The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“HOMELAND DEFENSE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S5262-S5263 on June 10, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
HOMELAND DEFENSE
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak a little about an issue that is current: homeland defense. It is not new to be current. Of course, homeland defense has been a very high topic in all of our minds since September 11, and will continue to be, indeed, for a very long time. I think the war we are in requires a great commitment from all of us to continue to provide homeland defense and security and the new prospects for us. I think we are unaccustomed to that. I want to take a few minutes to talk about that, and particularly about the President's proposal.
I think there is no question that homeland defense has become one of our most important issues, and that, of course, is coupled with what we are doing overseas. There is also no question about the best method of homeland defense, partly because it is something we haven't done in the past. It is particularly difficult to develop, and it is hard to determine the best way to do it. It is a domestic activity about which we haven't had to be concerned, particularly in the past, and we haven't dealt with it certainly to the extent we are now and which we must in the future.
I will admit--as you will probably detect--that I am not an expert on this at all. As a matter of fact, I am not on committees that are basically involved with it. But I am a bit disturbed about the reaction to the President's Cabinet-level plan he announced last week. The critics have been very vocal about not having a plan. We have been hearing that now for a number of months--that Tom Ridge has not been doing what we need to do; that he doesn't have the authority which we need to have for him to be able to accomplish what is going on here. Fairly high level criticism has been taking place. It is interesting. The critics for not having a plan are now just about as vocal about the plan the President has provided. I think that certainly is a strange kind of thing and one that is not helpful to accomplishing what we want to accomplish.
I think there is no question that a plan of this size and of this importance will be altered before it is put into place. I do not know of any plan this size that has come before the Congress that isn't changed, polished, and accommodated before it is finally agreed to. But the point is there has to be one to begin. I think it is really important that we deal with it now. It is there, and it is what the critics wanted. I don't know why they continue to criticize.
I am surprised and am a little dismayed that the media has continued to use this proposal as a way to create controversy. I guess the media's job--whatever the issue is--is to pick on that part which is reflected on by a minority of the people who have been critical rather than a majority. Indeed, 72 percent, according to the polls, are favorable. It is kind of interesting that this moves their way, and I guess that is the media's way of doing things.
One of the complaints is that the plan came out overnight--it came out very quickly. I think that is not the case. Tom Ridge did an interview the other day in which he indicated that he has been in place now for quite some time and has not, of course, been a Cabinet member. He has not had anything but his own office to handle. But he has been working on this for a long time, including a lot of people. The idea that it came out overnight from people in the President's little group is not the case. There has been a great deal of talk about it within the administration and a great number of ideas as to how this might best be done, as I think it should be. I think it would be sort of ridiculous to be talking about something publicly before it comes out. That is why it came out now, and that is why this is the time to talk about it publicly.
I must confess I get a little impatient sometimes with the way these things are handled. It is easier to sit up in the grandstands and be critical than to be on the field and have to call the plays. That is, of course, what the President has to do.
I think it deals with a problem. The problem, of course, is that all of us are concerned about security. There is no one in government or outside government who doesn't want to try to detect what is going on and do something about it, whether it is a highway patrolman in Wyoming or a CIA agent or an FBI agent. Sometimes it is objective, sometimes it is seen, or sometimes it is suspected; then what do you do?
We haven't had a central place to accumulate all of these possibilities so they can be evaluated and so something can be done about them. There are as many as 100 different government agencies that have some responsibility for homeland security. I suspect it is almost every agency. No one has had the final accountability. No one has had to say there is something that really should be investigated and should be turned over to people to further investigate.
The Coast Guard has several missions: Research, rescue, maritime treaties. It, of course, reports to the Transportation Department. Its primary responsibilities are rails, bridges, and airways.
There is really sort of a lack of continuity.
The Customs Service, among other duties, collects tariffs, prevents smuggling. It is part of the Treasury Department whose primary responsibility is not regular security but indeed physical security.
We have not had a central place for this information until recently. Now we do. Times have changed.
Absolutely now, there will be someone in charge. The bureaucrats are unchangeable, it is said. I don't believe that. I believe change can come when the leadership shows the way and insists upon change. That is what it is all about. That is why there are heads of departments. It is why someone is a Cabinet member--to take the policy of their leader, the President, and to ensure it is implemented. I have never worked in the bureaucracy, but I suppose where there are thousands of people, it is a little bit difficult to do. But that is their task. That is their job. I think it can bring about change.
It would be too bad if the Congress failed to change. I read about some of the congressional committees being concerned about their jurisdiction and that this might change that. Change is inevitable. Change is something we ought to look at and accept, if it has merit. The idea of being resistant to change is a little hard, and it is not very helpful. I suspect there is some of that in the Senate. We hear all kinds of voices coming out here.
I am no expert, as I mentioned before. I suspect that maybe this department could be smaller. You could have a little more selective group that comes together, if indeed then the things that are determined by this smaller homeland security group could be brought to the President and to his Cabinet, and the President would ensure that each of these Cabinet people caused their departments to do what is necessary; that is, to support the central agency. Even today I understand that. But when you are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, of course, it is less easy. I understand that.
But I do think there has to be a central but real war to a large extent--both domestically and overseas--carried out by intelligence, and carried out by centralized information, and by knowing what is happening. This is an entirely different kind of war than we have ever had in the past. We will have to have different arrangements to do it.
I think if you are a frontline worker for the FBI, CIA, or some other law enforcement or intelligence agency, and you see something that raises suspicions, you need to have a place to report it immediately, and you should expect your supervisors to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Information must be fully shared so that we can follow all of those leads and hopefully prevent a tragedy such as happened to us before.
I hope we can consider the President's recommendation and make the changes we believe we need. I think we should see what weaknesses we have had so we can change those. Certainly there have been some. I suppose some of them were not necessarily weaknesses. There is a difference in the climate, there is a difference in the atmosphere, a difference in the challenge. When that happens, there has to be a difference in the way we behave.
I look forward to that. I hope we can come out with something better than what we received.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, am I correct, we are in morning business at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
