Congress seeks better system for funding terrorism response

Amid reports of haphazard federal funding of state and local preparations for a terrorist attack, Congress is taking up the thorny matter of funding homeland security improvements across the nation.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, are still fresh in the minds of federal officials as they conduct a complex debate about how and when the new Homeland Security Department should fund local and state spending on everything from software training to radiation suits. President Bush last week issued two directives on the matter, ordering the department to identify and protect "critical infrastructure" and to establish a national "all-hazards" preparedness goal.

The debate has pitted states against cities, and advocates of nationwide readiness efforts against those who back a more targeted approach to divvying up more than $7 billion annually over the short term. No matter what solution is found, said PSComm President John Cohen, an adviser to state and local governments on homeland security, "We can't continue doling out this money in the ad hoc manner that we have been, because it's just not productive."

The current formula for distributing funds through the department's main responder grant program has provoked outrage from governments including that of New York City, with officials complaining that money is being wasted in less populated, lower-profile locations while major potential terrorist targets remain vulnerable. Under the formula, every state receives 0.75 percent of the total program amount, and population determines how the rest of the funds are distributed.

A measure now before the Senate would retain the 0.75 percent payments to states but would place more emphasis on assessing the varying risk of terrorism around the country in spending the remaining money. In a process that could lead to more drastic reform, however, the fledgling House Homeland Security Committee is expected early next year to take up a bill on the grants that emerged Nov. 20 from its Emergency Preparedness and Response Subcommittee.

The House bill, expected to be a high priority for the committee and potentially the full House in the congressional session that begins next month, reflects both bipartisan compromise and continuing division over grants. In marking up a Republican bill highlighting national threat assessment as a key to smarter spending, the House subcommittee added much that was in a Democratic bill stressing universal baseline readiness.

The compromise bill would create a First Responder Grant Program in the Homeland Security Department and require the department to define both "essential capabilities" that all first responders must have and standards for equipment and training.

A task force representing various areas of emergency response would be created to assist the department's Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate in defining the essential capabilities, "based upon the most current risk assessment by the [Homeland Security Department] Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the terrorist threat" ? language that is sure to spark further debate about the desirability and feasibility of such assessment. In another provision that ventures onto risky ground, the bill would allow for some direct federal funding of regions and municipalities.

The committee's Republican and Democratic leaders both have praised the subcommittee's bipartisanship, but each also continued to stress his party's priority, signaling a potential showdown ahead. Senior Democrat Jim Turner of Texas said the bill would retain the "core concept" of his party's bid to distribute grants "based on building essential capabilities," while committee Chairman Christopher Cox, R-Calif., said the measure "reflects agreement on the need to make federal grants risk-based."

Cox's new focus on risk, generally construed to mean a combination of threat and vulnerability, reflects a key compromise in the bill. The initial Democratic legislation focused on national standards and contained virtually no language on threat-based spending, while the original Republican measure focused on threat alone, not the more complex idea of risk.

The Homeland Security Department so far has little capability to conduct threat or risk assessment, a situation that appears likely to fuel continuing disagreement over the legislation. The department's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate is required under last year's Homeland Security Act, which created the department, to assess vulnerabilities to and risks of terrorist attack, but the department has indicated such a capability will not be fully in place for three to five years ? numbers that "should just be considered unacceptable," said Cohen.

Democrats on the House committee have continually criticized the Republicans for focusing on threat despite the department's inability to conduct the assessment. "I mean, you're crazy to think you're going to be able to do that," said one source close to the subcommittee.

Committee Republicans have acknowledged that assessment capacity is now lacking at the department but have stressed that its absence should not affect the goals of legislation that is meant to protect the country at the grass roots.

"The fact that the capability may not yet be what everyone desires does not negate the fact that it is still the right approach to take," committee majority spokesman Vince Sollitto said recently, before leaving for a similar post with new California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In one process that could help to improve the department's analytical capacity, state homeland security agencies are required by year's end to provide the department's Office for Domestic Preparedness with statewide terrorism and weapons of mass destruction threat assessment, as well as prevention and response plans.

Among other uses, the data will be provided to the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate as it develops its national threat assessment. "When those are completed, that should provide a baseline of information that can then be used by the feds," Cohen said.

Committee majority spokeswoman Elizabeth Tobias added that the current bill could prod the Homeland Security Department to speed its effort to assess the terrorist threat. "We're encouraging them to get that piece of the puzzle in place as quickly as possible. … There has to be a strong intelligence capacity," Tobias said.

"Everyone wants to see a threat and vulnerability assessment process included in the process," agreed committee minority spokeswoman Moira Whelan, "but we need something in the meantime."

How long the "meantime" will last, however, is a matter of some debate. Cohen said the current funding "full-court press" can last "a year or maybe two years, but you can't do that forever." Said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at a recent Heritage Foundation discussion on the subject, "You can't protect all of the critical assets of our nation. It's impossible."

Others are concerned, meanwhile, that the movement toward basing funding on risk will go too far. One advocate of baseline readiness said states are concerned that even the subcommittee's compromise language reflects "a movement toward a pure threat basis when you're talking about funding formulas."

International Association of Chiefs of Police legal counsel Gene Voegtlin said committing too many resources to protecting locations assessed to be at high risk plays into the hands of terrorists.

"The problem with target-hardening is that it's just going to move to different targets. I'm not saying it's not valid, but it's not a panacea either. … You can't have a funding program that's designed in that fashion to the exclusion of everything else," Voegtlin said.

Voegtlin praised the House subcommittee, though, for not "trying to get into the minutiae of how risk assessments are done." The compromise bill, he said, "provides the Department of Homeland Security with the ability to kind of flesh out how they do their risk assessments."

Although the House bill envisions most federal grant money for response going to state governments for subsequent distribution to localities, it also provides for direct grants to "regions" ? primarily, areas containing parts of at least two states or localities and having either a combined population of at least 1.65 million or an area of at least 20,000 square miles ? and, in case of failure by states to promptly "pass through" enough funds, to individual localities.

The provision does not appear to be a major source of interparty disagreement, but it could lead to controversy among state and local governments. Majority spokeswoman Tobias said she doesn't "think there's going to be instances where [states and localities are] going to be fighting each other for who gets what when," but other sources disagreed.

"The chairman felt very strongly," said one staffer familiar with the negotiations, "about the fact that he was hearing from way too many localities that the money was not reaching the local level. … He was pretty wound up about this, and … Mr. Turner was also interested in seeing that the money got to the localities more quickly."

The National Governors Association, among other groups, has expressed opposition to direct grants for regions and localities, a position that could be bolstered by Bush's order in his directives this week that the "primary mechanism for delivery of federal preparedness assistance … be awards to the states."

Nolan Jones, deputy director of the association's Office of State-Federal Relations, said the implications of the compromise bill for such payments are still "basically unclear" but that the association will lobby against any grants that do not go through state capitals.

"We don't accept direct grants to regions and localities ? under no circumstances. That goes divergent to what we're trying to do. We're trying to build up a national strategy," said Jones.

The police association's Voegtlin, however, called for striking a "balance when it comes to direct funding." He said response to the diffuse terrorist threat requires state and federal coordination of "massive response capabilities" but that local officials must be consulted as to what is needed on the ground.

"The folks that are on the scene in the localities are going to have the best idea of what their specific needs are," he said.

Looking ahead to the future of homeland security grants, Voegtlin added, "The key to everything, when it comes to funding out to the states and localities, is going to be flexibility."