(2 of 7)
How all this happened--and the bitter battle to rationalize the system--shows how far America has yet to go in establishing something called homeland security. With no clear direction from the feds, state officials have been engaged in a perverse competition for antiterrorism dollars. The Bush Administration recently proposed a far more risk-based approach for 2005 funding, but rural-state Senators are balking now that they have had three years to get accustomed to their cash. In some ways, it is a familiar story: of state officials understandably guarding their piece of the pie, of rural localities getting disproportionate help from the government. But this money is not for roads; it is the first demonstration of how America will protect its citizens in a new kind of war. Bogged down in emotion and opportunism, the debate is leading to dangerous gaps in the preparedness of our most vulnerable communities. Says Stephen E. Flynn, a former U.S. Coast Guard commander and director of a homeland-security task force chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman: "At the end of the day, blowing off New York and L.A. so that you can make sure Wyoming is safe just makes no sense."
--HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Why didn't risk figure into the formula written after 9/11 to bolster homeland security? In facing al-Qaeda, we knew we were dealing with an organization that sought mass casualties and headlines. In the confused days after 9/11, when Capitol Hill offices were closed after several were contaminated by letters containing anthrax, a small group of House and Senate leaders got together with Bush Administration staff members in a corner of the Capitol to write the homeland-security funding portion of the USA Patriot Act--a massive and sweeping bill that was propelled into law just six weeks after Sept. 11. Under the direction of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, they decided to adopt a formula that had been used in years past for distributing terrorism-preparedness funds, a formula that had never been written into law before and that was designed for a sum of money that was incomparably smaller. This unusual formula mandated that each state receive a minimum of three-quarters of 1% of the total pot of money, with smaller shares going to territories like Puerto Rico. That meant that 40% of the funds had to be divided up equally among the states, regardless of size or population.
There wasn't much debate about the decision, says a Democratic Senate aide who was involved in the negotiation. "Frankly, it wasn't as high a priority as FBI wiretaps and some of the other things being debated." The formula first appeared in the Patriot Act bill on Oct. 23. One day later, it was passed by the House. "Nobody even noticed it until five months later," remembers a House aide.
But Congress alone isn't to blame for the skewed funding. The Executive Branch was left with exceptional leeway to spend the remaining 60% of the funds any which way--including according to risk. But first in 2002 and then again in 2003 and 2004, under the newly created Department of Homeland Security, the Executive Branch just split the money according to each state's population.
--THE LITTLE VS. THE BIG