WASHINGTON, DC- U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) today delivered a speech on the Senate floor addressing the threat of global terrorism and the impact the Iraq war has on our efforts to fight terrorism around the world. His entire speech as prepared is attached.
"The war in Iraq is at the center of our national discussion today, but we cannot allow it to distract us from the objectives the American people set out to achieve in the fall of 2001: destroying Al Qaeda and denying legitimacy to the ideas of jihadist extremism," said Senator Casey. "The war in Iraq has diverted our attention and resources from the broader war against Al Qaeda and its allies, which continues unabated five years following the horrific events of 9/11."
Senator Casey continued: "In order to neutralize this reconstituted, and possibly more dangerous, version of Al Qaeda, the United States must embark on a global counterinsurgency campaign which recognizes that military force is an essential, but not sufficient, response. The United States must draw on all elements of its national power - military, political, and economic - in a coordinated campaign that seeks to deny refuge and sanctuary to Al Qaeda forces wherever they may reside."
To suffocate Al Qaeda, Senator Casey discussed doubling the size and increasing the skill sets of our Special Forces troops, working with other nations to more effectively crack down on terror financing flows, and getting serious on public diplomacy so that we can counter and refute the hate-filled messages from extremists.
In his remarks, Senator Casey outlined three key areas on which previous Congresses have not taken action, but that must be addressed now: allocating our homeland security funding on a risk-focused basis; increasing rail and chemical plant security to avoid the prospect of terrorists transforming our chemical plants and hazardous material rail shipments into lethal chemical weapons; and taking steps to once and for all ensure that our first responders have reliable access to secure interoperable communications.
In addition, Senator Casey outlined a number of other strong policy proposals that Congress should consider to further strengthen our nation's homeland security:
Ensuring that we inspect the air cargo transported by passenger airlines to prevent terrorists from planting a bomb in a plane's underbelly;
Strengthening our border security with better technology and additional Customs and Border Patrol agents;
Working with the private sector to develop real incentives for both large corporations and small businesses to adopt common-sense solutions that mitigate the risks of an attack and thus make them less attractive targets to terrorists;
Undertaking a serious and comprehensive approach to locking up sources of nuclear fissile material around the world to prevent our worst nightmare - an improvised nuclear bomb destroying an American city.
###
U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
May 16, 2007
Remarks as Prepared
Mr. President, over the first four months of the 110th Congress, the Senate has spent many days debating our Iraq policy. I, and many other Senators, believe we should move in a new direction and change the policy by transitioning the mission to training Iraqi forces, fighting terrorists, and protecting our troops and civilian personnel in Iraq. As part of this new policy, we should have a phased redeployment strategy to begin the process of winding down the war to get our brave combat forces home. Our troops have accomplished every mission; they've done their job. It's well past time that the President, his Administration, and the Congress do our job.
The war in Iraq has diverted our attention and resources from the broader war against Al Qaeda and its allies, which continues unabated five years following the horrific events of 9/11. Despite this Administration's exaggerated rhetoric in the months leading up to our invasion, Saddam Hussein's regime did not have any direct ties to Al Qaeda and our decision to topple his regime without international support drained resources from our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration's inexcusable lack of planning for a post war environment and the stunning incompetence in managing the occupation gave birth to a large, mostly Sunni-based, insurgency in Iraq. This insurgency, aided by a steady flow of foreign fighters, is now giving birth to the next generation of Al Qaeda terrorists and providing ideological inspiration for extremists around the world.
So, contrary to the Administration's rosy rhetoric in 2002 and 2003, the decision to invade Iraq has served as a major setback in our overall struggle against Islamic extremism and the terrorism that movement inspires. Dr. Bruce Hoffman, one of the world's leading experts on terrorism who recently briefed me in my office, has declared that "The United States' entanglement [in Iraq] has consumed the attention and resources of our country's military and intelligence communities - at precisely the time that Osama bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda commanders were in their most desperate straits and stood to benefit most from this distraction." For that reason, it is essential that we get our Iraq policy on the right path by beginning to redeploy U.S. combat forces, emphasizing training of Iraqi security forces, protecting our forces, and engaging in targeted counter-terrorism missions.
Mr. President, the war against Al Qaeda and its extremist allies continues on multiple fronts around the world. This is a generational battle and so our nation must respond accordingly. Vice President Cheney, seeking to validate the Administration's counter-terror efforts, declared last fall, "I don't know how much better you can do than no attacks for the last five years." Every American is grateful that the Vice President's statement continues to hold true. We must salute those men and women in our armed forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement networks, from state and local police forces to the FBI, who have helped protect our nation against further attacks. To take one example, it was skillful surveillance and old fashioned gumshoe work on the part of CIA and FBI agents, closely cooperating with their British counterparts, which allowed us to stop in its tracks a chilling plot to blow up as many as ten airplanes crossing the Atlantic in August 2006.
Unfortunately, the absence of terrorist attacks in the United States does not signify any reduction in the overall threat posed by Al Qaeda and its allies waging battle on behalf of Islamic extremism. The dangers that our nation still faces today were brought home by two developments in recent days. First, six men were arrested last week for conspiring to launch an attack on Fort Dix and "kill as many soldiers as possible". This homegrown cell of Islamic extremists was broken up when two of the defendants sought to purchase assault weapons from an undercover FBI agent. They had engaged in small arms training at a shooting range in the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania. Second, late last week, the U.S. Embassy in Berlin issued a general threat warning indicating that a terrorist attack against U.S. military or diplomatic facilities in Germany may be in the final stages of planning. This plot may be linked to the upcoming G-8 summit to be held in Germany later this summer.
We have all seen the press reports indicating fresh evidence that Al Qaeda is once again establishing training camps in Southwest Asia, only this time in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Although we achieved successes in late 2001 and 2002 in cutting off Al Qaeda's hierarchy from its foot soldiers around the world and severing the operational links inside the organization, those gains are slowly disappearing. Instead, we see the chain of command within Al Qaeda re-emerging, with fresh evidence of plans for potential terrorist strikes in Western Europe and perhaps even our own homeland. Just listen to what the Director for National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, declared in recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"we also have seen that Al Qaeda's core elements are resilient. They
continue to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with
the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to
maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward
from their leaders' hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the
Middle East, northern Africa, and Europe."
The deadly reach of Al Qaeda was reaffirmed with April's coordinated explosions in and around the capital of Algeria, killing twenty four and wounding more than 200. A group calling itself Al Qaeda in Islamic North Africa claimed responsibility for the blasts, a severe blow to a nation that was finally coming out of the ashes of the horrific civil war in the 1990s.
In order to neutralize this reconstituted, and possibly more dangerous, version of Al Qaeda, the United States must embark on a global counterinsurgency campaign which recognizes that military force is an essential, but not sufficient, response. The United States must draw on all elements of its national power - military, political, and economic - in a coordinated campaign that seeks to deny refuge and sanctuary to Al Qaeda forces wherever they may reside. The Third Way National Security Project recently released an insightful report that calls for a global constriction strategy against Al Qaeda - an effort to suffocate the Al Qaeda movement and pressure its physical resources, its people, and its vehicles of propaganda - all in a unified bid to shut down Al Qaeda's ability to wage war through large-scale acts of terror. We can accomplish this strategy though multiple methods - doubling the size and increasing the skill sets of our Special Forces troops, working with other nations to more effectively crack down on terror financing flows, and getting serious on public diplomacy so that we can counter and refute the hate-filled messages from extremists at every turn. Gary Hart has suggested that we should create a fifth military service branch which would unify all Special Forces under one command - an idea worthy of consideration and further study.
We also need to send a firm message to Pakistan that the United States cannot tolerate the return of Al Qaeda training facilities anywhere in the world. If such camps are on sovereign Pakistani territory, then it is the responsibility of the government in Islamabad to ensure that those camps are shut down. General Musharraf has been a partner of the United States and his government has played a valued role in some of our most notable counterterrorism successes, but we cannot abide any backsliding when it comes to this issue.
Mr. President, Al Qaeda is not only reconstituting its networks and operational capabilities, but it is also making gains in the broader battle of ideas -- the clash between modernity and reason vs. extremism and jihadism. These are two very different worldviews fiercely competing every day for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. America will win the war against extremism when we persuade the citizens of Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations of the strength of our ideas and values - and offer a path away from militancy and irrational hatred.
But we have been going in the wrong direction on this front. We only need recall the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when the world united with us in grief and sympathy. Who can forget that grand headline, in France of all places, on September 12th, 2001, "We are all Americans"? The United States had a historical opportunity to unite the world in common cause against the forces of terrorism and extremism and destroy the Al Qaeda network and the twisted beliefs that serve as its cornerstone. Instead, by pursuing a black and white, "our way or the highway" approach, this Administration helped transform our nation's greatest asset - the appeal of the American spirit around the world - into a liability. America today evokes feelings of resentment and distrust, negativity and hostility. Instead of building a grand international coalition on behalf of the values that unite us, the White House settled for temporary and weak "coalitions of the willing" that have left us far too isolated.
Since 2001, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has tracked on a regular basis how America is perceived overseas and global attitudes towards the U.S-led war on terrorism. Across the board, we have seen a dramatic decline in positive views towards the United States, and even more troubling, the American people. This decline has been especially marked in the Islamic world, where Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda enjoy far stronger favorability ratings than our nation. In both Morocco and Jordan, both relatively moderate Muslim nations, a 2005 poll found that approximately half of respondents in both nations believe that suicide attacks against Americans in Iraq are justifiable. In Indonesia, positive views of the United States plunged from 61% to 15% in one year alone - from 2002 to 2003. Unfortunately, those numbers have barely edged upward in recent years.
Mr. President, something has gone terribly wrong when a vile terrorist organization is viewed in a more positive light than our great nation. I understand that the United States is the biggest guy on the block and a certain level of resentment will always exist. Yet we cannot succeed in this global struggle against terrorism and extremism if our own ideas and our own image are viewed in such distorted, negative terms. We must recommit ourselves to a global public diplomacy campaign that conveys our nation as it truly is - a beacon for liberty and hope. Our efforts will succeed when we inspire those currently sitting on the fence in the Muslim world to reject the false ideals that Al Qaeda and its brethren promote. In waging an offensive against Al Qaeda, our ideas will be as important as the might of our military forces.
While we must wage a strong offensive against Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, we cannot neglect a strong defense here at home. Combating terrorism requires a strong homeland security effort, to ensure that our nation can effectively defend and deter against attacks that can kill or injure tens of thousands of Americans in one strike. Unfortunately, Mr. President, homeland security has long been an after thought for this Administration, instead used primarily as a rhetorical weapon against its political opponents. The Department of Homeland Security's ineffectual record and poor performance bear witness to this neglect.
It is easy to forget that this Administration fiercely opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, instead arguing that a small office in the White House could adequately do the job. The Administration long resisted the full implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations - a serious oversight that the 110th Congress has sought to rectify, with both the House and the Senate passing comprehensive legislation to help ensure that all of the Commission's recommendations are finally put in place. When it came time to replace Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security, the White House put forward as its first choice Bernard Kerik -- a political hack with a checkered past -- only to withdraw the nomination days later after a series of embarrassing disclosures on his personal background.
The Department of Homeland Security has lacked the necessary budgets, leadership, and political support required from the White House to do its job properly. Although the Administration created a brand new department to coordinate homeland security policy, overall funding for homeland security programs barely grew after DHS opened its doors in early 2003. The upper echelons of the Department have constituted a revolving door with industry, as senior political appointees spend only a year or two in their positions before cashing in on their contacts and joining lobbying firms and technology firms with interests before the Department. We saw the culmination of this neglect and indifference in the Department's shameful response to Hurricane Katrina in the fall of 2005.
Mr. President, although I do not sit on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, I take a strong interest in these issues, as they are vital to my constituents in Pennsylvania. And so I believe there are three key areas where this Congress can take further action to help ensure that our nation is better prepared to protect itself against a future attack. First of all, we must ensure that our limited homeland security dollars are spent wisely. Although I respect the general principle that federal spending must be allocated in a manner fair and proportionate for all fifty states represented in this chamber, we cannot treat homeland security funding as just another government program. It is an undeniable fact, one emphasized by the 9/11 Commission, that some states, some cities, and some targets are at significantly greater risk to attack than others. And so we must allocate our homeland security funding on a risk-focused basis.
During the Senate's debate on the 9/11 Commission bill, I was proud to stand with the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and others in fighting for an amendment that would revise our funding formulas to ensure that homeland security dollars flow, first and foremost, to those cities and states with the greatest at-risk targets. Although this effort failed, I was pleased to see that we have made progress since the last Congress and encourage the House-Senate conference to ensure that risk-based funding provisions be included in the final bill.
A second area of strong concern to me is the prospect of terrorists transforming our chemical plants and hazardous material rail shipments into lethal chemical weapons. A Congressional Research Service report indicates that there are at least 16 chemical plants in Pennsylvania where a release of toxic chemicals could cause over 100,000 deaths, and two plants where such a release could result in over a million deaths. This threat has been brought home in recent weeks as we see insurgents in Iraq engineering large explosions of chlorine tankers to spread noxious fumes in populated areas. These attacks are growing in sophistication and lethality and I worry that they may provide a blueprint for similar attacks in the United States. Therefore, I am encouraged that the Department of Homeland Security released its final regulations on chemical plant security in April. These regulations are a good start, but we need to do much more. In particular, we need to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Security Office receives far more than the paltry $10 million it was appropriated for the current fiscal year.
It is also essential to permit those state and local governments which wish to adopt even more stringent protective measures to do so. The regulations issued by the Department are somewhat ambiguous on this point, and so both houses of Congress have endorsed language that preserves the right of state and local governments to "preempt" federal regulations so long as they are not in direct contradiction. This language would permit the Department of Homeland Security to establish a minimum floor for chemical security regulations, but, yielding to the best principles of federalism, allow individual state and local governments to go beyond those minimum regulations where appropriate.
Finally, it is incumbent that our nation takes steps to once and for all ensure that our first responders have reliable access to secure interoperable communications. After 343 firefighters and paramedics gave their lives on 9/11, and countless victims died during Hurricane Katrina, because emergency personnel were unable to communicate with each other, it is unacceptable that we have still failed to establish a nationwide interoperable communications system that will allow local, state, and federal first responders to communicate with each other in a seamless and uniform fashion. For this reason, I am proud to join my distinguished colleague from Arizona in co-sponsoring S. 744, the SAVE LIVES Act of 2007, a bill ensuring that an additional 30 MHz (mega-hertz) in the 700 MHz spectrum band be dedicated to public safety.
The SAVE LIVES Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to auction 30 MHz of the spectrum, which is otherwise scheduled to be made available in January 2008 for general commercial purposes, under a conditional license requiring any winning bidder to meet detailed requirements to operate a national, interoperable public safety broadband network. A commercial provider can use this broadband spectrum for commercial purposes, but must make available the spectrum for public safety purposes whenever it is needed.
I am proud to be the first co-sponsor on this important legislation. I strongly urge the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to take up this bill immediately, because we don't have time to lose. Pursuant to a previous Congressional mandate, the FCC must auction spectrum in the 700 MHz band by January 28, 2008. Unless this bill passes in some form beforehand, all of that spectrum, with a small exception, will be auctioned off to commercial providers, with no requirement that any of it be made available to first responders for public safety purposes.
Secure, interoperable communications is an issue of particular interest to my constituents in the city of Philadelphia. Currently, first responders are unable to use their radios in the tunnels of the city's subway and commuter rail system, SEPTA. The city has applied for DHS grants in past years to wire the tunnels to facilitate communications, but those applications have been rejected. I intend to work with the city and other Members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation to ensure that the fifth largest city in the nation is prepared for any potential emergency in its transit system.
There are a number of other strong policy proposals that I urge this Congress to consider to further strengthen our nation's homeland security. I do not have the time today to discuss them in further detail, but at a minimum, we should take a serious look at the following areas:
Ensuring that we inspect the air cargo transported by passenger airlines to prevent terrorists from planting a bomb in a plane's underbelly;
Strengthening our border security with better technology and additional Customs and Border Patrol agents;
Working with the private sector to develop real incentives for both large corporations and small businesses to adopt common-sense solutions that mitigate the risks of an attack and thus make them less attractive targets to terrorists;
Undertaking a serious and comprehensive approach to locking up sources of nuclear fissile material around the world to prevent our worst nightmare - an improvised nuclear bomb destroying an American city.
Mr. President, all of us remember where we were and what we were doing on September 11th, 2001. The memories of that terrible day will remain with all of us so long as we are alive. Our nation has been blessed that we have not had to endure another attack during the intervening five years, but we recognize that our friends in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East have suffered ghastly attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians and spread terror. The war in Iraq is at the center of our national discussion today, but we cannot allow it to distract us from the objectives the American people set out to achieve in the fall of 2001: destroying Al Qaeda and denying legitimacy to the ideas of jihadist extremism.
It is time to refocus our attention and resources. Al Qaeda may not have mounted another attack against our citizens, but they have tried and are once again on the march. We must rededicate ourselves to a comprehensive strategy that seeks to constrict Al Qaeda's bases of support and undercuts their popular legitimacy in the Muslim world. On the home front, we must ensure that we are adequately prepared to deter and defend against likely attacks that seek to exploit our open society and sow panic and economic damage.
If America truly is engaged in a generational battle against the forces of extremism, our nation must adopt a serious and comprehensive approach to counter-terrorism, both overseas and at home. We owe the victims of 9/11 and their families no less - indeed, we owe the American people no less.
