Cities At Risk Deserve More Funding

The recent confession of Khalid Mohammed, the 9/11 terror mastermind, that he helped plan a series of attacks on high-profile targets in New York City makes the strongest case possible for distributing homeland security funding based only on risk.

The question now is whether Congress will listen. New York City and other major metropolitan areas face the greatest threat, yet Congress continues to advance legislation that would send more money to small towns that are not at risk of attack. It is only common sense to direct homeland security funding to the areas that are being targeted by terrorists for attack. It’s time for Congress and the President to enact legislation creating a fair and equitable system for distributing homeland security funding.

That is why I called on a House-Senate Conference Committee last week to agree to legislative language that would require all anti-terror funding is distributed based only on risk (defined as threat, vulnerability and consequences) and eliminate all needs-based variables.

The House passed legislation in January to change the funding formula to more closely reflect the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which called for all homeland security grants are to be distributed based on risk. Unfortunately, the Senate version continues to dilute the already small pot of money that is needed most by the highest threat areas.

Mohammed’s confession should serve as a wake-up call to the Congress to end the pork barrel politics of anti-terror funding.