King blasts GOP for transportation security cuts
Representative Peter King (R - New York), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, blasted the GOP’s plan to reduce the budget by $61 billion, citing cuts to critical anti-terror programs; the House plans to reduce spending on port security and transit facilities by $400 million, bringing total spending down to $200 million; local transit authorities say that losing federal funding would be detrimental as states and cities are struggling with their own budgets; the grants are designated for things like cameras, tunnel fortification, training, patrols, and canine teams at transport hubs and ports; proponents of the cuts believe that these programs are redundant, unnecessary, and lack sufficient oversight
Rep. Peter King (R - NY) // Source: practicalstate.com
Representative Peter King (R – New York), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, blasted the GOP’s plan to reduce the budget by $61 billion, citing cuts to critical anti-terror programs.
In particular, King is concerned about the reductions to grants designated to protect ports and transit facilities. He believes these cutbacks would leave the United States less secure and could lead to a devastating terrorist attack. He said, “We’re not talking about earmarks. We’re not talking about sweetheart contracts. We’re talking about life and death.”
The cuts passed by the House would reduce spending on port security and transit facilities by $400 million, bringing total spending down to $200 million.
Susan Monteverde, vice president of government relations at the American Association of Port Authorities, believes that some grants for cameras, tunnel fortification, training, patrols, and canine teams might survive because the money has already been appropriated but not yet spent.
In light of budget deficits in local governments, many states are pushing back at the reduction in spending as cash-strapped local governments would have to absorb the costs.
Paul MacMillan, the chief of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, says that losing federal funding would be detrimental as states and cities are struggling with their own budgets.
“This is a difficult time for public transit to absorb these cuts,” MacMillan said.
Federal funding has helped pay for bag checks and security patrols in Boston subways as well as fences and security cameras at rail yards.
Proponents of the budget reductions say that spending for these projects has been poorly managed and that the programs are redundant and unnecessary.
According to a Government Accountability Office report, the grant process has been tied up in slow administrative processes, and as a result only 3 percent of the transit money awarded between 2006 and 2008 had been spent as of February 2009.
Representative John Culberson (R- Texas) said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which distributes the grants, is “not capable of, nor are they properly equipped to ensure that these dollars are being spent in the most effective way.”
He added that local and state level transit authorities “tend to be the most wasteful and unaccountable local government entities.”
James Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, believes that the grants are redundant as they duplicate other counter-terrorism programs.
He said, “I don’t think these cuts are a real threat to homeland security. Most of this is checkbook security, money that’s propping up states’ nice-to-have stuff.”
In response to these arguments, Representative King said, “All this money is accounted for” and that talks of cost savings are irrelevant because a terrorist attack would result in millions of dollars in damages and lost revenue.
If a terrorist blew up a subway or a port, the U.S. would lose the $400 million in savings “in the first five minutes if there’s an attack,” he said.
The House budget was passed on 19 February 2011 and is likely to face opposition in the Senate.
