[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9381-9388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1544, FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING 
                    FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 269

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1544) to provide faster and smarter funding 
     for first responders, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Homeland Security now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order

[[Page 9382]]

     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for 
First Responders Act of 2005. This bill sponsored by my good friend, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), has the support of 40 
bipartisan co-sponsors and was accepted at both its subcommittee and 
full committee markups with unanimous consent of the majority and 
minority membership of the new Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  The goal of this bipartisan legislation is simple: to reform the way 
the Department of Homeland Security issues terrorism preparedness 
grants to States and local governments so they can prepare for, 
prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. It also 
expedites the delivery of Federal assistance to first responders, those 
brave men and women who are our first line of defense against 
terrorism, where it is needed most while also endorsing undisciplined 
spending on the homeland security front.
  This legislation also reflects an agreement among policymakers here 
in the House: first of all, on the need to award Federal terrorism 
preparedness grants on the basis of risk; on the importance of ensuring 
that such grants are spent in a timely manner; and on the necessity of 
ensuring collaboration between neighboring jurisdictions.
  As Members of Congress, we have seen all too clearly the problems 
associated with coordinating the effective and efficient allocation of 
these new funds to fight and defend against acts of terrorism on our 
shores. Since 2001, the Federal Government has made roughly $30 billion 
available in grant funding for this purpose, but approximately $4.1 
billion awarded by the Department of Homeland Security still remains in 
the pipeline, unspent, along with another $2.4 billion recently added 
from 2005.
  This bottleneck in getting our first responders the funds that they 
need to protect our safety is unacceptable, and this legislation will 
get these terrorism preparedness funds into the hands of those who need 
it most, by ensuring that guarantee that no State or territory falls 
below a certain base level of funding while also ensuring that States 
prioritize their own anti-terrorism spending on the basis of risk and 
need.
  By providing financial encouragements to States that pass through 
their awarded funds to localities within tight timeframes, this 
legislation makes our funding for such programs faster. And by 
allocating grant awards to States and regions based on an assessment of 
risk and need to achieve clear and measurable preparedness goals, this 
legislation also makes our funding for such programs smarter.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1544 fulfills the recommendations included in the 
9/11 Commission report, and recognizes the fundamental reality that 
terrorists are not arbitrary in selecting their targets, so we cannot 
be arbitrary in our efforts to protect our Nation. By streamlining the 
grant process and giving States and regions the tools that they need to 
develop specific flexible and measurable goals, this bill will make 
sure that every Federal dollar allocated for the purpose of defending 
our security is used effectively and efficiently.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation which brings a risk-based approach to addressing our 
country's most pressing homeland security needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will debate bipartisan legislation from the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security to improve funding for first 
responders.
  In this new post-9/11 era, ensuring that our country is protecting 
itself from attack is of prime importance. I am especially proud of the 
efforts of my hometown of Sacramento. Federal officials have recently 
highlighted Sacramento as an example to other localities of how to 
efficiently spend Federal anti-terrorism dollars.
  Already, Sacramento's main agencies tasked for homeland security, 
police, sheriff, health and the city and metro fire departments, are 
all coordinating their efforts.
  The five agencies have already agreed to share all of the homeland 
security dollars, a unique show of cooperation when limited funding is 
at stake. Not only have the agencies standardized protective suits and 
gas masks, but a massive 9,000 emergency personnel training effort is 
under way. With all of Sacramento's hard work, I am not surprised that 
Federal officials are singling their efforts out.
  What we are doing today will help these first responders in their 
work. Currently, base funding for homeland security assistance programs 
is distributed among the States according to a strict formula. This 
formula has resulted in greater funding going to lower-risk States like 
Wyoming on a per capita basis rather than more at-risk States like New 
York and my home State of California.
  This bill would alter the funding allocation to States based on 
threat and risk. However, each State would be guaranteed a minimum if 
its dollar amount fell below a specified level. Even the 9/11 
Commission recommends that Federal dollars supplement State and local 
efforts that fall in higher-risk areas. This is a commonsense proposal.
  I am pleased that this reform will greatly benefit California and my 
hometown of Sacramento. Further, this bill continues Federal support 
for the Urban Area Security Initiative, which Sacramento has received 
funding through, in addition to other Federal grant programs.
  H.R. 1544 also recognizes the increased risk to our region posed by 
our flood control systems by specifically including dams in its list of 
critical infrastructure. Its inclusion will allow consideration of 
flood control levees and dams as a factor in determining the risk a 
community faces.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for highlighting this 
issue of great concern to both our districts. Our communities are faced 
with a continuing risk of flooding. Sacramento's flood risk is among 
the highest of major urban areas in the country. Located at the 
confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers, the Sacramento 
floodplain is the hub of a 6-county regional economy that provides 
800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major flood along the American 
River would cripple this economy, cause between 7 and $16 billion in 
direct property damages, and likely result in significant loss of life.
  While we typically view the levee system as our first line of defense 
against Mother Nature's raging storms, we must also face the reality 
that this critical infrastructure must be protected from terrorist 
attack. A major levee failure or a terrorist attack at the dam upstream 
would be absolutely devastating to the region.

[[Page 9383]]

  The addition of this provision by the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security shows why amendments and increased discussion of this bill are 
so important. And I am glad to see that the Committee on Rules did make 
in order a few of the amendments that were brought before our 
committee. But I must express my disappointment that this bill will not 
be debated today under a more open process. I believe that there are a 
number of other amendments that, while we may disagree on the position, 
they are worth continued debate on the House floor.
  For example, while the Select Committee on Homeland Security explored 
the issue of whether all first responder grants should be awarded 
strictly on the basis of risk, doing away altogether with State minimum 
award requirements, I think there are a number of Members that would 
like to see this issue debated before the full House.
  Even the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) acknowledged that while 
he personally would like to see all first responder funding allocated 
by risk, the issue of ensuring each State receives a minimum was an 
important compromise in his committee. An amendment addressing this 
exact issue was brought before the Committee on Rules, but it was not 
made in order.
  I strongly support the underlying bill, and I am pleased it was 
reported out in bipartisan fashion. I commend the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security for their extensive debates on the best strategies to 
improve the funding streams for our first responders. I imagine there 
are many divergent opinions on this matter, and it would be excellent 
debate for us to have had here today. It is unfortunate the Committee 
on Rules did not open this rule so we could continue this full dialogue 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers). Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of having a 
great bipartisan bill means that we have good leadership in the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security, and today I am very pleased for one of 
our bright new young Members to be with us. He is the chairman for the 
Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 269. This rule 
would provide for the consideration of H.R. 1544, the Faster and 
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005.
  In the years since 9/11, our Nation has spent billions of dollars to 
strengthen our firefighters, police, and emergency personnel. These 
hard-working Americans known as our first responders are the frontlines 
of our Nation's homeland defense. They keep our communities safe, and 
they respond when disaster strikes.
  The bill we will be debating today is a good piece of legislation and 
is designed with our first responders in mind. It does several things. 
First, it reforms the grant funding system that most States, including 
my home State of Alabama, believe is ineffective.
  For example, a 2004 committee report found that nearly 85 percent of 
the grants distributed to States have not yet been utilized. And 
because current law requires a minimal level of funding given to 
States, many States receive a lump sum of money from DHS without a 
clear understanding of how to spend it.

                              {time}  1045

  Three-and-a-half years after 9/11 I find this unacceptable. Yet these 
facts speak to the need for a bipartisan reform which will ensure 
taxpayers know what they are getting.
  Second, H.R. 1544 helps the Federal Government allocate first 
responder funding based on actual risk. Under this legislation, States 
like Alabama would be required to submit an annual State homeland 
security plan to the Federal Government. This plan would outline the 
State's projected risks to 16 economic sectors, such as agriculture, 
the number of military bases and its transportation infrastructure. 
States meeting these risk criteria would be eligible for a greater 
funding.
  For our rural areas, this could mean new funding sources. For 
example, States like Alabama could see increased funding for agro-
terror initiatives. States with a heavy military industrial base could 
receive additional assistance to protect communities near bases, and of 
course, ports like Mobile would continue to receive much-needed support 
for cargo security initiatives.
  I do want to acknowledge that H.R. 1544 changes the minimum level of 
guaranteed funding to each State, and while some of my colleagues have 
called this a cut, I like to think of it as better use of limited 
homeland security dollars.
  We all know of instances where the Federal Government funds State 
projects which, in reality, have little or nothing to do with securing 
our homeland. This bill will help correct that situation.
  I also want to make clear what this bill does not do. Essential 
programs like FIRE grants, COPS, grants bulletproof vests funding, or 
secure school initiatives for local police are not affected. These 
programs have provided rural areas, like my district, with millions of 
dollars for new safety equipment and vehicles, and I will continue to 
do my part to ensure they are fully funded each year.
  H.R. 1544 is bipartisan, both in spirit and intent. Every Member of 
the Committee on Homeland Security, both Republicans and Democrats, 
have signed on to this bill as original cosponsors, and the committee 
reported it out by a unanimous voice vote.
  The bill also closely resembles the 9/11 reform legislation passed by 
the House during the 108th Congress and has been endorsed by the 9/11 
Commission and a majority of first responder groups nationwide.
  I am pleased to support this legislation and ask for support of this 
rule so the House can consider it today.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for his 
ongoing efforts to advance this legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  On September 11, more than 700 of our friends and neighbors from my 
State of New Jersey never returned home from work and never returned to 
their families. The smoking ruins of the Twin Towers were visible for 
my entire district to see, and many of the police and emergency 
response personnel that responded so heroically to the attacks were 
from New Jersey.
  Yet, here we are 3 years and 8 months later and our current homeland 
security funding is not based on risk and threats. That is why I rise 
in strong support of this important legislation which will finally 
direct Federal assistance to those first responders serving where the 
need is greatest. We know the enemy seeks to attack again. We just do 
not know when and where it will occur.
  New Jersey faces unique terrorism threats that require a greater 
portion of homeland security aid due to its proximity to New York City 
and to its vast number of potential targets of terror, such as the 
largest seaport on the east coast, one of the busiest airports in the 
country, an area known as the ``chemical coastway,'' our four nuclear 
power plants, and the six tunnels and bridges that connect New Jersey 
to New York City.
  If that were not enough, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 
placed more than a dozen New Jersey sites on the National Critical 
Infrastructure List and has called the area in my district between Port 
Newark and Newark International Airport the most dangerous 2 miles in 
the United States when it comes to terrorism. A recent article in the 
New York Times pointed out that this 2-mile area provides a 
``convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major portions of 
the country's rail lines, oil storage tanks and refineries, pipelines, 
air traffic, communications networks and highway system.''

[[Page 9384]]

  Yet the State's homeland security funding was cut in this fiscal year 
by 34 percent. In my district, two high-risk urban areas saw their 
funding reduced by 17 and 60 percent respectively. Mr. Speaker, the 
current system of allocating homeland security funds is broken and 
needs to be fixed immediately.
  The 9/11 Commission report said that, ``Homeland security assistance 
should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and 
vulnerabilities.'' That is exactly what the Menendez substitute to the 
intelligence reform bill would have accomplished last October. That is 
exactly what I fought for in the conference report on that legislation 
and what I sought to accomplish earlier this year when I introduced the 
Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act with Senators Corzine and 
Lautenberg.
  We must take every step to secure our communities from the threat of 
terrorism, and this bill will ensure that the first responders on the 
front lines of this war in both New Jersey and across the country will 
receive a much-needed increase in Federal homeland security funding.
  The House of Representatives must pass this important piece of 
legislation today, and the Senate should act as quickly as possible to 
get it to the President's desk.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. It will turn the 9/
11 Commission's recommendation into law, while protecting those areas 
and targets that are at the greatest risk of a future attack.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the subcommittee chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency 
Management for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good and fair rule that provides ample time to 
discuss this very, very important issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and to support the Faster and Smarter Funding for 
First Responders Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the gentleman from California's 
(Chairman Cox) commitment to first responders and for developing a bill 
that better prepares our Nation for terrorism.
  Since before the terrorist attacks of September 11, experts from 
across the political spectrum have urged these kinds of reforms that 
are in this bill. These improvements include clear preparedness 
standards to guide State expenditures, mutual aid agreements, 
interoperable equipment and better planning and coordination between 
first responders at all levels of government.
  I also want to applaud the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) 
for his willingness to carry this bill forward in an open and fair 
process.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings 
and Emergency Management, I can say with confidence that we have a 
stronger bill today because of the efforts of the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young).
  I particularly want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
for working with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to 
incorporate two important principles throughout this bill: a commitment 
to the Nation's all hazards emergency system and minimum funding for 
all States.
  We must remember that first responders have to deal with all kinds of 
disasters, regardless of the cause, and that our first responder 
programs must address terrorism in that context. There are no terrorism 
fire stations in this country. Firefighters respond to everything. The 
Cox bill recognizes this and ensures that terrorism preparedness is 
fully compatible with our existing all hazards system.
  The second principle acknowledges that every State must have basic 
response capabilities. I come from a State with two very large 
metropolitan areas, but I recognize that terrorists can attack outside 
of these big cities.
  Furthermore, if there is a catastrophic attack in a large urban area, 
local response agencies will be overwhelmed and will require assistance 
from units across this country, suburban areas as well as rural areas. 
These units will need proper equipment and training to effectively 
integrate into a large-scale disaster response.
  States need a guaranteed minimum level of funding to meet both these 
requirements.
  I would again like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
for his hard work and leadership and urge my colleagues to support the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1544.
  It has been 3 years and 8 months since 9/11. I thank my colleagues 
for coming together and being so unified in helping New York during 
that very tragic period, and I thank very much the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Ranking Member Thompson) on the Faster and Smarter Funding 
for First Responders Act.
  This is not a perfect bill but it does fundamentally change the way 
we distribute homeland security grants for first responders.
  This bill will distribute all homeland security funding on the basis 
of risk, rather than thinly spreading it around the country, with 
absolutely no standards, no basis for risk and absolutely no 
justification as to how the money was to be spent.
  While the Department of Homeland Security has always had the 
authority to distribute the majority of homeland security funding on 
the basis of risk, they have never done so. Previously, heavily 
populated States and heavily threatened or high-threat States like New 
York only received about $4 per capita, while other States, like 
Wyoming, received close to $28 per person. What might have been even 
worse is that States were not required previously to justify need or to 
justify how they were spending the money. They just got a check. We had 
no standards, and we had no way of knowing what level of preparedness 
we had in this country in our various localities and States.
  This bill should be the end of this and hopefully the end of 
troubling press reports of mis-spent homeland security funding.
  While I would have liked to have seen a bill with no State minimums, 
because I do not support funding homeland security projects without 
first determining a need, I understand the delicate negotiations that 
went into this bill. Again, this bill is not perfect but a much better 
way of protecting our country, and that is why I am supporting it.
  Like many of my colleagues, I will be watching the way the funding is 
distributed to make sure that the promise of this bill is fulfilled and 
that it is directed where the need is in our country to protect our 
citizens.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of H.R. 1544. I 
commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and his committee 
for their great work on this essential legislation.
  This legislation is an issue of great importance for our Nation, but 
it is also a huge priority for New Jersey, which lost, as the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) said, 700 residents on September 11, 
2001.
  The 9/11 Commission recommendations rightly stated: ``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

[[Page 9385]]

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.''
  Both the President in his budget and, most recently, the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security in their bill just 
passed out of full committee have echoed this important recommendation.
  Since September 11, 2001, U.S. intelligence reports that our New 
York-New Jersey region is still among the most attractive targets for 
terrorists. For all of our critical infrastructure of the trans-Hudson 
tunnels, airports, seaports, oil refineries, chemical manufacturing, 
population density, financial centers in both lower Manhattan and in 
Jersey City, our basic close relationship with New York City, anti-
terrorism experts continue to acknowledge that the risk of terrorism 
remains.
  Yet, despite the best efforts of the President, homeland security 
officials and Members of Congress, these security funds continue to be 
distributed to States based on population, rather than risk and 
vulnerability. That is why this bill needs to be passed in its present 
form.
  Fortunately, the legislation addresses our concerns and follows the 
Commission's recommendations. We are sending more Federal homeland 
security to States like New Jersey and other high-threat areas where 
risk is greatest and critical infrastructure must be better protected 
against terrorism.
  H.R. 1544 establishes a more rational approach to distributing 
homeland security funding by sending more resources to where they are 
needed. As we learned on September 11, terrorists do not arbitrarily 
select their targets. Therefore, homeland security funding cannot be 
arbitrarily distributed.
  This legislation would ensure that homeland security grants are 
awarded according to an assessment of risk and vulnerability, not just 
population.
  For these and many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, this bill and this 
rule needs to be supported.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Faster and Smarter 
Funding for First Responders Act. In the post-September 11, 2001, world 
that we live in, it is clear we need a more effective approach to 
funding our first responders. Terrorists are targeting high-profile 
targets in our major metropolitan areas, and we must ensure we have the 
funds they need.
  The 9/11 Commission, which I strongly supported, recommended we 
allocate grant funding based on risk, not politics. This bipartisan 
legislation does just that. It goes where it is most needed. I cannot 
tell you if my State of Connecticut gains funds or loses funds under 
this bill, but that cannot be the issue. The question is: Are funds 
going where we have the greatest risk? And the answer to that question 
is: Yes. We are following the 9/11 Commission recommendation. It is 
going where we have the greatest need.
  H.R. 1544 will distribute first responder grants based on threat, 
vulnerability, and consequences of a terrorist attack to persons and 
critical infrastructure sectors throughout the United States. This will 
allow streamlining terrorism preparedness grants to our first 
responders who, again, need it most.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging 
Threats and International Relations, I know this legislation allocating 
these resources based on risk is essential to my communities, my State, 
and our Nation. H.R. 1544 is an important step towards enhancing our 
Nation's response to terrorist attacks.
  The bottom line is, it is not a question of if, but of when 
terrorists will strike again. The legislation is essential because it 
helps ensure that when they do, our first responders, who need the 
resources the most, will be better able to protect the communities they 
serve.
  Congratulations to the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), and to the Members on both sides of the aisle who have 
worked in a bipartisan manner to make our Nation safer.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), one of our bright new young Members.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the rule and 
H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 
2005.
  Mr. Speaker, it is said that in this country politics end at the 
water's edge. This is certainly the case with this legislation. The 
Select Committee on Homeland Security, on which I serve, passed this 
bill unanimously. This occurred because the idea behind the legislation 
is a bipartisan one: combat the threat of terrorism at home by 
directing funds to those localities that are most at risk for terrorist 
attack.
  The idea that funding should be based on risk and security rather 
than on political concerns is one that resonates on both sides of the 
aisle of this great Chamber. The Members of this body recognize that 
the challenges we face are unique in our history. No previous 
generation has had to combat the threat to the homeland that we face 
right now.
  Today's terrorists are determined to wage war against us not on some 
overseas battlefield, but in our cities, ports, and transportation 
hubs. This is why this bill is so important. It makes sure that we take 
into account threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences of attack as we 
decide how to best spend our anti-terrorism dollars.
  This bill is also necessary because it confronts the issue of threats 
to the homeland head on. It directs appropriate State authorities to 
come up with a comprehensive homeland security plan tied to the 
achievement, maintenance, and enhancement of the essential capabilities 
established by the Department of Homeland Security.
  In developing those essential capabilities, the Department is 
required to seek the input of those on the frontlines: local police; 
fire departments; and EMS units, emergency medical service units. This 
provision is vital because combating terrorism is a nationwide problem 
that calls for cooperation between officials at the local, State, and 
Federal levels.
  Finally, the bill requires the Department to set national standards 
for first responder equipment and training so that all frontline units 
responding to a terrorist attack will be able to operate effectively.
  The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005 is an 
important tool for safeguarding the homeland. It is a positive step 
towards development of an effective homeland security policy, and I 
support it wholeheartedly.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a young man who was 
on the frontline, a captain, a pilot in the United States Air Force, 
who served during the Persian Gulf War and who is a Member of Congress, 
serving since the 104th Congress. And while this country has great 
respect for the men and women who are on the frontlines defending our 
country in the United States military today, we also remember back to 
those first men and women of the military during the Persian Gulf War 
who were standing ready not only to protect this country, but also to 
liberate others and to provide freedom.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), my friend and colleague, for that generous introduction; and 
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of both the rule and the overall 
bill, H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders 
Act of 2005.

[[Page 9386]]

  As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I am proud 
to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan bill; and I congratulate 
the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for their 
diligent work on this act.
  This bipartisan bill will help expedite the homeland security grant 
process and ensure that money gets to those who need it the most, our 
first responders. Importantly for my State, the State of Nevada, this 
bill will allow the Department of Homeland Security to take into 
account both resident and tourist populations when determining a 
State's funding for terrorism preparedness.
  My fellow Nevadans know that tourism is a significant part of our 
State's industry and our population. On any given day of the year, 
Nevada hosts hundreds of thousands of tourists from across the country 
and around the world. Las Vegas Boulevard, Mr. Speaker, has more hotel 
rooms than any other city in the world. According to Nevada's 
Commission on Tourism, Nevada welcomed over 50 million tourists alone 
just last year.
  Prior to this bill, terrorism preparedness grant funding did not take 
tourism into consideration in determining a State's population. Yet 
Nevada's first responders were and remain responsible for protecting 
everyone, residents and visitors, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. To 
ignore the tourism population in determining a State's level of risk 
simply ignores a large population within a potential terrorist target.
  The First Responders Act of 2005 will help States with large tourism 
populations, like Nevada, receive a more equitable allocation of 
tourism preparedness funds. H.R. 1544 is a step in the right direction 
and, in fact, should stand as a model for all homeland security grants. 
More homeland security programs beyond just the terrorism preparedness 
grants should also take into account tourism populations.
  As we move forward in strengthening our homeland security, I look 
forward to achieving this goal and to providing our first responders 
with the critical resources they need to protect the people of this 
country. I urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation, and 
I once again congratulate the chairman and I congratulate my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for their hard work on this 
effort.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very, very pleased to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the young 
chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, a very 
distinguished Member of Congress, and a man who has worked very 
diligently not only on a bipartisan basis with the minority, but also 
with the Speaker and in particular with the Committee on Rules as we 
went about preparing this important piece of legislation to ensure its 
success. So I am very, very proud of the chairman from Orange County, 
California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), my older brother, for all the work that he did.
  Really, in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking 
the gentleman from Texas, who, as a member of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security for 2 years was instrumental in writing this 
legislation; who, as a Member of the Committee on Rules in the 109th 
Congress, has been appointed by the chairman as liaison to the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security and has made possible the process by 
which we will consider this bill on the floor today.
  In fact, it really merits pointing out today that the Committee on 
Rules of the House of Representatives has played a special role in the 
establishment of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, for which 
this is the first major legislative effort on the floor this year.
  In the last Congress, not only the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) but also the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), who is the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Rules of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security; the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the 
full Committee on Rules; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who 
is now chairman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and 
Biological Attack of the Select Committee on Homeland Security; and 
Porter Goss of Florida, who is now the Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, all were Members of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security in the last Congress and also Members of the 
Committee on Rules that worked to change the jurisdiction of the House 
of Representatives to make sure we would have a focus on this critical 
national priority that both President Bush and the leaders of this 
Congress have recognized as so important that we have reorganized the 
entire executive branch and now the legislative branch of government. 
That is the process by which this rule and the bill that it outlines 
are coming to the floor today.
  Since September 11, over $30 billion in terrorism preparedness 
funding has gone from the Federal Government to State and local 
governments. In this year's budget, President Bush has added to the 
annual amount an incremental $2 billion more. That will mean that we 
have had an increase in annual spending on terrorism preparedness for 
States and localities since 9/11 of over 2,000 percent. The question is 
not whether we are putting enough money into terrorism preparedness for 
our first responders. The question is whether the money is making it to 
the frontlines. And the answer to that is, no, it is not. And the 
question is also whether it is being spent properly, in a way that 
makes us more prepared. And, unfortunately, the answer to that question 
is, not always.
  There are opportunities for major improvement, and that is what this 
bill is all about. It is called the Faster and Smarter Funding for 
First Responder Act because it solves both those problems. It will get 
the money to the frontlines faster, and it will make sure that we are 
spending the money based on what we know from our intelligence about 
terrorist threats and capabilities, our own vulnerabilities, and the 
consequences of terrorist attacks.
  I strongly support this rule and look forward to passage of the bill 
later today.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 4 years ago, fanatic Islamic terrorists 
attacked our country, hijacked our planes, rammed the Pentagon, and 
destroyed the World Trade Center that was located in my district. This 
is deadly serious business, and we do not have a dime to waste. This 
bill, while certainly an improvement over current law, still includes 
State-based formula funding.
  I offered an amendment to eliminate the State minimum section of the 
bill to ensure that all homeland security funding is distributed on the 
basis of risk. Unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order by 
this restrictive rule. I am saddened that there are still people in 
this House who still do not get it. How many times do we have to run 
for our lives before we realize this is not a game? We face the serious 
threat of terrorism, and we should allocate the homeland security 
funding based on that threat.

                              {time}  1115

  I understand this bill is a delicate political compromise. On the 
whole, I support it because it is better than current law. But we can 
do better.
  State minimums waste homeland security funding. This bill would give 
States money that cannot be justified on the basis of the risk, wasting 
precious resources that should be used to protect the American people 
from real dangers in other States.
  In this wonderful, open, rich, free society in which we live, there 
are plenty of real targets that need protecting all

[[Page 9387]]

across America. The issue of State minimums is not just about New York. 
If there are real threats to our food supply, our energy resources, our 
national monuments, they should all be protected. But we should not 
give more money to States who cannot demonstrate a need while we know 
there are other States that have needs that cannot be met. It just does 
not make sense.
  The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended that anti-terrorism 
funding be distributed based on risk and not based on State formulas or 
pork-barrel spending. We should follow their excellent advice. The 
State minimum provision in this bill is in direct violation of the 9/11 
Commission recommendations. In its report, it said that, Homeland 
security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks 
and vulnerabilities.'' The commission went on to say that ``Federal 
homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general 
revenue sharing. It should supplement State and local resources based 
on the risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. 
Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.''
  My amendment would have stricken these State minimums and distributed 
these grants in a manner that addresses the highest priority threats 
and vulnerabilities of the Nation. There are very real and known 
terrorist threats against specific targets in the country, and these 
homeland security grant programs were created specifically to address 
these threats. Distributing terrorism response funding without regard 
to risk is not wise. It is not cost effective. It is not in the best 
interests of our country's security. These resources should go where 
they are needed, where there is the greatest threat of terrorism. 
Period.
  As noted in the 9/11 Commission's report, ``Those who would allocate 
money on a different basis should then defend their view of the 
national interest.'' I had hoped that the Rules Committee would have 
followed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and made my 
amendment in order.
  Nevertheless, I am pleased that the State minimum section in this 
bill is a significant improvement over current law by being much 
smaller, and I hope that when we enter into conference with the other 
body, we remain firm and fight to keep State minimums at the lowest 
possible level so that the risk-based funds can be kept at the highest 
level to fight the real threat of terrorism in our country.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, following on the remarks by my colleague from 
New York, who has been a strong supporter of reform in this area, I 
just want to correct a statement that he made. He suggested that this 
legislation violates the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In 
fact, the 9/11 Commission has expressly endorsed this legislation in 
precisely the form that it is coming to the floor today and the 
cochairman, Lee Hamilton, of the 9/11 Commission took the time to come 
to the Committee on Homeland Security just a few days ago to testify in 
solid support of this legislation.
  And so as we go forward with the bill, I just want the Members to 
know that this bill in its present form is strongly endorsed by the 9/
11 Commission, and it implements their recommendation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Faster and Smarter 
Funding for First Responders Act. It is a testament to the importance 
and balanced approach of this bill that it is cosponsored by every 
Democratic and Republican member of the Committee on Homeland Security 
on which I am proud to serve. The 9/11 Commission and countless others 
have urged a more risk-based approach to homeland security funding. 
Unfortunately, we have been too slow to adopt this recommendation 
because, while we may agree on a risk-based method in theory, every 
Member wants his or her district to receive the most possible Federal 
assistance.
  This bill takes the right approach and represents a long overdue move 
towards a more effective allocation of scarce resources. H.R. 1544 
guarantees a minimum funding level for each State because all States 
must attain a benchmark level of preparedness and response 
capabilities. But beyond this minimum, the bill would disburse funds 
based on a risk and threat assessment to ensure that they are spent 
where they are most needed and will do the most good.
  I am also pleased that this measure provides for a task force on 
terrorism preparedness to assist in updating the DHS list of essential 
capabilities for first responders. We must be able to measure the 
progress our States are making towards an adequate level of 
preparedness, and it is equally important that this baseline be 
achieved in every community throughout the country so that American 
families can feel secure no matter where they live.
  I would like to note that for risk-based funding to work, however, 
DHS must have a comprehensive threat and vulnerability assessment on 
which to rely. I would urge DHS in the strongest possible terms to 
ensure that this critical piece of the puzzle is a top priority and is 
completed as soon as possible.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, let me encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan measure. I want to commend both Chairman Cox 
and Ranking Member Thompson on their fine work on this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), chairman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of 
Nuclear and Biological Attack.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of both the 
rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 1544.
  In 1787, John Jay wrote, ``Among the many objects to which a wise and 
free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of 
providing for their safety seems to be the first.'' More than 215 years 
later, we all agree on the importance of protecting the people. 
However, this House today finds itself debating the question of just 
how best should the government protect the people.
  In 2001, Congress enacted many sweeping changes to our Nation's anti-
terrorism laws, including the formulas by which States would receive 
homeland security grants through the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. 
Under the PATRIOT Act, each State is guaranteed to receive three-
quarters of a percent and each territory .25 percent of the total 
amount appropriated each year for terrorism preparedness grants. The 
balance of the funds is then distributed to each State and territory 
based on population.
  In hindsight, we can see that this system of allocation is flawed. 
For example, in fiscal year 2005, the minimum allocation for each State 
is $11.25 million. Using that total, based on current census numbers, 
the State of Wyoming would receive a minimum guarantee of $22.23 per 
person in homeland security grants while the State of California would 
receive a minimum guarantee of just 31 cents per person. In other 
words, the Federal Government would allocate approximately 7,100 
percent more funding per capita at a minimum to the State of Wyoming 
than it would to the State of California for homeland security grants.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1544 and voted to support the 
bill in committee. It is the responsibility of this government not only 
to ensure that we are protecting the people but also to ensure that we 
do so in an efficient and measured fashion.
  Let us be clear about one point. H.R. 1544 does not eliminate minimum 
guarantees for the States. Under this legislation, each State, 
regardless of population, would receive a minimum of .25 percent of the 
total amount appropriated each year for terrorism preparedness grants.
  H.R. 1544, however, does require the government to move away from its 
arbitrary approach to anti-terrorism

[[Page 9388]]

funding toward a more rational approach. Rather than continuing to 
simply allow homeland security grant programs to become Federal cash 
cows for States and localities, this legislation focuses our efforts on 
what is truly important, namely, our Nation's vulnerabilities.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I look forward to hearing the debate on this legislation to improve 
first responder funding. We all want to ensure our communities are well 
equipped and prepared to face any threat. I believe that the underlying 
bill will help accomplish exactly that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her work on this 
bill today. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), from the 
Committee on Homeland Security; as well as the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. King), chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 
Science, and Technology; and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for all of their 
hard work and determination in bringing this bill forward. They worked 
well together. This is a bipartisan bill.
  The Rules Committee met just several days ago and heard how the 
ranking member and Chairman Cox put a great work package together. The 
Rules Committee decided to help out a little bit. We have made in order 
with this rule three Democrat amendments and two Republican amendments 
that will be part of this wonderful bill that will be debated in just a 
few minutes here in this House. I am very proud of the work that we 
have accomplished together. I am very proud of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________