Are we safer?
One of the critical issues that all Democrats will face in the 2006 elections is the assertion that they are too soft on national security issues. It will certainly be an issue in my race, where I am running for Washington's 8th Congressional District against an incumbent, Dave Reichert, who is a former sheriff, and whose entire message last cycle consisted of "I will protect you."
I think that we spend a lot of time allowing the Republicans to ask the wrong questions, and then we attack their answers when we shouldn't cede them the questions in the first place.
They are asking the question: "Are we tough enough to finish what we've started in Iraq?"
The question that needs to be asked is: "Are we safer than we were on September 11, 2001?"
Don't cede them the question. Ask the right one, and then answer it.
The 9/11 Commission gave us a thoughtful bipartisan blueprint for how we could make ourselves safer by learning from what happened on September 11. We have failed - and a large part of that failure rests on the shoulders of my Republican opponent, Dave Reichert.
(more below the fold)
I admit that I have some personal connections to the 9/11 Commission. Slade Gorton, a former Senator from Washington State whom I briefed on some technology issues in my official capacity when I was at Microsoft, was a member.
Bob Kerrey, who was the governor of Nebraska during much of my adolescence, and with whom I interacted on a few occasions while participating in Civil Air Patrol activities, was a member.
And most importantly, my sister, Sarah Linden, is an FBI agent who staffed the commission. (Yes, I have an amazing, brilliant, tough FBI agent for a younger sister.)
My acquaintance with those three, and my knowledge of how very seriously the Commission took its duties when it was working on the report, predisposes me to take their recommendations seriously.
The question they tried to answer was this: how can we make ourselves safer?
They answered the question by pointing out that there were significant flaws in critical parts of our national security: diplomacy, military planning, intelligence, border management, aviation security, limiting terrorist financing, emergency response, and a responsive Congress.
Unfortunately, the lack of a responsive Congress means that most of the very sensible suggestions they made have still never been implemented, leaving us vulnerable in ways we don't have to be.
That's not news, of course, since there was press coverage last week (and editorial criticism) of the former (Republican!) head of the 9/11 Commission giving Congress and the Bush administration an 'F' for failing to implement the commission's bipartisan recommendations. (View a complete summary of report card here)
Two of the specific items that were mentioned in the news reports I saw were the failure to address the inability of local, state, and federal first responders to communicate with each other, and the failure to allocate funding for homeland security based on risk rather than porkbarrelling.
We saw the results of this not only on 9/11, but also more recently with Hurricane Katrina.
So what is it that is preventing these recommendations from being implemented? Several bills that would fix the problems have been languishing in the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology for months, including:
- H.R. 91, Smarter Funding for All of America's Homeland Security Act, sponsored by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), which directs the Department of Homeland Security to establish a grant program for first responders in states and regions with large populations, critical infrastructure, and high risk of terrorist attacks - in subcommittee since 3/9;
- H.R. 228, First Responders Funding Reform Act, sponsored by Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY), which lowers minimum allocation for each state of total emergency preparedness funds under USA PATRIOT Act from .75% to .5% and requires that such grants be awarded based on threat, vulnerability, and consequences - in subcommittee since 2/18;
- H.R. 796, Domestic Preparedness Act, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), which authorizes the Homeland Security Secretary to make grants to address preparedness shortcomings in municipal and county governments. The grants would be restricted to improving equipment, training, and interoperability. Limits federal share of costs of activities carried out with such grants. Applicants for grants must first conduct assessment of vulnerability to possible acts of terrorism - in subcommittee since 3/9;
- H.R. 1093, Responsible Funding for First Responders Act, sponsored by Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY), which expands permissible uses of terrorism-related grant funds under USA PATRIOT Act and requires that grants be delivered after an assessment of risk -- in subcommittee since 3/17;
- H.R. 1251, Connecting the Operations of National Networks of Emergency Communications Technologies for First Responders Act, sponsored by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), which directs Department of Homeland Security to study communications interoperability among first responders and establishes a grant program for communications interoperability -- in subcommittee since 3/17; and
- H.R. 4119, Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), which provides grants other support to State and local officials to achieve communications interoperability, to improve regional collaboration, and to promote research and development for first responder communications, which has been in subcommittee since 11/3.
Now, it seems to me like the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee's
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology would, you know, want to address some of these things.
Particularly since it happens that said subcommittee chair is a former sheriff who ought to know better than to let these problems go unaddressed.
Unfortunately, Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) doesn't seem that interested in actually doing things that would make the American people safer.
Which is one of the reasons I'm running against him.
We need to aggressively point out that the right question to be asking is not, "Are we tough?" but instead "Are we safer?"
Unfortunately, it appears right now that the answer is no.
So let's demand accountability by asking the right question loudly, publicly, and repeatedly, and then providing the public the information they need to answer it.
If I win this seat, I will push Congress to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that will make us safer.
We need a strong military, but we need more than that. We need border security, emergency preparedness, better planning, and better intelligence. Homeland security needs to be a priority. The current Republican controlled Congress has failed to act.
We have a tremendous opportunity to change our direction - and that starts with changing our leadership. I am very excited about this campaign - I feel like we're on fire right now (in a good way, mind you, no first responders required).
Since I last posted in October, we've visited the District of Columbia twice and gained early support that we need from the DCCC.
I have also gained the endorsement of Gary Locke, the former governor of Washington, not to mention the support and assistance of all of the Democratic members of the Washington delegation. (To your left is a picture of Governor Locke and I at a recent campaign event).
I'm also pleased to have received the endorsement of a couple of great PACs including the National Women's Political Caucus - which is exciting because it came with my first PAC check!
I've assembled an amazing campaign team and we've created a solid and complete campaign plan for winning this race.
We expect to close the quarter with the kind of strong fundraising numbers we will need to be on track to win.
Daily Kos is an amazing, vibrant community. I've learned a lot from you and I hope to learn even more.
I believe dialogue is important, and if elected, I promise to follow in the footsteps of Representative Conyers and Representative Slaughter by communicating regularly with you.
Taking back Congress (and, for me, the 8th Congressional District) is a challenge - a difficult one. But with your help, I'm confident that it can be done.
You can learn more about my campaign and my vision at darcyburner.com