Representative Peter King, incoming Homeland Security Committee chairman

then also there was anthrax in New York. There was a whole lot of confusion at that time and some false leads that were being followed. So that’s a roundabout way of saying I have not been briefed on the latest information with the FBI.

HSNW: A certain portion of the Homeland Security budget is distributed among states based on their population, not on the threats that they faced. You were instrumental a couple of years ago in cutting that portion that states received not based on the threats that they faced. Is that mechanism, of giving the first twenty or twenty five cents of every DHS dollar to states based on their population, still in place? Do you plan to do anything about it?

King: Yeah, let me get to the second part first. I do intend to try and do something about it. And I think the vehicle we have for it is that at a time when the prevailing sentiment is to cutback on unnecessary spending, and to make spending more efficient and economical, one way, I believe, in Homeland Security, is to have a better allocation system for the Homeland Security grants. And we have to make it much more threat-based, and we have to limit it to areas that are terror targets, not just spread the money around on the principle that anyone can be attacked. What should be done is to find the areas that are clearly top terror targets and focus the spending there. We did — I guess it was in 2007 — correct it, or put another way, we improved it, but it’s still not as efficient as it should be.

HSNW: Do you have a firm stand on the notion that the government should or should not be the insurer of last resort — not for terrorism but for natural disasters? You know the argument: you offer insurance to people to take risks, they will take the risks and live in areas that are flood prone. Where do you stand on this?

King: That has to be reevaluated. There are certain areas where I think the resident has to assume the risk. You can’t have people continually building, for instance, on beach fronts or near beach fronts, which are vulnerable areas, and then expect the government to be constantly bailing them out. So again, that all has to be definitely looked at and reviewed,