 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
'Responder' Funding Sparks Lawmaker Feud
by Greta Wodele
Congress this year has kicked off a contentious debate over determining how much each state should receive in federal dollars to prepare, prevent and respond to a terrorist attack.
The issue has sparked fiery debates between rural and urban lawmakers, and is "coming to a head" again this year, as one key lawmaker said recently. Several urban lawmakers and the Bush administration have moved to revamp the formula to dole out funding on the basis of risk and vulnerabilities rather than on parochial factors. But rural lawmakers are gunning to ensure their states receive an adequate piece of the pie.
Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, are squaring off over the issue, drafting two significantly different proposals to revise the funding formula. Cox, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, plans to mark up his version this week. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which Collins chairs, marked up her version last week.
The two in the near future will need to negotiate a deal before sending any mandate to the president's desk for his signature. Reaching middle ground could prove difficult, as Collins acknowledged last week "formula fights are never pretty." For now, the lawmakers have drawn distinct and bold lines in the sand.
The two also will have to convince House and Senate appropriators to incorporate any deal into the department's spending bill for next year. During last year's budget cycle, the appropriators tied the Bush administration's hands when the administration attempted to allocate more funding toward higher risk cities. The appropriators mandated the department allocate funding in fiscal 2005 in the same manner as fiscal 2004.
The Case For Different Formulas
While both Cox and Collins argue their bills would allocate funding to the most at risk and vulnerable states, they employ different allocation structures and disparate guaranteed amounts to each state.
The current formula allocates 0.75 percent to each state and distributes the remaining amount based on population. Under that scenario, states like Wyoming have received more funding per capita than New York.
The funding formula has come under attack in the last two years by political observers, including the 9/11 Commission, for treating homeland security assistance as "pork barrel" funding. The commission's report last year called on Congress to base first-responder funding "strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities."
Collins bill would require the Homeland Security Department to use a "sliding scale" methodology when doling out funding to states for fire fighters, police officers and other 'first responders.' Under the revised formula, each state would receive .55 percent of all homeland security grant funding. Larger states could receive a higher percentage -- up to 3 percent -- based on population and population density.
The secretary would allocate the remaining funding, which the panel estimated would be over 60 percent, on the basis of risk, vulnerabilities and needs of local communities to prevent, prepare and respond to a terrorist attack.
Under Cox's bill, each state would receive at least 0.25 percent and certain border states would receive 0.45 percent of the billions of dollars allocated to states. The Bush administration in its fiscal 2006 budget proposal proposed a similar formula, giving each state 0.25 percent of 50 percent of total funding for first responders. The rest of that half of the money would be based on needs, risks and vulnerabilities. The other 50 percent of the funding would go to the top 50 urban areas with high risks.
Homeland Security Chairman Michael Chertoff recently said the department's resources "have to go where they will do the most good. We cannot afford to waste money by making everybody feel good by being part of it."
Critics of the Senate bill argue it applies the "sliding scale" methodology to all three pots of first-responder grant money, which would distribute larger sums to states not based on terrorist threats. It also uses a larger authorizing amount for the grants than proposed by the Bush administration -- $2.9 billion overall for fiscal year 2006. All three current grant programs combined would receive $2 billion under the president's budget.
The House and the administration would retain separate grant programs and limit the 0.25 percent guarantee to the state grant initiative program. Under the president's budget, that program would receive $1 billion next year.
Cox's bill and the administration's proposal also would require the department to first determine how much each state should receive based on risk and vulnerability. If that amount is below the 0.25 percent minimum, funding would be bumped up to that level.
The Bills Have Common Ground
The two measures do include similar provisions such as encouraging cities to apply for regional metropolitan grants, which the secretary would prioritize on the basis of threat, vulnerability and consequences from a terrorist attack. Under Collins bill, grants to regions could compromise up to 50 percent of the total first responder funding.
Both bills would require the secretary to define essential capabilities for first responders and creates a first responder taskforce to advise the secretary on personnel, planning and equipment. The bills also would require the secretary to develop national voluntary consensus standards for first responder equipment and training.
The department already has established a first responder taskforce and recently issued a set of "preparedness goals" for first responders to reach when spending the federal dollars.
The measures also establish an interagency coordinating committee to work with other agencies throughout the federal government on first responder grants. The provision aims to reduce duplicative application, planning and reporting requirements faced by states.
Cox's legislation would tie grant allocation to a mandated three-year plan from states. The Collins measure would require states to outline their spending plans in an application for the grants and would require the secretary to favor regional grant applications.
To address abuse, waste and fraud of funding, Collins' bill would require an annual audit by the Government Accountability Office and report to Congress. It also says states must submit an annual report on their use of grant funds. Both measures give the secretary authority to take action against states that fail to comply with certain requirements.
Cox's bill outlined specific uses for the funding to ensure accountability such as buying equipment to enhance terrorism response and preparedness. The bill would also allow states to use funding for communication devices that would allow emergency workers to 'talk' to each other across jurisdictions. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., attached an amendment to Collins' bill to establish six demonstration projects at the northern and southern borders for similar communication equipment.
The measures also would require that state offices allocate 80 percent of state grants to local governments within months of receiving the funding. Collins' legislation would require the activity within 60 days and Cox's bill would require it within 45 days.
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
