WASHINGTON, DC – In continuing efforts to reform a flawed formula for distributing homeland security grants, New York House Members this week wrote to negotiators for the Patriot Act Reauthorization in support of a provision added by Representatives Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland) and John Sweeney (R-Clifton Park) that would allocate homeland security funds almost entirely on the basis of risk.
“It just makes sense to put homeland security resources where the risk is,” said Lowey. “This reform has been approved by the House three times, and is endorsed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the former September 11th Commission, and many Senators. The New York delegation is united to make this measure law so that we can better protect our communities from terrorist attacks.”
“Now more than ever, we must allocate our limited resources efficiently. Homeland security funds should not be distributed without taking threat and vulnerability into consideration. Doing so would ignore the very nature of the threat we face: terrorists want to hit us where they can inflict the most damage. This means getting funding to where it is needed most, whether that be a port, a small border town, or a big city,” Sweeney said.
Since 2001, the Department of Homeland Security has distributed homeland security grants on the basis of a funding formula that guarantees each state will receive .75% of homeland security grant funds with the remainder distributed on the basis of population. No consideration is currently given to threat, vulnerability or consequence. The result of this formula is the distribution of more money per capita to low-population, low-risk states like Wyoming than areas facing greater risk, like New York.
Lowey and Sweeney successfully amended the House version of the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization to require that threat, vulnerability and consequence are the first criteria when it comes to distributing homeland security grant funds. Only after those grants are distributed would each state’s total allocation be evaluated to ensure that it receives a threshold amount of funding. The minimums would be set at .25% of available grant funding for non-border states and .45% for border states. The new formula would apply to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program.
Negotiations are currently underway to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the Patriot Act. The letter from New York representatives, signed by a bipartisan coalition of 28 Members, urges conferees to keep the Lowey-Sweeney provision in the final version of the bill as a critical element in our efforts to improve national emergency preparedness. The letter was sent to the ten Senate conferees and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
# # #
Dear Conferee:
As you reconcile differences between the House and Senate passed PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bills, we urge your support for House provisions that would change the formula for distributing first responder grants.
The House bill amends Section 1014(c) of the original PATRIOT Act, which distributes .75% of total funds to each state. According to the amended section, a first responder grants board would allocate funding based on a host of threats across 16 different critical infrastructure sectors. If any state does not receive .25% of total funds, or .45% for border states and .08% for territories and eligible tribes, it would be “topped-off” to the appropriate percentage to achieve a basic level of preparedness. This formula would result in a much more efficient and effective use of our homeland security resources.
The House has agreed to these provisions on three occasions – in last year’s 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act; in H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders bill; and again in the Lowey/Sweeney amendment to H.R. 3199. The House adopted H.R. 1544 by a vote of 409-10.
Attacks against New York, Madrid, and London illustrate that terrorists target the areas in which they can inflict the most damage. The federal government’s efforts to prepare and respond to terrorism should reflect this reality. In addition, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to allocate resources to the areas most vulnerable to any type of emergency situation. We cannot afford to use homeland security funding as a type of revenue sharing. First responder grants are not pork and should not be distributed in a manner that treats each area equally.
The House has approved risk-based funding three times. The Administration supports risk-based funding. The 9/11 Commission argued for risk-based funding. The PATRIOT Act conference report should include a new formula that allocates as much funding as possible on the basis of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. We urge you to adopt the Lowey/Sweeney provisions.
