The Provide for the Common Defense Act (Hillary speech)

clinton.senate.gov ^

[chance33_98]

The Provide for the Common Defense Act does four main things:

• First, it establishes a Public-Private Security Task Force, within the Department of Homeland Security, that would work with industry leaders and security experts to help develop minimum security standards for certain industry sectors to follow. I know that many industries have already voluntarily taken on this task, and we need to learn from them. Those that make up our nation's critical infrastructure including telecommunications, energy, banking, finance, and transportation, would have one year to develop adequate standards on a voluntary basis. If they do not, the federal government would assume that responsibility.

  For example, I have already introduced legislation to strengthen security at our nation's nuclear power plants and chemical plants. Because when it comes to security, it is in everyone's interest, owners and operators included, to secure our nation's critical infrastructure. But while it is in everyone's interest, at the end of the day, it is the federal government's responsibility, to make sure standards are set and maintained.

• Second, the Provide for the Common Defense Act moves America beyond the Cold War era when it comes to research and development. Of the federal government's investment in combating terrorism, only five percent of those resources have been dedicated to research and development. And we know that our investment in non-military, non-health related R and D has decreased by .02 percent since September 11. This bill ensures that there is a "Counter-terror Technology Fund," a central dedicated funding source for major new investments in promising technology.

• Third, this bill provides extra attention to our most vulnerable regions. As we in New York know all too well, certain places are more appealing targets because of the American values they represent or because they are densely populated. The Homeland Security Act provided a coordinator for the Washington, DC metropolitan region but not for the New York metropolitan region. Senator Schumer and I believe that we need this office and that we can correct this inconsistency by providing a coordinator for the tri-state area and requiring vulnerability assessments of our nation's ten most populated metropolitan regions.

  Similarly, this legislation aims to correct the disparity in attention paid to our northern and southern borders. According to a July, 2001 report from the Justice Department, only 4 percent of border patrol agents work along the U.S.-Canadian border-that means 96 percent of the agents patrol the southern boarder. While there have been some improvements, they are not enough, so I believe we need to designate a northern border coordinator within the Homeland Security Department.

• Fourth and finally, we need to create more than a department, we need to create a deterrent. We want to show the terrorists that if they attack, we're prepared. We will not be caught off guard. We want to send a message that while they might break our hearts by taking away our loved ones, they will not break our spirit and take away the lives we lead as Americans. We can do this by filling some of the major gaps left by September 11th, like tracking the health of the first soldiers in this new war who lived and worked and volunteered at Ground Zero and coordinating our relief services in a national 2-1-1 line. So, in taking the broad and long view of homeland security, the Provide for the Common Defense Act establishes a Public-Private Task Force to develop minimum security standards, sets the stage for progress and investment with a Counter-Terror Technology Fund, pays special attention to our most vulnerable regions, and aims to deter future attacks.

  By providing for our common defense, we make a common commitment as a nation, as leaders, and as private citizens to do all that we can to make September 11th the only day of infamy for this generation.

  The good news is there is no shortage of ideas to improve our domestic defense. The bad news is that few of these ideas have become the law of the land. And that's a dangerous thing. Because rhetoric won't stop the spread of anthrax or smallpox. Rhetoric won't help the Coast Guard track ships that are carrying dangerous cargo. Rhetoric won't secure our chemical and nuclear power plants. We need to put our best ideas into practice and back them with resources.

  Unfortunately, the main idea to come out of the Administration in recent weeks is to eliminate the tax on dividends - at a cost of $364 billion. Will ending the dividend tax make air travel safer? Will it secure our nuclear power plants? Will it keep a dirty bomb out of New York harbor?

  Will ending the tax on dividends save one police officer or firefighter his or her job?

  In short, will it make America safer, more secure?

  Of course, the answer is no.

  Around the world, terrorist attacks continue. More than 200 people died in the Bali bombings. American servicemen were killed in Kuwait. Al Qaeda blew up a French destroyer in Yemen. A car bomb in Kenya killed 14 tourists, and a shoulder-launched missile by the grace of God missed a plane carrying more than 200 people to Israel. It is very possible that Osama Bin Laden is alive, and that al Qaeda and even other organizations are plotting all the while.

  We cannot secure our nation without a renewed focus and vigilance like we had in those weeks and months after that tragic day in September. Even though some of the flags have come down from windows and no longer wave on front lawns, I still believe that the American people are prepared to make sacrifices, if need be, to secure our nation. They are patriots and I believe that if they are asked, they too will answer the call.

  Now is the time to adjust our attitude, our focus, our policies, and our resources to fit our new reality. Now is the time to Provide for our Common Defense. And we need only look to our nation's own history to see how this can be done.

  Next week, Americans will gather around their televisions to listen to President Bush's State of the Union address. On February 23, 1942, Americans gathered around their radios to listen to President Roosevelt's call to arms and for the nation to sacrifice for the greater good. He said, "Never before have we been called upon for such a prodigious effort. Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much." Those words are as true today as they were then, and we ignore their wisdom at our own peril.

[chance33_98]

I still believe that the American people are prepared to make sacrifices, if need be, to secure our nation.

Yes indeed, sacrifice the vote you would normally give to a democrat and use it for Bush. Or if you're a dem and find that too great a sacrifice, then just vote for nader.

[Sacajaweau]

Tell Hillary we sacrificed our Pride in our leadership for 8 years and that's more than anyone should have to give.

Stop telling us that You Know Best and that You speak for us and that you need more money.

[Sacajaweau]

Would someone remind Hitlery that her husband had a chance to get Usama and he poo-pooed it.

[CPOSharky]

Silly me. I thought that "provide for the common defense" meant a strong military. Something the demoncrats definately do not want.

BTW What happend to all the predicted terrorist attacks if we went to Iraq? Is it possible that our resolve to use the military scared the crap out of potential terrorists?

Under clintoon we had several attacks and he did nothing. Under W we had one attack and since then we have crushed two regeimes that supported terrorism and had no more attacks.

GET A CLUE, CLINTOON!

[abclily]

This from the person who sold our best technolgy to China while she was acting president for her idiot-savant husband?

[Fantelina]

Seems I read a similar worded missle in Atlas Shrugged.

[F.J. Mitchell]

After reading this, I am convinced that Heelary wrote the scripts for the Baghdad Bob show.

[NYDave]

Let's be specific. It was missile technology from Hughes and Lorel (please forgive me if I misspelled the names). Keep in mind that Hillary has her eyes on the White House. She will be a formidable candidate. I hope the Repubs can come up with someone truly charismatic and qualified in 2008. If not, look to four to eight more years of the Clinton "legacy". God forbid.

[abclily]

Let's be specific. A woman who will not answer questions in public will not be a formidable candidate for anything. Miss Hitlery is not a loved character. She is shallow minded and mean spirited.

[NYDave]

Hillary is capable of raising large amounts of cash. She and her network can also buy elections. I would not count her down and out as a formidable candidate for POTUS in 2008. Remember how she and Bill bought an entire upstate NY town with a Presidential pardon. How was it that certain inner-city areas had 90%+ voter turnouts when Gore was trying to become pres? I agree with your assessment
of HRC, but I wouldn't count her as down and out as a player.

[abclily]

You are correct. She will remain a player or player-wannabe as long as she draws breath. A really bad economy might work for her like it did for Hitler and his takeover of Germany. Miss Hitlery would feed on our national bad luck.