S
Stinky
Guest
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071130...rity_grants;_ylt=Ar8cxk3USMQyJ2zZukFE_iV34T0D
Emergency responders face deep aid cuts
By EILEEN SULLIVAN and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers
The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for
police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more
than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The
Associated Press.
The Homeland Security Department has given $23 billion to states and
local communities to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, but
one document says the administration is not convinced that the money
has been well spent and thinks the nation's highest-risk cities have
largely satisfied their security needs.
The department wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and
cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House
said it would ask Congress for less than half -- $1.4 billion,
according to a Nov. 26 document. The plan calls outright elimination
of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency
management operations in the next budget year. This is President
Bush's last budget, and the new administration would have to live with
the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.
The Homeland Security department and the White House Office of
Management and Budget, which is in charge of the administration's
spending plans, would not provide details about the funding cuts
because nothing has been finalized. "It would be premature to
speculate on any details that will or will not be a part of the next
fiscal year budget," OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said, because
negotiations between the White House and the Cabinet departments over
the budget are not finished.
"There's been staunch support of our department, and you'll see it
again this February" when Bush's 2009 budget emerges, Homeland
Security spokesman Russ Knocke predicted.
The proposal to drastically cut Homeland Security grants is at odds
with some of the administration's own policies. For example, the White
House recently promised continued funding for state and regional
intelligence "fusion centers" -- information-sharing centers the
administration deems critical to preventing another terrorist attack.
Cutting the grants would limit money available for the centers.
The White House's plan to eliminate the port, transit and other
grants, which are popular with state and local officials, would not go
into effect until Sept. 30, 2008. Congress is unlikely to support the
cuts and will ultimately decide the fate of the programs and the
funding levels when it hashes out the department's 2009 budget next
year. The White House routinely seeks to cut the budget requests of
federal departments, but the cuts proposed for 2009 Homeland Security
grants are far deeper than the norm. Congress has yet to approve the
department's 2008 plan.
"This budget proposal is dead on arrival," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-
Calif. "This administration runs around the country scaring people and
then when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they
say 'sorry, the bank is closed.'"
California receives a large share of the counterrorism money each
year, and could lose more than $200 million under the White House
plan.
Boxer was particularly incensed about the proposal to end money for
port security -- a big concern on the West Coast. "California's ports
carry over 47 percent of all goods imported into the United States,"
she said. "A terrorist attack at any of California's ports could shut
down our nation's port system and result in a mind-boggling loss for
our nation's economy."
Bipartisan opposition to deep cuts emerged from New York, another
state that would be hard hit.
"To zero out essential Homeland Security programs which have more to
do with protecting Americans and fighting the war on terror than much
of the money spent in Iraq shows how warped and out of touch this
administration's priorities are," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a
Democrat.
The proposal "goes totally in the wrong direction," said Rep. Peter
King, R-N.Y. "This would be a very grave mistake, and I will do all I
can to stop it."
In some years the grant program has created more ill will than
security. In 2005, the administration cut by 40 percent the
counterterrorism funding to New York and Washington, D.C., the two
cities hit hardest on Sept. 11. New York lawmakers were furious, and
the Homeland Security official in charge of the grants program
eventually resigned. Since then, Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff has promised to apply more common sense and less "bean-
counting" in grant decisions.
The White House plan calls for massive cuts in areas where Homeland
Security officials had sought increases. The department requested $900
million for grants to U.S. cities at greatest risk of attack. But the
White House only wants to provide $400 million for that program, to be
divided among no more than 45 urban areas. In 2007, Congress gave New
York City $134 million -- about a third of the total amount the White
House would give to the highest risk areas in the country in 2009.
While very popular in the states and among lawmakers who take credit
for getting counterterrorism dollars to their districts, some of the
Homeland Security grants have been criticized as wasteful or
excessive.
_$345,000 for crashproof barriers and 60 closed-circuit cameras to
monitor the University of Arkansas Razorback stadium, which local
officials think could be a terrorist target.
_$5 million for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology to
buy a nearly deserted town to use for counterterrorism training.
_$70,000 for Huntsville, Ala. to create a fallout shelter in an
abandoned mine where 20,000 people could take cover underground.
_Several South Florida fire departments have used Homeland Security
grants to beef up their gyms. Pompano Beach, Fla., spent $220,000 on
fitness equipment for a wellness program, training and physical
exams.
While the White House would eliminate at least seven current Homeland
Security grant programs, it would create two new grants:
_Targeted investment grants, which would fund administration
priorities such as the requirement that states create more secure
driver's licenses, secure credentials for transportation employees and
state and local planning for catastrophic disasters. The White House
would provide $450 million for that.
_A $300 million discretionary grant program for terrorism
preparedness, prevention and response, which would fund specific
projects instead of sending a set amount to each state.
These grants have long been debated in Congress, particularly whether
a certain amount should be guaranteed to each state regardless of its
risk of being attacked by terrorists. Rural lawmakers have not wanted
the money to be distributed based on risk alone because it would mean
their states and districts would see cuts.
In a joint statement, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan
Collins, R-Maine, chairman and ranking Republican on the Homeland
Security Committee, said they "urge the administration to reconsider
this wrong-headed strategy."
Emergency responders face deep aid cuts
By EILEEN SULLIVAN and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers
The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for
police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more
than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The
Associated Press.
The Homeland Security Department has given $23 billion to states and
local communities to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, but
one document says the administration is not convinced that the money
has been well spent and thinks the nation's highest-risk cities have
largely satisfied their security needs.
The department wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and
cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House
said it would ask Congress for less than half -- $1.4 billion,
according to a Nov. 26 document. The plan calls outright elimination
of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency
management operations in the next budget year. This is President
Bush's last budget, and the new administration would have to live with
the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.
The Homeland Security department and the White House Office of
Management and Budget, which is in charge of the administration's
spending plans, would not provide details about the funding cuts
because nothing has been finalized. "It would be premature to
speculate on any details that will or will not be a part of the next
fiscal year budget," OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said, because
negotiations between the White House and the Cabinet departments over
the budget are not finished.
"There's been staunch support of our department, and you'll see it
again this February" when Bush's 2009 budget emerges, Homeland
Security spokesman Russ Knocke predicted.
The proposal to drastically cut Homeland Security grants is at odds
with some of the administration's own policies. For example, the White
House recently promised continued funding for state and regional
intelligence "fusion centers" -- information-sharing centers the
administration deems critical to preventing another terrorist attack.
Cutting the grants would limit money available for the centers.
The White House's plan to eliminate the port, transit and other
grants, which are popular with state and local officials, would not go
into effect until Sept. 30, 2008. Congress is unlikely to support the
cuts and will ultimately decide the fate of the programs and the
funding levels when it hashes out the department's 2009 budget next
year. The White House routinely seeks to cut the budget requests of
federal departments, but the cuts proposed for 2009 Homeland Security
grants are far deeper than the norm. Congress has yet to approve the
department's 2008 plan.
"This budget proposal is dead on arrival," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-
Calif. "This administration runs around the country scaring people and
then when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they
say 'sorry, the bank is closed.'"
California receives a large share of the counterrorism money each
year, and could lose more than $200 million under the White House
plan.
Boxer was particularly incensed about the proposal to end money for
port security -- a big concern on the West Coast. "California's ports
carry over 47 percent of all goods imported into the United States,"
she said. "A terrorist attack at any of California's ports could shut
down our nation's port system and result in a mind-boggling loss for
our nation's economy."
Bipartisan opposition to deep cuts emerged from New York, another
state that would be hard hit.
"To zero out essential Homeland Security programs which have more to
do with protecting Americans and fighting the war on terror than much
of the money spent in Iraq shows how warped and out of touch this
administration's priorities are," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a
Democrat.
The proposal "goes totally in the wrong direction," said Rep. Peter
King, R-N.Y. "This would be a very grave mistake, and I will do all I
can to stop it."
In some years the grant program has created more ill will than
security. In 2005, the administration cut by 40 percent the
counterterrorism funding to New York and Washington, D.C., the two
cities hit hardest on Sept. 11. New York lawmakers were furious, and
the Homeland Security official in charge of the grants program
eventually resigned. Since then, Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff has promised to apply more common sense and less "bean-
counting" in grant decisions.
The White House plan calls for massive cuts in areas where Homeland
Security officials had sought increases. The department requested $900
million for grants to U.S. cities at greatest risk of attack. But the
White House only wants to provide $400 million for that program, to be
divided among no more than 45 urban areas. In 2007, Congress gave New
York City $134 million -- about a third of the total amount the White
House would give to the highest risk areas in the country in 2009.
While very popular in the states and among lawmakers who take credit
for getting counterterrorism dollars to their districts, some of the
Homeland Security grants have been criticized as wasteful or
excessive.
_$345,000 for crashproof barriers and 60 closed-circuit cameras to
monitor the University of Arkansas Razorback stadium, which local
officials think could be a terrorist target.
_$5 million for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology to
buy a nearly deserted town to use for counterterrorism training.
_$70,000 for Huntsville, Ala. to create a fallout shelter in an
abandoned mine where 20,000 people could take cover underground.
_Several South Florida fire departments have used Homeland Security
grants to beef up their gyms. Pompano Beach, Fla., spent $220,000 on
fitness equipment for a wellness program, training and physical
exams.
While the White House would eliminate at least seven current Homeland
Security grant programs, it would create two new grants:
_Targeted investment grants, which would fund administration
priorities such as the requirement that states create more secure
driver's licenses, secure credentials for transportation employees and
state and local planning for catastrophic disasters. The White House
would provide $450 million for that.
_A $300 million discretionary grant program for terrorism
preparedness, prevention and response, which would fund specific
projects instead of sending a set amount to each state.
These grants have long been debated in Congress, particularly whether
a certain amount should be guaranteed to each state regardless of its
risk of being attacked by terrorists. Rural lawmakers have not wanted
the money to be distributed based on risk alone because it would mean
their states and districts would see cuts.
In a joint statement, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan
Collins, R-Maine, chairman and ranking Republican on the Homeland
Security Committee, said they "urge the administration to reconsider
this wrong-headed strategy."
