Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today in defense of the $1 million that was allocated in this bill for an emergency operations center in Mount Vernon, NY. Mount Vernon is the eleventh most densely populated city in the United States of America, the eighth largest city in the State of New York, and is located on the immediate border of the largest city in this country, New York City.

Mount Vernon has three Metro-North train stations, which could provide a vital route for citizens exiting New York City in the event of an emergency. Thus, Mount Vernon is a first line of defense and a ``safe haven'' for millions who live and work in New York City.

In order to facilitate a proper and effective response to any emergency incident, Mount Vernon needs an emergency operations center. If, God forbid, another September 11 type incident occurs in New York City, which, as on September 11, compromised the communications system and emergency services in the city, it is imperative that we have a local emergency operations center nearby.

New York City is one of the largest terrorist targets in the country, and it does not make sense to be cutting emergency operations where we could be the most vulnerable. The threat of terrorism has not diminished, and our preparations should not either.

At present, the city of Mount Vernon does not have an emergency operations center for the managing and mitigation of a major incident. At best, the Mount Vernon Police Department's Field Command Center vehicle could coordinate an incident. However, this would greatly hamper police operations and the ability to manage a multiagency incident.

Utilizing an existing city facility would reduce costs associated with the project. This is an example of good government: repurposing an existing building to fulfill a new need and building important infrastructure to protect our citizens in an emergency.

However, if the Federal Government does not fund this emergency center, the local community will have to raise property taxes in order to make the upgrades necessary. Westchester County has some of the highest taxes in the country and should not be forced to pay more in order to provide a resource that benefits the entire region.

Terrorism is not a local problem, it is a national problem. So it is only right that the National Government makes the kinds of investments that can keep our communities safe.

I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

In response to the arguments that were made on the Senate floor, in all due respect I think the judgment of a Senator knowing what is best for their State can usually overcome the judgment of any agency that makes that decision in a grant-making process because they know what are the most important investment needs for their communities, and our voices should be heard. That is why in this instance, it is very important that an earmark of this nature that is directed to protect us from terrorism and create a safe haven for citizens in the judgment and discretion of the Senator from New York is very much needed.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. In response to my colleague, with regard to this particular earmark, New York has only received one earmark for $1 million. In relation to the amount of risk and the necessity for an emergency response center, the need is great. Our judgment, as Senators from New York, as to what is the best investment for all of New York in terms of an emergency response investment is helpful to this process. It should not necessarily be left only to a grant process. Much of the money is still available to a grant-making process which is a great process because it does have competition and we hopefully get the greatest good for the greatest need. There is a balance where the judgment of a Senator or a Congress Member is very important in that conversation. The agencies and the administration can make their own judgments. That is why a combination of targeted earmarks on the one hand and other investments through a grant process on the other hand is probably a better balance and approach, because we are getting the judgment of all parts of the three branches of government--at least two of them.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source