-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brookings Study Calls Homeland Security Plans Too Ambitious July 14, 2002 By ELIZABETH BECKER WASHINGTON, July 13 - Adding to a growing list of Congressional concerns about domestic security, a study released today warns that the president's plan for a new Department of Homeland Security is too ambitious and could create more problems than it solves. The report by the Brookings Institution recommends a pared-down department concentrating on border and transportation security, intelligence and threat analysis, and protecting the country's infrastructure. The report echoes criticism by lawmakers who began their scrutiny of the proposal this week. In a letter to the White House, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and David R. Obey of Wisconsin, both Democrats, wrote this week that the president's new department would have far-flung responsibilities like administering the National Flood Insurance Program, cleaning up oil spills at sea and eradicating the boll weevil. That, the lawmakers said, could dilute the department's mission to fight terrorism and "risks bloating the size of the bureaucracy." For similar reasons, the eight Brookings scholars and former government officials argued in their study today that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should remain separate from the new department. The authors praised FEMA for emerging as one of the most effective arms of the federal government after years of "determined effort" helping victims of major disasters like floods, fires and hurricanes. "Fortunately, terrorist attacks are rare, but you can count on national disasters every year - right now there are floods in Texas, fires in Arizona - so why should the Department of Homeland Security be pulled away from its mission and worry constantly about those disasters?" asked James M. Lindsay, an author of the study, "Assessing the Department of Homeland Security." The study also recommended that Congress delay deciding whether to include scientific and technological research on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear countermeasures against terrorist attacks. "The proposal put on the table is too big; it needs to focus on just those functions directly related to homeland security like the Coast Guard, customs, intelligence analysis and protecting public and private infrastructure that doesn't really exist today," said Ivo H. Daalder, another author of the study and a former member of the National Security Council. The White House rejected most of the study's recommendations, saying the president was committed to a department that "looks at homeland security in total," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the Office of Homeland Security. "Our mission is not only to prevent against attacks but to respond to them, and FEMA is the response mechanism in the government," Mr. Johndroe said. But that assertion underlines another major dispute in this argument over what could be the largest government reorganization in 50 years. The president has yet to unveil the government's strategy for fighting terrorism at home. Members of Congress say it is hard to devise a new department without knowing the strategy it is meant to pursue. Tom Ridge, the director of homeland security, promised the strategy would be ready this month. Senior government officials said the president was reviewing the document and hoped to release it this month. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/14/politics/14HOME.html?ex=1027650210&ei=1&en=72ccc77e8b3a4d97 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
