Newsroom
Floor Statements
|
|
|
Print this page |
“Nuclear Terrorism: Protecting the Homeland”
March 15, 2005
Opening Statement of Representative John Linder, Chairman
I would like to welcome our distinguished panel today who, I hope, will help us to better understand the current threat of nuclear terrorism and what steps have been and should be taken to prevent a nuclear attack against the United States.
The prevention of a nuclear terrorist event is of the utmost importance to the security and economic well-being of our nation. Should our country need to respond to such an attack, we have all failed the American people.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the government’s efforts to identify and develop countermeasures to radiological and nuclear terrorist threats. It is obvious, however, that the full task of protecting America against nuclear terrorism is not just centered in the Department of Homeland Security, but is shared by several organizations, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Justice, and State. What is not clear is that with the numerous efforts in nuclear nonproliferation, border protection, and response, how these efforts are being coordinated, let alone who is in charge? These are just some of the many answers we will seek from today’s panel of witnesses. Their charge today is to help us understand the roles and responsibilities of the principle partners and suggestions to better mitigate the nuclear threat.
The President’s FY2006 budget has requested $227 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), which was recently placed by Secretary Chertoff as a “high priority” within his office.
Missions of the new office include:
1. Detecting and preventing attempts to import or use nuclear or radiological materials.
2. Working with Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector to coordinate domestic nuclear detection.
3. Developing and deploying detection equipment at ports of entry, transportation routes, critical infrastructure and in urban environments.
4. And the White House’s fact sheet on DNDO states, “through [this office], our overseas and domestic programs to defeat nuclear terrorism will work together to contribute to the nation’s global nuclear defense.”
Clearly, protecting the Nation involves a multi-faceted approach that begins with efforts overseas to reduce the inventory of nuclear weapons/material and secure them to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists, which is, in part, managed by Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The Department of Energy is also responsible for securing those materials via the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Similarly, nonproliferation efforts are also managed by the State Department’s Proliferation Security Initiative.
Protecting our borders is another facet of preventing nuclear terrorism. Currently overseas efforts to screen cargo for nuclear material are managed by the DOE through its Megaports program. DHS has also led the effort to place radiation monitors at this nation’s most vulnerable points of entry.
Given the intent of terrorists, the accessibility of nuclear material, and the unlimited ways in which terrorists could smuggle a weapon or nuclear material through American borders, a nuclear terrorist attack is highly conceivable, and I intend to see to it that this subcommittee takes this threat very seriously and pays close attention to how DHS and other responsible departments are working constructively toward measurable actions to prevent a nuclear incident in an American city.
Ultimately, it will fall on this government to overlook the usual bureaucratic barriers and turf battles between competing Federal agencies in the area of homeland security. If it fails on that front, it will, in the end, fail in its primary responsibility, which is to protect the people of this country. As such, we all owe it to the American public to work together and mitigate this threat as effectively as possible.
|
||||