Bill Ties Anti-Terror Funds to Danger

The House approved a measure Thursday that would steer more anti-terrorism money to communities experts said faced the greatest attack risks, a change sparked by complaints from large states -- including California -- that the current system short changed them.

The measure, approved by a 409-10 vote, calls for distributing funds -- an estimated $2 billion next year -- to firefighters, police and other first responders based on an evaluation of threats and vulnerabilities.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), who as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee was the bill’s chief author, said the legislation would allocate federal aid “where it is needed,” ensuring that funds were spent on security, “not political pork.”

Under the current system, which has been assailed as too generous to rural areas at the expense of urban regions, a large chunk of the money is distributed to every state equally; the remainder is allocated based on population.

California officials have griped that the nation’s most populous state last year received about $310 million -- or $8.75 per person -- while Wyoming received about $18 million -- or $37.52 per capita.

Tim Ransdell, executive director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research, said that under the House bill, California could receive an additional $100 million a year. Ransdell’s group, based in Washington, examines federal issues crucial to California.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.), who cast one of the handful of votes against the bill, said he could not support a measure “that would give Arkansas less money to protect its citizens. As we saw on Sept. 11, [2001], terrorists can and will strike anywhere. We must make sure all of our communities are ready regardless of their size or potential risks.”

The legislation follows a recommendation made last year by the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks. It urged that the domestic security grants to local and state governments be based “strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.”

The House measure, as well as a similar bill moving through the Senate, would guarantee that each state would continue to receive a minimum share of money -- a compromise seen as necessary to win the votes of lawmakers from rural districts.

A tougher battle lies ahead in the Senate, where senators of less-populated states wield more clout.

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said her panel’s unanimous approval of a similar bill was a “good sign” for its prospects in the full Senate.

Under the House bill, a Department of Homeland Security panel would distribute much of the anti-terrorism money, based on factors such as its evaluation of potential targets in communities and their vulnerability to attack.

States would have to explain how they would spend the money before they received it. The provision is designed to address complaints that funds have sat idle.