On the recordFebruary 9, 2011
I am opposed to this bill for one simple reason: It's not a smart thing to do. It recklessly jeopardizes the security and safety of the people of New York City, and it does so for no reason. This is a national security issue. It will irresponsibly and indefinitely delay the vital security improvements to the perimeter of the U.N. campus in the city that the State Department wants to undertake and has the resources to commit. Why do this? Only a radical, wild-eyed obsession with taking a pound of flesh out of the U.N., which at times deserves it, and to do so no matter what the cost to our national security. Where is the common sense in clawing back money that is going to be used for desperately needed, long overdue security upgrades that we have the money for anyway and have the responsibility to do anyway? Where's the benefit to the taxpayer for maintaining the vulnerability of the most prominent international target which happens to be in al Qaeda's most highly targeted city? I can see how the terrorists benefit from reduced security. But I'm having a terribly hard time seeing how New Yorkers or Americans or the 1 million tourists to the building or even the multitudes of international representatives at the United Nations, whom we have undertaken to keep safe, will benefit. The U.N.'s Capital Master Plan calls for $100 million in security upgrades. As the host nation, that's something about which we should be proud.
