katrina last year. As Clark Kent Ervin, the 
former inspector general of the Department has said, if Katrina was a 
dress rehearsal on how the U.S. would respond to a terrorist attack, we 
are not prepared. A lot needs to be done to ensure homeland security is 
covered. Our security gaps at our borders must be eliminated. Our 
trains and subways must be protected so we do not have a London or 
Madrid attack.
  Our ports must be secure, and our Coast Guard must be well funded. 
That means we must work with our partners

[[Page 5458]]

internationally to protect our ports by screening 100 percent of the 
U.S.-bound containers at their points of origin rather than waiting 
until they arrive at our port communities.
  Those flying the friendly skies should be safe as they are carried to 
their final destination. That means we must secure our passenger 
airlines by requiring 100 percent screening of air cargo that travels 
on the same plane with the passengers. We must have commonsense 
security at chemical and nuclear plants. The private sector is looking 
for guidance from the Department. We need to be sure that they have it. 
We must ensure that hazardous cargo is carried safely through our 
communities.
  Also, we must guarantee that our local cops, firemen, and EMTs have 
the training, staffing, equipment, and technology they need so that 
they can talk to each other during an emergency. As you know, we saw 
with 9/11 that a lot of the individuals involved in that situation 
could not communicate with each other and many of them lost their lives 
because of it.

                              {time}  2130

  Now, when the small child called the emperor out, he knew the child 
was right, but thought the procession goes on. He carries himself 
proudly and his assistants acted like they were keeping his invisible 
robe off the ground.
  The Department's procession absolutely cannot go on. I ask my 
colleagues across the aisle to stop carrying this invisible robe and 
join us in recognizing that the Department of Homeland Security has 
been without clothes for way too long. It is about time that we 
outfitted the agency so that it can fulfill its mission. Our Nation and 
its citizens deserve no less.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman, and I particularly appreciate your 
talking about the common sense changes that have to be made to protect 
this country. Does it make sense, I ask our ranking member, to have a 
policy where you have to take off your shoes at the airport to get 
through the metal detector, but 50 percent of the cargo on the plane 
you are flying on is commercial and 98 percent of that is never checked 
for an explosive? You can ship a bomb the size of a piano that will 
never get opened in a crate under that same plane, but you have to take 
your shoes off. Does that make sense?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. None of it makes sense. The other thing 
is, we have the technology available to us to do many of these things. 
We have to have the will to produce the resources necessary to acquire 
the technology in order for that to occur.
  We have tried in our committees to fully fund all of the screening 
programs, not just at airports, but we are talking about screening 
cargo coming into our country. But we can't get the support on the 
Republican side of the aisle to move in that direction.
  We have two government agencies, Department of Energy and Department 
of Homeland Security, charged with radiation screening of certain 
activities. We can't even get support to merge the two programs. They 
are operating in ports separate and apart. So clearly, there are a 
number of things, Congressman Schiff, that we need to do.
  Mr. SCHIFF. And that last point, I think, is the key one. The 
President, I am sure you recall, during the first debate with Senator 
Kerry, was asked what is the top national security threat facing the 
country? And he said, nuclear terrorism. Senator Kerry agreed. I think 
they were both right.
  But if that is true, and the most likely suspect for nuclear 
terrorism is al Qaeda, then the most likely delivery device is not a 
missile but a crate. And that crate is going to come into one of our 
ports. And why we haven't mobilized the resources to implement that 
portal technology, why we are spending as much as we are on a more 
distant threat in terms of national missile defense, rather than the 
more proximate threat of a smuggled in dirty bomb or crude nuclear 
weapon is not in our Nation's national security interest.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Well, it is not. And what we find is 
there are a substantial number of containers that come to this country, 
as you know, without any inspection. To inspect it when it gets to our 
shores, if it is a dirty bomb or anything like that, is unacceptable. 
We have to do the inspections or the screenings at a minimum at the 
points of origin rather than when they get to this country. If we 
don't, we are in for a rude awakening.
  The other point I want to make, and I want to thank you for this 
time, is we clearly have to support financially the safeguards that are 
required. We have the technology. We have to make sure that we put the 
resources to support the technology.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman very much for all his leadership in 
improving our Homeland Security.
  I would now like to turn to my colleague, Dennis Moore from Kansas, 
who does a tremendous job. He is one of the true leaders on a variety 
of issues, including energy self-sufficiency and energy independence. 
It is one of the pillars of our national security plan. Dennis Moore.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Schiff, the distinguished gentleman from 
California, I want to thank you for your leadership in putting together 
this little seminar and this presentation this evening on national 
security and how important it is for our country.
  I want to talk for just a few minutes about the importance of 
national security in the context of energy independence for our Nation. 
Some of our viewers this night, Mr. Schiff, will be old enough to 
remember back in the late 1970s there was a gentleman by the name of 
Jimmy Carter who was President of United States. And one night 
President Carter was sitting addressing the people of America on 
national television. He had on a cardigan sweater. He was sitting in 
front of the fireplace and talking about the long lines at the gas 
pumps. And he was talking about the need for our country to develop 
energy independence and a comprehensive energy policy to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  I think President Carter was right then, and I faulted every 
Republican and Democrat since President Carter for not doing what he 
said we needed to do back then. And especially, since September 11 of 
2001, and 5 years into this administration we still are very dependent, 
heavily dependent on foreign oil, and we need to find for America 
energy independence.
  And I think this is no longer just a concern about long lines at the 
gas pumps or the high cost per gallon of gasoline. This now has become 
a national security issue, and it is an issue that we, as a Nation, 
must deal with.
  This issue, Mr. Schiff, should not be about Republicans and 
Democrats. This should be about us taking care of our people and our 
country. And we all must come together to do this, and I think it is 
highly important, again, that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
and find an independent way to do this.
  President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union this year, for the 
first time, I believe, trying to develop some way to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and enter energy independence. But he didn't 
make any proposals, and I think what we need are some solid proposals 
to do that.
  We need, for example, conservation. We need to develop hybrid 
automobiles, hydrogen fuel cells. We need to look and develop solar 
energy, wind energy, ethanol biodiesel. We need to reduce our 
dependence on Middle East oil and increase our dependence on Midwest 
farmers who can provide the crops necessary to produce some of the 
fuels I am talking about, alternatives and renewable sources of energy 
here.
  Energy independence, in fact, again has become a national security 
issue. We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We cannot and must 
not be held hostage by foreign nations who control our supply of oil. 
We must do this as Americans, again not as Republicans and Democrats, 
but as Americans because our country needs this and demands this.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Moore, we thank you for you tremendous leadership on 
this issue and for joining us this evening.
  Now it gives me great pleasure to yield time to the gentlewoman from

[[Page 5459]]

Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who I would say is a rising star in 
the Congress, but she was a rising star. She is now a full star in the 
firmament. The rise has already been complete. But we are so grateful 
for your leadership, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. I too want to join my 
colleagues tonight in thanking you for putting this together because 
one of the things that we have been trying to do over the last several 
months as Democrats in the House of Representatives is roll out our 
vision for the direction that America should go in.
  Clearly, the vast majority of Americans today believe that we are 
going in the wrong direction, and in terms of homeland security and 
protecting our Nation's borders, that is one of the number one 
priorities.
  And what I would like to talk a little bit about tonight is an issue 
that is extremely important, given that my State is a peninsula, and 
that is port security, because I represent the people of Florida's 20th 
district, which is south Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, Hollywood and Miami 
Beach. My district borders two ports, Port Everglades and the Port of 
Miami, and they both serve as a gateway to millions of tons of cargo 
and people every year.
  In 2005, in fact, almost 5.8 million tons of goods came into the 
United States through the Port of Miami. Nationally, though, only 6 
percent of cargo is screened. That is a shocking statistic. That means 
that just in the Port of Miami alone, over 5.4 tons of goods were left 
uninspected before they entered our supply chain. That is just an 
unbelievably alarming statistic.
  The administration claims to have cargo security programs, such as 
the automated targeting system, that mitigate any threat, according to 
them, that the remaining 94 percent of cargo entering our country 
without physical inspection may pose.
  However, the Government Accountability Office, a third party 
validator, recently released a report showing shortfalls in these 
systems. Multiple deadlines have been missed, and key controls are 
still not in place to ensure the adequate implementation of such 
programs.
  These facts were true when the Bush administration approved the sale 
of operations at six major U.S. ports, including the Port of Miami, to 
the United Arab Emirates. That agreement, had it gone through, 
outsourced American security to a country with a spotty record in 
fighting terrorism and one that is currently participating in an 
illegal economic boycott of the State of Israel.
  Responsibility for America's security should not go to the highest 
bidder. History has shown that friends of the United States truly come 
and go. Thirty years ago Iran was our ally, and 20 years ago Iraq was 
our ally.
  Given the current gaps in port security, we are placing far too much 
trust in port terminal operators beholden to foreign nations. The 
companies have access to America's classified security operations. And 
I can tell you, having toured the Port of Miami, I can at least 
transmit to you that at the Port of Miami the people who run the 
terminals, they run their own internal security, and they have intimate 
knowledge of the security operations in the rest of the port.
  So far the divestiture announcement from DPW appears to be nothing 
more than a diversion that was designed to deflect attention away from 
this outsourcing of American port security.
  The current level of vulnerability at our ports is simply 
unacceptable. Three years ago, the Coast Guard said that they needed 
$7.2 billion for port security measures. But the majority in this 
Congress, the Republicans, have only allowed for the allotment of $910 
million since September 11, 2001.
  When it comes to our national security and the safety and defense of 
our homeland, we should be focused on policy, not politics. We should 
be pursuing legislation to protect our Nation's ports and remedy the 
systemic weaknesses that facilitated this deal in the first place.
  As the Nation's legislators and lawmakers, it is our responsibility 
and duty to keep America safe, and the Republican administration and 
Congress is not accomplishing this objective.
  Before I close, I want to share with you yet another alarming 
statistic. And I notice that when you began your remarks you referred 
to the removal of shoes as we go through our mag-
netometers in our Nation's airports.
  When I went to the Port of Miami, the staff there talked to me about 
the disparity in port security versus airport security. In the last 5 
years, since 9/11, we have spent, this Republican Congress has spent 
$18 billion more on airport security, which is a good thing. But 
comparatively they have spent less than $700 million on port security. 
Essentially we have rested the sum total of our increase in national 
security on taking our shoes off as we go through the magnetometer. 
That is about the only thing that most people could say they noticed 
was a difference between before 9/11 and post-9/11 national security.
  Again, I commend you on your effort to pull us together tonight.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman and I am tremendously grateful 
for your leadership and participation tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van 
Hollen, for his patience this evening. It has been a long evening 
already, and I have been keeping him and my other colleagues from the 
beginning of the recess. He has done a tremendous job in his tenure 
here in the Congress. He has already established himself as a superb 
leader on national security and other issues, education. Without any 
further ado I turn over my time to Mr. Van Hollen for such time as he 
may consume.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Schiff. And 
again, like my colleagues, I thank you for your leadership on issues of 
national security in this Congress for our country.
  I think we all understand that in order to successfully conduct the 
important work of our Nation, we must have management systems in place. 
We must have systems of checks and balances to make sure that those 
people who are making critical decisions for our country are held 
accountable, and nowhere is that more important than in the area of 
national security. We have to have competence and we have to have 
accountability, and unfortunately we have seen a lack of both those 
qualities in the decisions on national security made by this 
administration.
  It is Basic Management 101 that if you reward failure you are going 
to get more failure, and if you want success you should reward success. 
But if you look at the way this administration has approached national 
security, they have kind of got that principle backwards.

                              {time}  2145

  In fact, they have essentially rewarded and acknowledged those in the 
administration who got it wrong and criticized those who got their 
facts right.
  Let us just go back to General Shinseki, who proposed early on that 
we would need, he said, a couple hundred thousand troops on the ground 
in post-war Iraq in order to maintain stability. He was dismissed by 
then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz of being ``way off the 
mark.''
  We have had up to 160,000 troops on the ground, and as you, Mr. 
Schiff, noted early on, it is the consensus of most military experts 
that one of the reasons we failed in the immediate post-war period to 
maintain stability was the lack of enough troops on the ground. General 
Shinseki was right. He was dismissed by the administration. Mr. 
Wolfowitz received the plum job as president of the World Bank. I do 
not know what kind of message that sends.
  How about the costs of the war? Well, Secretary Wolfowitz said: ``We 
are dealing with a country that can finance its own reconstruction and 
relatively soon.'' Well, we know today that Iraq has still not come 
back up to its prewar oil production, and the predictions that were 
made by the chief economic policy adviser to the President, Lawrence 
Lindsey, who at the

[[Page 5460]]

time said he thought the cost of the war would run about $100 billion 
to $200 billion, look good from today's vantage point.
  At the time we need to remind people that others in the 
administration, like the head of the Budget Office, Mitch Daniels, 
dismissed those projections as being too high, and said very, very 
high.
  We have seen a recent study by the Columbia University economist and 
former Nobel Prize winner in economics, Joe Stiglitz, who projects that 
this war could be up to $2.5 trillion in costs.
  But perhaps most dangerous from the vantage point of national 
security have been the failures with respect to the intelligence and 
the abuse of intelligence. And we need an intelligence system where the 
facts inform the policy, rather than a system where politics shape and 
distort the facts. But we have seen the administration ignore many of 
the professionals in the government who actually called it right in 
many instances.
  If you look back now over the national intelligence estimates and you 
look at what the people in INR, Intelligence Research at the State 
Department, were saying; if you look at what the folks at the 
Department of Energy were saying, a lot of them questioned these 
conclusions that were being jumped to with respect to the presence of 
weapons of mass destruction. They questioned both those agencies, the 
fact that these aluminum tubes were somehow evidence of an Iranian 
nuclear program. They said they did not believe that. And yet in its 
selective use of intelligence, the administration ignored those. They 
relegated those opinions to mere footnotes and essentially put forward 
the other information.
  And you mentioned today a very disturbing revelation has come to 
light with respect to the selective use of intelligence. And I just 
want to quote from the Los Angeles Times. This is in many other papers. 
It turns out, according to the information put forward by Patrick 
Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, ``President Bush personally 
authorized leaking long classified information to a reporter in the 
summer of 2003 to buttress administration claims, now discredited, that 
Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction 
for Iraq.''
  Before the war, they selectively leaked information in a way that 
misinformed the American public; and then when they were essentially 
caught doing that, they further selectively leaked information to try 
to hide that fact when revelations were brought to light.
  This has very serious consequences for our security because our 
credibility around the world depends on people whom we go to believing 
that the information that we have is true and that it is solid. When 
Adlai Stevenson was at the United Nations in the Cuban Missile Crisis 
and he said the Soviets were putting missiles into Cuba and had the 
information to support it, our credibility as a Nation was enhanced. As 
a result of the failures and abuse of intelligence, our credibility 
around the world has been degraded. It makes it much harder to persuade 
others about the seriousness of the threats in Iran and North Korea.
  Now, the 9/11 Commission made a number of recommendations as to how 
we could deal with this particular issue; and one of the 
recommendations they made was to bolster intelligence oversight reform. 
Let us hold people accountable for their decisions. Let us not reward 
failure because we will get more failure. Let us not reward and ignore 
mistakes; we will get more mistakes. But when it comes to intelligence 
oversight reform, what grade did they give to the Republican Congress 
and the administration? A ``D.'' A ``D.''
  We have said, we Democrats, as part of our proposal, we are going to 
strengthen the oversight process. We are going to hold people 
accountable, and we are going to implement all of the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission, including the recommendation to improve the 
oversight of intelligence so we can end the abusive intelligence, 
restore our credibility around the world, because that credibility is 
essential to the national security of this country.
  I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this 
issue, and I hope we will continue to have this conversation that I 
think is so important to our country.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his 
eloquence and the tremendous job that he also does as we serve together 
on the Judiciary Committee.
  I am now pleased to yield to Jay Inslee from the great State of 
Washington, who has been a pioneer in the area of energy independence.
  Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. And I have a simple message. We Democrats want 
to strike a preemptive blow against our enemies in the Middle East. And 
the single, most effective preemptive blow we have is to starve them 
from resources with which to attack us. We know where the money came 
from to finance the attack on September 11. It came from our addiction 
to oil that must stop.
  And we now have a President who said he wants to break our addiction 
to oil, and we welcome his language about this. But we cannot run our 
cars on rhetoric. We cannot run a national energy independence program 
on rhetoric. We need real policies. And we are offering them. We have 
offered to the country the New Apollo Energy Act, H.R. 2828. That is 
H.R. 2828. If folks want to look at it, they are welcome to see the 
most comprehensive plan that will really deliver a situation where we 
send less money to Middle Eastern sheiks and more money to middle-
American farmers. That is a policy that we will embrace, and we will be 
more secure than we are today.
  I thank you for letting me have my few words today.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues this evening 
for all their comments and their leadership. Over the next several 
weeks, we will be unveiling in greater detail each of the pillars of 
security: how we intend, as Democrats, to rebuild the 21st-century 
military; how we intend to take the war on terror to Osama bin Laden 
and al Qaeda; how we intend to beef up our homeland security and repair 
a lot of the broken pieces of our homeland security policy that make us 
continue to be vulnerable; how we will make Iraq in 2006 a year of 
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty; and how, as Mr. Inslee points 
out, we can achieve energy independence, something vital to the present 
and this Nation's future.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership, David Scott for 
all his great work, Chris Van Hollen, Jay Inslee, all of the other 
speakers tonight. We look forward to continuing this dialogue with the 
American people.

                          ____________________