GovernmentExecutive.com

Defying a likely White House veto threat, Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed to pass a fiscal 2008 Homeland Security spending bill that is about $2.3 billion more than President Bush requested.

The bill would provide the department about $37.6 billion in total spending -- including about $36.4 billion in discretionary spending -- setting up a potential showdown with the White House. Although Bush has not yet threatened to veto the measure, he has threatened to veto the House version because it would appropriate more than he requested.

"If [Bush] wants to veto this bill, he's going to have to explain to the American people why the police department down the street will be getting less support, why the fire station around the corner will be getting less help and why their community cannot develop an emergency plan so they are prepared for a disaster," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "If the president really wants to veto this bill, he's going to have to make his case to the American people."

Senate Republicans planned to huddle Tuesday afternoon to determine what amendments they will offer. Aides said they expect GOP amendments to reduce spending levels.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she planned to offer several amendments, including one clarifying that Osama bin Laden represents the top terrorist threat to the United States and is the No. 1 target of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Landrieu said she originally planned to offer the amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, which was pulled from the floor last week.

Other amendments will be aimed at making changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Landrieu added. One, for example, would direct FEMA to provide local governments with funds to help rebuild schools, she said.

Notably, the spending bill would increase funding for first responders and state and local grant programs above what the administration requested. It would allocate $400 million for port security grants, and the same amount for rail and mass transit security grants. It would also increase state homeland security grants funding to $525 million, compared to $250 million that was requested.

The bill also would boost firefighter assistance grants to $700 million, compared to $300 million in the budget request.

"According to the Department of Homeland Security's own estimates, two-thirds of states' urban areas do not have adequate plans to respond to a catastrophic event," said Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. "This legislation rejects the proposed budget cuts and puts us on the right track -- get busy and plan and train for a catastrophic event."

COMMENTS

• I believe, as most Americans do, that States tend to miss use Federal Funds in pork barrel projects with no accountability where the funds went or what they were used for. Consultants seem to cost an awful lot of money these days, where Common Sense is pushed aside by so called experts. Emergency Preparedness Consultant Posted August 2, 2007 12:48 PM
• If "two-thirds of states' urban areas do not have adequate plans to respond to a catastrophic event" then the problem is lack of a plan, not lack of funding. This comes on the heels of reports that states aren't spending the funding they've already received, "Almost $5 billion of $16.04 billion in grants approved by Congress for states and Washington, D.C., from fiscal 2002 to 2007 remain in federal coffers, according to Homeland Security Department budget figures." according to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-25-state-terror-grants_N.htm). So would someone please explain to me why we should pay still higher taxes to appropriate money that isn't being used for lack of a plan? Chriss Knisley Posted July 31, 2007 12:42 PM
• It is a sad day when the president fails to appropriate the funds needed to run the department that he created. Penny pinching a budget for Homeland Security is foolish. If he would direct the M in OMB to recover and stop the money bleeding from the contractor abuses in Iraq we would have plenty of money for DHS. I never hear him talk about that waste. Charles J McCollum Posted July 25, 2007 12:12 PM