The question to me, with the denial of that motion for unanimous consent to take up this very critical legislation for Senate consideration, is: Are we committed to the proposition that the only time we will provide for security for the people of America is after we have been attacked? Will we wait until another equivalent of the use of hijacked airplanes to strike major icons of American commerce and security such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Will we wait until the equivalent of using the mail as a means of distributing anthrax? Will we wait until we are attacked on our railways, in our seaports, through the containers that cover virtually every community in America, before we respond to enhanced security of those areas? It would be a sad commentary if we were so brain dead we had to wait until we had the alarm of an actual use of one of those techniques before we began to be concerned about enhancing our security.
Lindsey Graham: “The question to me, with the denial of that motion for unanimous consent to take up this very critical legislation for…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for enhanced security legislation for seaports after a failed unanimous consent motion.
Share
More from Lindsey Graham
Totally support President Trump’s executive order that will allow alternative therapies to be approved by the FDA to treat mental health issues experienced by our veterans and others. This is a very good decision by President Trump…
I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming.
Momentum and support continues to grow for our legislation to not only protect, but provide recourse to the victims—many of whom are women and children—of nonconsensual, sexual deepfakes. The DEFIANCE Act gives these victims a voice, and I…
I can’t die now. I still need to do the Russia sanctions, get Iran sorted out and do Israeli-Saudi normalization.





