Urban, rural divide marks debate over security aid

The Senate on Tuesday was headed toward contentious votes as urban and rural lawmakers squared off over the funding formula for emergency responders.

The issue arose during debate on a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department in fiscal 2006. Maine Republican Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., traded pointed remarks about their opposing amendments to revamp the funding formula.

"Need any of us here be reminded that it wasn't Portsmouth, Maine, that was attacked last week," Lautenberg said of the terrorist bombings in London.

Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., argued that the Homeland Security Department must allocate funding for police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders "strictly" to higher-risk urban areas -- a key recommendation last year of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They noted that terrorists repeatedly have targeted major cities.

Collins responded by accusing Feinstein and Lautenberg of cobbling together their language on the floor. She added that a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report requested by Lautenberg and released Monday is "flawed" in finding that the underlying spending measure would provide a larger percentage of funding on the basis of risk than language crafted by Collins and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.

Collins argued that the "sliding scale" mechanism in her amendment would give each state a minimum of 0.55 percent, but larger, more densely populated states -- and higher-risk areas -- would receive up to 3 percent of the guaranteed funding.

The CRS study, which Lautenberg said officials on Tuesday again confirmed as accurate, said the Collins-Lieberman proposal would guarantee that 40 percent of the $1.9 billion is spread across every state. Feinstein and Lautenberg want to lower that amount to 13 percent.

The Feinstein-Lautenberg proposal reflects the Bush administration's position and a similar House bill passed earlier this year.

The spending measure would require the department to guarantee 30 percent of the funding to states. Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said it "falls about halfway between the two theories ... being put forward by the competing interests."

Feinstein said she wants to follow the recommendation of the so-called 9/11 Commission that every dollar be "strictly" based on risk, but she said small, rural states represented in the Senate outnumber large, urban areas. "We know the number of small states," she said, implying that her amendment could lose when the chamber votes late afternoon. "And we know people will vote their state."

Collins said the debate is "regrettable and corrosive" because it pits urban senators against their rural colleagues. She said her amendment would strike a balance to give each state a predictable stream of funding.

Debate on the $30.8 billion spending measure is expected to heat up again over funding for rail and transit security in the wake of the London bombings. Senators filed 100 amendments Monday to address that issue, as well as border security, emergency communications equipment, chemical plant security and cuts to the grant program for emergency responders.