Speeches & Columns - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York

July 12, 2006

Remarks on the Senate Floor of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Homeland Security Funding

Click here to watch video of Senator Clinton's remarks.

Mr. President, nearly five years ago, as we all remember, on September 11, 2001, terrorists murdered 2,819 Americans, including 2,752 in New York, 343 firefighters and paramedics and 60 police officers lost their lives -- the single-deadliest attack on American soil in our history.

Mr. President, we are here debating how much money our country is ready, willing, and able to spend to protect our homeland. And what is clear -- what has been clear -- is that the threat posed by terrorism requires a great mobilization of American might, muscle, resources, and ingenuity. Mr. President, I do not believe that mobilization has yet occurred.

Just in last December, the 9/11 Commission -- a bipartisan commission -- reported that we should get failing grades for how we're responding to the challenges of homeland security. Governor Tom Kean said when it comes to protecting America, it's not a priority for the government right now.

Mr. President, the urgency may have faded, but the threat has not. We only need to look at the news and see what happened in Mumbai, India, yesterday, to be reminded that terrorists strike anywhere, anytime at innocent people.

There are many problems with the strategy or lack thereof that we have been pursuing on behalf of homeland security. And I regret that we have not done more, we haven't had a comprehensive strategy, we haven't put the money to work in smart, effective ways. And we have witnessed dangerous incompetence with respect to the failed response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Now, we've got a lot of tough talk, but I would take tough action any time. We've got a lot of rhetoric, but I would take resources. We've had campaign slogans, but I'd rather have real security.

What has been the number one recommendation by every independent group, every expert who has analyzed the threats we face and the challenges we confront when it comes to homeland security? Threat-based funding. That was one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Sadly, all too often funding decisions have been based on politics as usual.

I've been championing threat-based funding ever since 9/11. I introduced the Homeland Security Block Grant bill as well as the Domestic Defense Fund Act, both of which provided direct and threat-based homeland security funding to our communities and our first responders. I have personally made the case for threat-based funding to Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Ridge before him. Even funds supposedly distributed based on risk have been administered incompetently.

We just saw an Inspector General's report from the Department of Homeland Security listing all of the alleged threats around the country, and with all due respect, you can read that list and it just causes your head to shake in bewilderment.

In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced its 2006 homeland security grants. Cities and states facing high terrorist threats suffered considerable funding cuts, a decision that can be largely attributed to a series of highly questionable risk assessments.

New York City and Washington, DC remain at the top of any intelligence that we get with respect to threats, and yet they were given drastic reductions. Funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative alone was slashed in New York City by more than 40 percent and in Washington, DC by 43 percent.

New York State has been struggling since 9/11 to come up with a comprehensive state plan and has been trying to scrape together funds to make up for what are shortfalls from the federal government.

Well, today I'm joining my colleague, Senator Mikulski, my partner, Senator Schumer, in introducing an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill to restore the Homeland Security Grant Program funding. This amendment provides an additional $790 million in homeland security funds so that next year's levels of funding will match those of 2005. That's all this asks for: bring back the funding to what it was two years ago.

You know, we've already heard eloquent statements on the floor about port security. We've already heard about how difficult it is to get the kind of inspections and screening we need at our ports. That's why I cosponsored Senator Byrd's port security amendment, and I'm delighted that it actually passed by unanimous consent. I only hope that we will fight for that when this goes to conference and that the administration will listen and support this extra funding for port security.

We're still fighting for border security. We know that we haven't done enough. We've had weeks of debate about immigration that are really about border security. What are we going to do to keep our borders secure? Well, not enough. Under this administration, despite the 9/11 attacks, our borders have become less secure.

According to a May 2006 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the US Border Patrol grew at a faster rate and apprehended more undocumented immigrants each year under President Clinton than it has under President Bush.

Now, we have the technology and the tools. Americans are certainly telling us they want us to make our borders secure. So let's get serious. Let's employ new surveillance equipment like detection sensors, unmanned drones and infrared cameras. Let's enlist and deploy the manpower we need.

We just voted, unfortunately unsuccessfully, about putting more money into securing our mass transit systems, our roads, our rails, our tunnels. We know how important that is. I cosponsored Senator Biden's rail security amendment which would have provided an additional $1.1 billion to enhance rail security, upgrade tunnels, provide for more Amtrak police, but it failed.

Today I'm joining Senator Schumer in introducing an amendment to provide an additional $300 million for transit security nationwide. I hope it succeeds. Anybody who rides mass transit should know we're doing everything we possibly can to take care of and eliminate the vulnerabilities that our mass transit systems have.

Mr. President, beyond our financial investments we also need new strategies and creative ideas. We have been talking about an interoperable communication system since 9/11. The 9/11 Commission recognized the essential, critical nature of such a system, but year after year we don't do it. We bring amendments to the floor. We make speeches. It doesn't happen.

In May of this year, I introduced legislation to set up a federal interoperable communications and safety system, to create a national emergency communications strategy, to make sure that when police and fire departments respond they can talk to each other. When the federal government sends help through the Coast Guard or the military or FEMA, they can talk to each other and they can talk to state and local officials as well.

I've also been fighting for several years to make sure we had a nationwide emergency 911 system so that if you call from a cell phone people will know where you are. Can you imagine being caught in a terrorist attacked or a natural disaster calling for people and people can't hear you, can't know where you are, can't send help to you? Happens all the time. I was at an event this morning where an emergency response director played two horrifying calls that went unanswered in one case and a late answer in another because the cell phone couldn't be tracked.

Mr. President, we have a lot to do. You know, we can just stand here and list the problems. It's not just all about terrorism. Are we truly ready for a pandemic flu? Do we have adequate security at our chemical and nuclear facilities? Are we prepared for a potential of a dirty bomb attack in a major population center?

You know, I was encouraged that legislation I authored to create a national system to track radiological materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb was finally passed. I thought okay, great, can I check that off my worry list which is a pretty long list being a senator from New York. Then I find out the administration announced instead of a national plan, which was the whole idea behind tracking radiological materials, they wanted to have a stay-by-state approach.

Mr. President, in a nutshell that’s what’s wrong. This is a national problem. The attacks of 9/11 may have happened in Washington, New York, in a field in Pennsylvania. It was an attack on America, on every single American, on our values, on our freedom. I don't think we want state-by-state responses. Do you think terrorists will stop at a state border or a county border? I don't.

Mr. President, we've got to restore confidence and competence as we approach this problem of homeland security. We have made some progress but not near enough. And sadly, I think we've put different priorities ahead of securing our country. I regret that and I hope we make amends. I hope we get back on the right track with a comprehensive plan, the right strategies and the appropriation we need and with the distribution of those taxpayer dollars in a smart and effective manner, not politics as usual.


###

Home News Contact About Services Issues New York