Homeland Security

Most Members of Congress have been left in the dark about the particulars of the Administration's highly secretive domestic surveillance program. What we have been hearing about that program over the last few weeks, however, is extremely disturbing. Perhaps the most chilling development has been the revelation that the nation's phone companies may have turned over millions of customer calling records to the NSA National Security Agency (NSA) at the NSA's request.

In short, an Administration that professes the importance of limited government may be adopting Big Brother tactics to spy on the day-to-day activities of ordinary Americans. While the facts are still developing, we've also heard from General Michael Hayden, the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and architect of the NSA program. General Hayden unfortunately has a less than inspiring grasp of the Constitution. Asserting this past January that the Fourth Amendment does not include a "probable cause" requirement - which it does - he essentially stated that so long as a search and seizure is "reasonable" it is "lawful." That's not the standard, and while his approach is likely full of good intentions, the path to hell is paved with them.

General Hayden's interpretation of the law would essentially allow any domestic surveillance program to proceed, no matter how invasive, so long as he or someone else in the Administration believes that it will protect us. Just as 9/11 reminds us that we are not immune to terrorist attack despite our wealth and power, however, the McCarthy Era and the Church Committee remind us how our government is not immune to abuses of power and corruption. Today is no different.

If we are truly to be protected during the war on terror, we must concern ourselves not only with our physical security but also with securing our most cherished liberties and rights. Indeed, neither is worth much without the other. Leaders of all party affiliations accordingly need to work to execute an anti-terrorist strategy that promotes caution and precaution - one that includes robust efforts to protect us from attack while demanding that the Administration comply with the law when working those efforts. If "warrantless surveillance" and other homeland security strategies promulgated by General Hayden and others run roughshod over the Constitution, Congressional oversight, and the law, the Administration's approach to protecting the public may well become as potent a threat as terrorism itself.

I am disappointed that the FAA has decided to implement its contract on our nation's air traffic controllers when it seems an agreement is in reach that would satisfy both parties. Going about it this way underscores what is wrong with the current system. When one side can dictate the terms, there is less of a need to find common ground. I am going to continue to work to improve this process.

The arrests made in Toronto and the recent news out of London should serve as a stark reminder that al Qaeda and related groups are not sleeping-they are actively pursuing the tools of terror and plotting against our people and our cities. Law enforcement must have every legal tool at their disposal for the surveillance, tracking and capture of al Qaeda and other terrorists.

And though some oppose the NSA's terrorist surveillance programs, it is clear that our law enforcement and intelligence forces need the right tools, the right focus and the right people to 'connect the dots' and prevent further attacks from al Qaeda. And they need to be able to do this while the terrorists are planning attacks and purchasing bombs-not after they've set them off.  

 

Americans must ask themselves today if they believe we are safer now than we were five years ago. The Republican Rubber Stamp Congress has cut homeland security grant funding, and the Bush Administration has compounded that mistake by failing to spend the money available on the areas most likely to be targeted by terrorists.

The bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission concluded that homeland security assistance should be allocated based on risks and vulnerabilities. Instead, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have reduced vital anti-terror funding for cities such as New York and Washington, D.C. It is unacceptable that homeland security policies are so at odds with the threats facing the American people.

Today, I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff with a bipartisan group of my colleagues asking that the Department of Homeland Security reconsider it's misguided decision to reduce the National Capital Region's Urban Areas Security Initiative allocation by 40 percent. Distributing homeland security dollars without adequate consideration of risk is a dangerous practice that diminishes our ability to protect potential targets and we need to more details on the DHS's decision to ensure that is not the case.

Whether it's the failure to secure our ports, the refusal to fully implement the 9-11 Commission recommendations, or the insistence on driving critical homeland security dollars away from at-risk sites, the Bush administration has continually failed to make America as safe as it should be.

The President is right on the mark that we can’t avoid the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system and that real reform must include a provide a path to citizenship for those who are already here. The American people have made their voices heard loud and clear in support of comprehensive immigration reform; the Senate has resoundingly passed a bipartisan bill that will secure our borders and break the cycle of illegality; and now it is time for Congress to work together in good faith to finish the job. In terms of our national security and our humanity, this is the most important bill the Congress will vote on this year.

The US program for helping eliminate and secure shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles around the world is the State Department’s Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Initiative. It is currently funded at $8.75 million for FY 2006, and the Bush Administration has requested about the same amount for 2007. I was honored to join Chairman Royce in requesting that the appropriators provide full funding for this program, but I know we can do much more.

Therefore, HR 5333 would authorize $15 million in 2007 and $20 million in 2008 for these efforts under a Global Program for the Elimination of MANPADS (man-portable shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles) and Conventional Weapons. Given the severity and urgency of this problem, I would hope that we will spend even more than these modest amounts to destroy or secure these weapons in future years.

Read more...

The amnesty plan the Senate passed will ultimately stall and with it delay any measures to secure our borders.The political reality is that there are great differences of opinion on how to handle illegal immigration, but there is general consensus on securing the border. That's why I've said we should secure the border first, and then we can debate how to deal with immigration reform.

Read more...

While I support immigration through a legal framework, I could not support rewarding those who come here illegally. Unfortunately, this bill encourages more illegal immigration, overburdens our social services and is unfair to those who are patiently and respectfully trying to enter America legally.

The Dubai ports deal demonstrated to the nation that the current system to vet foreign acquisitions of businesses in the U.S. does not do enough to automatically safeguard our national security. The fact that commercial operations at some of our busiest ports were acquired by a foreign government without Congress knowing and without the administration raising any red flags was astonishing.

This legislation, HR 5337 which was introduced by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), would strengthen the security safeguards in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States review process, including implementation of a mandatory 45-day review for all deals that include a foreign government. It is also important to note that this bipartisan bill balances the need to ensure that the CFIUS process properly considers national security concerns against the need to encourage beneficial foreign investment. It is based in large part on recommendations of the GAO issued before the Dubai Ports World debacle and has broad support.