Safer Under Republicans?

What follows are talking points and sources for dealing with the common perception that America is safer from terrorism if Republicans are in power. I've documented many instances in which Republicans have voted against security measures of all sorts, including port protection, first-responder services and Coast Guard funding. The documentation I present begins around 2002, on up through the current Congress.

The President's fiscal year 2007 cuts $612 million out of
first responder grants and training programs administered by the Preparedness
Directorate. Overall, funding levels for programs designed to assist state and
local law enforcement agencies were slashed by more than $1 billion compared to
fiscal year 2006. Representatives of the National Sheriffs' Association and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police have questioned whether these
cuts demonstrate a lack of commitment to homeland security on the part of the
Administration.

President Bush's FY07 budget "eliminates the port security grant
program, the only source of funds committed to help ports pay for post-9/11
security requirements." And, instead of funds set aside specifically for
ports, the White House "has proposed $600 million in Targeted
Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP) grants, forcing ports to compete with
rail, mass transit, and other critical infrastructure for funding."

Republicans Killed A Vote On An Amendment That Would Have Added $250
Million For Port Security Grants. Republicans killed the vote on the Obey,
D-Wis., amendment that would add $2.5 billion for homeland security, including
$800 million for first responder grants, $250 million for port security grants,
and $150 million for research to develop capabilities against chemical weapons.
[HR 1559, Vote #104, 4/3/03] NOTE: Every Republican present voted to kill this
amendment. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll104.xml

Republicans Voted Against $400 million Increase in Port Security. In
2005, Republicans voted against an alternative Homeland Security Authorization
proposal that would commit $41 billion to securing the nation from terrorist
threats – $6.9 billion more than the President's budget. The proposal called
for an additional $400 million in funding for port security, including $13
million to double the number of new overseas port inspectors provided for in
the President's budget. The proposal addressed the holes in securing the
nation's ports by requiring DHS to develop container security standards,
integrate container security pilot projects, and examine ways to integrate
container inspection equipment and data. [HR 1817, Roll Call #187,
5/18/05] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll187.xml

On March 16^th, 2006, the House of Representatives
narrowly defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would
have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and
disaster preparedness. The Sabo
amendment included:

– $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to
inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship
directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.
– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.
– $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for
the Gulf Coast.

Meanwhile, the Bush budget – which most of the members who voted against this
bill will likely support – contains an increase of $1.7
billion for missile defense, a program that doesn’t even work. Congress also defeated an amendment
by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to provide an additional $965 million for port
security, a $5 billion amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) for
emergency responder communications equipment, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman's
(D-CT) $8 billion amendment for homeland security programs.

Seventy-five percent of our ports do not have the ability to screen
a
container for dirty bombs or nuclear weapons. But, President Bush
"requested only $157 million for radiation portal monitors, which means
U.S. seaports will not have the ability to screen containers for
nuclear weapons."

Finally, the President's FY07 budget requested $934 million for the Coast
Guard's Deepwater program, which delays by twenty-five years the overhaul of
the Coast Guard's cutters and aircraft, which are used to patrol and protect
our ports and coastline.

In 2005, Senate Republicans voted against an amendment to the FY 2006 Budget
Resolution to provide an additional $855 million in homeland security funding,
including $150 million for port security grants. [Vote 64, 3/17/05]

In 2004, Senate Republicans voted against an amendment to the FY
2005
Homeland Security Appropriations bill to provide an additional $150
million to
develop equipment to detect nuclear weapons hidden in containers
entering U.S. ports. [Vote 166, 9/8/04, Associated Press, 9/10/04]

In 2003, Senate Republicans voted against an amendment to the FY 2004
Homeland Security Appropriations bill to increase funding for port and maritime
security grants by $100 million and funding for Coast Guard operations and
security by $42 million. [Vote 300, 7/24/03]

In 2003, Senate Republicans voted against an amendment to the FY 2004
Homeland Security Appropriations bill to increase overall homeland security
spending by $1.75 billion, including $238.5 million for port and border
security. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) said, "The Transportation Security
Administration received over $1 billion of applications from the ports for the
limited funding that was approved by Congress last year." [Vote 291,
7/22/03; Congressional Record, 7/22/03]

In April, 2002, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham sent a letter to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, requesting a budget increase.
The money was for guarding nuclear weapons, weapons materials and radioactive
waste and was part of a $27.1 billion emergency spending bill before Congress.
Additional funds were needed for:

· Equipment
to detect explosives in packages and vehicles entering Energy Department sites
($12 million)

· Better
perimeter barriers and fences ($13 million)

· Improvements
in Energy Department computers, including “firewalls” and intrusion detection
equipment and increasing the ability to communicate “critical cyber threat and
incident information” ($30 million).

· A
reduction in the number of places where bomb-grade plutonium and uranium was
stored. ($42 Million).

In November, 2002, Stephen E. Flynn, Retired Commander,
speaking on behalf of the Council of Foreign Relations, he brought a request
that Congress “Fund, equip, and train National Guard units around the country
to ensure they can support the new state homeland security plans under
development by each governor. Also, triple the number of National Guard Weapons
of Mass Destruction Support Teams from twenty-two to sixty-six.”

And then there’s America’s ports. “.
. . the Customs Service has created the Container Security Initiative,
a program to screen containers at foreign ports before they are loaded
onto ships. Such a program is extremely promising . .
.”

So how’d Bush respond?

That post-9/11 budget requests? Bush met with House
Appropriations Committee members and said, “… I want to make it clear
that if Congress appropriates one dollar more than we have requested, I
will veto the bill.”
The DOE request for more funding to protect weapons and
nuclear materials? Turned down.
The Council on Foreign Relations request for funds to beef
up the Coast Guard? Denied.
The proposal to increase port security? Unfunded.

When pressed on the issue of security funding, the
administration gets quite testy. Said White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels
in said. “There is not enough money in the galaxy to protect every
square inch of America and every American against every conceivable threat that every hateful fanatic in the world might conjure up.”

Concluded a report by the Brookings Institute: “President Bush vetoed
several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress
that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the
country remains more vulnerable than it should be today.”

After 9/11, Bush repeatedly posed with firefighters, praised
their heroism, and promised first responders (police, fire and emergency
medical personnel) the funding they needed for adequate equipment and staffing.
But he vetoed a bill that included $340 million for equipping fire departments
across the country. That same month Bush promised $3.5 billion to help states
equip and train first responders. $2.7 billion of these “new” funds, it turned
out, were merely being shifted from existing homeland security programs.
According to Congressional Quarterly, “the Bush plan for funding new responders
amounts to double-entry bookkeeping.”

Soon after 9/11, a Brookings Institute study and
the General
Accounting Office reported that the United states contains 12,000
chemical facilities, and about 193 handle toxic chemicals that, if
released, could each potentially threaten one million people. The study
maintained, “These chemical facilities are not
adequately protected against terrorist attack.” The EPA tried to
establish
regulations to bolster security, but were rebuffed by Bush
Administration,
which was busy preparing legislation authored by the chemical industry
trade
groups shielding them from strict compliance measures.

The
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review investigated sixty chemical
plants and found a pattern of lax security. At a plant in New Jersey
where an incident could endanger more than 7 million people, gates were
left open and unguarded and there was almost no security at all.
Prompted by such reports, the Senate Committee on the Environment
and Public Works approved by 19 to 0 a bill toughening security
standards at
chemical plants, which Al Qaeda was known to have studied. The chemical
industry lobbied against it, Bush refused to intervene, and the Bill
died in
congress.

When the GOP subsequently took control of Congress in 2003,
Bush demanded they cut $10 billion from previously approved spending levels to
meet his budget, forcing deep cuts in homeland security programs. The
Congressional Quarterly observed, “. . . the future of homeland security is
going to be fights over every penny, whether it is radios that allow New York
City police and fire departments to talk to each other or radiation detectors
for ocean shipping containers in Long Beach, Calif.”

As terror warnings were raised, then lowered, then raised
again, key agencies complained they lacked means for a response. Years ago,
Congress mandated bomb-detecting machines in most airports, but a recent Wall
Street Journal inquiry found that only 190 out of 1,290 required machines were
in place.

Stephen E. Flynn, who earlier testified before Congress
regarding national security deficiencies, compiled his findings in a book, America The Vulnerable.
The forward reads, “Despite increased awareness, we still offer our
enemies a vast menu of soft targets . . . The measures we have cobbled
together to protect these vital systems are
hardly fit to deter amateur thieves, vandals, and smugglers, let alone
determined terrorists”

The White House prefers free-market solutions: Bush’s National
Strategy for Homeland Security document reads as follows:

“To achieve [security goals] we must
carefully weigh the benefit of each homeland security endeavor and only
allocate resources where the benefit of reducing risk is worth the amount of
additional cost.” The administration finds that for many security activities
such as protecting large buildings and public venues, “sufficient incentives
exist in the private market to supply protection.”

The report goes on to slam regulation, claiming that the
private sector’s sense of civic duty can be counted on to pony up for security
measures. Hmmm. Applying a rigid cost-benefit analysis to public spending on
homeland security? I doubt most Americans see the issue through that prism.

The Brookings Report quoted earlier noted, “. . . because of
the administration’s ideological resistance to government action, the Federal
government made little or no progress in guiding private-sector firms–even
ones that handle dangerous materials–toward improving their own security.”

A recent independent task force sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations declared, “The United States remains dangerously ill-prepared
to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil.” It noted that fire
departments across the country were still short on radios, breathing
equipment, and police departments lacked protective gear needed to secure a site
following an attack. That same month, amid new warnings of possible Al Qaeda
suicide hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration announced it
wanted to cut $104 million from the air marshal program to help offset a budget
shortfall.

The Sept. 11 commission said that screening travelers for
explosives was a reform that was “needed soon,” but the Bush administration is
reluctant to increase the $5-billion annual aviation security budget by the
necessary hundreds of millions of dollars, officials said. Rep Peter A. DeFazio
(D-Ore), Chair of the House Aviation Panel claimed the agency and the Bush
administration were “in denial on this issue.” Said DeFazio “They have no
intention of quickly deploying bomb detection equipment to screen passengers
and carry-on bags. . .”

Sources

The most important thing is to find Osama bin Laden. http://www.hibbingmn.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=4&story_id=180764

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12889667&BRD=1601&PAG=461&dept_id=477736&rfi=6

“Our government will take every possible measure to
safeguard our country and our people.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/homelandsecurity.html

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/us021126.html

“We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of
September the 11th. My administration will continue to act on the lessons we”ve
learned so far to better protect the people of this country. It”s our most solemn
duty.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2002/11/sec-021127-whitehouse01.htm

who would “have the full attention and complete support of
the very highest levels of our government.”

http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/09/a06-314266.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1590984.stm

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham sent a letter to the
Director of. . .

http://www.nci.org/02/04f/23-10.htm
White House Cut 93% of Funds . . .

Matthew Wald New York Times, April 22 2002

Fund, equip, and train National Guard units around the
country to ensure they can support the new state homeland security plans. . .

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5100.xml

“. . . the Customs Service has created the Container
Security Initiative, a program to screen containers. . .”

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/bushdhs.pdf

Lieberman”s demand for an extra $16 billion per year for
homeland security . . .

http://govt-aff.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&PressRelease_id=234&Month=5&Year=2003

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp108&r_n=sr225.108&sel=TOC_101857&

“… I want to make it clear that if Congress appropriates
one dollar more than we have requested, I will veto the bill.”

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/hsspeech.htm

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030310&s=chait031003

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/000666.html

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1101/113001cdpm1.htm

President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively
cost-effective) . . .

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/daalder/20030101.htm

“There”s a new sheriff in town, and he”s dedicated to fiscal
discipline.”

http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/arch02/arch020033.html

“These chemical facilities are not
adequately protected against terrorist
attack.”

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/projects/homeland/newpreface.pdf
(PDF FILE)

. . . by the Council on Foreign Relations declared, “The
United States remains dangerously ill-prepared. . .

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030922&s=corn

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0709/p09s01-cojh.html

Transportation Security Administration announced it wanted
to cut $104 million from the . . .

http://www.ohiostategrange.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=1702&page_id=106

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/bushpresser/
scroll down to “…what we can do is we can be — obviously at home, continue
to be diligent on the inspection process. . . “

. . . . both
Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee wanted to add $8 billion to the budget . . .

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1101/113001cdpm1.htm

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/hsspeech.htm

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030310&s=chait031003

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/000666.html

“America the Vulnerable”

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0060571284-2

. . . but Bush turned down a request for $52 million to hire
more agents . . .

http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/rnews/04/q3/r3/r3n301.cfm

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/bushdhs.pdf

vetoed a bill that included $340 million for equipping fire
departments . . .

http://www.steveransom.com/BushBites.cfm?ID=6

http://www.literalpolitics.com/BushWeek/bushweekaug02.htm
scroll down to “Vetoing the Firemen and the Farmers.”

“. . . the Bush plan for funding new responders amounts to
double-entry bookkeeping.”

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/bushdhs.pdf

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review investigated sixty chemical plants
and found a pattern of lax security. http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030909.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31530.pdf
A PDF file. See page 15.

Wall Street Journal inquiry found that only 190 out of 1,290
required . . .

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/ter/2002/pd011602c.html

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/05/25/thanksfo.html

January 16, 2002, The Wall Street Journal, ”Airport
Bomb Detection Faces Big Hurdles”

. . . the future of homeland security is going to be fights
over every penny. . .

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/000666.html
by Jonathan Chait (originally published by The New Republic – 3/10/03)

To achieve [security goals] we must carefully weigh the
benefit of each. . .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect5.pdf
A PDF file.

“so many have fallen out of regulatory control that . . . a
radiological attack appears to be all but certain within the coming years.”

“Experts Say “Dirty Bomb” Attack Likely” June 19^th,
2004 CHARLES J. HANLEY, Associated Press http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0604/154063.html

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0604/154063.html