Port security funds will run out in 2013


Solvency: PGSP Solvency: Federal gov key



Download 292.56 Kb.
Page8/12
Date15.08.2017
Size292.56 Kb.
#32635
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12

Solvency: PGSP

Solvency: Federal gov key

States need federal direction to meet port security needs


Husch, Rall, & Arguizoni, 12

(Ben, Jaime, & Jennifer, National Conference of State Legislators Officers, 2011-2012 Policies for the Jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee, NCSL, http://www.ncsl.org/state-federal-committees.aspx?tabs=855,30,674)


Port security is a state-federal partnership that is critical to the nation’s homeland security strategy. The states need clear federal direction to ensure that resources are focused on the most needed security improvements. Ninety-five percent of overseas cargo and millions of cruise and ferry passengers transit through ports each year. Ports are spending enormous sums to harden these vulnerable targets and need federal assistance. NCSL supports the Department of Homeland Security’s Port Security Grant Program, which is vital to ports’ abilities to make improvements quickly and comply with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. States have been directed to enhance the security of publicly operated ferries and provide for the inspection of vehicles and freight. In some cases, federal directives have preempted state laws and policies to the extent of superseding state constitutional provisions. Federal assistance should fund these requirements to avoid unfunded mandates.

Federal investment is key for U.S. leadership in global trade


Husch, Rall, & Arguizoni, 12

(Ben, Jaime, & Jennifer, National Conference of State Legislators Officers, 2011-2012 Policies for the Jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee, NCSL, http://www.ncsl.org/state-federal-committees.aspx?tabs=855,30,674)


Investment in the U.S. water transportation system is a partnership between state and local governments and the federal government. State and local authorities significantly invest resources to enhance marine terminal capacity and efficiency, dredge berths and approach channels, and share the cost of new dredging projects to widen and deepen navigation channels. The federal government traditionally had supported dredging expenses through the General Treasury. In 1986, Congress established the Harbor Maintenance Tax, which is paid on imports and the domestic coastwise movement of goods, to support increased federal operations, and to finance the maintenance dredging of navigable channels and harbors. These taxes are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. In order to sustain U.S. leadership in global trade, the nation’s ports must receive adequate federal funds to improve and maintain federal navigational channels. NCSL supports the full use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain the nation’s harbors and calls on Congress to adequately fund deepening projects to modernize our ports. The accumulation of harbor tax receipts at the federal level is a break in faith from the purpose of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and results in the imposition of a competitive burden without providing needed improvements necessary to achieve efficiencies to offset added taxes.

Federal resources are necessary to maintain, and advance security in waterways and port security


NASBLA ’11 (Port Security Grant White Paper, NASBLA, March 2011, http://nasbla.org/files/public/Prepardness%26Repsonse/White%20paper%203-14-11.pdf, JCC)

In this brief window of opportunity, NASBLA and its members must urge policy makers to make the right choice and keep Port Security Grant Program funding levels on par with previous budget proposals. In addition to the necessity of the Port Security Grant Program for ensuring the security of our nation’s ports and waterways, the grant dollars made available also enable the Coast Guard to actively partner with state and local law enforcement. Last year Congress passed the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Bill, which included language directing the Commandant to establish national standards for training and credentialing law enforcement personnel to enforce a security zone or assist in such enforcement. It also requires the Commandant to develop training curriculum to test and deliver such training. Currently, the only Federal resources available to achieve these mandates are monies derived from the Port Security Grant Program. Not only are the Federal dollars needed to maintain current initiatives, but they are vital in further developing initiatives with state and local law enforcement to better secure our nation’s borders. It is imperative that Congress not cut any monies from this program and instead maintain the same level of rigorous commitment to securing our nation’s waterways as previous Congresses have shown.



PSGP: Cost Sharing Reform/Full Funding

Solvency Advocate – Fully Fund & Remove Costshare




The PSGP should be funded at $400 million with cost sharing requirements eliminated.



AAPA, 12 (American Association of Port Authorities, “Maritime Security,” Government Relations Priorities, March, http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Maritime%20Security%202012.pdf)
The Port Security Grant program continues to be a ¶ very valuable program for ports, which serve as ¶ partners with the Department of Homeland Security ¶ (DHS) to harden security at U.S. ports and protect our ¶ homeland.¶ Funding/Eligibility – AAPA urges Congress to continue to authorize and appropriate $400 million for the ¶ program. AAPA is concerned that last year’s drastic cuts to state homeland security grants, including the port security grant program, will threaten the ability of our nation to maintain our current capacity or expand it. For FY 2012, Congress combined all grants, cut them ¶ by 40 percent and gave DHS the authority to determine ¶ the final funding level. DHS subsequently cut the Port Security Grants further by decreasing the level of ¶ funding by 59 percent from last year’s funding level. It¶ is currently at a level that is less than 75 percent of the authorized amount.¶ DHS is also considering a move to merge all grant ¶ programs into one program to fund all critical ¶ infrastructure segments and transfer distribution to the ¶ states, a move which AAPA strongly opposes. Port Security is a federal responsibility and it should remain at the federal level.¶ AAPA priorities are:¶ 1) Ensure that all ports should continue to be eligible ¶ for these grants to avoid a soft underbelly that leaves ¶ this country vulnerable to terrorist threats.¶ 2) Grant funding for Port Security should be a separate line item and controlled at the federal level 3) Port Security funding should be at the authorized level of $400 million.¶ Cost-share Waiver – The 25 percent cost-share for public agencies is a significant economic disincentive to make security enhancements and implement regional maritime security plans. In these tight economic times, the cost-share is an even greater problem as ports are cutting back in all areas to address economic shortfalls. The Port Security Grant program is one of the few DHS grant programs that requires a costshare. Transit grants and state homeland security grants, for example, are exempt from cost-share ¶ requirements. For DHS-granted waivers, the focus should be on speeding up the decisionmaking process by delegating to FEMA the authority to make costshare waivers.

Recent funding is a drop in the bucket – only fully funding the Port Security Grant Program can secure ports against emerging threats.



Holmes, 12 (Captain John M., Deputy Executive Director of Operations at the Port of Los Angeles, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Homeland Security 2358-A Rayburn, “Budget Hearing – Federal Emergency Management Agency – Director and State & Local Witnesses,” March 7, http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-112-ap15-jholmes-20120307.pdf)
Under the SAFE Port Act, the Port Security Grant program is authorized at $400 million. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the funding for this program has decreased, currentlystanding at a dangerously low level. The current level of $97.5 million is 75 percent less than the authorized level, and it is currently at one of the lowest funding levels ever for this program. As costs of systems, maintenance and equipment continue to rise, this level of funding will bring into question the sustainability of the protection levels we have worked so hard to build over the last decade.¶ As you know, for FY 2012, this Committee decided to bundle all FEMA State and Local ¶ grant programs, cut the combined programs by 40 percent, and give DHS the authority to ¶ determine funding levels for individual programs. AAPA has long been wary of efforts to ¶ bundle programs, fearing that traditional homeland security grants would be given a higher ¶ priority. DHS was given the authority to make the funding decisions, and last month, our fears became reality. The FY 2012 funding level represents a 59 percent cut from the prior ¶ year and 75 percent less than the authorized level. This will harm our ability to expand protection of our maritime assets, carry out Port-Wide Risk Management Plans and fund federal mandates such as installation of TWIC readers.¶ In a constantly changing threat environment, this level of funding will make it difficult to maintain our current capabilities at the Port of Los Angeles, much less meet new and emerging concerns in such areas as infrastructure protection, continuity of services such ¶ as power and water, protection of our information technology capabilities and response to ¶ the ever-growing cyber threat. At the Port of Los Angeles, Port Security Grant funding has ¶ been a critical component in our efforts to build a resilient port, and we would hate to see a degradation of these efforts as a result of grant funding reductions.


Full funding of the Port Security Grant Program is necessary to maintain infrastructure and keep pace with new threats.



Lawless, 11 (Joseph, Director of Maritime Security at the Massachusetts Port Authority, “Federal port security funds have got to be maintained,” AAPA Seaports Magazine, Winter 2011-2012, Vol. 24, p. 32, http://digital.sea-portsinfo.com/i/54053/33)
The seaborne trading system is the lifeblood of global economies. Each day, nearly $4 billion in goods moves through U.S. seaports. An act of terrorism directed at vessels or facilities could create catastrophic consequences for our fragile world economy. Protecting our ports and waterways remains a top priority. The attention given to port security in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was long overdue. Since those attacks, U.S. maritime facilities have spent billions of dollars hiring law enforcement and security personnel; developing security awareness and education programs; erecting fences; installing cameras, access control and radar systems; and purchasing patrol boat, night-vision equipment and a laundry list of other security technologies that have enhanced the security posture of our ports. The maritime industry has also dedicated valuable personnel and financial resources to conduct security assessments, draft vulnerability mitigation strategies, deploy scalable security plans and conduct yearly audits to ensure compliance with federal regulations. U.S. port facilities are much more secure today than they have ever been. However, there is still more work to be done in the area of port security. The federal government must continue to make resources available that allow ports to keep pace within a climate of ever-changing threats, while never losing ground with the security improvements that have been made. Now is not the time to turn down the spigot of federal funds dedicated to port security programs. The Port Security Grant Program has received more than $2 billion in funding over the last nine years. Most port officials have utilized the port security grant funds to make much-needed security improvements at their facilities. At a time when every allocation of federal dollars is at risk, this program should maintain level funding.

Funding is the biggest threat to port security – maintaining it is key to upgrade aging security infrastructure.



Roach Patridge, 12 (Amy, journalist/writer for Inbound Logistics, a leading supply chain and logistics trade publication, “Scrutinizing Supply Chain Security,” Inbound Logistics, January, http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/scrutinizing-supply-chain-security/)
As the gateway for a large portion of global trade into the United States, ports play a crucial role in securing the supply chain. Today, they are challenged with reconciling economic realities with the ongoing fight against supply chain threats.¶ "Our biggest concern right now is funding," says Susan Monteverde, vice president of government relations for the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). That's because Congress has cut the Port Security Grant (PSG) program—which provides funding for maritime transportation infrastructure security activities—by 40 percent as a result of bundling PSG in with other homeland security programs.¶ "Since Sept. 11, Congress has allocated roughly $2.6 billion for the PSG program," she says. "We've been thankful for that, but we need that funding to continue." Roughly 75 percent of the PSG money is allocated for port security equipment, while the rest is spent on a mix of training and safety exercises, planning, technology, and operational needs.¶ Many security technologies and measures put in place at ports over the past 10 years are rapidly approaching the end of their shelf life. "The funds that were made available to us before seem to be ebbing," says Joe Lawless, chairman of the AAPA Security Committee. "Without continued funding, it will be a struggle to sustain port security improvements."



Download 292.56 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
national association
private sector
focus should be
arms race