| Homeland Security |
|
It is evident that fighting terrorism requires different tactics than fighting crime. For example, consider what would have happened had we known about the impending attacks on September 11. After picking up the hijackers at the airports, we wouldn't be able to charge them with any crime. Box cutters and their activities were legal on planes at the time. The truth is that they'd have been free the same day, and lawyers and civil rights advocates would have lined up to claim that the authorities' actions amounted to racial profiling and discrimination. It was, in part, concern about these kinds of charges that discouraged the FBI from acting on tips it had about Arabs plotting at our flight schools. The challenge is reaching the right balance between protecting civil rights and protecting against terrorism. Creating a new Department of Homeland Security, however, was no silver bullet. The key is effort and ability. Without increasing flexibility, leadership from the Administration, and the effort of workers, the new department could continue in the old ways of doing business and get caught up in the same old rivalries that have prevented their full effectiveness in the past. Success cannot be achieved with a new organizational chart; it depends on the cultivation of a spirit of cooperation and vigilance. The challenge was to quickly increase coordination and effectiveness to help ensure greater homeland security. All of this activity on the war is encouraging. The Administration is making steady progress to ensure our security at home and abroad. One of the problems will be to keep our allies in the fight with us. I'm concerned that enormous amounts of effort and dollars will be diverted for fundamentally unproductive purposes as we try to protect ourselves against terrorism. There are hoards of lobbyists clamoring at the gates trying to show that funding for their special interests will help ensure security. The challenge is to minimize waste while protecting both liberty and security. Congress and the President will play an important role as we move forward.
Of course, we cannot win the war through homeland defense alone; we must carry the war to its foreign
sources, including I offered an amendment to emphasize one important point - our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. The
Iraqi people had little to do with any of the decisions leading us into this conflict. The aggression and
buildup of weapons have happened because the Iraqi government was seized by Saddam Hussein who
has used Iraq's resources and the Iraqi people for his own delusional purposes. In fact, I believe that they
will be our allies against Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Afghan people were our allies against the
Taliban.
Allowing the use of force was a difficult decision. However, all of the briefings and study make it clear to me that Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty and power hungry bully who hates America. It
has been said that an attack on Iraq could hurt us. That is true. But it seems obvious that doing nothing and allowing the Iraqi dictator to grow more powerful and obtain weapons of mass destruction will hurt us
more if we choose not to intervene. I am pleased to see that the United Nations Security Council has approved a resolution allowing for increased weapons inspection in Iraq.
More Information: For more on my thoughts and comments on Homeland Security and International Relations, please see my:
|
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was intended to reverse decades of neglect of our homeland security and finally bring
together, under one chain of command and with one common purpose, close to 100 government agencies
responsible in some way for homeland security. With strong leadership and help from government
workers, this should vastly improve cooperation and coordination among our intelligence, security and
emergency response agencies, helping us learn about and prevent future attacks.
During the debate on the bill that created the department, it was important for me to meet with Bush Administration
officials, including Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, and Office
of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, about their plans. The Bush Administration
was clearly on the right track, but Congress needed to take a hard
look at how this new department would be organized. 
Iraq. As Michigan's only member of the House International Relations Committee, I met with Secretary of State Colin Powell and former CIA Director James
Woolsey who testified to our committee that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is a real and dangerous threat to the world.
On October 3, 2002, our committee reported out House Joint Resolution 114, which authorized the President to use
force in Iraq if necessary. The resolution was passed by both the House and Senate. I supported it in committee and voted for final passage because it
appropriately addresses the serious and continuing threat from Iraq to our national security. Before the vote, I met with CIA Director George Tennant and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice at
the White House to get answers to some of my remaining questions. They related classified information
about Saddam Hussein's buildup of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons as well as the
technology and equipment to deliver those weapons.