Counterterrorism Programs Flat in CR

By Michael Kraft

Barring an unexpected Senate floor amendment next week, the Continuing Resolution working its way through Congress will again hamper efforts to counter global terrorism by strengthening the capabilities of vulnerable friendly countries around the world.

The Continuing Resolution that passed the House of Representatives Wednesday night by a 286-140 vote keeps most government program funding for the rest of the fiscal year at last year’s FY 2006 level. This affects State Department’s Antiterrorism Training Assistance (ATA) Program and related smaller programs that give courses ranging from airport security to bomb detection, coping with weapons of mass destruction and countering terrorism funding.

The Administration had requested $135.6 million for the ATA program for FY 2007. Congress last year approved $122 million.

The Senate is expected to take up the CR next week. Senate leaders reportedly will try to head off floor amendments to avoid a conference with the House.

The failures to meet the increasing needs for the program and the pattern of cuts in the State Department’s requests by OMB and the Republican-controlled House during the past several years run counter to the President Bush’s repeated statements that it is better to defeat the terrorists abroad “before they attack us at home.”

His comments were usually made in the context of the Iraq situation. However, the U.S. government training assistance, such as airport security and bomb detection, not only helps the participating governments protect their own citizens but also Americans living or traveling in those countries. Attacks that could have hit Americans have been foiled or mitigated in a number of countries that have received ATA assistance, such as Jordan, Turkey and Indonesia.

The Administration had requested $135.6 million for the ATA program for FY 2007.
Congress last year approved $122 million. Although the cost for each course varies considerably, depending on the number of participants and length of the courses, based on past estimates, leaving the funding at last year’s level could mean a cutback of about two dozen potential courses in FY 07.

Even before the last Congress delayed action on the appropriations process for nine of the 13 appropriations bills, the House Appropriations Committee had cut the funding to last year’s level. (See my June 4, 2006 posting.)

The anti-terrorism funding is part of a Foreign Operations Appropriations sub-account for Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Agencies (NADR). The overall NADR funding in the CR is $406 million, the same as for FY 2006. This represents a cut of 9.6 per cent from the Administration’s request.

Congress admittedly has many competing interests to deal with in the tight budgets and in reworking the new CR to replace the one that expires in mid-February, the Democrats who now control the appropriations committees added funding for various worthy humanitarian efforts. For example, the CR approved $3.2 billion for efforts to counter HIV/Aids , a 12 per cent increase over the Administration’s request and also additional funds for Darfur relief. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he hoped these programs could save up to 100,000 lives.

However the pattern over the last several years of cutting the relatively small finding requests for the counterterrorism programs raises doubts about the ability of Congress and the budget gurus in OMB to provide the sustained support that is needed to help protect American and other lives from deadly attacks in the widespread areas of the world where al-Qaeda inspired terrorists are capable of striking.

The issue came up Wednesday at a symposium on countering terrorism financing sponsored by the Business and Executives for International Security (BENS) and featuring terrorism funding experts who contribute to this blog. I asked former Congresswoman Sue Kelly (D-NY) one of the featured speakers, and former chair of the House Financial Services Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee for her take on why the House repeatedly made cuts in these programs which are buried in the Appropriations Bill.

The former Congresswoman, who was a House leader in the effort to counter terrorism funding commented that because House members are up for reelection every two years, it is easier to try get to attention back home by efforts to fill local potholes than attempting to increase appropriations for relatively unpublicized counterterrorism programs.

It seems to be another variation of the late Speaker Tip O’Neill’s saying that all politics is local— that is until one’s constituents are killed in terrorist attacks. Ms. Kelly said members need to become better educated on the counterterrorism programs.

TrackBack