|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Terrorism Grant Reform Finds Bipartisan Support in House of Representatives By Joe Fiorill WASHINGTON — Lawmakers of both major parties expressed support today for reforming the U.S. system for doling out antiterrorism funds as the full House of Representatives took up a landmark bill on the grants to state and local agencies (see GSN, April 13). The bill is the first major piece of legislation from the months-old Homeland Security Committee to reach the House floor. Legislators expressed hope that it would end reports of haphazard federal funding to protect against terrorism, by linking spending to overall plans and standards and by directing more money to locations considered to be at the highest risk of attack. “This bill should be the end” of low per-capita payments to high-risk states, said Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), “and hopefully the end of media reports about misspent homeland security funding.” As the chamber began debate on the measure, signs of discord were rare and muted. They focused mainly on the bill’s proposed cut in per-state “baseline” payments — as opposed to those based on risk assessments — from 0.75 percent to 0.25 percent of the Homeland Security Department’s budget for its main antiterrorism grant programs. “While some of my colleagues have called this a cut, I like to think of it as better use of our homeland security dollars,” said Representative Mike Rogers (R-Ala.). Maloney, whose New York City district straddles the boroughs of Manhattan and Queens, said she was supporting the bill despite her view that baseline payments should be eliminated entirely — a view that appears to be supported by the recommendations of the federal Sept. 11 commission. The federal government, the commission wrote in its report last year, should “base federal funding for emergency preparedness solely on risks and vulnerabilities, putting New York City and Washington, D.C., at the top of the current list. Such assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing or pork-barrel spending.” Representative Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said the bill is in the spirit of the panel’s work. “It will turn the 9/11 commission’s recommendation into law,” Menendez said. The House bill would set up the first specific grant process for antiterrorism purposes, separate from ongoing “pre-Sept. 11” programs for institutions such as fire departments and school security programs. It would create a “first responder grant board” to prioritize applications from state and local agencies and would strictly tie federal grants to states’ overall antiterrorism assessments and plans. The effort has not been limited to the House. A related bill introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) in January would reduce the state minimum payments to 0.55 percent and would grant Homeland Security increased decision-making power in spending the remaining money. The bill was approved last month by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which Collins is chairwoman. The Bush administration is seeking in its fiscal 2006 budget proposal to put more decision-making on the antiterrorism spending under Washington’s control. In both congressional chambers, however, lawmakers have expressed concern that the administration’s approach would lead to overly drastic cuts in the baseline funds and threaten state and local decision-making prerogatives.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
