Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
on the Creation of a Department of Homeland Security
November 19, 2002
printer version

Washington, DC - Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - Calif) today voted in favor of creating a Department of Homeland Security - the largest restructuring of the federal government in over half a century. She cited the continuing threat posed by terrorists as the primary reason for her vote, while also outlining her reservations with the bill, particularly in terms of insufficient port security and the protection of unaccompanied alien children. The complete text of her speech follows:

"Mr. President, today I voted for the Thompson substitute amendment to the Homeland Security Act - the largest restructuring of the federal government in over fifty years and perhaps the most important legislation considered in this Congress. This historic legislation would create a new department combining some 22 federal agencies with what would amount to about 200,000 federal employees. The bill would create one of the biggest departments in the U.S. government, with an initial annual budget of at least $37 billion. I voted for this legislation because our current terrorism policy is terrible disjointed and fragmented. I have long supported additional efforts to consolidate and coordinate our terrorism policy.

Currently, homeland security functions are scattered among more than 100 different government organizations. There is much unnecessary overlap and duplication. There is also a failure to communicate and share information-making it hard to for the law enforcement and intelligence community to "connect the dots" to prevent a terrorist attack. I also voted for the bill because I believe our country is currently at great risk. Terrorists are doing all they can to launch a catastrophic attack on our homeland. The status quo is simply unacceptable. For example, just last week, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on a new report from released by Senators Hart and Rudman.

Their report is chilling - and its conclusion disturbing. It reads: "A year after September 11^th, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy."

Mr. President, the creation of a Homeland Security Department is critical to our efforts to try to prevent another devastating terrorist attack against us. Now, for the first time in our history, this Nation will have one federal agency charged with the primary mission of preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability of the U.S. to terrorism at home, and minimizing damage and assisting in the recovery from any attacks that may occur.

The new department will have four major divisions: border transportation and security, emergency preparedness and response, science and technology, and information analysis and infrastructure protection. The border directorate will include a number of key homeland security agencies, including Customs and the Transportation Security Agency.

The emergency preparedness directorate will include FEMA and some other smaller response agencies. The science directorate will include a number of programs and activities of the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and some agencies.

The information analysis directorate will synthesize and analyze homeland security information from intelligence and law enforcement agencies throughout the government. This crucial division will identify and assess terrorist threats and vulnerabilities, issues warnings, and act to prevent terrorist acts against critical infrastructure such as bridges, dams, and electric power grids.

Other agencies such as the Coast Guard and Secret Service will be moved to the new department, and there will be an office to coordinate with state and local governments. The legislation also creates a Homeland Security Council in White House to coordinate the domestic response to terrorist threats.

I am very pleased that this legislation does not neglect state and local law enforcement and first responders. No homeland security solution can be just federal. The reality is the 650,000 state and local law enforcement officers are additional eyes and ears in the war on terrorism. They cannot operate deaf, dumb, and blind. Moreover, in the event of a terrorist attack, the first people on the scene will be local firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guardsmen, and other people in the local community. They need proper information, organization, training, and equipment. Thus, I am pleased that this legislation includes a measure I introduced to increase state and local access to federally collected terrorism information.

This legislation directs the President to establish procedures for sharing homeland security information with state and local officials, ensures that our current information sharing systems and computers are capable of sharing such information, and increases communications between government officials.

The bill also includes a broad exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for cybercrime and cyberterrorism information. This exemption will encourage the private companies that operate over 85 percent of our critical infrastructure to share information about computer break-ins with law enforcement-so criminals and terrorists can be stopped before they strike again and severely punished. I have long advocated for such an exemption, and am pleased that it ended up in the final bill.

While I strongly support the creation of a Homeland Security Department, I am disappointed that the bill we passed today includes a number of extraneous special interest provisions and lacks language to ensure appropriate oversight and transparency.

In addition, there is nothing in this legislation addressing what is perhaps the most pressing homeland security problem we face today: the vulnerability of our ports to terrorism. The issue of port security was left to separate legislation that was passed last Thursday. In my view, that legislation does not go far enough. I believe that Congress needs to return to this issue next year and pass more comprehensive legislation.

The Hart-Rudman Independent Terrorism Task Force, for example, recently issued a report describing major holes in the security of our ports and endorsed such a comprehensive, layered approach. This new comprehensive legislation would be based on S. 2895, the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002, which I introduced last summer with Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe.

The Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002 is the result of hearings we have had in the Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as my testimony two years ago to the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. The main section in the bill would create a Container Profiling Plan that would focus our nation's limited inspection resources on high-risk cargo.

In addition, the bill also contains provisions requiring

Unfortunately, we were not able to get much of this Bill included in the conference legislation that passed last week. Indeed, the Conference Bill even omits a number of security provisions included in S. 1214 as it passed the Senate.

That is why, in my view, we will need to revisit this issue early in the 108^th Congress. I plan to work with my colleagues to fine-tune my legislation and reintroduce it. I hope that my colleagues will support it. I am also disappointed with this bill because it does not contain the entire "Unaccompanied Child Protection Act," bipartisan legislation I introduced at the beginning of this Congress and that was included as Title XII of the Lieberman substitute to H.R. 5005.

I have spoken on this issue in some detail already, but feel compelled to reiterate a few points. Last year, over 5300 children came to this country unaccompanied by a parent or guardian and were held by the INS, many of them in detention facilities. These children have no rights. Many of them can't speak English, they can be detained for years, they have no resort to counsel, and they don't understand the process.

We all remember the Elian Gonzalez case. Every year, there are thousands of Elians. But unlike Elian, these children have NO family members to help them navigate the immigration process. They are completely at the mercy of a complex bureaucratic and legal system they cannot begin to understand.

The good news is that this bill transfers authority over the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children from the INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services.The bad news is that almost all the "help" provisions for these children are left out. This bill is lacking because it does not provide either for a guardian ad litem, or pro bono legal assistance.

This is insufficient, and it is my full intention to reintroduce legislation in the next session to redress this, and to include pro bono counsel and guardian ad litem provisions. Protecting children, on the one hand, must not prevent us from devising an immigration policy that protects us from those that would do America harm. We do not want to burden the Secretary of Homeland Security with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The Department will have a daunting mission as it is, and must never lose that focus.

Two positive steps regarding immigration include the transfer of the visa issuance process from the State Department to the Department of Homeland Security, thereby giving it the regulatory and oversight authority over issuances and denials.

It also prohibits third-party visa processing, referred to as "Visa Express", to ensure closer scrutiny of visa applications and to preserve the integrity of the visa issuance process. These reforms are essential. Overall, while this legislation's shortcomings cause me serious concern, I believe that they pale in comparison to the dangers facing America, both immediately and in the long-term, at home and abroad.

The terrorist threat to the United States is far too real, and in our freedom-loving country we must now do everything we can to protect our people. And this, after all, is the federal government's paramount task - protecting our citizens. Further delay in creating a Department of Homeland Security would only leave us increasingly vulnerable - and this is something we simply cannot afford. Thank you."

###