Lawmakers scrap over grant formula for first responders

A fiery, late-hour debate that erupted on the House floor late last week presages a high-stakes battle that is likely to occur next month between two influential committee chairmen and their competing bills to change the federal homeland security grant program for state and local firefighters and other first responders.

House Homeland Security Chairman Chris Cox, R-Calif., told CongressDaily last Friday -- the day after the House floor fight -- that the House would vote after the July 4 recess on legislation that would change the way money is distributed to help emergency responders prepare, prevent and respond to a terrorist attack.

But Cox was unsure if the House Rules Committee, which decides what legislation is brought to the floor, would give the green light to a bill he produced with Homeland Security ranking member Jim Turner, D-Texas, and two standing committees also had approved with some modifications. The Rules panel could pick a rival bill instead, giving the House GOP leadership's blessing to legislation promoted by Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska.

The only certainty, Cox said diplomatically, would be that the Rules panel's decision would reflect "where the center of gravity is in the House."

Two of the three committees involved in the legislation -- Energy and Commerce and Judiciary -- closely tracked Cox and Turner's legislation, showcasing the temporary Homeland Security panel's ability to work with other committees that share jurisdiction over homeland security issues and shape the debate over legislation.

"We fashioned compromises," said a senior adviser to Cox's panel Thursday, referring to the panel's efforts to negotiate with the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary panels.

But the Homeland Security panel was unable to dissuade the third committee -- Transportation and Infrastructure -- from changing the legislation.

And Young, who has expressed disdain for Cox's temporary panel and its efforts to legislate, said earlier this month if House GOP leaders allowed only Cox's version to come to the floor -- and prevented consideration of his panel's bill -- he would ask Transportation and Infrastructure members to vote against the measure.

Although their bill would eliminate minimum funding for each state, Cox and Turner said Friday it spreads money across the country based on threats, vulnerabilities and risk assessments rather than other factors, such as population. Each state receives three-quarters of 1 percent of the total amount authorized, and the remainder is distributed on the basis of a state's population.

The grant formula bill was prompted last year by complaints from first responder groups that the process had proved cumbersome and did not provide adequate funding to the most vulnerable areas. Big states have argued that under the current formula states such as Wyoming receive more money per capita than New York.

Young's bill would broaden the bill to allow more localities to receive money for all-hazard emergencies, ranging from snowfalls to droughts. New York lawmakers protested at the panel's markup that the anti-terrorist funds would be diluted.

Late Thursday night, Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., along with the rest of the New York and New Jersey delegations, attempted to address the issue by shifting more money to high-risk urban areas during debate on the fiscal 2005 Homeland Security spending bill. Lawmakers voted down the provision on a 237-171 vote, with rural delegations from Kansas, Wisconsin and Kentucky dominating the vote.

"We have already robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now Paul wants more at the expense of Peter," said Homeland Security Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., noting his panel shifted more funding to urban areas from the basic formula grants that allocate money to the rest of the country.

Rogers, along with other rural lawmakers, also argued that terrorists could expose any weakness in security, which requires every state and locality to have adequate equipment, training and personnel in an emergency.

But lawmakers from more populous states contended that evidence from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks shows terrorists want to strike areas that would cause a larger economic and human toll.

"[W]e should not be using this bill to spread the wealth around, this pork, so each of us can go back to our districts and say we produced a little bit for our constituents," said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. "We should put the money where the threat is."

Sweeney, a member of the House Homeland Security panel, said he planned to resume the fight again to shift more money to high-threat areas, vowing to lobby lawmakers "behind the scenes and in front of the scenes" to support Cox and Turner's original bill.

But Cox and Turner said Friday their bill would not invoke a battle along rural and urban lines like the one that erupted late Thursday night.

Turner explained that the bill would give the federal government a "play book" to determine what each state and locality needs. He added that Thursday's debate proved it is "detrimental to homeland security to have parochial fights," because "everybody voted their districts."