Geoff Earle, The Hill
Thursday, Apr. 15, 2004

Most of the homeland security money Congress has appropriated since Sept. 11, 2001, has failed to reach the local governments that need it most, while much of the funding has gone to places that face only a minimal threat from terrorism.

There is a widespread belief among members of Congress that the grant programs as run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fail to target billions of federal dollars to the most threatened areas, leaving probable targets more at risk.

But it is far from certain that the department’s funding formulas – which the lawmakers created – will change anytime soon, in part because powerful rural and small-state interests within the Congress favor the status quo.

In devising a template to dole out homeland security grants in the immediate months after Sept. 11 attacks, Congress crafted a formula that ensured every state would get a share of the money. Now, even some senators who represent low-population states that are receiving millions of dollars in block grants under the current system say the formula should change.

“This should be all about national security, and less about pork and politics,” said Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Homeland Security. “Right now, we’re using funding formulas that look more like a highway bill.”

But even the pending surface-transportation bill, which is ridiculed by spending watchdog groups for its pork-like congressional earmarks, steers a greater share of its resources to communities deemed to be in need.

“We need to adjust that funding; we really do,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “If that means Arizona may get less funds, then my constituents will understand. It’ll be tough, because everyone wants to get their share of the pie.”

‘Arrogant’ Agency?

The Bush administration has proposed a major shift in how it awards the money, doubling the amount for grants to cities with the greatest security needs at the expense of a formula that spreads the money evenly to all 50 states. But some members suspect the move toward grants designated by the agency, instead of following the current congressionally mandated scheme, amounts to a power grab by DHS Secretary Tom Ridge at the expense of their authority.

Meanwhile, some members grumble that the department is not responding to members’ requests for information about local projects. In particular, some Republican lawmakers fret that the administration’s plan would lavish funds on heavily Democratic cities at the GOP’s political expense.

“They’re very arrogant,” said one senior House Republican who asked not to be identified, referring to the year-old department. “They feel that they are totally in charge – that we should give them this money and [let them] run off and do what they want with it. ... The agency is, I believe, unresponsive to Congress.”

An administration official responded that the DHS has provided 2,300 briefings to members and congressional staff over the last year and has received 3,000 letters from members. “There are a lot of requirements, and we are being as responsive as hopefully can be expected,” the official said.

A Cox bill to change the funding system to a more threat-based approach passed the select committee he chairs unanimously, and GOP leadership aides say it will probably reach the House floor. But it is uncertain whether the bill in its present form could clear Congress.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee also unanimously reported a bill proposed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) aimed at streamlining the grant application process. But Collins favors guaranteeing small-population states a share of homeland security funding. She is currently negotiating with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) on a revised bill that could go to the floor.

It is unclear whether the administration will get the greater discretion it seeks in awarding grants to high-threat areas, as outlined in President Bush’s budget. Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said it was too early to talk about how the money would be allocated within the agency.

Formula’s Rural Bias

The clout that rural states hold in the Senate can be seen in a range of federal programs, from the dairy program to sugar subsidies.

The influence of rural-state senators, plus the House majority GOP’s tilt toward rural and suburban districts, will make any changes to the funding formula difficult, say congressional aides, at a time when the DHS has designated the nation’s threat level from terrorism has ranged from “elevated” to “high.”

Congress appropriated $1.7 billion in counterterrorism grants to states during fiscal year 2004, by a formula first set up in the USA Patriot Act. Each state got an equal share (0.75 percent) of a bulk of the funding. Another pot of money, about $500,000, was distributed on another population-based formula. Other funds have been awarded to assist urban transit programs with security.

This approach gave every senator something to take home to the voters this year. New York got $103 million in the current fiscal year. Delaware got $20 million. Montana got $21 million, and Wyoming got $19 million. Under a lesser formula of 0.25 percent, the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands got $6 million, as did American Samoa. House and Senate offices sent out a flurry of press releases in recent weeks announcing new homeland security grants that were awarded in their states.

Although the department announced the awards late last year, the money for about half the designated grants for high-risk urban areas actually arrived only last weekend, with the balance to arrive shortly.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), for example, released a statement trumpeting $24.4 million in new security grants for Nebraska. The funding, Hagel said, would help the state respond to terrorist incidents, including “chemical, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons and cyber attacks.”

The current system has drawn a number of critics. “We did homeland security legislation in an emergency fashion,” said McCain. “There is an overwhelming group of experts who tell you that there are some areas to which the threat is a greater threat. Are [terrorists] going to go to Gila Bend, Ariz., or Badlands, S.D. or Los Angeles, Calif.?”

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) referred to the highway bill that cleared the House last week, after members from mainly Southern “donor states” failed to change the funding formula on the floor. On homeland security, he said, “If you’re going to change it, you better do it early on. … Once you begin to get a pattern, you just can’t change it.”

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he has doubts that the nation is setting its priorities correctly. “I have some concerns … in trying to do a better job of threat assessments,” he said.

But Roberts, whose heavily agricultural state got a $29 million counterterrorism grant, said the threat to the nation’s food supply was “very real.”

The Sept. 11 hijackers had also shown an interest in using crop dusters, he noted, adding, “We believe the crop dusters were for crops, not people.” Roberts said the use of anthrax or other biological agents could cause “economic chaos” if they got into the food supply.

“I don’t believe that every spot that’s got a name on our map necessarily is a threat,” said Stevens, who helped hammer out the original formulas. “You can have a threat where there’s no population,” he said, and you can have “no threat” where there is a large population.

Stevens noted that Alaska, despite a population of only around 600,000, has an 800-mile oil pipeline, plus the nation’s largest cargo airport.

“It was a realization that every state has a degree of threat,” said Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.). “You never can tell where the problem is going to originate.”

Editor's note: