Senate Increases Anti-Terrorism Funding for All States

After a lengthy debate that set larger states against smaller ones, the Senate approved a new funding formula Tuesday for grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that would respond to terrorist attacks.

By a vote of 71 to 26, senators supported a proposal that would increase the amount of money available to all states, rather than provide additional funds primarily to larger states that were perceived to be more likely terrorist targets.

The contentious discussion over funding for first responders -- including police, fire and paramedic units -- came as the Senate considered a $31.9-billion bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the 2006 fiscal year.

The bill’s original language called for 30% of about $2 billion in grants to be distributed evenly to all states, with the remaining funds allocated based on an assessment of their risk of terrorist attack.

But an amendment sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) increased to 40% the funding level guaranteed to all states, regardless of size or risk of terrorism.

During the debate, Collins, who heads the Senate’s Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, emphasized that if states were not given adequate amounts of guaranteed funding, they could not plan or implement long-term security projects.

Senators from large states, supporting a proposal by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), countered that domestic security funding should be based mainly on studies that examined the probable risks for each state.

Their provision called for 13% of the funding to be guaranteed, with the remaining 87% determined by risk analysis.

They argued that states such as California and New York were home to most of the major metropolitan areas in the country that were, or had been, terrorist targets.

It is these areas that need more funding, they said.

“It is theoretically possible that terrorists can hit us everywhere,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

But he said that certain areas were at greater risk and needed to take extra precautions. In New York, Schumer said, every major bridge is guarded by four police officers 24 hours a day.

“It seems patently unfair to say that states that might have a threat, but don’t have a large and tangible repeated threat week after week, should get more money on a per capita basis,” Schumer said.

The Feinstein-Cornyn amendment failed, 32 to 65.

During the debate, Lieberman argued that risk analysis “is not a certainty.”

“It is an educated guess about where terrorists are likely to strike,” Lieberman said.

He said that threats to rural areas -- such as poisoning of food or water supplies -- would be just as possible and dangerous as a Sept. 11-style attack on a large city.

“All of America is vulnerable,” Lieberman said. “All of America needs help.”

In a statement released late Tuesday, Feinstein said, “I have a hard time substituting pork for risk and I was disappointed by the vote.”

“But finding the best way to protect our nation,” she said “is an issue that is not going to go away.”

The House version of the domestic security appropriations bill contains a provision giving additional funding to larger states with a higher risk of attack.

Differences would be worked out in a conference committee after a Senate bill passes.