[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 62 (Thursday, May 12, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3211-H3237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 269 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1544.

                              {time}  1127


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1544) to provide faster and smarter funding for first responders, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Calvert in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter 
Funding for First Responders Act. I am here on the floor today with the 
ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). He and I are here to argue today on 
behalf of a bill that is strongly endorsed by every single Republican 
and Democratic member of the Committee on Homeland Security. More than 
that, this legislation is supported by the Bush administration. We have 
received a formal statement of administration support for this bill. It 
is strongly endorsed by the 9/11 Commission whose recommendation that 
first responder funding be placed on a risk basis this bill implements. 
It is endorsed by scores of first responder groups, the men and women 
on the front lines for whom this money is intended. They worked with us 
over a period of over 2 years, first to identify the problems in the 
current grant-making system for billions of homeland security and 
terrorism preparedness dollars and, second, to develop a solution.
  The solution that today's bill presents is a simple one. We are going 
to move away from political formulas for allocating these billions of 
dollars and toward a system that relies on the intelligence that the 
American taxpayer already purchases at the price of billions of dollars 
every year, information about terrorist capabilities and intentions, 
information about our own critical infrastructure and vulnerabilities 
and information about the potential consequences of different kinds of 
terrorist attacks. In combination, this mix of threat, vulnerability 
and consequence is called risk. Funding for first responders in the 
future is going to be based upon risk. That is what this bill is all 
about.
  And we solve the second problem. Of the over $30 billion in terrorism 
preparedness moneys that the Federal Government has made available to 
States and localities since September 11, some 60 percent of it is not 
yet spent. It is stuck in the administrative pipeline.

                              {time}  1130

  There are a number of reasons for this that our committee has 
discovered through field hearings across the country, hearings here in 
Washington, and our own investigation. But at bottom it is this: right 
now there is an ``ad hockery'' to the way that moneys are passed around 
the country. There is no predictability about when the funds might 
arrive, whether reimbursement will be there. And the planning, as a 
result, tends to take place after the money is received, slowing things 
down.
  In our new system, the planning will be moved at the front end of the 
process. Every State which already has a statewide terrorism 
preparedness plan will ensure that when these applications for grants 
are made, they are directly tied to that statewide plan and also 
directly tied to the achievement of national objectives for first 
responder preparedness.
  We will have clear standards for the first responders so that they 
will not have these kinds of questions about reimbursement that have 
plagued them in the past. We will know that what we are buying in the 
form of equipment and training will be directly tied to national 
terrorism preparedness goals.
  In recent days, there has been a fair amount of press coverage about 
abuses of homeland security spending. For example, right here in 
Washington, D.C., we learned that $100,000 of this grant money meant 
for first responder terrorism preparedness was instead spent on a Dale 
Carnegie course for sanitation workers, another $100,000 was spent to 
develop a rap song purportedly to educate young people about how to be 
prepared in the case of a terrorist attack.
  These kinds of abuses will come to an end as a result of this 
legislation, and our money will be directed toward keeping our first 
responders, who are not only first in line to protect us but first in 
line for the terrorists, the first to die if this system does not work 
right, keeping these people well trained and well equipped.
  I would like to thank, in addition to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson), ranking member, the other members of the Committee on 
Homeland Security. There has been a great deal of work that has gone 
into this bill. The last step in bringing this to the floor was a 13-
hour markup in our committee. I think what we will find today, Mr. 
Chairman, is that this debate will go forward in a very bipartisan 
fashion. We might not agree about all the details of this legislation. 
We may not agree when we go to conference with the Senate. And when we 
come back with a conference report, hopefully in just a few weeks or 
maybe a few months, we may not agree on every detail.
  But there is a big change in this bill that we all agree on, and that 
is that henceforth moneys for terrorism preparedness that go from 
Washington to States and localities to our police, to our firefighters, 
to our EMS personnel, to people in hospitals who will be there in case 
of a biological attack or indeed to treat the wounded in case of any 
attack, that the people who get these moneys will be assured that, 
first, the moneys will arrive soon, on time, right after we want them 
to be available; and, second, they will know how to spend it and they 
will know, when they spend it in accordance with their plans, they will 
get reimbursed for it. This will move America in the direction that we 
need to go to be prepared for another terrorist attack.
  A great deal of our work in the Committee on Homeland Security is 
focused on preventing terrorist attacks,

[[Page H3212]]

as well we should be focused; but I have no doubt that someday 
somewhere terrorists will again strike our country; and when that 
happens, we are going to rely on our first responders just as we did on 
9/11, and next time we want to make sure they have all the training and 
all the equipment that they need. This bill is a strong step in that 
direction. It is something that I think we can all be very proud of.
  I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi, who, 
as the leader of the minority, has made it possible for us to keep in 
mind that when the terrorists attack us, they are not going to attack 
Democrats or Republicans. They are going to attack Americans. And we 
are all Americans here, and we are all doing the right thing today.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters for the 
Record.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
     1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act 
     of 2005.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1544 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a 
     sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my 
     decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
     otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and 
     of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional 
     interest will be included in the Committee report and in the 
     Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House 
     Floor.
       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
     asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
     provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     expressing the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's 
     jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1544, the ``Faster and 
     Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005.'' The bill 
     was introduced on April 12, 2005, and referred solely to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security. The Committee on Homeland 
     Security marked up the bill and ordered it reported on April 
     21, 2005. The bill, as reported, is substantially similar to 
     the amended version of H.R. 3266 that the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee marked up and ordered reported 
     during the 108th Congress, and it reflects compromises 
     reached in consultation with your Committee during the last 
     Congress.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R. 1544 in order to expedite proceedings 
     on this legislation. I agree that, by not exercising your 
     right to request a referral, the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee does not waive any jurisdiction it 
     may have over H.R. 1544. In addition, I agree that if any 
     provisions of the bill are determined to be within the 
     jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee, I will support your request to be conferees with 
     respect to those provisions during any House-Senate 
     conference on H.R. 1544 or similar legislation.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's report and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 1544.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters 
     being considered in H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding 
     for First Responders Act of 2005. Section 3 of this bill 
     amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section 
     1807 that addresses national voluntary consensus standards 
     for the performance, use, and validation of first responder 
     equipment. The development of such standards is of particular 
     jurisdictional interest to the Science Committee.
       The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R. 
     1544 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a claim to jurisdiction over section 
     three of the bill (adding a new section 1807 that addresses 
     national voluntary consensus standards for the performance, 
     use, and validation of first responder equipment), I agree 
     not to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
     legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral 
     waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
     Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your 
     response will be included in the Committee report and in the 
     Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House 
     Floor.
       The Science Committee also asks that you support our 
     request to be conferees on any provisions over which we have 
     jurisdiction during House-Senate conference on this 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                    Washington, DC, April 29, 2005
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     expressing the Science Committee's jurisdictional interest in 
     H.R. 1544, the ``Faster and Smarter Funding for First 
     Responders Act of 2005.'' The bill was introduced on April 
     12, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security. The Committee on Homeland Security marked up the 
     bill and ordered it reported on April 21,2005. The bill, as 
     reported, is substantially similar to the amended version of 
     H.R. 3266 that the Science agreed to discharge during the 
     108th Congress, and it reflects compromises reached in 
     consultation with your Committee during the last Congress.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R. 1544 in order to expedite proceedings 
     on this legislation. I agree that, by not exercising your 
     right to request a referral, the Science Committee does not 
     waive jurisdiction it may have over section three of the bill 
     (adding a new section 1807 that addresses national voluntary 
     consensus standards for the performance, use, and validation 
     of first responder equipment). In addition, if those 
     provisions are determined to be within the jurisdiction of 
     the Science Committee, I will support representation for your 
     Committee during any House-Senate conference on H.R. 1544 or 
     similar legislation.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's report and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 1544.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Adams Building Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cox: I am writing with regard to H.R. 1544, 
     the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 
     2005, which was ordered reported by the Committee on Homeland 
     Security on April 21, 2005. As you know, the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over matters involving 
     public health contained within section 3 of H.R. 1544 as 
     reported.
       Section 3 of H.R. 1544, as reported, requires the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services to appoint ex officio members 
     and coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security with 
     respect to the selection of emergency medical professionals 
     to serve as members of a task force on terrorism 
     preparedness. In addition, the bill requires that, in 
     establishing any national voluntary consensus standards for 
     first responder equipment or training that involve or relate 
     to health professionals, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     must coordinate with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services. This language is substantially similar to 
     provisions contained in the Energy and Commerce reported 
     version of H.R. 3266 from the 108th Congress.
       I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before 
     the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not 
     exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to 
     waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 
     1544. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves 
     its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill 
     that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask 
     for your commitment to support any request by the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 1544 or similar 
     legislation.

[[Page H3213]]

       I request that you include this letter as part of the 
     Committee's Report on H.R. 1544 and in the Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2005.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 1544, the ``Faster and Smarter Funding for 
     First Responders Act of 2005.'' The bill was introduced on 
     April 12, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security. The Committee on Homeland Security marked 
     up the bill and ordered it reported on April 21, 2005. The 
     bill, as reported, is substantially similar to the amended 
     version of H.R. 3266 that the Energy and Commerce Committee 
     marked up and ordered reported during the 108th Congress; and 
     it reflects compromises reached in consultation with your 
     Committee during the last Congress.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R. 1544 in order to expedite proceedings 
     on this legislation. I agree that by not exercising your 
     right to request a referral, the Energy and Commerce 
     Committee does not waive any jurisdiction it may have over 
     H.R. 1544.
       In addition, I agree that if any provisions of the bill are 
     determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee, I will support representation for your 
     Committee during conference with the Senate with respect to 
     those provisions.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's report and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 1544.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2005.
     Hon. Christopher Cox,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cox: On April 21, 2005, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security ordered reported H.R. 1544, the ``Faster 
     and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005.'' In 
     recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of 
     H.R. 1544, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives any 
     consideration of the bill.
       Several sections of H.R. 1544 contain matters within the 
     Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. The 
     centrality of law enforcement to the primary purposes of this 
     legislation brings it within the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     legislative and oversight jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(7) 
     (``Criminal law enforcement'') and rule X(1)(l)(19) 
     (``Subversive activities affecting the internal security of 
     the United States''). A summary of principal provisions 
     within the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction follows.
       Sec. 3 (new section 1801(9)(B)(i)) establishes grant 
     eligibility for a State or States located in a region 
     ``established by a compact between two or more States.'' 
     These matters fall within the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(10) (``Interstate compacts 
     generally''). Sec. 3 (new section 1802(a)(3)) (``Law 
     Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program'') falls within the 
     Committee's jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(7) (``Criminal 
     law enforcement'') and rule X(1)(l)(19) (``Subversive 
     activities affecting the internal security of the United 
     States''). Sec. 3 (new section l803) (``Covered Grant 
     Eligibility and Criteria'') establishes standards by which 
     States and localities receive funding for, among other 
     things, ``unique aspects of terrorism.'' These matters fall 
     within the Committee's jurisdiction under rule 
     X(1)(l)(7)(``Criminal law enforcement'') and rule X(1)(l)(19) 
     (``Subversive activities affecting the internal security of 
     the United States'').
       Sec. 3 (new section 1804)(``Risk-based Evaluation and 
     Prioritization'') establishes a ``First Responder Grants 
     Board'' with broad authority to assess a range of domestic 
     security threats, including those based on ``acts of 
     terrorism of the known activity of any terrorist 
     organization.'' Domestic security threats clearly fall within 
     the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction under rule 
     X(1)(1)(7)(``Criminal law enforcement'') and rule 
     X(I)(1)(19)(``Subversive activities affecting the internal 
     security of the United States''). Sec. 3 (new Section 
     1804(c)(3)) (``Types of Threat'') directs the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security to consider a variety of threats to 
     critical infrastructure, including: biological threats; 
     nuclear threats; radiological threats; incendiary threats; 
     chemical threats; explosives; suicide bombers; cyber threats; 
     and any other threats based on proximity to specific past 
     acts of terrorism or the known activity of a terrorist group. 
     Much of this information could be acquired only with the 
     active participation of law enforcement and antiterrorism 
     agencies, including the Department of Justice and its 
     relevant components. These matters fall within the Committee 
     on the Judiciary's legislative and oversight jurisdiction 
     under rule X(I)(1)(7)(``Criminal law enforcement'') and rule 
     X(I)(1)(19)(``Subversive activities affecting the internal 
     security of the United States'').
       The Committee on the Judiciary agrees to waive any formal 
     consideration of the bill with the understanding that its 
     jurisdiction over these and other provisions contained in the 
     legislation is no way altered or diminished. The Committee on 
     the Judiciary also reserves the right to seek appointment to 
     any House-Senate conference on this legislation. I would 
     appreciate your including this letter in your Committee's 
     report on H.R. 1544 and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of H.R. 1544 on the House floor. Thank you for 
     your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Judiciary Committee's jurisdictional interest 
     in H.R. 1544, the ``Faster and Smarter Funding for First 
     Responders Act of 2005.'' The bill was introduced on April 
     12, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security. The Committee on Homeland Security marked up the 
     bill and ordered it reported on April 21, 2005. The bill, as 
     reported, is substantially similar to the amended version of 
     H.R. 3266 that the Judiciary Committee marked up and ordered 
     reported during the 108th Congress, and it reflects 
     compromises reached in consultation with your Committee 
     during the last Congress.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R. 1544, in order to expedite proceedings 
     on this legislation. I acknowledge the Judiciary Committee's 
     Rule X jurisdiction over matters relating to criminal law 
     enforcement and subversive activities affecting the internal 
     security of the United States, and recognize the Committee's 
     strong jurisdictional interest in this legislation. I agree 
     that by waiving further consideration of the bill, the 
     Judiciary Committee does not waive any jurisdiction it may 
     have over H.R. 1544 or similar legislation. In addition, I 
     agree that for provisions of the bill that are determined to 
     be within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, I will 
     support representation for your Committee during conference 
     with the Senate.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's report and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 1544.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would like at the outset to follow the conversation, saying this 
committee has worked very well on this legislation. It is bipartisan. 
The 14 hours we put in working on it in committee went very well. I 
would like to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), 
the ranking member of the Emergency Preparedness, Science, and 
Technology Subcommittee, for his work on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for 
First Responders Act. Our first responders, whether they are 
firefighters, law enforcement, or EMS providers, are the first line of 
defense. We must provide them with additional resources, training, and 
information they need in order to meet the challenges.
  Preparing for, preventing, and responding to any large incident is 
primarily a local responsibility. Still, the Federal Government has a 
significant role. H.R. 1544 was introduced in April. It was co-
sponsored by all the Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on 
Homeland Security, and it was approved unanimously by voice vote of 
that same committee. In addition, this bill is supported by every major 
first responder organization in the country. This version is a 
compromise that was reached during the 108th Congress in order to pass 
out of the House of Representatives at that point. The current system 
for distributing funding to first responders is fundamentally broken 
and is not getting the funding where it needs to go in a timely 
fashion.

[[Page H3214]]

  Currently, funding is distributed solely on the basis of an arbitrary 
formula that does not consider risk in any part of the country. H.R. 
1544 ensures that homeland security funding for first responders is 
distributed on the basis of risk regardless of community type.
  As a former mayor and volunteer firefighter from Mississippi, I am 
very concerned that the needs of rural America are not adequately being 
considered when DHS allocates homeland security funding. Maintaining a 
State minimum of .25 percent for most States and .45 for certain border 
States strikes a difficult, but necessary, balance. On one hand the 
government must consider risk in distributing the funding. On the other 
hand, the government must ensure that each State will have the funding 
to reach a minimum level of preparedness.
  H.R. 1544 does not mean that all funding will go to States and 
communities with a high population or high threat. For the first time, 
DHS will assess risk in every community regardless of whether it is 
urban, suburban, or rural. After all, we do not know where terrorists 
will strike next.
  One issue that is very important to my State is the issue of flood 
control levees. I worked to ensure that flood control levees are 
included in the definition of dams on the critical infrastructure.
  This bill establishes a First Responder Grant Board to prioritize 
grant applications using threat, vulnerability, and consequences. Mr. 
Chairman, H.R. 1544 also helps target funding to the essential 
capabilities of first responders in order to prevent, prepare for, and 
respond to acts of terrorism.
  But this bill is not perfect, Mr. Chairman. There are personnel 
shortages that ought to be covered in this program. There are a number 
of other things that I look forward to working with the chairman on 
correcting in other legislation. However, for what we have before us 
today, I am in support of it from the outset. It is the right thing to 
do. We have to target the resources based on risk. This legislation 
does that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be here today to strongly urge the 
support of this legislation. It is absolutely vital for our Nation's 
interests and for the interests of first responders throughout the 
country that this legislation be adopted and that we do all we can to 
have it implemented and signed into law.
  At the outset, I want to commend the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Cox) for the leadership he has given to the Committee on 
Homeland Security; the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), 
ranking member, who has demonstrated the ultimate in bipartisanship; 
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my old friend and 
ranking member on our subcommittee, who fully appreciates and 
understands just how vital this is.
  He was there with President Bush and a number of us just 3 days after 
the attacks of September 11 at the World Trade Center, at Ground Zero. 
We saw the terrible devastation, and all of us promised that day and 
afterwards never ever to allow our first responders to be put in a 
position where they were not adequately equipped, adequately ready, and 
suitably trained and prepared to cope with such a mammoth attack as 
that and also that they have all the equipment and everything that has 
to be done to be prepared.
  I think it is a tribute to the fact that our committee is now a 
permanent committee. The Committee on Homeland Security is now a 
permanent committee that will be able to marshal these resources and 
bring about such a bipartisan effort.
  Those of us who come from the area of near Ground Zero, certainly in 
my district and the adjoining districts, we lost many, many hundreds of 
people on that day. People from the financial services community and 
fire service, police service, all of them lost their lives. We promised 
never ever to put them in that position again. Unfortunately, for the 
last 3\1/2\ years, we have had a situation where money has not gone 
where it is needed. It has been spread far and wide. And as a result, 
the protection that those people need was not given.
  This bill we are passing today is based on threat analysis. I wish 
that my State was not such a high target, but it is. And so long as it 
is, it is important that we get the funding that is needed. But there 
are States around the country, there are agricultural areas, rural 
areas, all of whom are also high targets, and they must be compensated. 
And that is what this bill does. It provides a threat analysis for the 
entire country, for areas that need it, whether they be urban, 
suburban, rural, agricultural. The fact is they will get the assistance 
they need if they need it.
  And that is what this has to be about. It has to be a question of 
emergency preparedness for those who are the targets, those who are in 
the cross hairs, those of us who are directly threatened by al Qaeda.
  So in the aftermath of 9/11, we said our lives will never again be 
the same. Unfortunately, for 3\1/2\ years, we never really faced up to 
that challenge. We never stood up and did what had to be done.
  We are doing it today. This is the first major step since September 
11 in adequately and effectively responding to the needs of our first 
responders who are there to respond for us. And now we are finally 
responding for them the way they responded for us on 9/11.
  It is not just Ground Zero. It was the Pentagon. And it could be any 
city or State or locality afterwards. But if we are going to be 
effective in coming up with defenses, it must be based on threat 
analysis. That is what this does. It took heroic efforts on both sides 
of the aisle to bring this about. Today's vote will be the culmination 
of that in the House, a first major step.
  So I urge the adoption of H.R. 1544. I again commend both sides of 
the aisle and especially the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), 
my ranking member, for the energy and the drive and dedication that was 
put in to bring about this legislation.
  Again, I urge adoption of the legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes and 15 
seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), ranking 
Democrat on the subcommittee.
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, first of all, to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King), chairman of the subcommittee, it is an honor to work 
with him. He understands the depth of concern of the American people. 
He understands the depth of concern of our first responders, police and 
firefighters, EMS. And understanding their day-to-day situation in the 
face of terror, he fashioned legislation; and I am glad he made me part 
of it.
  These are difficult times. The last chapter of the 9/11 Commission 
report, Mr. Chairman, is not just by coincidence. The subtitles of the 
sections in that final chapter, chapter 13, ``Unity of Effort.'' Across 
the foreign/domestic divide, unity of effort, as far as the 
intelligence community is concerned, the sharing of information. The 
unity of effort in the Congress, section 13.4. It was not just a 
coincidence that the 9/11 report finished with that unity.
  If there is anything that has brought us together, it is this 
tragedy. We need to remember that as we battle on the floor the 
different issues and we forget that we are here to do the people's 
business.

                              {time}  1145

  So I applaud the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and I 
applaud the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), my very good friend, for their tireless work in navigating 
H.R. 1544 through the political maze that is Capitol Hill. Our men and 
women on the front lines applaud you.
  I want to commend my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 
Science, and Technology for his diligent work. As the ranking member on 
this panel, I have seen firsthand the expertise and the passion the 
gentleman brings to matters affecting our Nation's first responders.

[[Page H3215]]

  We know that homeland defense cannot be marred with reckless partisan 
squabbling. We know that our Nation's security cannot be sidetracked by 
the parochial concerns of the few. That is why every single member of 
the Committee on Homeland Security supports this legislation. Indeed, 
when was the last time we all supported anything?
  Different Members representing widely varying regions and 
constituencies have all come together in a bipartisan manner to bring 
H.R. 1544 to the floor today. It is the culmination of a lot of work. A 
lot of staff members helped in bringing this before the Congress.
  As we all know, our first responders, whether they are firefighters, 
law enforcement or EMS providers, are the first ones to arrive on the 
scene of any major incident and the last ones to leave. So it is 
crucial that we ensure that Federal money designed to better equip and 
train all of those first responders actually reaches down to where it 
is needed most.
  Unfortunately, the system of distributing grant funding to the local 
level is fundamentally broken. We have a system where grant funding is 
distributed to a large extent on minimum funding allocations rather 
than risk. It is wrong, and it is counterproductive to national 
security, we have found out.
  But you do not have to take my word for it. A wide array of sources 
have warned us of the dangers of dispensing terrorism preparedness 
money on arbitrary political formulas. On page 396 of the 9/11 
Commission report, and I will conclude on this remark, states, 
``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Federal homeland security 
assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It 
should supplement State and local resources based on the risks or 
vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use 
this money as a pork barrel.''
  Our current distribution of funding leaves a lot to be desired. This 
bill changes that.
  I just want to conclude with this, Mr. Chairman: Too often we here in 
Washington are enveloped with a partisan rancor and acrimony that 
stunts our ability to achieve fundamental and necessary reform. Many 
times we have seen good policy fall victim to short-term political 
calculations. This cannot happen today. It will not happen today. 
Passing the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act will 
show that we take this job seriously.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the former Attorney General of 
California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
chairman and the ranking member of the committee for the work they have 
done in bringing to the floor the Faster and Smarter Funding for First 
Responders Act, H.R. 1544, and I rise in support of that bill.
  Yesterday, we had a reminder, if we even needed a reminder, of the 
events of 9/11 and the aftermath. Yesterday, as we were proceeding out 
of this Chamber, we were urged by those who were in uniform to move 
faster, to move to a place of greater safety. And that is an apt 
analogy for the bill we bring to this floor today, because we truly are 
attempting to do a better job in terms of the funding on the Federal 
level for first responders.
  There is no doubt that this Chamber, acting with the other Chamber 
and the executive branch, attempted as best we could at that time to 
come up with a comprehensive approach to get funding to first 
responders in view of the threat as we saw it after 9/11. But in the 
intervening 3-plus years, we have seen that that which we have done is 
not perfect, that there are improvements to be made. Certainly first 
and foremost among these is to establish a basis for the kinds of 
funding that will go out to the first responders.
  This bill is a true effort to attempt to establish a rational risk 
assessment, that is, a rational means of determining what the greatest 
threat is to this country in the aftermath of 9/11, and then proceed to 
have the funding follow that. This is extremely important, because in 
some ways it goes against the grain of those of us who serve in this 
body who want to make sure that every single one of our districts gets 
the best amount of money that it possibly can.
  In this particular situation, we are acting as national legislators, 
making a determination as to what the national threat is and then 
responding to that national threat in the most effective way possible. 
That is why I salute the chairman and ranking member. I tell my other 
colleagues here that this was a unanimous decision by the members of 
this committee. Hopefully, we will receive a unanimous decision here on 
the floor of the House.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
for yielding me time. Let me thank the chairman and ranking member. 
Both of them did an extraordinary job of pulling together an important 
piece of legislation, a complex piece of legislation, that every Member 
of the House should endorse wholeheartedly. Every member of the 
committee was a cosponsor of the legislation, myself included. I am 
pleased to join them as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security 
and in being responsible for this legislation.
  This, as has been said, is a first-responder-driven bill. I want to 
thank the committee for accepting my amendment on agro-terrorism, an 
issue important all across America for our food supply. But, equally 
important, to have homeland security, we must have hometown security, 
and the formula this bill is driven by, that is what it is about.
  It is good for my home State of North Carolina, because the current 
formula, with North Carolina being the 13th largest State in 
population, we end up 49th in per capita homeland security funding. I 
do not think we are next to last in risk. And others can say that.
  The funding formula proposed in this piece of legislation will allow 
Federal homeland security funds to be disbursed on a threat, risk and 
vulnerability basis. Let me thank all of my colleagues for that, 
because that is the way it ought to be.
  The formula follows the recommendation, as has been said, of the 9/11 
Commission. The Commission said, ``Homeland security funds should 
supplement State and local resources based on the risk or 
vulnerabilities that merit additional support.'' This bill does that.
  North Carolina and its critical infrastructure have significance far 
beyond the borders of our State. The State is home to the Nation's 
largest army base, the Nation's second largest financial center, three 
nuclear power plants, major highways, ports and airports and an 
agricultural economy that supplies goods to one in ten people in this 
country.
  I am confident that the formula in H.R. 1544 will give every State 
the opportunity to receive adequate and appropriate funds for terrorism 
and prevention and response that is necessary for our local hometown 
heroes.
  H.R. 1544 is good public policy that will make a difference to 
strengthen the security and safety of communities in North Carolina and 
across America. By putting the resources in place to address real risk 
and vulnerabilities, we can fight the threat head on.
  Simply put, H.R. 1544 will help save lives and secure our country. I 
recommend this bill to all my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and 
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. I am pleased to join all the 
members of the House Homeland Security Committee as a cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  This bill is good for my State, North Carolina, and for the Nation. 
Under the current funding formula, North Carolina, the 13th largest 
State by population, is 49th in per capita homeland security funding. 
My State is certainly next to last in risks.
  The funding formula proposed in H.R. 1544 will allow Federal homeland 
security funds to be distributed on the basis of threat, risk and 
vulnerability. This formula follows the recommendation of the 9/11 
Commission. The Commission said, ``Homeland security funds should 
supplement State and local resources based on the risks or 
vulnerabilities that merit additional support.''
  North Carolina and its critical infrastructures have significance far 
beyond its borders. The

[[Page H3216]]

State is home to the Nation's largest Army base, the Nation's second 
largest financial center, three nuclear power plants, major highways, 
port and airports, and an agricultural economy that supplies food to 
one in ten people in our country.
  I am confident that the formula in H.R. 1544 will give every State 
the opportunity to receive adequate and appropriate funds for terrorism 
and prevention and response. H.R. 1544 is good public policy that will 
make a difference to strengthen the security and safety of communities 
in North Carolina and across the country. By putting the resources in 
place to address real risks and vulnerabilities, we confront the threat 
head on. Simply put, H.R. 1544 will help to save lives.
  I recommend the bill to all my colleagues in the House.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding For 
First Responders Act of 2005. In its report, the 9/11 Commission 
stated, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
assessment of risk and vulnerabilities.'' This bill overhauls the 
current system for first responder grants and follows the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to allow for greater allocation 
on the basis of a State's or region's vulnerability to terrorist 
attack.
  The current broken formula has adversely affected my State. In 
Federal funding per capita for first responders, Texas ranks 50th of 
the 50 States, despite the fact that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio 
are three of the Nation's ten largest cities. Texas also has a 1,200 
mile porous border with Mexico, 14 maritime ports and an airport, 
Dallas-Fort Worth, that is bigger than New York City's Manhattan 
Island. Clearly, Texas faces a more grave threat than some other parts 
of the country.
  The bill we are considering today provides assistance to first 
responders serving where the risk is greatest, determines the essential 
capabilities of communities and encourages regional cooperation and 
mutual aid agreements through regional grant applications.
  Mr. Chairman, these changes to the current grant allocation procedure 
are essential if we are to be ready for another attack. We hope all 
this preparation is for nothing, but we must be prepared. H.R. 1544 
ensures that we are as prepared as possible.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
1544. The bill significantly improves the homeland security application 
and funding process by restructuring it in a way that my home State of 
North Carolina predicts will shorten the time it takes funds to get 
from the Federal to the local level by about 6 months.
  The bill also will significantly improve how we assess threats by 
taking the decision out of the hands of DHS and creating a task force 
made up of experts from the Federal, State, and local levels and the 
first responder community to create a comprehensive means of assessing 
risk.
  So I feel this bill has a great deal of potential. It could be a very 
important step in the right direction. But I warn my colleagues that we 
will fail in our efforts to protect the homeland if we do not take some 
additional steps, in particular to avoid a trade-off down the road 
between protecting ourselves against terrorist attacks and preparing 
for and responding to natural disasters.
  As we vote on this bill, we are dealing with a presidential budget 
that would slash Federal funding for our local police by close to 40 
percent through massive cuts in Homeland Security and Justice grant 
programs.
  The Bush administration continues its trend of shifting money from 
natural and general disaster preparedness programs. For example, the 
Committee on Appropriations was recently forced to cut FIRE grants, one 
of the most successful Federal grant programs in existence, by over 
$100 million, at a time when our Nation is expecting more than ever 
from our understaffed and ill-equipped fire departments.
  So while I applaud the committee for its work in crafting a strong 
bill, we ought to make clear that voting for this bill is not enough. 
When it comes time to make some harder choices and pay for these first 
responder programs that we happily authorize, we will need the same 
bipartisan support for those on the front lines that we see here today.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice 
chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
outstanding work, and the subcommittee chairs and ranking members as 
well.
  This bill is the best indication to the first responder community 
across the country that Congress was listening. It was not this way 5, 
6 or 7 years ago when the first funding for training first responders 
was being developed by bureaucrats in Washington, who had no idea of 
what the real threats were out there across America.

                              {time}  1200

  It was not the case over the past several years as States and 
counties siphoned off administrative dollars that should have gone for 
the first responders.
  This bill changes all that because this bill is based upon the 
committee listening to the first responder community. It provides a 
more consistent approach that is based on the threats that we see out 
there, and it responds to the needs that were presented to us by the 
representative groups of the first responder community. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, that is why every first responder organization in America 
supports this legislation. I applaud my colleagues for this outstanding 
work.
  As to the other programs that we fund, like the grant program for 
firefighters which my colleague just spoke on of, I am proud of the 
fact that in a tough budget environment, separate from this 
legislation, we have appropriated over $3 billion to almost 20,000 fire 
and EMS departments across the country, direct allocations, not through 
any bureaucracy, but directly through firefighters deciding on the 
priorities of fire groups and EMS groups across the country. That 
program will see another one-half billion dollars at a minimum in the 
next fiscal year.
  So we are taking care of the priorities and the needs, we are 
responding to local concerns, and the key message of this legislation 
is that we have listened to those people who are across America in 
32,000 fire and EMS departments, thousands of police departments who 
every day for every call respond to America's needs.
  I commend, again, the committee for its outstanding work, and I look 
forward to continuing the aggressive schedule the chairman has laid out 
before us for the Committee on Homeland Security in this session of 
Congress.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), a member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security as well as the ranking Democrat on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and commend him for his leadership on our new permanent committee. 
It is a great thing that we finally have a committee in the House to 
focus on what I believe is the most urgent business confronting us.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and I want to 
underscore that it is about money, but it is not primarily about money. 
It is really primarily about strategy.
  The purpose in forming a Homeland Security Department was not to 
rearrange the deck chairs, but was to create one deck, one national, 
integrated strategy for homeland security. And by passing this 
legislation, which I am sure we will do later today, we now will have a 
strategy based on risk for distributing needed funds to our very 
impressive first responders.
  We should not use the squeaky wheel theory for homeland security 
funding;

[[Page H3217]]

we should have a strategic view of homeland security funding. And once 
we pass this legislation and once we urge our colleagues in the other 
body to move their bill on the floor and then to reach a fair 
compromise in conference and enact this bill into law, we will have 
taken a major step forward.
  This legislation, of course, does not solve all the problems. An 
issue on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I have 
focused for years is a strategy for interoperable communications for 
emergency responders. This requires some of the things we have in our 
authorization bill, but it will also require dedicated spectrum, 
something that I hope the Congress addresses this year and something 
that is the subject of legislation we have introduced on a bipartisan 
basis called the Hero Act.
  But to conclude, Mr. Chairman, this is a very good start. It is very 
good work by our ranking member and by our chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox); and it helps resolve a major roadblock to 
securing our homeland in our own districts and all parts of America.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1544, the 
Faster and Smarter Funding For the First Responders Act of 2005, and I 
commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Ranking Member Thompson) for their bipartisan 
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.
  On September 11, our first responders answered the call of duty, 
risking their lives to save countless Americans from attack. Their 
heroic service and sacrifice will be remembered forever.
  Following 9/11, the first responder community worked hard to help us 
craft this legislation. We also received input from the 9/11 Commission 
and the 9/11 families for a risk-based approach to managing homeland 
security dollars.
  Today's bill follows a logical approach by allowing and rewarding up-
front planning at the State, local, tribal, and regional levels. We 
provide a risk-based management structure to direct the use of these 
dollars so that they can move quickly to where they are most needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that the 9/11 Commission Report called on 
us to respond to that tragedy with a commitment to ``create something 
positive, an America that is safer, stronger, and wiser.'' The bill 
before us today honors this obligation. It frees critical resources to 
first responders who need them for training and equipment. This makes 
us safer. It encourages regional cooperation and teamwork across town, 
city, tribal, and State lines. This makes us stronger. Finally, it 
targets our greatest risks and vulnerabilities which undoubtedly makes 
us smarter.
  As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am proud to 
cosponsor this legislation. It is the product of a uniquely thoughtful 
process with support from across the aisle and across the country. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has been a constant 
reminder to us all about needing to do it better.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Mississippi, for his leadership on this committee and our 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The day has come. I 
am delighted to be here with all of the members of the committee, and I 
know this will receive unanimous approval from this body.
  Many of my colleagues have worked hard to ensure that the areas of 
our country facing the greatest threat receive their fair share of 
homeland security funds. Quite frankly, it amazes me that we have gone 
this long allocating such a large portion of homeland security funds 
based on everything but the threat of a terrorist attack to a 
particular area or region. The 9/11 Commission's report specifically 
states that Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel; yet, 
we seem to have been doing just that. We should not play politics with 
public safety.
  There are six grant programs administered by the Department of 
Homeland Security. Five of these six programs are distributed based on 
a formula that does not take risk or threat into account. In fiscal 
year 2005, New York, which suffered the most catastrophic damage from 
terrorism on September 11, was not even in the top 10 for per capita 
funding. I challenge anyone who opposes risk-based funding to sit down 
with the first responders from New York or Virginia, that is, our 
police, our firefighters, our EMS workers. These are the people who 
responded on September 11. They should tell them that funding should be 
based on anything but risk.
  This is not about politics; it is about common sense, good policy. It 
took only minutes for our police, firefighters, and EMS workers to 
respond to the calls for help on September 11. Over 3 years later, 
Congress still has not answered their cry for better funding to protect 
us. This change in funding priorities is long overdue. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).
  (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1544, the Faster 
and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act of 2005.
  This critical, bipartisan, and historic legislation implements the 9/
11 Commission's recommendations in streamlining terrorism preparedness 
grants and making certain that our first responders have the resources 
they need when they need them.
  As police officers and first responders gather in Washington to honor 
their fallen comrades during National Police Week, the images of 
September 11 remain frozen in our minds and etched into our souls.
  Since fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated, and the Department 
of Homeland Security has awarded, $6.3 billion in terrorism 
preparedness grants. Yet shockingly, State, territorial, and local 
governments have spent just 31 percent of this funding. Clearly, our 
first responders and the communities they put their lives on the line 
to protect remain dangerously at risk, all due to government 
bureaucracy.
  H.R. 1544 requires State, territorial, and local governments to 
assess their greatest threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences before 
they request the Federal funding money. Then, it holds these 
Governments accountable, requiring them to issue grants to first 
responders within 45 days.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this legislation constitutes a long overdue 
dose of common sense. The gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Ranking Member Thompson) have already 
proven the wisdom in establishing the Committee on Homeland Security 
through their vision and leadership in producing this legislation so 
quickly.
  We remember the valor of firemen--who rushed through an inferno to 
save others, without regard for their own safety.
  We recall the courage of police officers--who braved falling bricks 
and mortar to provide those in danger with their hands and their 
reassurance.
  After many years during which our children searched among athletes, 
movie stars, and other celebrities for their role models, they learned 
the real definition of the word ``hero'' on that awful day.
  And as four hurricanes visited unprecedented devastation upon my 
district in southwest Florida last year, we learned once again how much 
we rely upon the bravery, expert training, and compassion of first 
responders when disaster strikes.
  Since Fiscal Year 2002, Congress has appropriated and the Department 
of Homeland Security has awarded 6.3 billion dollars in terrorism 
preparedness grants. Yet--shockingly--state, territorial, and local 
governments have spent just 31 percent of this funding.
  Clearly, our first responders and the communities they put their 
lives on the line to protect remain dangerously at risk--all due to 
government bureaucracy.
  H.R. 1544 requires State, territorial, and local governments to 
assess their greatest threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences before 
they request Federal grant money. Then, it holds these governments 
accountable--requiring them to issue grant awards to first responders 
within 45 days.

[[Page H3218]]

  H.R. 1544 also enables regional planning and coordination--allowing 
localities and States to jointly apply for terrorism preparedness 
grants, which must remain consistent with State homeland security 
plans.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation constitutes a long overdue dose of 
common sense. Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Thompson have already 
proven the wisdom of establishing the Homeland Security Committee 
through their vision and leadership in producing this legislation so 
quickly.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my fellow 
committee members of the Committee on Homeland Security in strong 
support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding For the First 
Responders Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation was unanimously 
supported at both the subcommittee and full committee levels of the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  The chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox), and the gentleman from Mississippi (Ranking 
Member Thompson) should receive high praise, as they have on the floor 
already this morning, for the skillful manner in which they worked so 
swiftly to shepherd this important bill through our committee and to 
the floor of the House.
  Over the past 2 years, the committee has traveled around the country 
to listen to the first responders. We used the information garnered 
from these meetings as a guide in developing the first piece of 
legislation. H.R. 1544 seeks to remedy the problems first responders 
face because of a lack of guidance and standards, the need for 
flexibility in how they can use first responder funding, as well as 
just getting the money to them in the first place. It also provides a 
vehicle for ongoing first responder participation and planning and 
updating essential capabilities with the department and responds to the 
issue of how grants will be distributed and on what basis.
  My own district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, came under scrutiny this 
year, particularly because of poor funding levels. When one assesses 
vulnerability and risk, as this bill lays out very clearly as the basis 
for distribution of level funding for the first time, my district would 
still be fairly treated and receive the funding that they need. And, 
importantly, H.R. 1544 will provide monitoring of the use of the funds 
provided for under this bill, through an office of the comptroller, 
which responds to the rightful concerns of the appropriators.
  Mr. Chairman, most importantly, H.R. 1544 implements relevant 9/11 
Commission recommendations to allocate Federal homeland security funds 
to first responders based on risk rather than political formulas. In 
doing so, we not only do what is right, but we honor the sacrifice of 
those who were killed and their families; and this is a bill we can all 
be proud of. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, given the evacuation yesterday that we 
had here at the Capitol, it is so appropriate that we are taking this 
bill up today. We all know that there is always room for improvement in 
our Nation's security. I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) and his committee. They have done a great job 
in taking on a serious problem in our homeland security funding 
process.
  The Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act recognizes 
that, while we are sending significant funding out to the States for 
emergency preparedness, that funding and support is not always used in 
a timely fashion. In Tennessee, my home State, we found that between 
2002 and 2004, there was nearly $85 million in Federal homeland 
security funds that had been unspent and not allocated.

                              {time}  1215

  And there is a problem when states like mine have the Federal funds 
but are not disbursing them as quickly as is needed by our local 
communities. We have appropriated Homeland Security dollars to the 
States in order to ensure that funding is flexible and can be targeted 
to the specific needs of our local communities, and we need to work to 
be sure that those funds are being used appropriately.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill really clarifies the appropriate uses for 
Federal Homeland Security grants and evaluates and annually prioritizes 
pending grant applications, and it is great that our local communities 
and our States are going to have the support they need in the 
communities, the guidance that they need to appropriately use the funds 
and put it to work, put it to good use in our communities.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), the distinguished Chairman very much for his 
leadership, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the 
ranking member for yielding. This truly is a bipartisan bill, and it 
falls on the backdrop of an interesting but yet telling experience.
  First of all, let me take the opportunity to thank all of the Capitol 
Hill staff and the Capitol Hill police, all of the Sergeant of Arms 
staff. Sometimes we do not share the appreciation for the work that 
they have to do. And I want to acknowledge them for doing it in a very 
difficult scenario.
  I think yesterday, as I rise to support this bill, particularly, as 
it is focused on risk analysis, which means that we will do our very 
best as we support our first responders in the Faster and Smarter 
Funding for Our First Responders Act, that we will reach out to the 
most vulnerable cities and areas, but in fact, we will not rest until 
the entire homeland is secure. I am very gratified that we are still 
working on empowering what we call citizen corps and to develop what I 
think is very important, citizen volunteers to perform critical 
functions in assisting, in preventing and responding to terrorist 
attacks, and that they should be integrated in through this process in 
our State and local planning.
  But as I looked at yesterday and determined that a small Cessna plane 
could come between or come near the no-fly area of this particular 
region, I know that we are in some troubling times. Yes, we survived 
yesterday, but we survived it because it was a mistake and because 
there were no intentions for terrorist acts.
  This speaks to the need for this legislation, in particular, as we 
focus on the more troubling areas or the more vulnerable areas to 
terrorist attacks, but it also speaks to moving quickly to authorize 
our Homeland Security legislation.
  More importantly, one of the concerns I have, Mr. Chairman, is the 
whole idea of cutting-edge technology. Technology is going to be the 
key to the whole focus of Homeland Security. Technology at the border, 
technology as it relates to cybersecurity, technology in airport 
screening. This is a first step. And because of the heroic efforts of 
our first responders on 9/11 and the acts of theirs throughout this 
time frame, this is an outstanding legislative initiative that will 
set, if you will, us on a pathway of securing our local communities. I 
hope that we will be smart in our legislative amendments. And I do not 
believe we need to move forward on the Castle amendment. If there is a 
certification process on the donated equipment that will come to our 
Fire Departments, then so be it. But on liability, even volunteer or 
donated equipment should not endanger our Fire Departments.
  This is the right decision to make with respect to this legislation. 
I hope my colleagues will pass it, but I hope it will be a signal that 
more work needs to be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation we consider 
today, H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders 
Act of 2005. On April 21, 2005, I joined my colleagues in the Committee 
on Homeland Security to pass this important measure unanimously, and I 
urge my colleagues to do so today.
  I thank Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Thompson for their tremendous 
efforts to make this legislation bipartisan. I am an original cosponsor 
of this measure just as I was for that introduced in the 108th 
Congress, H.R. 3266, so my overall support for this initiative is 
abundantly clear.
  I offered an amendment in the context of H.R. 3266, the rendition of 
today's legislation

[[Page H3219]]

that was introduced in the 108th Congress that proposed to increase the 
scope of the terrorism exercise programs that will be administered by 
the Secretary of DHS to include Citizen Corps Councils. Since the 
creation of this committee even as a select body, I have found it 
increasingly important that we include local ``second responders'' as 
often as possible when advancing emergency preparedness legislative 
initiatives. This body's crafting of a first responder bill as well as 
an authorization bill has given us an opportunity to make our 
preparedness exercises more thorough and ``simulated.''
  A sense of Congress provision was accepted in the bill introduced in 
the 108th Congress. However, I offered and withdrew this amendment at 
the markup of H.R. 1544 because a similar provision, paragraph (11) has 
been included in House Report 109-65. In addition, I intend to pursue 
this initiative in the context of the authorization bill that will come 
before the House likely next week. I hope that my colleagues will work 
with me to further this important goal. Section 2, paragraph (11) of 
this report reads:

       (11) Private sector resources and citizen volunteers can 
     perform critical functions in assisting in preventing and 
     responding to terrorist attacks, and should be integrated 
     into State and local planning efforts to ensure that their 
     capabilities and roles are understood, so as to provide 
     enhanced State and local operational capability and surge 
     capacity (emphasis added).

  The Citizen Corps program was launched by President George W. Bush 
himself during the 2002 State of the Union address as part of the USA 
Freedom Corps initiative to engage Americans in volunteer service.
  In only 2 years, nearly 1,000 communities around the country, 
encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population established Citizen 
Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in emergency 
preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen 
volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make our 
communities safer. Fifty-two states and territories also formed State 
level Citizen Corps Councils to support local efforts.
  Our families need to be aware of the threats that exist from abroad. 
Homeland security is a very important issue that we may not think about 
in our daily lives.
  The Houston branch of the Citizen Corps Council is headquartered in 
my Congressional District, Harris County, which is in southeastern 
Texas, comprises 1,779 square miles, and encompasses the city of 
Houston, 32 additional smaller cities, and is the home for nearly 4 
million residents. Harris County is the third most populous county in 
the United States and one of the most culturally diverse.
  This report language that I cited above is a good step toward getting 
the necessary funding and support needed to implement the Citizen Corps 
concept. Overall, the threat-based grant provisions found in the 
underlying legislation will help high-density threat-laden cities such 
as Houston, TX.
  Harris County is home to numerous potential terrorist targets:
  The Port of Houston, which ranks first in the United States in 
foreign waterborne commerce, is the leading domestic and international 
center for almost every segment of the oil and gas industry, houses 
almost half of the Nation's petrochemicals manufacturing capacity, is 
the world's sixth largest seaport and the Nation's largest oil port;
  The Texas Medical Center, with 42 member institutions, provides 
leading medical care to people from all over the world and is the 
world's largest medical complex serving more than 70,000 daily;
  The Johnson Space Center, home of NASA's manned space program;
  The fourth largest airport system in the country, with more than 43 
million passengers traveling through its three area airports to 
domestic and international destinations;
  Three national sport arenas hosting thousands of fans for popular 
events; and
  A nuclear power plant located approximately 70 miles from the county.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1544 will help the Department of Homeland Security 
allocate the first responder grant funds more prudently and 
expeditiously. I support the legislation and urge my colleagues to join 
me.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a member of the Homeland 
Security Committee. I am also proud to be an original cosponsor of the 
Faster Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. I spent 33 years on 
the front lines as a law enforcement officer, and I know that this 
legislation is vital.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) 
and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member, 
for their leadership on this important legislation.
  My home, Seattle region, is unique, sharing 150 nautical miles of 
maritime border with Canada and acting as hub for international trade 
and travel. It includes businesses such as Microsoft and Boeing. All 
these factors combine to create an area vulnerable to a terrorist 
attack.
  We must make sure that Homeland Security dollars are going where they 
are needed, as the 9/11 commission report specifically recommended, and 
that they are properly spent once they are allocated.
  This legislation addresses the most important aspect of Homeland 
Security, and that is evaluation of threat and risk. In this bill, we 
make sure the majority of first-responder funding is threat-based. The 
current model is outdated, distributing more money to areas with fairly 
benign risks than to areas that we know terrorists would like to 
attack, like New York City and the Capitol of our great Nation.
  I ask that the House take action today and move for more effective 
risk-based funding for first responders. Again, I would like to thank 
the Chairman and the ranking member for their hard work.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, at this time we do not 
have another speaker, and I would like to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also thank the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member, for their bipartisan 
leadership on this very important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Faster and 
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this bill.
  Among its provisions, this historic legislation changes the current 
process by which our first responders get their much-needed resources.
  It is clear that the Nation is moving in the right direction in its 
attempt to meet the security challenges of its post-9/11 world. All 
involved should be commended.
  However, the current first responder grant system is in need of 
repair. We must make sure that those who stand on the front lines and 
answer the call have the vital resources immediately. This commonsense 
bill accomplishes this.
  Despite the fact that my State of Texas is home to the President's 
ranch, the largest port in the United States, the Port of Houston, and 
has an international border with Mexico, it ranks dead last in the 
amount of Homeland Security money it receives per person.
  Unfortunately, many other key target states like California, New 
York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, and Virginia, join Texas in this 
distinction.
  To ensure that the States with the biggest risks and threats get the 
necessary money to protect themselves, our Nation must move towards a 
risk-based funding system.
  Those like al Qaeda, who wish to do harm to America, have a track 
record of being patient and conspiring until they succeed in their 
terrorist agenda. By passing the Faster and Smarter Funding for First 
Responders Act, we are placing a priority on securing our Nation's most 
essential and at-risk targets as quickly as possible.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me thank the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member, and especially the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for his leadership and 
understanding of this very complex but critical issue, as well as all 
Members, especially those from New York who have worked on this, such 
as the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and especially the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) who have been dogged in ensuring that New 
York as well as all communities get their fair share to deal with 
Homeland Security.

[[Page H3220]]

  Currently, Federal Homeland Security funds, and I would like to 
engage the Chairman in a colloquy, if I may, can be used for overtime 
but cannot be used to provide any support to law enforcement activities 
dedicated exclusively to counterterrorism. It is also prohibited to use 
the money for construction, which is often the very thing most needed 
for hardened targets.
  New York City has by far the largest force dedicated exclusively to 
counterterrorism. Every single day, we have hundreds, if not thousands 
of police officers protecting the lives of not just New Yorkers, but 
the millions who come to New York City to work and to vacation. Its 
officers span the globe, from Guantanamo Bay to Israel to Afghanistan, 
working in many instances with federal and foreign officials on 
intelligence initiatives. These officers have the unique role of 
safeguarding America's largest city, home to some of the Nation's most 
symbolic buildings and landmarks, several Federal assets and the 
country's economic center.
  Just as the unique nature of the Capitol complex requires a dedicated 
force, the Capitol police, which does a great job every single day, New 
York needs its own dedicated force to help prevent terrorist strikes 
against New York's 8 million residents, its millions of tourists, and 
its numerous national landmarks and those Federal assets I mentioned.
  I submitted an amendment addressing these issues to the Rules 
Committee. I understand the Chairman and others expressed concern over 
the amendment, and given the situation, I withdrew the amendment and 
asked the Chairman to work with me on this important issue as the bill 
moves forward towards conference.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the bill before us 
today expressly permits grant recipients to use, with the approval of 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, up to 10 percent of their covered 
grant funds for measures to protect critical infrastructure, and this 
would include building barriers, fences, gates and so on. In the case 
of New York, that would mean that $21 million would be available for 
this purpose.
  The question of using Federal grant funds to pay for the salaries of 
local law enforcement officers is a very consequential one with impacts 
far beyond New York. The resolution of that question and all of its 
complexity is beyond the scope of this bill, but I want the gentleman 
to know that I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I will look 
forward to working with him on these issues in the future.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
again for this and what we will seek to achieve as well in the future.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), the ranking member, for bringing this legislation to the 
floor.
  All of us are engaged in trying to make America safer during these 
times of turmoil and terrorism. Currently, what we are doing is 
distributing money based simply on formulation, where the only variable 
is based on population.
  We are recognizing that terrorists are going to work one step ahead 
of us. We are recognizing that the threats will be imminent, and we 
must have a better way to assess our funding process. In this bill, 
H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for Our First Responders, we 
begin to recognize that funding should be risk-based, where we assess 
the threats, and we are accomplishing that.
  It is the first time since 9/11 that we have wrestled with the 
complex formulation of how to distribute funds out and to achieve 
better and safer Homeland Security.
  In this bill, for the first time, risk and threat assessments are 
being included. And for myself, representing a rural district where we 
have 180 miles of Mexico border, with only 150 miles of that simply 
with no fence, we are interested in threat assessment and risk 
assessment.
  New Mexico also has agriculture, food, energy, dams and health care 
facilities, as well as energy, oil and gas, and we must consider those, 
the risk of those facilities and to those industries, as well as simply 
population-based risks. So for the first time, rural America is being 
able to define the capability with which they should have to prepare 
for terrorist attacks.
  The Task Force on Terrorism Preparedness will assist the Secretary of 
Homeland Security in updating, revising and replacing essential 
capability for terrorism preparedness, and will consist of members from 
both rural and urban areas.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I again thank the ranking member and the chairman for 
bringing this bill forward. I think America will be better served.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the chairman of the committee for 
working with the minority on this legislation. It has been a very 
bipartisan effort. It speaks well for his leadership. I compliment him 
on it.
  I look forward to the passage of this legislation and working on 
other pieces of legislation of mutual agreement which we have already 
discussed. It appears that additional legislation will be forthcoming. 
I would like to thank the ranking member of the committee, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), for providing me significant 
leadership in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). This has been a collaborative effort for 
several years now. I also want to pay homage to the gentleman from 
Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) predecessor, Mr. Turner of Texas, who also 
led the minority ably on this issue.
  Today we have an opportunity to establish a new grant process to 
provide better support to the brave men and women who are the first to 
rush into burning buildings, the people who place themselves in the 
line of fire to protect the innocent, the ones who save the sick and 
wounded under the most trying of circumstances.
  It is no accident that this bill has been endorsed by every major 
first responders group in America, by the Bush administration, by the 
9/11 Commission; and, indeed, I expect it will receive a strong 
endorsement from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1544. By passing 
this bill, we will take yet another important step since September 11 
to help our Nation meet the urgent challenge of terrorism in our cities 
and hometowns.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, just yesterday we saw the important role 
that first responders play in keeping our nation safe. I want to 
commend Police Chief Terrance Gainer and the U.S. Capitol Police for a 
quick, professional response that protected the Members of the House of 
Representatives, our employees as well as the Capitol visitors.
  We live in a new day when homeland security threats can come at any 
time, in any form. Yesterday's events highlight how important it is 
that the United States stays vigilant and prepared. H.R. 1544, the 
Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005, is a much-
needed step towards that effort.
  This legislation cuts the red tape and streamlines the grant system 
so that desperately needed preparedness funds can get to communities 
without delay on the part of the Federal Government. In exchange, it 
establishes measurable goals so that local authorities can achieve a 
baseline of security for their communities. And, because we all know 
how much can be done working together, this bill encourages States, 
localities and communities to pool their resources and apply jointly 
for these grants. Such regional cooperation can ensure a tighter net 
while incurring less cost.
  The bill focuses on getting funds to the communities that need them, 
while protecting valuable taxpayer dollars from misuse. Misuse has 
occurred. Shortly after the September

[[Page H3221]]

11th attacks, we began sending money to the States, and unfortunately, 
some of those taxpayer dollars went towards inappropriate uses: like 
air-conditioned garbage trucks, plasma television monitors and a rap 
song to teach children about emergency preparedness. America's homeland 
security is paramount. We will never become safe through waste. This 
legislation has safeguards to ensure that the money goes to the men and 
women on the front lines of the war on terror in the United States, our 
first responders.
  A number of groups representing those first responders have come out 
in support of this legislation, including the International Association 
of Fire Chiefs, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Troopers 
Coalition and the National Association of Emergency Medical 
Technicians.
  H.R. 1544 will make the homeland security grant program more 
effective. It fulfills the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, 
which cautioned in its report last year that Congress should not use 
terrorism preparedness dollars as ``a pork barrel.'' And most 
important, this legislation will get first responders the money they 
need to do their jobs.
  Yesterday, we saw how the United States has become more skilled in 
its homeland security efforts. We're doing better, but there's still 
room for improvement. We cannot rest until we've enacted every means 
possible to protect the United States from those who would cause us 
harm. Today's vote will go a long way towards keeping this country safe 
for American families.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1544, 
the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and to 
reiterate the importance of the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI.
  Since the establishment of the UASI program, communities that the 
Department of Homeland Security has designated as being subject to a 
high threat of terrorist attack have received the funding to develop 
coordinated, integrated plans that leverage the capabilities of the 
cities and towns within the UASI region that are needed to respond 
effectively in the event of a terrorist attack.
  During committee consideration of this legislation, I prepared an 
amendment to amend the bill to include within the ``region'' definition 
any geographic area that has been designated by the Department of 
Homeland Security as a high-threat urban area as part of the 
Department's UASI program. My amendment was intended to permit these 
UASI regions to continue their important plans and strategies to 
prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks. I noted that 
the UASI program is consistent with the purpose of H.R. 1544--namely 
that resources should be set aside for communities faced with unique 
threats and vulnerabilities, such as extensive critical infrastructure 
and large populations, which make them tempting targets for terrorists.
  After receiving assurances from the chairman that he shares my 
interest in refining the legislation's definition of region, I withdrew 
my amendment. I understand that the chairman has discussed this 
important issue with the States and the UASI jurisdictions, and I 
appreciate the chairman's pledge to work with me, the UASI 
jurisdictions, and the States to address the UASI designation issue as 
this legislation moves forward.
  It is my hope that the UASI program will be preserved in the final 
version of the legislation we are considering today. The Faster and 
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act appropriately directs 
resources towards those areas that face the highest threat of a 
terrorist attack, rather than disbursing homeland security funds 
without regard to risk. The 9/11 Commission has endorsed this risk-
based approach to homeland security funding, the UASI program is 
consistent with this methodology and should be preserved.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for a 
fair and effective system of distributing homeland security grants to 
our nation's courageous first-responders. As a former Governor, I have 
long been concerned about our government's ability to accurately assess 
national threats, risks, and vulnerabilities. For this reason, I have 
been an adamant proponent of improving and streamlining the application 
and distribution process for these important grant programs.
  The current grant allocation system is largely population-based. 
While population is an essential factor, the top priority for 
determining the needs of our first-responders must be based on the risk 
of terrorism and vulnerability of a community. The 9/11 Commission 
predicted in their report that one of our greatest challenges would be 
how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. With the tragic 
memories of that clear September day still fresh in our minds, it is 
obvious that first-responders in high-risk and high density areas, such 
as New York City and Washington, DC, deserve an increased per capita 
share of the homeland security funding.
  While it is essential that we update the distribution process to 
better reflect an assessment of risk, it is also important that we 
ensure the homeland security needs of small States and rural areas do 
not go unnoticed. In its report, the 9/11 Commission notes that due to 
the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might 
begin turning their attention to ``softer,'' less protected targets. As 
representative of our nation's sixth smallest State, I am concerned 
that in improving the current system, we might inadvertently overlook 
citizens in States considered less likely to be vulnerable. In 
Delaware, the State Emergency Management Agency has expressed some 
concern that our critical infrastructure may be neglected. Such 
omissions could force small States like Delaware to dip into other 
important programs, such as disaster prevention, in order to provide 
the resources and personnel necessary to handle certain attacks.
  While this legislation makes an important change in the distribution 
of homeland security funding by focusing resources on high-risk areas, 
the challenge to define these risks remains. In fact, the Department of 
Homeland Security has never undertaken a comprehensive national risk 
assessment, and will not complete their current study until at least 
2008. A national risk evaluation is imperative for determining how to 
allocate first-responder grants, but obviously a thorough study will 
not be available for several years. Without a detailed study of our 
Nation's vast critical infrastructure, the Department cannot truly know 
what level of funding should be dedicated to large States, small 
States, urban areas, or rural communities.
  To ensure first-responders across the country have access to 
effective homeland security funding, it is essential that we continue 
to provide each State with a fair and commonsense minimum-funding 
baseline. Currently, the Department's inconsistent methodology for 
extracting data about key critical infrastructure assets can 
potentially result in incomplete and frankly, inadequate vulnerability 
assessments. Minimum-funding baselines reinforce this evolving system 
and provide additional protection to the thousands of ``soft targets,'' 
by ensuring that all States receive sufficient funding to meet basic 
homeland security needs.
  While I support the purpose of this legislation, I intend to remain 
engaged throughout conference with the Senate to ensure we reach a 
compromise for a State formula that is fair and refrains from cutting 
into States' preparedness efforts. Homeland security funding can be 
both efficient and effective and we should settle for no less.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, we have all heard talk of how Wyoming and 
other rural States do not deserve their razor-thin slice of the 
Homeland Security pie because they have higher per capita funding 
allocations than the likes of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. What 
the per capita statistics don't tell you is that Wyoming's fiscal year 
2005 share of first responder dollars amounted to around 4 percent of 
New York's $298.3 million.
  Attacking the first responder base minimum funding level might make 
for a good press release, but in reality, the per capita argument holds 
about as much water as a wicker basket. Wyoming's population may be 
spread thin, but this only presents an additional challenge to our 
first responders, who must deal with vast areas, rugged terrain and 
harsh weather with limited resources.
  In 2004, nearly 100,000 shipments of hazardous materials rolled 
through Wyoming, whose rails and roads help make up the backbone of the 
Northwest United States commodity corridor. Wyoming is home to national 
parks and landmarks, oil and gas pipelines, and coal reserves that 
supply over half of the States in the Nation. Wyoming houses 
intercontinental ballistic missiles critical to our national defense 
system, placed there because rural America was thought to be safe and 
secure.
  Perhaps the First Responder Grants Board would adequately weigh these 
points, and perhaps not. I would rather avoid relying on such 
bureaucratic uncertainty. I stand in opposition to H.R. 1544's severe 
reduction in the base minimum funding level because Wyoming's first 
responders depend on these very dollars to do their jobs and keep our 
citizens safe.
  The need for reforming the grant distribution system is clear, and I 
applaud the Homeland Security Committee for their efforts to 
incorporate risk assessment and hold States accountable for how they 
spend those dollars. But I simply cannot support a bill that 
marginalizes the needs and unique challenges faced by first responders 
in rural States like Wyoming.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First 
Responders Act of 2005.
  The bill we are voting on today is an important piece of legislation 
designed to better support our first responders so that they can help 
protect and defend our citizens against terrorist attack.
  I strongly support H.R. 1544 and am proud to be a cosponsor, along 
with all of my colleagues on the Homeland Security committee,

[[Page H3222]]

from which this legislation passed unanimously.
  I would like to congratulate Chairman Cox, Chairman King, Ranking 
Member Thompson and Ranking Member Pascrell for bringing this bill to 
the floor in an expeditious and bipartisan manner.
  The core principle of the bill is to ensure that homeland security is 
always viewed through the lens of directing resources to address urgent 
security vulnerabilities in our country.
  Security funding is fundamentally different than other funds such as 
highway money, where we try to spread the funds more-or-less evenly, 
and this bill reflects the changes needed in our thinking to address 
our homeland security needs.
  I would also like to thank the chairmen and ranking members for 
including language from my proposed amendments that will:
  Create an office of Comptroller within ODP to ensure oversight and 
accountability over funds moving through the pipeline;
  Study the effects of waiving the Cash Management Improvement Act, so 
that its good governance intent does not have adverse consequences; and
  Grant conditional authorization to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to make direct payments to localities, should States be unable to pass 
grant funds through to the local recipients in a timely fashion.
  These are all important tools that will ensure that resources 
necessary to protect our citizens are disbursed quickly and with strong 
accountability.
  In closing I would like to reiterate my strong support of H.R. 1544 
and urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1544, the 
Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005. This 
essential legislation establishes common guidelines for the federal 
departments that currently oversee our Nation's existing terrorism 
preparedness programs.
  Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation has greatly 
reinforced our terrorism response capabilities. Over $30 billion has 
been invested in state and local terrorism and natural disaster 
preparedness programs. Still, more needs to be done.
  We must remain vigilant and continue to strengthen our defenses, take 
proactive measures, and ensure that first responders are properly 
equipped. Though difficult, it is vital that we balance resources 
between all Homeland Security related fields to maximize our ability to 
protect the American people.
  This legislation will provide assistance to areas of our country 
facing greater risk, while ensuring that all areas are provided the 
necessary support, streamlining existing terrorism preparedness grants, 
establishing measurable goals, and creating new regional terrorism 
preparedness grants.
  In addition, a board of appropriate Homeland Security officials will 
be created to evaluate the nation's high risk areas. I will fight to 
illustrate the vulnerabilities and high level of risk that confronts 
the 7th District of Virginia on a daily basis. I will ensure the proper 
data illustrating the risk to these localities is taken into account.
  First responders are America's first and last line of protection 
against murderous terrorists who seek to harm the innocent. Ensuring 
effective and efficient funding for our first responders is one of my 
highest priorities as a member of Congress.
  I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1544, The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act.
  As yesterday's scare in this Capitol and across Washington, DC 
reminded us, we need to make sure that our early warning system and 
first response capability are highly efficient functions of our 
national security preparedness.
  First responders are the backbone of our national security. I am 
privileged to represent New York's finest firefighters, medical 
technicians, hospital employees, and other first responders I'm proud 
to call good friends.
  We owe them all the resources they require to carry out the many 
dangerous and critically important missions to secure our borders and 
prepare this Nation for emergencies.
  I applaud the Homeland Security Committee for producing a bipartisan 
bill that refines our first responder grant process to make sure 
funding we authorize is delivered quickly and efficiently to the brave 
men and women we call upon to protect us from the daily threats we 
face.
  After we pass this bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues 
toward restoring funding in the homeland security budget and addressing 
other shortfalls limiting the ability of first responders do their 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, we must guarantee that our home town heroes are 
properly funded and completely equipped and prepared to protect this 
Nation. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill in order to help 
this Nation's courageous and outstanding first responders achieve this 
mission.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 1544, The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act.
  My colleagues and I agree there is a need to reform the current 
system for funding first responders across our Nation. The Department 
of Homeland Security and this Congress should allocate Federal funds 
based on risk in order to protect critical infrastructure and high 
profile targets from attack. I do want to take this opportunity to 
express my concern that largely rural states such as Colorado will see 
a decrease in Homeland Security grant funds. As states prepare their 
risk assessment and the Department of Homeland Security evaluates them, 
I urge all parties to place high priority on protecting facilities such 
as dams, reservoirs and other potential targets outside of urban 
centers. I also urge the proper authorities to take advantage of the 
provisions in this bill that allow the formation of regional 
cooperatives to pursue Homeland Security funds.
  Mr. Chairman, as we witnessed yesterday, our Nation is better 
prepared for security threats, but much work remains to be done. It is 
my hope that the important reforms contained in this bill will speed 
the delivery of money to the appropriate agencies and funding will be 
directed to where it is needed the most.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this bill, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act.
  This is a common sense bill that will address the problems in the 
current formula that has been used to distribute first responder 
funding over the past 3 years.
  Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Homeland 
Security Department has provided nearly $10.5 billion directly to state 
and local ``first responders,'' such as emergency personnel, law 
enforcement and other agencies, to enhance their ability to prepare for 
and respond to terrorist attacks.
  The USA PATRIOT Act guarantees each state, plus Puerto Rico and the 
District of Columbia, at least 0.75 percent of the total funding 
available under the formula-based program. In allocating funding over 
the past 3 years, the Homeland Security Department's Office of Domestic 
Preparedness has provided the base amount, and has then distributed the 
remaining funding based on population.
  Under the current system in FY 2004 my home State of Texas received 
the second lowest amount of funding per capita, receiving only $5.35 
per person, despite having the longest international border of any 
state, the second largest foreign port, and being home to the Johnson 
Space Center, as well as hundreds of energy production facilities and 
chemical plants. Wyoming however, which has no international borders or 
major metropolitan area, received $37.94 per capita.
  In its report, the September 11 Commission urged that first responder 
grants be distributed on the basis of risk, and this bill does that by 
lowering the minimum guarantee for each state to 0.25 percent, or 0.45 
percent for states that have an international border, and by requiring 
that the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security 
Initiative and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program be 
distributed based on 16 threat criteria. This will ensure that Texans 
are not receiving $32.59 less per capita than citizens in Wyoming.
  H.R. 1544 will also require states to develop 3-year homeland-
security plans for enhancing their preparedness and response 
capabilities, and it requires all applicants, which will be expanded in 
this bill to also include regional organizations in addition to state 
agencies, to be consistent with the plan.
  I strongly support these provisions because it will allow funding to 
go directly to the communities that need it most, rather than being 
funneled through the state, and it requires that applicants specify how 
their grant fits into the plan. Over the past several years there have 
been numerous reports of states spending homeland security grant 
dollars on items such as traffic cones in Des Moines, air-conditioned 
garbage trucks in Newark, NJ, and bullet-proof vests for dogs in 
Columbus, Ohio. A recent report about Texas found that the Texas 
Engineering Extension Service, the agency which distributes Homeland 
Security funds in Texas, was not providing proper oversight and cities 
and counties were spending this money on questionable items. This is 
not how Homeland Security dollars were intended to be spent, and this 
bill will cut down on the frivolous and excessive spending that has 
taken place with this money over the past 3 years.
  Mr. Chairman, because this bill creates a formula to distribute grant 
money based on threat criteria, because it provides for better 
oversight of spending, and because it allows regional organizations as 
well as states to apply for grant funding, I strongly support this

[[Page H3223]]

bill and would urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1544, the 
Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005. This bill 
will: give priority assistance to first responders facing greatest 
risk; require input from first responders when setting criteria for 
grant applications; streamline terrorism preparedness grants; set 
specific, flexible, and measurable goals for state and local government 
terrorism preparedness; and for the first time authorize regional 
terrorism preparedness grants.
  In the 108th Congress I was privileged to serve on the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security, the predecessor to the permanent 
Homeland Security Committee, which has brought this bill to the floor 
today.
  This bill implements one of the most important recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission, which stated that ``homeland security assistance 
should be based strictly on assessment of risks and vulnerabilities . . 
. [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a program 
for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local 
resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional 
support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.''
  Under this legislation, states for the first time must prioritize 
their spending among their jurisdictions based on risk, threat, 
vulnerability, and consequences of a terrorist attack. This legislation 
includes new criteria that I authored in committee which will benefit 
Maryland. For example, the bill requires the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to consider, when making grants, whether the state or 
local government has a significant transient commuting or tourist 
population, such as Marylanders who commute back and forth between 
Washington, Baltimore, and the suburbs. The bill also authorizes DHS to 
consider whether the state or local government has a close proximity to 
specific past acts of terrorism (such as the Maryland suburbs of 
Washington, DC), or the known activity of any terrorist group. The bill 
authorizes grants to regional governments with a population of more 
than 1.65 million people, which would allow the Baltimore metro region, 
and the surrounding counties of Baltimore, Howard, and Anne Arundel to 
apply for regional counter-terrorism grants that will help to prevent 
an attack and better prepare the county governments to respond in a 
coordinated fashion to an attack. The bill also requires states to make 
timely awards to state and local government, and requires an 80 percent 
pass through within 45 days.
  This legislation is an important improvement in our commitment to a 
strong homeland defense and deserves our support.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1544

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Faster and Smarter Funding 
     for First Responders Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In order to achieve its objective of preventing, 
     minimizing the damage from, and assisting in the recovery 
     from terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security 
     must play a leading role in assisting communities to reach 
     the level of preparedness they need to prevent and respond to 
     a terrorist attack.
       (2) First responder funding is not reaching the men and 
     women of our Nation's first response teams quickly enough, 
     and sometimes not at all.
       (3) To reform the current bureaucratic process so that 
     homeland security dollars reach the first responders who need 
     it most, it is necessary to clarify and consolidate the 
     authority and procedures of the Department of Homeland 
     Security that support first responders.
       (4) Ensuring adequate resources for the new national 
     mission of homeland security, without degrading the ability 
     to address effectively other types of major disasters and 
     emergencies, requires a discrete and separate grant making 
     process for homeland security funds for first response to 
     terrorist acts, on the one hand, and for first responder 
     programs designed to meet pre-September 11 priorities, on the 
     other.
       (5) While a discrete homeland security grant making process 
     is necessary to ensure proper focus on the unique aspects of 
     terrorism preparedness, it is essential that State and local 
     strategies for utilizing such grants be integrated, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, with existing State and local 
     emergency management plans.
       (6) Homeland security grants to first responders must be 
     based on the best intelligence concerning the capabilities 
     and intentions of our terrorist enemies, and that 
     intelligence must be used to target resources to the Nation's 
     greatest threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences.
       (7) The Nation's first response capabilities will be 
     improved by sharing resources, training, planning, personnel, 
     and equipment among neighboring jurisdictions through mutual 
     aid agreements and regional cooperation. Such regional 
     cooperation should be supported, where appropriate, through 
     direct grants from the Department of Homeland Security.
       (8) An essential prerequisite to achieving the Nation's 
     homeland security objectives for first responders is the 
     establishment of well-defined national goals for terrorism 
     preparedness. These goals should delineate the essential 
     capabilities that every jurisdiction in the United States 
     should possess or to which it should have access.
       (9) A national determination of essential capabilities is 
     needed to identify levels of State and local government 
     terrorism preparedness, to determine the nature and extent of 
     State and local first responder needs, to identify the human 
     and financial resources required to fulfill them, to direct 
     funding to meet those needs, and to measure preparedness 
     levels on a national scale.
       (10) To facilitate progress in achieving, maintaining, and 
     enhancing essential capabilities for State and local first 
     responders, the Department of Homeland Security should seek 
     to allocate homeland security funding for first responders to 
     meet nationwide needs.
       (11) Private sector resources and citizen volunteers can 
     perform critical functions in assisting in preventing and 
     responding to terrorist attacks, and should be integrated 
     into State and local planning efforts to ensure that their 
     capabilities and roles are understood, so as to provide 
     enhanced State and local operational capability and surge 
     capacity.
       (12) Public-private partnerships, such as the partnerships 
     between the Business Executives for National Security and the 
     States of New Jersey and Georgia, can be useful to identify 
     and coordinate private sector support for State and local 
     first responders. Such models should be expanded to cover all 
     States and territories.
       (13) An important aspect of terrorism preparedness is 
     measurability, so that it is possible to determine how 
     prepared a State or local government is now, and what 
     additional steps it needs to take, in order to prevent, 
     prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from 
     acts of terrorism.
       (14) The Department of Homeland Security should establish, 
     publish, and regularly update national voluntary consensus 
     standards for both equipment and training, in cooperation 
     with both public and private sector standard setting 
     organizations, to assist State and local governments in 
     obtaining the equipment and training to attain the essential 
     capabilities for first response to acts of terrorism, and to 
     ensure that first responder funds are spent wisely.

     SEC. 3. FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 1(b) in the table of contents by adding at 
     the end the following:

              ``TITLE XVIII--FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

``Sec. 1801. Definitions.
``Sec. 1802. Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders.
``Sec. 1803. Covered grant eligibility and criteria.
``Sec. 1804. Risk-based evaluation and prioritization.
``Sec. 1805. Task Force on Terrorism Preparedness for First Responders.
``Sec. 1806. Use of funds and accountability requirements.
``Sec. 1807. National standards for first responder equipment and 
              training.''
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

              ``TITLE XVIII--FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

     ``SEC. 1801. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Board.--The term `Board' means the First Responder 
     Grants Board established under section 1804.
       ``(2) Covered grant.--The term `covered grant' means any 
     grant to which this title applies under section 1802.
       ``(3) Directly eligible tribe.--The term `directly eligible 
     tribe' means any Indian tribe or consortium of Indian tribes 
     that--
       ``(A) meets the criteria for inclusion in the qualified 
     applicant pool for Self-Governance that are set forth in 
     section 402(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458bb(c));
       ``(B) employs at least 10 full-time personnel in a law 
     enforcement or emergency response agency with the capacity to 
     respond to calls for law enforcement or emergency services; 
     and
       ``(C)(i) is located on, or within 5 miles of, an 
     international border or waterway;
       ``(ii) is located within 5 miles of a facility designated 
     as high-risk critical infrastructure by the Secretary;
       ``(iii) is located within or contiguous to one of the 50 
     largest metropolitan statistical areas in the United States; 
     or
       ``(iv) has more than 1,000 square miles of Indian country, 
     as that term is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       ``(4) Elevations in the threat alert level.--The term 
     `elevations in the threat alert level' means any designation 
     (including those that are less than national in scope) that 
     raises the homeland security threat level to either the 
     highest or second highest threat level under the Homeland 
     Security Advisory System referred to in section 201(d)(7).
       ``(5) Emergency preparedness.--The term `emergency 
     preparedness' shall have the same

[[Page H3224]]

     meaning that term has under section 602 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5195a).
       ``(6) Essential capabilities.--The term `essential 
     capabilities' means the levels, availability, and competence 
     of emergency personnel, planning, training, and equipment 
     across a variety of disciplines needed to effectively and 
     efficiently prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover 
     from acts of terrorism consistent with established practices.
       ``(7) First responder.--The term `first responder' shall 
     have the same meaning as the term `emergency response 
     provider'.
       ``(8) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
     community, including any Alaskan Native village or regional 
     or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant 
     to the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 
     et seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to 
     Indians because of their status as Indians.
       ``(9) Region.--The term `region' means--
       ``(A) any geographic area consisting of all or parts of 2 
     or more contiguous States, counties, municipalities, or other 
     local governments that have a combined population of at least 
     1,650,000 or have an area of not less than 20,000 square 
     miles, and that, for purposes of an application for a covered 
     grant, is represented by 1 or more governments or 
     governmental agencies within such geographic area, and that 
     is established by law or by agreement of 2 or more such 
     governments or governmental agencies in a mutual aid 
     agreement; or
       ``(B) any other combination of contiguous local government 
     units (including such a combination established by law or 
     agreement of two or more governments or governmental agencies 
     in a mutual aid agreement) that is formally certified by the 
     Secretary as a region for purposes of this Act with the 
     consent of--
       ``(i) the State or States in which they are located, 
     including a multi-State entity established by a compact 
     between two or more States; and
       ``(ii) the incorporated municipalities, counties, and 
     parishes that they encompass.
       ``(10) Task force.--The term `Task Force' means the Task 
     Force on Terrorism Preparedness for First Responders 
     established under section 1805.
       ``(11) Terrorism preparedness.--The term `terrorism 
     preparedness' means any activity designed to improve the 
     ability to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate 
     against, or recover from threatened or actual terrorist 
     attacks.

     ``SEC. 1802. FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS.

       ``(a) Covered Grants.--This title applies to grants 
     provided by the Department to States, regions, or directly 
     eligible tribes for the primary purpose of improving the 
     ability of first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond 
     to, mitigate against, or recover from threatened or actual 
     terrorist attacks, especially those involving weapons of mass 
     destruction, administered under the following:
       ``(1) State homeland security grant program.--The State 
     Homeland Security Grant Program of the Department, or any 
     successor to such grant program.
       ``(2) Urban area security initiative.--The Urban Area 
     Security Initiative of the Department, or any successor to 
     such grant program.
       ``(3) Law enforcement terrorism prevention program.--The 
     Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program of the 
     Department, or any successor to such grant program.
       ``(b) Excluded Programs.--This title does not apply to or 
     otherwise affect the following Federal grant programs or any 
     grant under such a program:
       ``(1) Nondepartment programs.--Any Federal grant program 
     that is not administered by the Department.
       ``(2) Fire grant programs.--The fire grant programs 
     authorized by sections 33 and 34 of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a).
       ``(3) Emergency management planning and assistance account 
     grants.--The Emergency Management Performance Grant program 
     and the Urban Search and Rescue Grants program authorized by 
     title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq.); the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2000 (113 Stat. 1047 et seq.); and the Earthquake Hazards 
     Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

     ``SEC. 1803. COVERED GRANT ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA.

       ``(a) Grant Eligibility.--Any State, region, or directly 
     eligible tribe shall be eligible to apply for a covered 
     grant.
       ``(b) Grant Criteria.--The Secretary shall award covered 
     grants to assist States and local governments in achieving, 
     maintaining, and enhancing the essential capabilities for 
     terrorism preparedness established by the Secretary.
       ``(c) State Homeland Security Plans.--
       ``(1) Submission of plans.--The Secretary shall require 
     that any State applying to the Secretary for a covered grant 
     must submit to the Secretary a 3-year State homeland security 
     plan that--
       ``(A) describes the essential capabilities that communities 
     within the State should possess, or to which they should have 
     access, based upon the terrorism risk factors relevant to 
     such communities, in order to meet the Department's goals for 
     terrorism preparedness;
       ``(B) demonstrates the extent to which the State has 
     achieved the essential capabilities that apply to the State;
       ``(C) demonstrates the needs of the State necessary to 
     achieve, maintain, or enhance the essential capabilities that 
     apply to the State;
       ``(D) includes a prioritization of such needs based on 
     threat, vulnerability, and consequence assessment factors 
     applicable to the State;
       ``(E) describes how the State intends--
       ``(i) to address such needs at the city, county, regional, 
     tribal, State, and interstate level, including a precise 
     description of any regional structure the State has 
     established for the purpose of organizing homeland security 
     preparedness activities funded by covered grants;
       ``(ii) to use all Federal, State, and local resources 
     available for the purpose of addressing such needs; and
       ``(iii) to give particular emphasis to regional planning 
     and cooperation, including the activities of 
     multijurisdictional planning agencies governed by local 
     officials, both within its jurisdictional borders and with 
     neighboring States;
       ``(F) with respect to the emergency preparedness of first 
     responders, addresses the unique aspects of terrorism as part 
     of a comprehensive State emergency management plan; and
       ``(G) provides for coordination of response and recovery 
     efforts at the local level, including procedures for 
     effective incident command in conformance with the National 
     Incident Management System.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The State plan submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall be developed in consultation with and 
     subject to appropriate comment by local governments and first 
     responders within the State.
       ``(3) Approval by secretary.--The Secretary may not award 
     any covered grant to a State unless the Secretary has 
     approved the applicable State homeland security plan.
       ``(4) Revisions.--A State may revise the applicable State 
     homeland security plan approved by the Secretary under this 
     subsection, subject to approval of the revision by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Consistency With State Plans.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that each covered grant is used to supplement and 
     support, in a consistent and coordinated manner, the 
     applicable State homeland security plan or plans.
       ``(e) Application for Grant.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, any State, region, or directly eligible tribe may 
     apply for a covered grant by submitting to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as is required under this subsection, or as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(2) Deadlines for applications and awards.--All 
     applications for covered grants must be submitted at such 
     time as the Secretary may reasonably require for the fiscal 
     year for which they are submitted. The Secretary shall award 
     covered grants pursuant to all approved applications for such 
     fiscal year as soon as practicable, but not later than March 
     1 of such year.
       ``(3) Availability of funds.--All funds awarded by the 
     Secretary under covered grants in a fiscal year shall be 
     available for obligation through the end of the subsequent 
     fiscal year.
       ``(4) Minimum contents of application.--The Secretary shall 
     require that each applicant include in its application, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(A) the purpose for which the applicant seeks covered 
     grant funds and the reasons why the applicant needs the 
     covered grant to meet the essential capabilities for 
     terrorism preparedness within the State, region, or directly 
     eligible tribe to which the application pertains;
       ``(B) a description of how, by reference to the applicable 
     State homeland security plan or plans under subsection (c), 
     the allocation of grant funding proposed in the application, 
     including, where applicable, the amount not passed through 
     under section 1806(g)(1), would assist in fulfilling the 
     essential capabilities for terrorism preparedness specified 
     in such plan or plans;
       ``(C) a statement of whether a mutual aid agreement applies 
     to the use of all or any portion of the covered grant funds;
       ``(D) if the applicant is a State, a description of how the 
     State plans to allocate the covered grant funds to regions, 
     local governments, and Indian tribes;
       ``(E) if the applicant is a region--
       ``(i) a precise geographical description of the region and 
     a specification of all participating and nonparticipating 
     local governments within the geographical area comprising 
     that region;
       ``(ii) a specification of what governmental entity within 
     the region will administer the expenditure of funds under the 
     covered grant; and
       ``(iii) a designation of a specific individual to serve as 
     regional liaison;
       ``(F) a capital budget showing how the applicant intends to 
     allocate and expend the covered grant funds;
       ``(G) if the applicant is a directly eligible tribe, a 
     designation of a specific individual to serve as the tribal 
     liaison; and
       ``(H) a statement of how the applicant intends to meet the 
     matching requirement, if any, that applies under section 
     1806(g)(2).
       ``(5) Regional applications.--
       ``(A) Relationship to state applications.--A regional 
     application--
       ``(i) shall be coordinated with an application submitted by 
     the State or States of which such region is a part;
       ``(ii) shall supplement and avoid duplication with such 
     State application; and
       ``(iii) shall address the unique regional aspects of such 
     region's terrorism preparedness needs beyond those provided 
     for in the application of such State or States.
       ``(B) State review and submission.--To ensure the 
     consistency required under subsection (d) and the 
     coordination required under subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph, an applicant that is a region must submit its 
     application to each State of which any part is included in 
     the region for review and concurrence prior to the submission 
     of such application to the Secretary. The regional 
     application shall be transmitted to the Secretary through 
     each such State within 30 days of its receipt, unless the 
     Governor of such

[[Page H3225]]

     a State notifies the Secretary, in writing, that such 
     regional application is inconsistent with the State's 
     homeland security plan and provides an explanation of the 
     reasons therefor.
       ``(C) Distribution of regional awards.--If the Secretary 
     approves a regional application, then the Secretary shall 
     distribute a regional award to the State or States submitting 
     the applicable regional application under subparagraph (B), 
     and each such State shall, not later than the end of the 45-
     day period beginning on the date after receiving a regional 
     award, pass through to the region all covered grant funds or 
     resources purchased with such funds, except those funds 
     necessary for the State to carry out its responsibilities 
     with respect to such regional application: Provided, That in 
     no such case shall the State or States pass through to the 
     region less than 80 percent of the regional award.
       ``(D) Certifications regarding distribution of grant funds 
     to regions.--Any State that receives a regional award under 
     subparagraph (C) shall certify to the Secretary, by not later 
     than 30 days after the expiration of the period described in 
     subparagraph (C) with respect to the grant, that the State 
     has made available to the region the required funds and 
     resources in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(E) Direct payments to regions.--If any State fails to 
     pass through a regional award to a region as required by 
     subparagraph (C) within 45 days after receiving such award 
     and does not request or receive an extension of such period 
     under section 1806(h)(2), the region may petition the 
     Secretary to receive directly the portion of the regional 
     award that is required to be passed through to such region 
     under subparagraph (C).
       ``(F) Regional liaisons.--A regional liaison designated 
     under paragraph (4)(E)(iii) shall--
       ``(i) coordinate with Federal, State, local, regional, and 
     private officials within the region concerning terrorism 
     preparedness;
       ``(ii) develop a process for receiving input from Federal, 
     State, local, regional, and private sector officials within 
     the region to assist in the development of the regional 
     application and to improve the region's access to covered 
     grants; and
       ``(iii) administer, in consultation with State, local, 
     regional, and private officials within the region, covered 
     grants awarded to the region.
       ``(6) Tribal applications.--
       ``(A) Submission to the state or states.--To ensure the 
     consistency required under subsection (d), an applicant that 
     is a directly eligible tribe must submit its application to 
     each State within the boundaries of which any part of such 
     tribe is located for direct submission to the Department 
     along with the application of such State or States.
       ``(B) Opportunity for state comment.--Before awarding any 
     covered grant to a directly eligible tribe, the Secretary 
     shall provide an opportunity to each State within the 
     boundaries of which any part of such tribe is located to 
     comment to the Secretary on the consistency of the tribe's 
     application with the State's homeland security plan. Any such 
     comments shall be submitted to the Secretary concurrently 
     with the submission of the State and tribal applications.
       ``(C) Final authority.--The Secretary shall have final 
     authority to determine the consistency of any application of 
     a directly eligible tribe with the applicable State homeland 
     security plan or plans, and to approve any application of 
     such tribe. The Secretary shall notify each State within the 
     boundaries of which any part of such tribe is located of the 
     approval of an application by such tribe.
       ``(D) Tribal liaison.--A tribal liaison designated under 
     paragraph (4)(G) shall--
       ``(i) coordinate with Federal, State, local, regional, and 
     private officials concerning terrorism preparedness;
       ``(ii) develop a process for receiving input from Federal, 
     State, local, regional, and private sector officials to 
     assist in the development of the application of such tribe 
     and to improve the tribe's access to covered grants; and
       ``(iii) administer, in consultation with State, local, 
     regional, and private officials, covered grants awarded to 
     such tribe.
       ``(E) Limitation on the number of direct grants.--The 
     Secretary may make covered grants directly to not more than 
     20 directly eligible tribes per fiscal year.
       ``(F) Tribes not receiving direct grants.--An Indian tribe 
     that does not receive a grant directly under this section is 
     eligible to receive funds under a covered grant from the 
     State or States within the boundaries of which any part of 
     such tribe is located, consistent with the homeland security 
     plan of the State as described in subsection (c). If a State 
     fails to comply with section 1806(g)(1), the tribe may 
     request payment under section 1806(h)(3) in the same manner 
     as a local government.
       ``(7) Equipment standards.--If an applicant for a covered 
     grant proposes to upgrade or purchase, with assistance 
     provided under the grant, new equipment or systems that do 
     not meet or exceed any applicable national voluntary 
     consensus standards established by the Secretary, the 
     applicant shall include in the application an explanation of 
     why such equipment or systems will serve the needs of the 
     applicant better than equipment or systems that meet or 
     exceed such standards.

     ``SEC. 1804. RISK-BASED EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION.

       ``(a) First Responder Grants Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment of board.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a First Responder Grants Board, consisting of--
       ``(A) the Secretary;
       ``(B) the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and 
     Response;
       ``(C) the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation 
     Security;
       ``(D) the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and 
     Infrastructure Protection;
       ``(E) the Under Secretary for Science and Technology;
       ``(F) the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness; 
     and
       ``(G) the Administrator of the United States Fire 
     Administration.
       ``(2) Chairman.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall be the Chairman of 
     the Board.
       ``(B) Exercise of authorities by deputy secretary.--The 
     Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security may exercise the 
     authorities of the Chairman, if the Secretary so directs.
       ``(b) Functions of Under Secretaries.--The Under 
     Secretaries referred to in subsection (a)(1) shall seek to 
     ensure that the relevant expertise and input of the staff of 
     their directorates are available to and considered by the 
     Board.
       ``(c) Prioritization of Grant Applications.--
       ``(1) Factors to be considered.--The Board shall evaluate 
     and annually prioritize all pending applications for covered 
     grants based upon the degree to which they would, by 
     achieving, maintaining, or enhancing the essential 
     capabilities of the applicants on a nationwide basis, lessen 
     the threat to, vulnerability of, and consequences for persons 
     (including transient commuting and tourist populations) and 
     critical infrastructure. Such evaluation and prioritization 
     shall be based upon the most current risk assessment 
     available by the Directorate for Information Analysis and 
     Infrastructure Protection of the threats of terrorism against 
     the United States.
       ``(2) Critical infrastructure sectors.--The Board 
     specifically shall consider threats of terrorism against the 
     following critical infrastructure sectors in all areas of the 
     United States, urban and rural:
       ``(A) Agriculture and food.
       ``(B) Banking and finance.
       ``(C) Chemical industries.
       ``(D) The defense industrial base.
       ``(E) Emergency services.
       ``(F) Energy.
       ``(G) Government facilities.
       ``(H) Postal and shipping.
       ``(I) Public health and health care.
       ``(J) Information technology.
       ``(K) Telecommunications.
       ``(L) Transportation systems.
       ``(M) Water.
       ``(N) Dams.
       ``(O) Commercial facilities.
       ``(P) National monuments and icons.
     The order in which the critical infrastructure sectors are 
     listed in this paragraph shall not be construed as an order 
     of priority for consideration of the importance of such 
     sectors.
       ``(3) Types of threat.--The Board specifically shall 
     consider the following types of threat to the critical 
     infrastructure sectors described in paragraph (2), and to 
     populations in all areas of the United States, urban and 
     rural:
       ``(A) Biological threats.
       ``(B) Nuclear threats.
       ``(C) Radiological threats.
       ``(D) Incendiary threats.
       ``(E) Chemical threats.
       ``(F) Explosives.
       ``(G) Suicide bombers.
       ``(H) Cyber threats.
       ``(I) Any other threats based on proximity to specific past 
     acts of terrorism or the known activity of any terrorist 
     group.
     The order in which the types of threat are listed in this 
     paragraph shall not be construed as an order of priority for 
     consideration of the importance of such threats.
       ``(4) Consideration of additional factors.--The Board shall 
     take into account any other specific threat to a population 
     (including a transient commuting or tourist population) or 
     critical infrastructure sector that the Board has determined 
     to exist. In evaluating the threat to a population or 
     critical infrastructure sector, the Board shall give greater 
     weight to threats of terrorism based upon their specificity 
     and credibility, including any pattern of repetition.
       ``(5) Minimum amounts.--After evaluating and prioritizing 
     grant applications under paragraph (1), the Board shall 
     ensure that, for each fiscal year--
       ``(A) each of the States, other than the Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, that 
     has an approved State homeland security plan receives no less 
     than 0.25 percent of the funds available for covered grants 
     for that fiscal year for purposes of implementing its 
     homeland security plan in accordance with the prioritization 
     of needs under section 1803(c)(1)(D);
       ``(B) each of the States, other than the Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, that 
     has an approved State homeland security plan and that meets 
     one or both of the additional high-risk qualifying criteria 
     under paragraph (6) receives no less than 0.45 percent of the 
     funds available for covered grants for that fiscal year for 
     purposes of implementing its homeland security plan in 
     accordance with the prioritization of needs under section 
     1803(c)(1)(D);
       ``(C) the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Northern Mariana Islands each receives no less than 0.08 
     percent of the funds available for covered grants for that 
     fiscal year for purposes of implementing its approved State 
     homeland security plan in accordance with the prioritization 
     of needs under section 1803(c)(1)(D); and
       ``(D) directly eligible tribes collectively receive no less 
     than 0.08 percent of the funds available for covered grants 
     for such fiscal year for purposes of addressing the needs 
     identified in the applications of such tribes, consistent 
     with the homeland security plan of each State within the 
     boundaries of which any part of any such tribe is located, 
     except that this clause shall not apply with respect to funds 
     available for a fiscal year if the Secretary receives less 
     than 5 applications for such fiscal year from such tribes 
     under section 1803(e)(6)(A) or does not approve at least one 
     such application.

[[Page H3226]]

       ``(6) Additional high-risk qualifying criteria.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (5)(B), additional high-risk qualifying 
     criteria consist of--
       ``(A) having a significant international land border; or
       ``(B) adjoining a body of water within North America 
     through which an international boundary line extends.
       ``(d) Effect of Regional Awards on State Minimum.--Any 
     regional award, or portion thereof, provided to a State under 
     section 1803(e)(5)(C) shall not be considered in calculating 
     the minimum State award under subsection (c)(5) of this 
     section.

     ``SEC. 1805. TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS FOR FIRST 
                   RESPONDERS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--To assist the Secretary in updating, 
     revising, or replacing essential capabilities for terrorism 
     preparedness, the Secretary shall establish an advisory body 
     pursuant to section 871(a) not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this section, which shall be known 
     as the Task Force on Terrorism Preparedness for First 
     Responders.
       ``(b) Update, Revise, or Replace.--The Secretary shall 
     regularly update, revise, or replace the essential 
     capabilities for terrorism preparedness as necessary, but not 
     less than every 3 years.
       ``(c) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Task Force shall submit to the 
     Secretary, by not later than 12 months after its 
     establishment by the Secretary under subsection (a) and not 
     later than every 2 years thereafter, a report on its 
     recommendations for essential capabilities for terrorism 
     preparedness.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each report shall--
       ``(A) include a priority ranking of essential capabilities 
     in order to provide guidance to the Secretary and to the 
     Congress on determining the appropriate allocation of, and 
     funding levels for, first responder needs;
       ``(B) set forth a methodology by which any State or local 
     government will be able to determine the extent to which it 
     possesses or has access to the essential capabilities that 
     States and local governments having similar risks should 
     obtain;
       ``(C) describe the availability of national voluntary 
     consensus standards, and whether there is a need for new 
     national voluntary consensus standards, with respect to first 
     responder training and equipment;
       ``(D) include such additional matters as the Secretary may 
     specify in order to further the terrorism preparedness 
     capabilities of first responders; and
       ``(E) include such revisions to the contents of previous 
     reports as are necessary to take into account changes in the 
     most current risk assessment available by the Directorate for 
     Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection or other 
     relevant information as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Consistency with federal working group.--The Task 
     Force shall ensure that its recommendations for essential 
     capabilities for terrorism preparedness are, to the extent 
     feasible, consistent with any preparedness goals or 
     recommendations of the Federal working group established 
     under section 319F(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 247d-6(a)).
       ``(4) Comprehensiveness.--The Task Force shall ensure that 
     its recommendations regarding essential capabilities for 
     terrorism preparedness are made within the context of a 
     comprehensive State emergency management system.
       ``(5) Prior measures.--The Task Force shall ensure that its 
     recommendations regarding essential capabilities for 
     terrorism preparedness take into account any capabilities 
     that State or local officials have determined to be essential 
     and have undertaken since September 11, 2001, to prevent, 
     prepare for, respond to, or recover from terrorist attacks.
       ``(d) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Task Force shall consist of 25 
     members appointed by the Secretary, and shall, to the extent 
     practicable, represent a geographic (including urban and 
     rural) and substantive cross section of governmental and 
     nongovernmental first responder disciplines from the State 
     and local levels, including as appropriate--
       ``(A) members selected from the emergency response field, 
     including fire service and law enforcement, hazardous 
     materials response, emergency medical services, and emergency 
     management personnel (including public works personnel 
     routinely engaged in emergency response);
       ``(B) health scientists, emergency and inpatient medical 
     providers, and public health professionals, including experts 
     in emergency health care response to chemical, biological, 
     radiological, and nuclear terrorism, and experts in providing 
     mental health care during emergency response operations;
       ``(C) experts from Federal, State, and local governments, 
     and the private sector, representing standards-setting 
     organizations, including representation from the voluntary 
     consensus codes and standards development community, 
     particularly those with expertise in first responder 
     disciplines; and
       ``(D) State and local officials with expertise in terrorism 
     preparedness, subject to the condition that if any such 
     official is an elected official representing one of the two 
     major political parties, an equal number of elected officials 
     shall be selected from each such party.
       ``(2) Coordination with the department of health and health 
     services.--In the selection of members of the Task Force who 
     are health professionals, including emergency medical 
     professionals, the Secretary shall coordinate such selection 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       ``(3) Ex officio members.--The Secretary and the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall each designate one or more 
     officers of their respective Departments to serve as ex 
     officio members of the Task Force. One of the ex officio 
     members from the Department of Homeland Security shall be the 
     designated officer of the Federal Government for purposes of 
     subsection (e) of section 10 of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.).
       ``(e) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
     Notwithstanding section 871(a), the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.), including subsections (a), 
     (b), and (d) of section 10 of such Act, and section 552b(c) 
     of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to the Task 
     Force.

     ``SEC. 1806. USE OF FUNDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A covered grant may be used for--
       ``(1) purchasing or upgrading equipment, including computer 
     software, to enhance terrorism preparedness;
       ``(2) exercises to strengthen terrorism preparedness;
       ``(3) training for prevention (including detection) of, 
     preparedness for, response to, or recovery from attacks 
     involving weapons of mass destruction, including training in 
     the use of equipment and computer software;
       ``(4) developing or updating State homeland security plans, 
     risk assessments, mutual aid agreements, and emergency 
     management plans to enhance terrorism preparedness;
       ``(5) establishing or enhancing mechanisms for sharing 
     terrorism threat information;
       ``(6) systems architecture and engineering, program 
     planning and management, strategy formulation and strategic 
     planning, life-cycle systems design, product and technology 
     evaluation, and prototype development for terrorism 
     preparedness purposes;
       ``(7) additional personnel costs resulting from--
       ``(A) elevations in the threat alert level of the Homeland 
     Security Advisory System by the Secretary, or a similar 
     elevation in threat alert level issued by a State, region, or 
     local government with the approval of the Secretary;
       ``(B) travel to and participation in exercises and training 
     in the use of equipment and on prevention activities; and
       ``(C) the temporary replacement of personnel during any 
     period of travel to and participation in exercises and 
     training in the use of equipment and on prevention 
     activities;
       ``(8) the costs of equipment (including software) required 
     to receive, transmit, handle, and store classified 
     information;
       ``(9) protecting critical infrastructure against potential 
     attack by the addition of barriers, fences, gates, and other 
     such devices, except that the cost of such measures may not 
     exceed the greater of--
       ``(A) $1,000,000 per project; or
       ``(B) such greater amount as may be approved by the 
     Secretary, which may not exceed 10 percent of the total 
     amount of the covered grant;
       ``(10) the costs of commercially available interoperable 
     communications equipment (which, where applicable, is based 
     on national, voluntary consensus standards) that the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal 
     Communications Commission, deems best suited to facilitate 
     interoperability, coordination, and integration between and 
     among emergency communications systems, and that complies 
     with prevailing grant guidance of the Department for 
     interoperable communications;
       ``(11) educational curricula development for first 
     responders to ensure that they are prepared for terrorist 
     attacks;
       ``(12) training and exercises to assist public elementary 
     and secondary schools in developing and implementing programs 
     to instruct students regarding age-appropriate skills to 
     prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, or 
     recover from an act of terrorism;
       ``(13) paying of administrative expenses directly related 
     to administration of the grant, except that such expenses may 
     not exceed 3 percent of the amount of the grant;
       ``(14) paying for the conduct of any activity permitted 
     under the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, or 
     any such successor to such program; and
       ``(15) other appropriate activities as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Prohibited Uses.--Funds provided as a covered grant 
     may not be used--
       ``(1) to supplant State or local funds;
       ``(2) to construct buildings or other physical facilities;
       ``(3) to acquire land; or
       ``(4) for any State or local government cost sharing 
     contribution.
       ``(c) Multiple-Purpose Funds.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to preclude State and local governments 
     from using covered grant funds in a manner that also enhances 
     first responder preparedness for emergencies and disasters 
     unrelated to acts of terrorism, if such use assists such 
     governments in achieving essential capabilities for terrorism 
     preparedness established by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Reimbursement of Costs.--In addition to the 
     activities described in subsection (a), a covered grant may 
     be used to provide a reasonable stipend to paid-on-call or 
     volunteer first responders who are not otherwise compensated 
     for travel to or participation in training covered by this 
     section. Any such reimbursement shall not be considered 
     compensation for purposes of rendering such a first responder 
     an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
       ``(e) Assistance Requirement.--The Secretary may not 
     require that equipment paid for, wholly or in part, with 
     funds provided as a covered grant be made available for 
     responding to emergencies in surrounding States, regions, and 
     localities, unless the Secretary undertakes to pay the costs 
     directly attributable to transporting and operating such 
     equipment during such response.

[[Page H3227]]

       ``(f) Flexibility in Unspent Homeland Security Grant 
     Funds.--Upon request by the recipient of a covered grant, the 
     Secretary may authorize the grantee to transfer all or part 
     of funds provided as the covered grant from uses specified in 
     the grant agreement to other uses authorized under this 
     section, if the Secretary determines that such transfer is in 
     the interests of homeland security.
       ``(g) State, Regional, and Tribal Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) Pass-through.--The Secretary shall require a 
     recipient of a covered grant that is a State to obligate or 
     otherwise make available to local governments, first 
     responders, and other local groups, to the extent required 
     under the State homeland security plan or plans specified in 
     the application for the grant, not less than 80 percent of 
     the grant funds, resources purchased with the grant funds 
     having a value equal to at least 80 percent of the amount of 
     the grant, or a combination thereof, by not later than the 
     end of the 45-day period beginning on the date the grant 
     recipient receives the grant funds.
       ``(2) Cost sharing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of an 
     activity carried out with a covered grant to a State, region, 
     or directly eligible tribe awarded after the 2-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this section shall 
     not exceed 75 percent.
       ``(B) Interim rule.--The Federal share of the costs of an 
     activity carried out with a covered grant awarded before the 
     end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this section shall be 100 percent.
       ``(C) In-kind matching.--Each recipient of a covered grant 
     may meet the matching requirement under subparagraph (A) by 
     making in-kind contributions of goods or services that are 
     directly linked with the purpose for which the grant is made, 
     including, but not limited to, any necessary personnel 
     overtime, contractor services, administrative costs, 
     equipment fuel and maintenance, and rental space.
       ``(3) Certifications regarding distribution of grant funds 
     to local governments.--Any State that receives a covered 
     grant shall certify to the Secretary, by not later than 30 
     days after the expiration of the period described in 
     paragraph (1) with respect to the grant, that the State has 
     made available for expenditure by local governments, first 
     responders, and other local groups the required amount of 
     grant funds pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Quarterly report on homeland security spending.--The 
     Federal share described in paragraph (2)(A) may be increased 
     by up to 2 percent for any State, region, or directly 
     eligible tribe that, not later than 30 days after the end of 
     each fiscal quarter, submits to the Secretary a report on 
     that fiscal quarter. Each such report must include, for each 
     recipient of a covered grant or a pass-through under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) the amount obligated to that recipient in that 
     quarter;
       ``(B) the amount expended by that recipient in that 
     quarter; and
       ``(C) a summary description of the items purchased by such 
     recipient with such amount.
       ``(5) Annual report on homeland security spending.--Each 
     recipient of a covered grant shall submit an annual report to 
     the Secretary not later than 60 days after the end of each 
     Federal fiscal year. Each recipient of a covered grant that 
     is a region must simultaneously submit its report to each 
     State of which any part is included in the region. Each 
     recipient of a covered grant that is a directly eligible 
     tribe must simultaneously submit its report to each State 
     within the boundaries of which any part of such tribe is 
     located. Each report must include the following:
       ``(A) The amount, ultimate recipients, and dates of receipt 
     of all funds received under the grant during the previous 
     fiscal year.
       ``(B) The amount and the dates of disbursements of all such 
     funds expended in compliance with paragraph (1) or pursuant 
     to mutual aid agreements or other sharing arrangements that 
     apply within the State, region, or directly eligible tribe, 
     as applicable, during the previous fiscal year.
       ``(C) How the funds were utilized by each ultimate 
     recipient or beneficiary during the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(D) The extent to which essential capabilities identified 
     in the applicable State homeland security plan or plans were 
     achieved, maintained, or enhanced as the result of the 
     expenditure of grant funds during the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(E) The extent to which essential capabilities identified 
     in the applicable State homeland security plan or plans 
     remain unmet.
       ``(6) Inclusion of restricted annexes.--A recipient of a 
     covered grant may submit to the Secretary an annex to the 
     annual report under paragraph (5) that is subject to 
     appropriate handling restrictions, if the recipient believes 
     that discussion in the report of unmet needs would reveal 
     sensitive but unclassified information.
       ``(7) Provision of reports.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that each annual report under paragraph (5) is provided to 
     the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response 
     and the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
       ``(h) Incentives to Efficient Administration of Homeland 
     Security Grants.--
       ``(1) Penalties for delay in passing through local share.--
     If a recipient of a covered grant that is a State fails to 
     pass through to local governments, first responders, and 
     other local groups funds or resources required by subsection 
     (g)(1) within 45 days after receiving funds under the grant, 
     the Secretary may--
       ``(A) reduce grant payments to the grant recipient from the 
     portion of grant funds that is not required to be passed 
     through under subsection (g)(1);
       ``(B) terminate payment of funds under the grant to the 
     recipient, and transfer the appropriate portion of those 
     funds directly to local first responders that were intended 
     to receive funding under that grant; or
       ``(C) impose additional restrictions or burdens on the 
     recipient's use of funds under the grant, which may include--
       ``(i) prohibiting use of such funds to pay the grant 
     recipient's grant-related overtime or other expenses;
       ``(ii) requiring the grant recipient to distribute to local 
     government beneficiaries all or a portion of grant funds that 
     are not required to be passed through under subsection 
     (g)(1); or
       ``(iii) for each day that the grant recipient fails to pass 
     through funds or resources in accordance with subsection 
     (g)(1), reducing grant payments to the grant recipient from 
     the portion of grant funds that is not required to be passed 
     through under subsection (g)(1), except that the total amount 
     of such reduction may not exceed 20 percent of the total 
     amount of the grant.
       ``(2) Extension of period.--The Governor of a State may 
     request in writing that the Secretary extend the 45-day 
     period under section 1803(e)(5)(E) or paragraph (1) for an 
     additional 15-day period. The Secretary may approve such a 
     request, and may extend such period for additional 15-day 
     periods, if the Secretary determines that the resulting delay 
     in providing grant funding to the local government entities 
     that will receive funding under the grant will not have a 
     significant detrimental impact on such entities' terrorism 
     preparedness efforts.
       ``(3) Provision of non-local share to local government.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may upon request by a 
     local government pay to the local government a portion of the 
     amount of a covered grant awarded to a State in which the 
     local government is located, if--
       ``(i) the local government will use the amount paid to 
     expedite planned enhancements to its terrorism preparedness 
     as described in any applicable State homeland security plan 
     or plans;
       ``(ii) the State has failed to pass through funds or 
     resources in accordance with subsection (g)(1); and
       ``(iii) the local government complies with subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C).
       ``(B) Showing required.--To receive a payment under this 
     paragraph, a local government must demonstrate that--
       ``(i) it is identified explicitly as an ultimate recipient 
     or intended beneficiary in the approved grant application;
       ``(ii) it was intended by the grantee to receive a 
     severable portion of the overall grant for a specific purpose 
     that is identified in the grant application;
       ``(iii) it petitioned the grantee for the funds or 
     resources after expiration of the period within which the 
     funds or resources were required to be passed through under 
     subsection (g)(1); and
       ``(iv) it did not receive the portion of the overall grant 
     that was earmarked or designated for its use or benefit.
       ``(C) Effect of payment.--Payment of grant funds to a local 
     government under this paragraph--
       ``(i) shall not affect any payment to another local 
     government under this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) shall not prejudice consideration of a request for 
     payment under this paragraph that is submitted by another 
     local government.
       ``(D) Deadline for action by secretary.--The Secretary 
     shall approve or disapprove each request for payment under 
     this paragraph by not later than 15 days after the date the 
     request is received by the Department.
       ``(i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit an 
     annual report to the Congress by January 31 of each year 
     covering the preceding fiscal year--
       ``(1) describing in detail the amount of Federal funds 
     provided as covered grants that were directed to each State, 
     region, and directly eligible tribe in the preceding fiscal 
     year;
       ``(2) containing information on the use of such grant funds 
     by grantees; and
       ``(3) describing--
       ``(A) the Nation's progress in achieving, maintaining, and 
     enhancing the essential capabilities established by the 
     Secretary as a result of the expenditure of covered grant 
     funds during the preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(B) an estimate of the amount of expenditures required to 
     attain across the United States the essential capabilities 
     established by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1807. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FIRST RESPONDER EQUIPMENT 
                   AND TRAINING.

       ``(a) Equipment Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Under Secretaries for Emergency Preparedness and Response and 
     Science and Technology and the Director of the Office for 
     Domestic Preparedness, shall, not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section, support the 
     development of, promulgate, and update as necessary national 
     voluntary consensus standards for the performance, use, and 
     validation of first responder equipment for purposes of 
     section 1805(e)(7). Such standards--
       ``(A) shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     consistent with any existing voluntary consensus standards;
       ``(B) shall take into account, as appropriate, new types of 
     terrorism threats that may not have been contemplated when 
     such existing standards were developed;
       ``(C) shall be focused on maximizing interoperability, 
     interchangeability, durability, flexibility, efficiency, 
     efficacy, portability, sustainability, and safety; and
       ``(D) shall cover all appropriate uses of the equipment.
       ``(2) Required categories.--In carrying out paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall specifically consider the following 
     categories of first responder equipment:
       ``(A) Thermal imaging equipment.

[[Page H3228]]

       ``(B) Radiation detection and analysis equipment.
       ``(C) Biological detection and analysis equipment.
       ``(D) Chemical detection and analysis equipment.
       ``(E) Decontamination and sterilization equipment.
       ``(F) Personal protective equipment, including garments, 
     boots, gloves, and hoods and other protective clothing.
       ``(G) Respiratory protection equipment.
       ``(H) Interoperable communications, including wireless and 
     wireline voice, video, and data networks.
       ``(I) Explosive mitigation devices and explosive detection 
     and analysis equipment.
       ``(J) Containment vessels.
       ``(K) Contaminant-resistant vehicles.
       ``(L) Such other equipment for which the Secretary 
     determines that national voluntary consensus standards would 
     be appropriate.
       ``(b) Training Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Under Secretaries for Emergency Preparedness and Response and 
     Science and Technology and the Director of the Office for 
     Domestic Preparedness, shall support the development of, 
     promulgate, and regularly update as necessary national 
     voluntary consensus standards for first responder training 
     carried out with amounts provided under covered grant 
     programs, that will enable State and local government first 
     responders to achieve optimal levels of terrorism 
     preparedness as quickly as practicable. Such standards shall 
     give priority to providing training to--
       ``(A) enable first responders to prevent, prepare for, 
     respond to, mitigate against, and recover from terrorist 
     threats, including threats from chemical, biological, 
     nuclear, and radiological weapons and explosive devices 
     capable of inflicting significant human casualties; and
       ``(B) familiarize first responders with the proper use of 
     equipment, including software, developed pursuant to the 
     standards established under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Required categories.--In carrying out paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary specifically shall include the following 
     categories of first responder activities:
       ``(A) Regional planning.
       ``(B) Joint exercises.
       ``(C) Intelligence collection, analysis, and sharing.
       ``(D) Emergency notification of affected populations.
       ``(E) Detection of biological, nuclear, radiological, and 
     chemical weapons of mass destruction.
       ``(F) Such other activities for which the Secretary 
     determines that national voluntary consensus training 
     standards would be appropriate.
       ``(3) Consistency.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that such training standards are 
     consistent with the principles of emergency preparedness for 
     all hazards.
       ``(c) Consultation With Standards Organizations.--In 
     establishing national voluntary consensus standards for first 
     responder equipment and training under this section, the 
     Secretary shall consult with relevant public and private 
     sector groups, including--
       ``(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
       ``(2) the National Fire Protection Association;
       ``(3) the National Association of County and City Health 
     Officials;
       ``(4) the Association of State and Territorial Health 
     Officials;
       ``(5) the American National Standards Institute;
       ``(6) the National Institute of Justice;
       ``(7) the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization 
     and Interoperability;
       ``(8) the National Public Health Performance Standards 
     Program;
       ``(9) the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
     Health;
       ``(10) ASTM International;
       ``(11) the International Safety Equipment Association;
       ``(12) the Emergency Management Accreditation Program; and
       ``(13) to the extent the Secretary considers appropriate, 
     other national voluntary consensus standards development 
     organizations, other interested Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, and other interested persons.
       ``(d) Coordination With Secretary of HHS.--In establishing 
     any national voluntary consensus standards under this section 
     for first responder equipment or training that involve or 
     relate to health professionals, including emergency medical 
     professionals, the Secretary shall coordinate activities 
     under this section with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.''.
       (b) Definition of Emergency Response Providers.--Paragraph 
     (6) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 101(6)) is amended by striking 
     ``includes'' and all that follows and inserting ``includes 
     Federal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental 
     emergency public safety, law enforcement, fire, emergency 
     response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency 
     facilities), and related personnel, organizations, agencies, 
     and authorities.''.

     SEC. 4. SUPERSEDED PROVISION.

       This Act supersedes section 1014(c)(3) of Public Law 107-
     56.

     SEC. 5. OVERSIGHT.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish within 
     the Office for Domestic Preparedness an Office of the 
     Comptroller to oversee the grants distribution process and 
     the financial management of the Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness.

     SEC. 6. GAO REPORT ON AN INVENTORY AND STATUS OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall report to the Congress in accordance with this 
     section--
       (1) on the overall inventory and status of first responder 
     training programs of the Department of Homeland Security and 
     other departments and agencies of the Federal Government; and
       (2) the extent to which such programs are coordinated.
       (b) Contents of Reports.--The reports under this section 
     shall include--
       (1) an assessment of the effectiveness of the structure and 
     organization of such training programs;
       (2) recommendations to--
       (A) improve the coordination, structure, and organization 
     of such training programs; and
       (B) increase the availability of training to first 
     responders who are not able to attend centralized training 
     programs;
       (3) the structure and organizational effectiveness of such 
     programs for first responders in rural communities;
       (4) identification of any duplication or redundancy among 
     such programs;
       (5) a description of the use of State and local training 
     institutions, universities, centers, and the National 
     Domestic Preparedness Consortium in designing and providing 
     training;
       (6) a cost-benefit analysis of the costs and time required 
     for first responders to participate in training courses at 
     Federal institutions;
       (7) an assessment of the the approval process for 
     certifying non-Department of Homeland Security training 
     courses that are useful for anti-terrorism purposes as 
     eligible for grants awarded by the Department;
       (8) a description of the use of Department of Homeland 
     Security grant funds by States and local governments to 
     acquire training;
       (9) an analysis of the feasibility of Federal, State, and 
     local personnel to receive the training that is necessary to 
     adopt the National Response Plan and the National Incident 
     Management System; and
       (10) the role of each first responder training institution 
     within the Department of Homeland Security in the design and 
     implementation of terrorism preparedness and related training 
     courses for first responders.
       (c) Deadlines.--The Comptroller General shall--
       (1) submit a report under subsection (a)(1) by not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) submit a report on the remainder of the topics required 
     by this section by not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 109-77. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 109-77.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Berry

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Berry:
       In section 3(a)(2), in the quoted section 1804(a)(1) (page 
     24, beginning at line 3), strike ``and'' after the semicolon 
     at the end of subparagraph (F), strike the period at the end 
     of subparagraph (G) and insert ``; and'', and after 
     subparagraph (G) add the following:
       ``(H) the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is 
recognized.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) and the ranking member, my good friend and the 
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for the wonderful work they 
have done on this bill and the very responsible way they have developed 
it.
  It is a good thing when we come together in this House in a 
bipartisan way to try to make things better for the country. I 
compliment them on having that goal and objective.
  The amendment I offer would simply add the administrator of Animal, 
Plant and Health Inspection Service to the first responders grant 
board.
  Food safety is a very important thing. It was acknowledged as a 
serious

[[Page H3229]]

matter by the outgoing Secretary of DHS, Mr. Ridge. And I think what 
this does is makes it possible for the people that have the greatest 
expertise in this matter to have some say in the way that this is 
handled.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, even though I have claimed the time in opposition to 
the amendment, I actually want to speak in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1544, the bill that the gentleman would amend, as 
written requires the Department of Homeland Security to analyze risk in 
rural America. That is a big step forward. For example, the disruption 
to the agricultural and food sectors by acts of bioterrorism would 
result in considerable economic and health consequences.
  This amendment will ensure that the grants board established by H.R. 
1544 contain a member with expertise in this very area. The designee of 
this amendment, the administrator of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, is well versed in agro-terrorism. This is a wise 
choice.
  As a part of the USDA, APHIS is responsible for safeguarding the 
agriculture and food infrastructures not only from pests and diseases 
but also biological threats. Indeed, APHIS currently works closely with 
the Department of Science and Technology directorate, that is, the 
Department of Homeland Security's directorate, and plays an important 
role in agro-terrorism preparedness.
  Specifically, APHIS is already involved in the following: 
accelerating the development of countermeasures to agro-terrorism; bio-
forensic capabilities; deploying diagnostic technologies; and research, 
development and training activities.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee 
on Homeland Security, I strongly urge my colleagues on the committee 
and my colleagues in the House to vote in support of the Berry 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, it is most appropriate that this amendment 
will be accepted because it will give the Department of Agriculture 
their rightful place at the table in representing agriculture in this 
country in the protection of our homeland.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) allowing me to speak on his amendment.
  My district is reliant on agriculture. This amendment is very 
supportive of the agriculture through the APHIS program. If the 
administrator is allowed to participate in the grants board, it will 
allow us, from an agricultural standpoint, to be adequately considered. 
I would like to compliment the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for 
bringing this to our attention. It is timely in terms of an amendment, 
and it is something that I am happy to support.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Mike Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
California for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  This amendment would add the administrator of the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service as a full member of the First Responder 
Grants Board.
  As an integral part of the Department of Agriculture, the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service monitors our Nation's agriculture to 
protect against agricultural pests and diseases. It also works closely 
with the Department of Homeland Security in agro-terrorism preparedness 
and prevention.
  Under the bill debated today, the First Responders Grants Board will 
be charged with prioritizing grant applications on the basis of risk. 
Adding the administrator to the board would help ensure this panel has 
the necessary expertise when considering the risks to rural America.
  In my home State of Alabama, for example, agriculture is the number 
one industry, employing nearly half a million people. An agro-terrorist 
attack in Alabama could cripple our economy.
  So it is essential we include these changes today to ensure that the 
voice of rural America is heard during the process.
  I would also like to note this amendment has the full support of the 
Committee on Agriculture on which I sit. I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Berry), for offering this commonsense 
amendment. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his 
efforts on this subject and urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Berry

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Berry:
       At the end of section 1804(c)(1) (page 25, line 19), add 
     the following: ``The Board shall coordinate with State, 
     local, regional, and tribal officials in establishing 
     criteria for evaluating and prioritizing applications for 
     covered grants.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I too represent a small rural State. We always struggle 
to have enough resources to deal with some of the possible threats that 
we have, and one of the important resources that the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and I share is the Mississippi River. It is 
an incredibly important resources to this Nation and to our national 
security and to our homeland security.
  It is for just that reason that I offer this amendment, to draw 
attention to the fact that sometimes as we make public policy we tend 
to lose sight of the things that may be more important than the number 
of people involved. But most of all, when we do things in Washington, 
D.C., it is so very important to be in touch with the people at home.
  What this amendment does is call for the Department of Homeland 
Security to coordinate with State, local, and tribal governments in 
establishing the criteria for prioritizing applications for the first 
responders grant. This is something that I think is critical, that we 
take the information and have a coordination between our local 
governments and the Department of Homeland Security as they make the 
critical decisions about where these resources will be placed.
  I appreciate, again, very much the chairman and the ranking member on 
the subcommittee being friendly towards this amendment and receiving it 
well. Certainly it is something that will prevent the States from 
devoting significant time, resources, and funding to establish a State 
homeland security plan in accordance with this bill, only to find out 
after they apply for a grant that they have completely missed the mark 
on what the grant board established as its priority.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  This amendment would ensure that the First Responder Grant Board 
would coordinate with State and local governments. Throughout this 
process we have sought to ensure that State, local, and tribal 
governments are consulted throughout this process. This amendment would 
make it crystal clear to DHS that we expect them to listen to State, 
local, and tribal governments as they make their funding decisions. I 
support this amendment.

[[Page H3230]]

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment, notwithstanding that I rise in its support.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objecton, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this Berry amendment. It is 
completely consistent with the intent of the Faster and Smarter Funding 
For First Responders Act. Indeed, H.R. 1544 contains many other 
provisions with the same purpose: to enhance Federal, State, local, 
regional and tribal government cooperation in the process of 
establishing the criteria for prioritizing applications for covered 
grants. For example, the bill directs the Secretary to establish a 
first responders task force.

                              {time}  1245

  This task force, which will advise the Secretary of Homeland Security 
on preparedness benchmarks, will consist of 25 members, representative 
of all of the first-responder disciplines and a substantive cross-
section of geography from across the Nation.
  The Berry amendment, in my view, will help ensure that the Grant 
Board's risk-based analysis adequately addresses the concerns of State, 
local, regional and tribal governments who, after all, have direct 
jurisdiction and control over the first responders who are the focal 
point of this legislation. This amendment will provide important 
comfort to covered grant applicants as the department shifts from a 
political, formula-driven system to one based on risk.
  A dramatic programmatic shift such as the one established by this 
bill cannot be made in a vacuum. It must be made in close coordination 
with the people most affected. That is the purpose of the bill as it is 
written.
  I think the Berry amendment clarifies that purpose in a useful way, 
and I strongly support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and 
Technology.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I support the Berry amendment. The 
gentleman from Arkansas has a tendency and a knack to present 
amendments on this floor that are reasonable, precise and relevant. 
This is a very relevant amendment, as our chairman just pointed out.
  We need greater coordination between the Department of Homeland 
Security with State, local and tribal officers. I believe that this is 
wise public policy.
  Secondly, State and local officials know better than anyone, they 
certainly know better than anybody in Washington, the risks and the 
vulnerabilities that they face. Washington must work outside of the 
Beltway for the greatest effectiveness.
  We know in examining not only the 9/11 Commission report but every 
other report since the tragedy of 9/11 that the lack of coordination 
between the various levels of government is a very, very dangerous 
situation. This bill, in its totality, strikes at that very 
vulnerability, and this amendment, I think, precisely talks to the very 
important factor of coordination of those agencies.
  I want to commend the sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I thank the 
chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their 
consideration, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 109-77.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bass

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bass:
       In section 3(a)(2), in the quoted section 1806(d), re-
     designate existing text as paragraph (1), and insert after 
     paragraph (1) the following:
       (2) An applicant for a covered grant may petition the 
     Secretary for the reimbursement of the cost of any activity 
     relating to prevention (including detection) of, preparedness 
     for, response to, or recovery from acts of terrorism that is 
     a Federal duty and usually performed by a Federal agency, and 
     that is being performed by a State or local government (or 
     both) under agreement with a Federal agency.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an amendment that I think adds flexibility and workability to 
the bill. What it will do is it will allow States to petition the 
Secretary to use grants that are covered for expenditures that are 
considered anti-terrorism activities and are normally duties that would 
be exercised by the Federal Government. What is not currently allowed 
in the bill are personnel costs or agreements between State and local 
entities that affect a Federal agency.
  The type of activities that this amendment would permit include, but 
are not limited to, border duties, assisting with the Coast Guard and 
ports, waterways, coastal security duties or detention of illegal 
aliens on a temporary basis until Federal authorities can take over.
  What the amendment does not do is make any changes in the allocation 
of resources from one entity to another, and it does not allow States 
to petition to recover from the Federal Government costs for services 
that are performed by State law enforcement agencies that are not 
terrorism-related.
  This amendment really does add flexibility to the administration of 
these grants. It would allow, for example, in our seacoast port of Port 
Smith to reimburse them for the State police boat that currently 
supplants those efforts being undertaken by the Coast Guard at the 
behest of the Coast Guard. It allows local police departments such as 
the police department in New Ipswich, New Hampshire, that had to detain 
illegals for a period of time, had to deal with them and could not get 
the immigration department involved quickly enough, to apply for 
reimbursement. It also allows local police departments to enforce 
border crossings, if necessary. It allows them to apply for 
reimbursement. It does not guarantee it, but it allows them to apply.
  I hope that the committee will accept this amendment. I know we have 
had good discussions on both sides with it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) rise?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in order to speak on this 
amendment, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, only for the sake of discussion and 
procedure do I do that, as I am in absolute agreement with the author 
of the amendment.
  This amendment adds an additional paragraph for reimbursement of 
costs that a State may incur for terrorism preparedness. It would allow 
for the reimbursement for activities that a State may perform which are 
traditionally Federal responsibilities. It is common sense, it is the 
right thing, and I support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), my cosponsor.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass), my friend, for the time.

[[Page H3231]]

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Bass) and I are offering today is about allowing States and localities 
some flexibility with their Federal homeland security funds. This 
flexibility is vital, especially when States and localities are doing 
the job of the Federal Government. Essentially, we believe that when 
States and localities are performing Federal homeland security 
functions, they should be able to tap into Federal homeland security 
dollars.
  First, let me say and make very clear that the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) and his committee had a tough assignment, and 
I very much like what they have done and respect the product that they 
have produced. I strongly support getting this first-responder money 
out of the currently clogged pipeline, and that is basically what we 
are trying to do here today, and my congratulations to the chairman for 
doing just that.
  I have a major homeland security concern that I really do not think 
is getting nearly enough attention or funding. Additional resources are 
needed to help law enforcement deal with the problem of illegal aliens, 
a Federal issue and responsibility closely related to our security and 
anti-terrorism concerns. I believe our amendment would help these 
States and localities deal with this problem.
  Last Congress, I introduced the CLEAR Act which was designed to 
clarify State and local law enforcement involvement in combating 
illegal immigration. I need not remind the body that many of the 9/11 
hijackers were here illegally, that many of the World Trade Center 
bombers were here illegally, and many of the plotters for other 
terrorist acts are here illegally. Immigration and border issues are 
central to our homeland security and anti-terrorism efforts.
  In promoting that bill, two problems were identified for law 
enforcement, the lack of resources and the lack of authority to do what 
needs to be done. While this bill does not deal with the authority part 
of the problem, it does deal with the resources part of the solution. 
Therefore, our law enforcement folks and others who are increasingly 
taking on anti-terror and homeland security operations should be able 
to access Federal funds for performing these Federal roles.
  The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I have different 
districts, with different needs, but we agree that this language 
provides some flexibility to get at our individual concerns. Of course, 
the Department of Homeland Security has a role in oversight under the 
amendment so there are some checks and balances, appropriately. We are 
intentionally not talking about an unfettered ability to send the Feds 
a bill for services rendered. Neither of us have interest in that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to support the underlying bill, and I do thank the committee for 
working with us on this language, and I want to continue to work with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in addressing this critical 
problem.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) for the time.
  I rise in support of the Bass-Norwood amendment. I strongly support 
this amendment, and I do so for several reasons.
  First, since the attacks of 9/11, States and local governments are 
increasingly stepping up to the plate and assuming some of what have 
traditionally been the Federal Government's responsibilities in the 
area of terrorism preparedness. For example, many State and local 
governments have entered into agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard or 
with immigration and customs enforcement or other elements of the 
Department of Homeland Security to perform responsibilities relating to 
homeland security.
  Second, the Bass-Norwood amendment, which would permit petitioning 
the Secretary for reimbursement for expenses in this regard, is 
fiscally responsible. It would not, for example, permit grant 
recipients to use covered grant funds to supplant routine State or 
local government expenses. It does not permit, for example, 
reimbursement for personnel costs.
  The Bass-Norwood amendment is also properly targeted in scope. States 
and localities may defray the costs of their assumed homeland security 
duties only with the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and 
States and localities that have assumed these kinds of duties have to 
have done so pursuant to an agreement with a Federal agency.
  The Federal Government, in my view, should encourage States and 
localities to assist the Federal Government in providing security where 
it would otherwise be lacking, and that is what this amendment is going 
to help us do. To support this policy, it is incumbent upon Congress to 
permit State and local governments to petition the Secretary for 
reimbursement.
  The Bass-Norwood amendment is consistent with other provisions of 
this bill. Specifically, H.R. 1544, the underlying bill, permits 
covered grant recipients to satisfy the matching requirements through 
in-kind contributions of goods or services, or other equipment, fuel, 
maintenance, personnel overtime and other costs that are associated 
with State and local assumption of Federal terrorism preparedness 
duties.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly support the Bass-Norwood 
amendment. I congratulate its authors for presenting it before the 
House.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I urge the 
support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1300

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 4 printed in House Report No. 109-77.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Weiner:
       In title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 
     proposed to be added by the bill, insert at the end the 
     following new section (and make such technical and conforming 
     changes as may be necessary):

     SEC. 18__. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF UASI GRANTEES.

       In carrying out the Urban Area Security Initiative, or any 
     successor to such grant program, the Secretary may award not 
     more than 50 grants for any fiscal year.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The purpose of this amendment is simple. First of all, let me say 
what this amendment is not. This amendment is not an effort to litigate 
again the conflict that has arisen in this House between urban Members 
and rural Members. It is not an effort to revisit the formula question 
about the minimums. I think that the committee has done a fairly good 
job on trying to manage that situation, although it is not perfect. My 
belief is that there should be no minimum guarantee. Money should be 
allocated based on threats. That is the way I think it should be done, 
but I understand the efforts of the ranking member and the chairman to 
address that problem; and they have done so, I think, better than we 
have up until now.
  The question still arises about whether or not we should have a 
portion of our homeland security funding stream that is dedicated for 
what we in Congress said we wanted in the 2003 omnibus, which is a pool 
of money that is designated to go, in the language of the legislation, 
to address the unique equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs 
of selected large high-threat urban areas.
  We have now, through the course of time, expanded that not just to be 
cities; it is literally the areas around cities, the cities and the 
suburbs, and in

[[Page H3232]]

many cases it is also the ports authorities and the airports 
authorities of these major cities.
  What my legislation would do would be to address a creeping problem 
that was not created by this Congress but has been created by the 
Department of Homeland Security. These high-threat urban area grants, 
which started out going to six cities, have expanded over time to the 
point that now they are over 50 cities, and there are also additional 
areas and airports authorities and the like that get it.
  What my legislation would do would be to say, look, there are going 
to be times when we are going to want to take a city or an area, and 
they may be under less threat or we may want to add one, but we must 
not continue down the path for, I think, largely political reasons each 
year adding more and more and more cities to this pot.
  Here is what it is doing. We in the Congress are expressing our views 
to increase the funding for that pool of money; but the Department of 
Homeland Security, by administrative fiat, is adding the number of 
cities that are available, therefore actually reducing the amount and 
percentage that the larger cities and areas have to contend with.
  Now, for my colleagues who represent rural areas, my colleagues who 
represent suburban areas, my colleagues who represent areas that are 
not traditionally thought of as large urban areas, I want to assure you 
nothing in this amendment in any way limits your ability to get funds 
from this pot. Because under language written by the chairman and the 
ranking member, now areas can pool together. For example, if Kansas and 
Iowa and Nebraska want to get together and say we want to create a pool 
to protect against agro-terrorism, for example, they could be added as 
a group under my amendment very easily.
  This simply says one thing: we have to stop adding more and more 
cities when that was clearly not the intention of Congress to do. We 
said in our actions that we wanted this to be a select number of areas. 
If the Department of Homeland Security is going to continue to add to 
that list, until we essentially have every single eligible city up to 
the limit that is laid out in the law, what is the purpose of having 
the bifurcated system? Maybe we should not.
  I mean, I happen to believe that we were trying to address a 
legitimate concern that many have raised, including the 9/11 
Commission, that said, look, there are some areas and cities that we 
want to have a distinct pot of money for.
  Before I reserve, let me just make another point. We are talking 
about approximately 25 percent of the overall funding stream for 
homeland security. We are not talking about 75 or 80 percent. We are 
talking about a discrete amount of money, a discrete percentage of 
money which would be held for these 50 or fewer cities. Now, I happen 
to believe 50 is a very high number. When you start thinking about the 
50 largest cities, the largest metropolitan areas, there are cities on 
the list presently that do not even have minor league baseball teams, 
yet they are considered major urban areas.
  I am not saying that we should take all of the funds and just 
dedicate them to my hometown. I know that is not anything that we 
should do. We have a law here that is crafted to distribute money based 
on different types of threat, different types of ways. But we in the 
legislature here in Congress have said very clearly that we believe 
there should be a pot of money that is protected from the traditional 
political back and forth. Let us continue to protect that pot of money.
  If you vote for my amendment, it does not mean any of your 
constituents are not eligible for this money. It does not mean that. 
But it does mean if you are one of these cities either now, in the 
past, or in the future, you are not going to be on the list of 300 or 
400 cities. It is going to be limited to 50 at most.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of 
the committee for yielding me this time to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
  This amendment would limit the number of urban area security 
initiative grants to 50. I understand what the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) is trying to accomplish; and he has to do it, he is from 
New York. However, it is unreasonable to set an arbitrary number, in 
this case 50, for the number of UASI or regional grants.
  In the bill, we already limit the number of regions by requiring a 
region to have at least 1.65 million people. This would adequately 
limit the number of recipients in itself. So I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
I too rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I agree with the intention of the author of the amendment to limit 
the number of grant awards under the Urban Area Security Initiative, 
but I do not agree with the thrust of the amendment, which is to, in 
essence, perpetuate a system that sends money exclusively to cities and 
ignores regions.
  One of the important reforms made in H.R. 1544 is that we open up the 
process to regional grant applications. I come from the most populated 
State in America: California. My county, just one of 58 counties in 
California, has 3 million people. Los Angeles, obviously, is an 
enormous urban center. But the important thing to note about both Los 
Angeles and New York is that the L.A. region and the New York City 
region are bigger and geographically more relevant than the city qua 
city. The municipal boundaries of New York or the municipal boundaries 
of Los Angeles are not nearly so important, if there is a radiological 
attack, for example, as understanding where that plume is going to go 
and what are the evacuation corridors.
  We have learned since 9/11 we have got to have regional 
collaboration. In my home county, Orange County, which as I said has 3 
million people, we had two cities get Urban Area Security Initiative 
money. This was like the fickle finger of fate that touched those two 
cities and gave them all the cash and ignored the County of Orange, 
ignored the municipalities situated right next door to them. Happily, 
due to the leadership of Sheriff Mike Carona and the chairman of the 
Board of Supervisors Bill Campbell, and the mayor of Santa Ana, Miguel 
Pulido, and the mayor of Anaheim, Curt Pringle, there has been a 
workout, a local arrangement made to equitably distribute these urban 
area security initiative monies. But that is not the way the program is 
designed.
  We have made sense of it in California despite the nonsense of the 
Federal program itself. Perpetuating this program, trying to focus more 
emphasis on it is the wrong way to go. UASI is broke, and it makes no 
sense to place more emphasis upon it.
  Finally, let me say that only regional grants, not State grants, may 
be able to address certain unique terrorism preparedness needs, such as 
risks that cross interstate or international boundaries, for example, 
bioterrorism or agro-terrorism. In this respect, I agree with the 
comments made by the author of the amendment. I think that to the 
extent we emphasize a regional approach, a mutual-aid approach, we will 
find ourselves better prepared in the future. That is the aim, one of 
the chief aims of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First 
Responders Act, and for those reasons I counsel opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, in reaction to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Mississippi, he is incorrect. The bill defines the size of a region at 
1.65 million, but it leaves open cities of any type. We do not know, 
since the bill is silent on that distinction. You can have a city of 
20,000 and be eligible for this. You can have a city of 10,000 and be 
eligible. The gentleman from Mississippi is correct that a region has 
to be 1.65 million, but nowhere does it restrict the size of the city.
  As for the chairman, the chairman, who has done an excellent job on 
this bill, regrettably is incorrect as well. There is nothing in my 
amendment that restricts this from going to cities

[[Page H3233]]

or to regions. As I read from line 4 of the bill: ``may not award any 
more than 50 grants for any fiscal year.'' If the Department of 
Homeland Security, which by the way this issue is somewhat vague in the 
bill as drafted, it is silent on how this program is going to be 
divided. If the Department of Homeland Security says grants are 
available to areas, which they have been in the past, fine. Limit it to 
50. If they say it should be cities, limit it to 50.
  If we take the chairman and the ranking member's argument to its 
logical extension, you could conceivably in this portion of the bill, 
which the language says ``shall be to exercise the needs of selected 
large, high-threat urban areas,'' it could be any city of any size. And 
I do not believe that was the intention of our legislation.
  I think what we are doing, and with all due deference to the 
gentleman from Mississippi, I am not just offering this because I am 
from New York. It could be that we add the 200 cities to this, 300 
cities, 400, 500 cities, and we completely undermine the intention of 
this Congress when we created the program to begin with. Maybe you are 
right. In that case, do away with the program. It is not any longer 
going to be a high-threat, high-density urban area grant program. Then 
let us eliminate it. Put it in with the other pot of money. But if we 
are going to have it, let us preserve its integrity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and for his amendment, which I rise in strong support of.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) would limit 
the high-threat grants to 50 total grants. If this amendment were 
enacted, it would ensure to a greater degree that high-threat funding 
truly goes to what it is intended to do, go to high-threat areas.
  When Congress first created the so-called high-threat program, it was 
limited to seven cities; yet last year that number jumped to 80 grants, 
with 50 cities getting funding and 30 transit agencies. This year, the 
Department again funded 50 cities. The practical effect is that those 
cities that are the highest threat may see the amount of money directed 
towards them diminished because of the ever-increasing pie.
  For example, 2 years ago, and I give the example of the city I 
represent, but it could be other cities, New York City received $150 
million in funding. But last year, even though we remained high-threat 
number one in the Nation by all accounts, by all of the intelligence 
agencies, last year we saw a decrease of 69 percent to $47 million. 
This year, again we saw a dramatic shift upwards to $214 million.
  I think it is very easy to argue that New York City has been under 
the same consistent threat since 9/11, but this funding certainly does 
not reflect that. The example that I use of New York City is just one 
example of how it has varied widely across cities.
  One of the greatest reasons for this yo-yo funding is when you 
increase who is eligible, you decrease your options on how you 
distribute. So we need to make sure that this funding is based on risk 
rather than political calculations, and limiting the number of grants 
to 50 is certainly reasonable and a fair way.
  May I speak also very briefly on how far preferable the House version 
is to the Senate version in the underlying bill.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I am waiting for some 
clarification on our side, if the majority side has clarification, 
because it might lead me to withdraw my amendment.
  If someone will stand up and say that a city of less than 1.65 
million will be ineligible to receive these grants in the future, as 
has been articulated by the ranking member and implied by the chairman, 
then we are on to something.

                              {time}  1315

  The language in the bill refers to the area which is this new thing 
that we are trying to do, I think, for good reason. The question is, 
will a city of 50,000 or 60,000 who does not form a coalition with four 
or five or six other cities or other regions, will they still be 
eligible? That is the problem.
  I think that what we have here is a very good bill that continues a 
bifurcated system. On one hand, you have every single corner of the 
country eligible for money based on threat, based on the Weiner 
language that was introduced in committee, and I am glad you accepted; 
on the other side, we have this thing that now only limits the area to 
1.65 million. What I am trying to do is not say a city can be on or off 
but say, let us limit it to 50.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) will be postponed.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California, the 
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Delaware?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, like most of my colleagues here today, I 
support efforts to reform our current system to ensure that more 
funding for our first responders is determined on the basis of risk. 
The 9/11 Commission noted that one of our greatest challenges would be 
in how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. The gentleman 
from California's determination for taking on this challenge is 
commendable.
  As the gentleman knows, I have been concerned about the Department's 
ability to accurately determine national threats, vulnerabilities and 
consequences. In its report, the 9/11 Commission also notes that, due 
to the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might 
begin turning their attention to softer, less-protected targets.
  As a Member representing our Nation's sixth smallest State by 
population, second smallest by size, I am concerned that, in improving 
the current system, we might inadvertently overlook citizens in States 
considered less likely to be vulnerable. In Delaware, the State 
Emergency Management Agency has expressed some concern that our high-
risk targets may be neglected. Such omissions force small States like 
mine to dip into other important programs, such as disaster prevention, 
in order to provide necessary resources and personnel to handle certain 
attacks.
  There needs to be some balance here and recognition that real 
homeland security needs exist outside of metropolitan areas. To the 
best of my knowledge, the Department of Homeland Security has not 
completed a comprehensive national risk assessment. It seems that this 
type of national risk assessment should serve as a basis for 
determining how to allocate first-responder grants, but apparently, a 
thorough study will not be available for several years.
  I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Delaware. I would like to assure him that the bill before us today 
is designed to prepare every State, small, medium and large, to respond 
in the event of a terrorist attack.
  The Department's current method for allocating terrorism preparedness 
grant funds has not always well served small and medium sized States, 
including Delaware. The current grant system takes risk into account 
only in a limited way by specially earmarking funds to a handful of 
large urban areas under the urban area security initiative. With 
respect to all the rest of the funding, the current system ignores the 
threats, vulnerabilities and consequences of acts of terrorism anywhere 
else in the United States. Yet

[[Page H3234]]

throughout America, there are populations and critical infrastructure 
that terrorists have within their sights.
  H.R. 1544 would eliminate this anomaly by requiring a risk-based 
analysis that covers every part of America, urban, suburban and rural, 
based on objective criteria. To this end, H.R. 1544 establishes a 
first-responder grant board to prioritize and evaluate all applications 
for covered grants on the basis of risk and need.
  During this evaluation and prioritization process, the grant board 
must consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, 
various critical infrastructure sectors in all areas of the Nation, 
urban, suburban and rural. Indeed, the 16 critical infrastructure 
sectors enumerated in H.R. 1544 encompass a large number of critical 
infrastructure sectors, including agriculture and food, banking and 
finance, energy, public health and health care, government facilities, 
transportation systems, and water.
  As Delaware's former Governor, the gentleman knows that Delaware 
contains a great deal of critical infrastructure, including chemical 
plants, banking and finance, and ports. But he and I also know that, 
under current law, the Department does not consider these factors in 
awarding grant funds to his State. Delaware has no jurisdiction that 
receives grant funds from the urban area security initiative. As a 
result, like many States under the current system, Delaware only 
receives grant moneys under the State homeland security grant program. 
But funding under that program is awarded solely on the basis of an 
arbitrary political formula without regard to Delaware's actual risk or 
need. Passage of this legislation, the Faster and Smarter Funding For 
First Responders Act, will remedy these problems.
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from California for his comments. The gentleman is correct in that my 
home State, and every other State, deserves equitable consideration. I 
appreciate his willingness to protect adequate grant allotments for 
first responders in small States. I support the gentleman's goal of 
getting these important funds to communities where they can be used 
effectively and look forward to working with him throughout this 
process to ensure all States receive fair and realistic homeland 
security funding.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 109-77.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Castle:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SECTION 7. REMOVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY BARRIERS THAT 
                   DISCOURAGE THE DONATION OF FIRE EQUIPMENT TO 
                   VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES.

       (a) Liability Protection.--A person who donates fire 
     control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company 
     shall not be liable for civil damages under any State or 
     Federal law for personal injuries, property damage or loss, 
     or death caused by the equipment after the donation.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a person 
     if--
       (1) the person's act or omission causing the injury, 
     damage, loss, or death constitutes gross negligence or 
     intentional misconduct; or
       (2) the person is the manufacturer of the fire control or 
     fire rescue equipment.
       (c) Preemption.--This Act preempts the laws of any State to 
     the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, 
     except that notwithstanding subsection (b) this Act shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides additional protection 
     from liability for a person who donates fire control or fire 
     rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Person.--The term ``person'' includes any governmental 
     or other entity.
       (2) Fire control or rescue equipment.--The term ``fire 
     control or fire rescue equipment'' includes any fire vehicle, 
     fire fighting tool, communications equipment, protective 
     gear, fire hose, or breathing apparatus.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American 
     Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any other territory or 
     possession of the United States, and any political 
     subdivision of any such State, territory, or possession.
       (4) Volunteer fire company.--The term ``volunteer fire 
     company'' means an association of individuals who provide 
     fire protection and other emergency services, where at least 
     30 percent of the individuals receive little or no 
     compensation compared with an entry level full-time paid 
     individual in that association or in the nearest such 
     association with an entry level full-time paid individual.
       (e) Effective Date.--This Act applies only to liability for 
     injury, damage, loss, or death caused by equipment that, for 
     purposes of subsection (a), is donated on or after the date 
     that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1544, 
which is identical to legislation I introduced, H.R. 1088, the Good 
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act. This legislation 
overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Congress, 
397-3, and was also included as an amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 
Recommendations Implementation Act. Unfortunately, it was not in the 
final conference report.
  My amendment removes a barrier which currently prevents some 
organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to fire 
departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability 
has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment rather than 
donating it to volunteer rural and other financially strapped 
departments. We know that, every day across the United States, 
firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these 
brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and 
businesses. We may presume that our firefighters work in departments 
with the latest and best fire fighting and protective equipment when in 
reality there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives 
daily due to a lack of basic personal protective equipment, PPE. In 
both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it 
difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. At the 
same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the 
fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art 
innovation. Sometimes the surplus equipment has never been used to put 
out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many 
organizations to destroy rather than donate millions of dollars of 
quality fire equipment.
  Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable 
service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer 
firefighters nationwide save State and local governments $36.8 billion 
a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than 
19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer. 
Thirteen States, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, 
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina and Texas, have passed similar legislation. In the 7 years of 
the Texas program, more than $12 million worth of firefighter equipment 
has been donated and given to needy departments. This includes nearly 
70 emergency vehicles and more than 1,500 pieces of communications 
equipment as well. In total, more than 33,000 items have been donated.
  Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil 
liability barriers. Equipping our Nation's first responders is 
essential as we fight the war on terror. I want to thank the chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), for his past support of this measure, and I am hopeful 
the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and my 
colleagues will again join me in supporting this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment to the 
legislation. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer 
firefighters, it

[[Page H3235]]

appears to me that we have a very extreme solution to a problem that 
does not exist. Although the amendment purports to encourage donation 
of fire fighting equipment by eliminating civil liability barriers, 
there are no reported cases of businesses refusing to donate their 
equipment nor cases of volunteer fire fighting companies suing their 
donors. Whatever the so-called problem is could be solved or addressed 
without congressional action.
  For example, in the 108th Congress when the similar legislation was 
before the Committee on the Judiciary, we heard during our committee 
deliberations that a volunteer fire department could simply sign a 
contract waiving liability of the donors from negligence resulting from 
the donated fire equipment. This tactic would ensure that fire 
companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the donor. 
Congress does not have to mandate the immunity. The groups can agree to 
it if they want or if the donor insists.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a Federal issue. It is a matter that can be 
dealt with by the States. There is nothing Federal about local 
volunteer fire departments. This liability is a State issue, and many 
States have already dealt with it. For example, some States provide 
immunity but only after requiring certification that the equipment is 
safe. This amendment provides no such immunity. For the safety of our 
volunteers, companies should not be given blanket immunity for donating 
fire equipment. While it may be true that most of the equipment is 
perfectly usable, companies should be prevented from donating obsolete 
equipment known to be of dubious safety. Certain equipment, like 
protective gear and breathing apparatus, can deteriorate over time and 
may not be suitable for use. So the threat of civil liability causes 
some to think twice about donating dangerous equipment, equipment which 
may place our firefighters in danger. If this amendment passes, they 
will not have to be concerned about donating that dangerous equipment.
  I would hope that we would defeat the amendment, allow the volunteer 
firefighters to waive the liability if they want, but not impose a 
federally mandated waiver on everybody whether they want to use it or 
not. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment which may, in fact, 
endanger our firefighters.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Delaware for yielding the time but more importantly for offering this 
important amendment. The House has voted in support of this amendment 
before. During the 108th Congress, twice it passed the House. As a 
stand-alone measure, all by itself, on September 14, 2004, and when it 
was up on its own merits, the recorded vote was 397-3.
  This is a commonsense amendment that is vitally important. It would 
provide protection to people who donate fire control or fire rescue 
equipment, but more importantly, it would better equip and protect our 
Nation's firefighters, and that is what this bill is all about. This 
bill is for our first responders. So is the Castle amendment. It will 
encourage fire departments, the private sector and other people to 
donate equipment that the firefighters desperately need so that they 
can better protect every American.
  Many people incorrectly assume that all firefighters work in 
departments that have the latest and the best equipment. The reality, 
unfortunately, is far different. It is estimated that 30,000 
firefighters every day risk their lives unnecessarily due to inadequate 
personal protective equipment, just to cite one example.
  This is a fiscally prudent amendment. It is going to stretch our 
dollars. It serves the interests of taxpayers by extending the life of 
equipment they have already paid for. This is expensive equipment, and 
it ought to be used. And it provides poorer jurisdictions with 
capabilities they might not otherwise have and might not have the 
ability to attain.
  I congratulate the gentleman for offering the amendment, I strongly 
support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support as well.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This amendment would remove civil liability barriers from the 
donation of fire equipment for volunteer fire companies. As a former 
volunteer firefighter from a small community, I understand how 
important it is to have the equipment you need to protect fellow 
citizens. Although I am going to support this amendment, the issue 
needs to be studied further once we get into conference. I am concerned 
that there are no assurances that the equipment would perform as 
expected, and therefore, many of the firefighters who would use this 
equipment potentially could be harmed.

                              {time}  1330

  We must ensure that our firefighters are adequately protected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will close briefly. Let me just reiterate, this has been actually 
before us before. It is actually a popular amendment. People want it on 
their legislation for the most part. So we have had a little trouble 
getting it signed into law because it keeps passing and then getting 
dropped off for various things. But we voted on it back in September, 
and I do not know what has changed since then. The vote was 397 to 3. 
To the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) credit, he did vote ``no'' 
then. I do not know if a single thing has changed in that interim time.
  It is pretty simple. We have large corporations, for the most part, 
that have their own fire equipment. It is very modern. It is generally 
unused. They donate it. They are not going to donate it unless this 
liability provision is removed. Most big States, or at least a lot of 
big States, have looked at this and have made the decision to go ahead 
and do that. And it just seems to make sense all over this country, as 
we try to support our volunteer fire services, that we would give them 
the best equipment possible. And this simply would allow that to 
happen.
  I would hope that every single Member of the House of Representatives 
this time would look carefully, if it comes to a roll call, at what is 
a rather simple amendment and would be in full support of it. And I 
hope that, as much as I enjoy presenting this amendment, that this is 
the last time we have to present and it becomes law sooner rather than 
later so that we can proceed, because even in the last year, we have, 
unfortunately, lost some opportunities for donation of equipment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. While I 
salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me 
that this amendment we have before us a very stringent solution in 
search of an actual problem. Although the amendment is supposed to 
encourage the donation of firefighter equipment by eliminating civil 
liability barriers, there have been no reported cases of businesses 
refusing to donate equipment nor cases of volunteer firefighter 
companies suing donators. At a minimum, this bill should be reviewed in 
accordance with regular House order. There have been no hearings or 
markups in the Judiciary Committee, no opportunity for the members to 
debate this issue to date.
  Companies should not be given blanket immunity to companies for 
donating fire fighting equipment. While it may be true that most of the 
equipment is perfectly usable, companies should be prevented from 
donating obsolete equipment. Certain equipment like protective gear and 
breathing apparatuses can deteriorate over time and may not be suitable 
for reuse. If firefighters work to protect and keep citizens safe, 
should not they have the best protective equipment possible?
  This ``so-called'' problem can clearly be solved without 
congressional action. First, volunteer fire companies could simply sign 
a contract waiving the liability of the donors for negligence resulting 
from donating firefighting equipment. This tactic would ensure that the 
fire companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the 
donor. Second, this issue is a matter that can be dealt with by the 
States. There is nothing Federal about local volunteer fire 
departments; it is purely a State issue.
  With all of the other pertinent issues that are before Congress, I 
find it problematic that we are entertaining this non-problem. I urge 
my colleagues to reject this truly anti-firefighter protection 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3236]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 88, 
noes 331, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                                AYES--88

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barrow
     Bean
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--331

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Hastings (FL)
     Honda
     Kingston
     Larson (CT)
     Millender-McDonald
     Musgrave
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Solis
     Watson
     Waxman

                              {time}  1356

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. McCARTHY, Ms. WASSERMAN 
SCHULTZ, Ms. HOOLEY, and Messrs GILCHREST, SALAZAR and ROSS changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HIGGINS and Mr. HOLT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 169 on the Weiner 
amendment to H.R. 1544, I was unavoidably detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). There being no other amendments, 
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Putnam, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1544) to 
provide faster and smarter funding for first responders, and other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 269, reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409, 
noes 10, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--409

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp

[[Page H3237]]


     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--10

     Allen
     Berry
     Cubin
     Davis (AL)
     Herseth
     McDermott
     Michaud
     Moore (WI)
     Ross
     Sabo

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Hastings (FL)
     Honda
     Kingston
     Larson (CT)
     Millender-McDonald
     Musgrave
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Solis
     Watson
     Waxman

                              {time}  1414

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 170 on final passage 
of H.R. 1544, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________