Text size:

Memo: Cut terror funds for areas like NYC, LI

BY CAROL EISENBERG | carol.eisenberg@newsday.com

December 1, 2007

WASHINGTON - Tens of millions in federal anti-terror funds that bolster New York metropolitan-area police, fire and emergency response agencies could be cut in half under a Bush administration proposal.

The budget memo calls for a radical rethinking of how the nation pays for homeland security, demanding that local and state governments pay a greater share and limiting the federal role to those proposals that advance national priorities and produce clear results.

The leaked document calls for slashing the federal program geared to the highest-risk cities, from which the New York region receives the lion's share of its funding -- about $134 million this year. It eliminates other programs entirely, including those geared to port, bus, truck and transit security.

Another proposed change would prohibit federal funds from being used to cover salaries -- a huge potential hit to New York City, which uses a portion of its grant money to pay some of the 1,000 cops assigned to terrorism.

Long Island, which gets several million annually from that program, would also lose out.

"Any cut ... would have a negative impact on our ability to make timely purchases of supplies and equipment," said Deputy Chief Mark White, commanding officer of the Suffolk police office of homeland security.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the federal government has poured more than $23 billion into state and local coffers for anti-terror efforts, but "it remains unclear what years of annual grant awards have achieved," the memo said. It also argues that many high-risk cities "are reaching a saturation point" for capital projects related to terrorism.

The document lays out what insiders say is a longstanding administration position -- that the large infusion of federal cash to jumpstart local homeland security programs after 9/11 was never intended to be permanent.

"The real policy argument is now that we're coming up on seven years post-9/11, should state and local governments start putting more money into these programs?" said George Foresman, a former undersecretary of homeland security. "The flaw in that argument is I don't think they have a good appreciation of the investments that . . . communities are making."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto called the document "premature," saying "this doesn't represent a decision. When we are ready to announce budgeting decisions affecting DHS, we'll announce them. "

But a congressional source said that the Office of Management and Budget, which translates the president's priorities into numbers, has been locked in battle with homeland security officials over their 2009 budget request.

"The battle between OMB and DHS is quite heated and, ultimately, will be decided at the highest levels of the administration," the source said. "This proposal is far from a done deal."

But homeland security officials and lawmakers predicted the proposal would not survive.

"If this is real, it's a serious mistake and I will do everything I can to fight it," said Rep. Peter King of Seaford, the senior Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called it "dead on arrival." "To zero out essential homeland security programs ... shows how warped and out of touch this administration's priorities are," he said.

Foresman, a veteran of budget wars, said the document was likely "the opening act of a multi-act play.

"It's way too early to get upset," he said.