Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. prioritized Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants to prepare state and local emergency personnel for further incidences of terrorism or other catastrophic events. However, like most programs, members of Congress quickly began using DHS grants for parochial projects. The Center for Investigative Reporting stated in 2011 that the U.S. has spent $34 billion on such grants over ten years.

Wasteful examples of DHS preparedness funding exists in spades, including money for gym equipment, leather jackets, and office parties. In addition to the waste included in the normal budgetary process, Congress has channeled millions in earmarks through the various grant programs. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, 90 projects worth $102.1 million were added through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) State and Local Programs by 111 members of Congress, spread among 35 states. The earmarks went to towns such as Boerne, Texas (population 10,283); Alamosa, Colorado (population 8,745); and Shorter, Alabama (population 374). The amount directed through this program in FY 2010 represented a 357.1 percent increase over the $22,345,000 spent in FY 2009.

An additional $49.4 million was added in FYs 2009-2010 for 109 earmarks through the FEMA Predisaster Mitigation program including funding for towns such as Brooksville, Kentucky (population 600). In FY 2008, then-House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) created controversy by directing $3,000,000 to the South Carolina Adjutant General’s Office of Emergency Preparedness for projects in Santee and Manning. This earmark funded a convention center which, according to Rep. Clyburn, could also be used as an evacuation center – hence the funding. The Times and Democrat on January 26, 2008 noted that Santee Mayor Silas Seabrooks had previously called Rep. Clyburn about the possibility of funds for a conference center. According to the article, that is when Rep. Clyburn got the idea: “The light went off in my head. What’s wrong with having a conference center which could also serve in the case of an emergency as an evacuation center. So, we wanted this facility that will not only accommodate conferences, but one that could be here … to save lives.” However, the facility was cited for its role as a conference center, not as an evacuation center. Gregg Robinson, executive director of the Orangeburg County Economic Development Commission, explained in the same article, “…we will see the opportunities and spin-offs in retail and commercial development that come with it and all of the benefits of tourism dollars that come to Santee.”

This example demonstrates the tendency for DHS preparedness grants to be used for members’ pet projects. If a need still exists for preparedness funding, it should be distributed based on threat level priorities, rather than on which members of Congress are best at getting earmarks. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) seems to have gotten the memo as he has suggested DHS funding should go toward the nation’s big cities and transportation hubs that are most likely to be targeted by terrorists.

Funding for preparedness should also be shifted to the state and local level. Priorities should be determined at this level, lest federal taxpayers continue to find themselves on the hook for such “priorities” as funding for armored cars and golf carts in small towns that are unlikely to be the target of terrorist attacks.