WASHINGTON - The Secretary for Homeland Security danced around whether the House or Senate formula for divvying up first-responder and terrorism grants is better.

The House would allocate grants at .025 percent of available funds, but the Senate wants .055 percent of the money allocated to each state. Remaining funds will be distributed according to risk so "higher-threat" areas will get more money from the House formula.
continued below

"When I look at risk-based analysis, I don't see borders. I can't tell you which states are winners and losers in that formula," said Secretary Michael Chertoff. "We want to be risk based, but we want to tailor our responses to specific areas."

Several members of the House Homeland-Security Committee questioned the use of a risk-based formula, but Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) said the Senate's plan did not solve the problem. "The Senate proposal obviously moves away from risk-based assessment. That obviously is business is usual," said Lungren.

The House has been more supportive of risk-based funding while the Senate-where rural states have as much power as urban areas-has been less enthusiastic.

Chertoff returned Monday evening to the House Homeland-Security Committee. He originally appeared July 14 to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's second-stage review, but that hearing ended before all of the committee members could ask questions.

"A second-stage review team has constructed an analytic matrix that will set a preparedness baseline. The matrix will allow us to analyze possible threats and will map the current state of prevention, protection and response planning with regard to each. This matrix will be a critical tool enabling us to identify and remedy current gaps in preparedness," Chertoff earlier told the committee.