|
|
A.D.D.
on Security
Virginia
has mapped out a comprehensive plan to promote
homeland security. But Federal
Attention Deficit Disorder is leaving Virginia to
get by on duct tape.
At
the height of the 2002 sniper crisis that gripped
Northern Virginia, Maryland and the District of
Columbia, Montgomery County (Md.) Police Chief
Charles Moose gave anxious and demanding reporters
a terse answer to questions as to whether law
enforcement officers could guarantee public
safety. "I cannot guarantee the safety of
anyone," Chief Moose answered directly. Now
the federal government has signaled it doesn't
mind keeping it that way for a while, even for
first responders to terrorist incidents.
U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, for
example, called federal funds announced March 7
for states to boost first responder equipment,
training and planning for firefighters, police and
emergency workers "an important step."
In stark contrast, former Virginia Lt. Gov.
John H. Hager, Special Assistant to the Governor
for Commonwealth Preparedness, called Virginia's
share "peanuts" and Virginia Deputy
Secretary of Public Safety Robert P. Crouch, Jr.
termed it a "disappointment."
What
state leaders were discussing was Virginia
receiving a mere $12.7 million of the $78.7
million the Commonwealth documented in the wake of
9/11 as its most urgent security needs. Hager, for
example, led the Secure Virginia Panel in 2002
through a series of meetings with emergency
management, fire, emergency medical services, law
enforcement, financial service, health care,
technology, transportation, utility and
agriculture professionals. The Hager panel made a
series of recommendations on everything from
extending background checks for public employees
in sensitive positions to improvements to
emergency alert systems to improving security of
public information technology systems. But always
the most urgent needs remained protecting first
responders and increase their capabilities to
limit damage and death from terrorist attacks.
Many
of those initiatives ended up in a legislative
package submitted by Gov. Warner and approved by
the General Assembly in 2003. Included are
measures to ensure successors to the governor in
the event of emergency or war, list public health
emergency contact information for health
practitioners, allow mass administration or
dispensing of drugs in an emergency, protect
critical infrastructure information and authorize
criminal background checks of applicants for
sensitive public positions. Virginia seemed to be
doing its part, including getting itself ready to
apply new federal funds effectively and
efficiently. Warner even announced a new Institute
for Defense and Homeland Security to better apply
the expertise of state universities and the
private sector to technology, preparedness and
security solutions.
The
2003 budget submitted by President Bush in 2002
had asked Congress for $3.5 billion for new
first-responder grants administered through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). When
Congress finally passed the budget, including
funding for the new Department of Homeland
Security, however, only about $540 million
remained to be distributed in grants for
equipment, training, exercises and emergency
exercises. What happened? How did the federal
government get attention deficit disorder on
homeland security grants and move more money,
instead, into its new Cabinet-level bureaucracy?
One
explanation was offered by Steven I. Cooper, chief
information officer of the Department of Homeland
Security, at a March 13 breakfast with the
Northern Virginia Technology Council. "The
2003 budget," Cooper said, "was build
around component agencies, not the full
Department." In a deeper analysis, the
National Governors Association (NGA) suggests
existing programs were simply consolidated or
extended to include homeland security matters as
rationale without new money.
So-called new first responder grants came
from established programs, such as Community
Oriented Policing Services and Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants, not from a lot of new
money.
For
the 2004 federal budget, which includes the
Department-wide view, the Bush administration has
called for another $3.5 billion for an Office of
Domestic Preparedness to distribute to state and
local governments. But again, according to the NGA,
the so-called new Justice Assistance Grants
envisioned actually end up cutting existing public
safety grants by as much as half. Even when wider
homeland security funding sources are considered,
such as funding in the Department of Health and
Human Services for the Centers of Disease Control
and funding in the Department of Justice for
counter-terrorism and public safety, the NGA
concludes, "The president's fiscal year 2004
budget calls for major cuts in public safety
grants to the states."
Commonwealth
preparedness expert Hager had advised inquirers in
2002 not to be impatient, that federal dollars
authorized were not expected to materialize until
2003. Now with about 16 cents on the dollar
Virginia requested, he admits that it will be
difficult to meet expectations of fire, police and
rescue personnel at the state level and in 134
localities with the $12.7 million actually
committed for Virginia. And the question remains,
if Virginia needs another $66 million for first
responders, where are we going to get it?
State
and local governments, it turns out, have been
limiting spending their own funds until they had a
better understanding of how much the federal
government would kick in and for what. Now it
looks as though the waiting has been in vain and
that Virginia state and local governments are
going to have to tackle more of the job themselves
than they expected. This is not good news when the
Commonwealth still is committed to cutting
spending as the way to balance its budget and
localities are facing both budget pressures and
political year attacks on how increased property
assessments are driving up property taxes.
Unfortunately,
those ready to demagogue the tax issue ignore the
connection between public revenues and the cost of
protecting property and people from criminals and
terrorists. The Virginia General Assembly, for
example, partially in anticipation of more
significant federal funds, just decided in budget
amendments sent to the governor to limit in FY2004
state aid given localities with police departments
to FY2003 levels. That effectively would trim
another $5.5 million from projected aid for local
law enforcement and first responder personnel.
Give
these developments, is homeland security really a
priority for federal, state and local governments?
Are half-measures adequate responses to the threat
experts see? Are citizens to wait for another
round of terrorist attacks to move monies for
first responders back up the priority list? If
memory serves, homeland security is a priority,
half-measures we had proved inadequate and
terrorist strikes alone haven't made the federal
government honor its commitments to the states and
localities. Maybe voters can make a difference
before attention deficit disorder gives way to
budget deficit disorder.
--
March 17, 2003
|
