[Senate Report 108-225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-225
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 276
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 1245
TO PROVIDE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT COORDINATION AND SIMPLIFICATION,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
February 10, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Tim Raducha-Grace, Professional Staff Member
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Beth M. Grossman, Counsel
Michael L. Alexander, Minority Staff Member
Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background.......................................................5
III. Legislative History.............................................14
IV. Section-by-Section..............................................15
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................29
VI. CBO Cost Estimate...............................................30
VII. Additional Views................................................33
VIII.Changes to Existing Law.........................................50
Calendar No. 276
108th Congress
SENATE
Report
2d Session 108-225
======================================================================
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
_______
February 10, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Collins, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1245]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1245) to provide for homeland security
grant coordination and simplification, and for other purposes,
having considered the same reports favorably thereon with
amendments and recommends that the bill do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (the Committee)
approved S. 1245, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act
of 2003 on June 17, 2003. This bill seeks to create a stronger,
streamlined program of federal financial assistance to State
and local governments and first responders responsible for
protecting our homeland.
On March first, our homeland security structure began to
move into place, as Secretary Ridge incorporated nearly two-
dozen agencies into the Department of Homeland Security. While
the Senate spent more than three months debating the Homeland
Security Act, the law contains virtually no guidance on how the
Department is to assist those at the State and local level with
their homeland security needs. Congress wrote a 187-page law
creating the Department, yet included but a single paragraph on
grant programs for first responders. As a result, the
Department has been left with little guidance from Congress as
to how State and local grant decisions should be made.
As with so many other issues, much of the front-line
responsibility for homeland security has fallen squarely on the
shoulders of our State and local officials and more than 9
million first responders. Communities across America have risen
to this challenge and developed scores of innovative homeland
security strategies.
Instead of encouraging these new ideas, however, the
tangled web of federal homeland security grant programs has the
potential to stifle the Department's ability to foster State
and local innovation. Instead of providing a foundation on
which States and localities can build homeland security
strategies tailored to specific risks, federal programs present
States and communities with a mountain of paperwork. Instead of
giving communities the flexibility they need, State and local
officials face an inflexible grant structure.
This legislation would provide State and local governments
and communities with the resources they need to protect their
communities by providing a long term steady stream of funding
to each and every State; making it easier to apply for grants;
promoting flexibility in the use of homeland security funding;
and protecting programs that work, such as the FIRE Act.
Departmental organization
S. 1245 would reorganize the administrative process for
obtaining selected first responder grant programs within the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The legislation would
move two DHS entities into the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination (OSLGC): The Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), which is currently located in the Border
and Transportation Security Directorate; and the Assistance to
Firefighters Program. The bill requires that the Firefighters
Grant Program remain a distinct program within the new
organizational structure.
In addition, S. 1245 establishes a Homeland Security
Information Clearinghouse within the OSLGC, which would be
maintained by the Office for Domestic Preparedness. The
clearinghouse would be charged with providing States and
localities with information on grant programs and the use of
Federal funds. The clearinghouse would gather and publish
information on best practices in homeland security and
voluntary standards for training programs, equipment, and
exercises.
S. 1245 also creates an Interagency Committee to Coordinate
and Streamline Homeland Security Grant Programs within DHS.
Among its duties, the committee would identify all duplicative
application, planning, and reporting requirements among the
Federal assistance programs; assess State and local needs and
capabilities; and advise DHS Secretary on implementing
appropriate performance measures for grant recipients. In
addition, the committee would provide recommendations to
Federal agencies on the coordination of homeland security grant
programs; specifically, recommendations on streamlining and
standardizing application, reporting, and planning
requirements.
Homeland security grants
S. 1245 authorizes formula based and discretionary homeland
security grants to States and localities for first responder
preparation activities, such as emergency planning, risk
assessments, mutual aid agreements, equipment, training, and
exercises. Funding would be provided for overtime expenses
incurred during periods of heightened alerts and, in limited
amounts, for training activities. To be eligible for a homeland
security grant, States would be required to complete a State
Homeland Security Plan that addresses matters such as
interoperable communications, training, incident command
systems, regional coordination, response planning, and training
exercises. The plan must also include a three-year strategy for
allocating funding to localities based on risk, capability, and
need, as well as an assessment of the shortfall between
existing and needed response capabilities. The bill provides
basic guidelines for States to use in developing their plans,
including mandatory input from local officials, first
responders, and the private sector.
S. 1245 establishes three sets of criteria for State
Homeland Security Grants. First, 10% of the SHSG funds would be
allocated through direct discretionary grants to local
governments in high threat areas, using criteria based upon an
area's population, population density, the presence of threats,
risks and vulnerabilities involving critical infrastructure or
national assets, the need to guard international borders or
coastlines, and other threat factors to be specified by the DHS
Secretary. Second, each State would receive a base amount of
0.75 percent of the remaining appropriated funds each fiscal
year. The bill treats the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
as States. The U.S. territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
would receive a base amount of 0.25 percent. Altogether, the
formula grants providing minimum funding levels for States
would utilize about 40 percent of the remaining SHSG funds. The
remaining 60 percent of the funds would be distributed among
the States on a risk-based formula to be developed by DHS
Secretary, using variables such as State population (including
military and tourist populations); population density; the
threat, risk and vulnerability of critical infrastructure or
key national assets; international borders or coastlines; and
other factors to be identified by DHS Secretary.
Of the funds sent to the States, States would be required
to distribute at least 80 percent of the funds to local
governments within 45 days of receipt. Recipients would be
required to match 25 percent of the grant funds with non-
Federal contributions, although the match would not apply
during first two years of the program and could be waived for
recipients experiencing economic distress. The bill also
includes a maintenance-of-effort provision, which prohibits
recipients from using grant funds to supplant their own funds
allocated to on-going homeland security expenses or general
protective measures.
National performance standards
S. 1245 directs DHS Secretary to develop National
Performance Standards based on the goals and objectives
addressed in State Homeland Security Plans. These standards
would define the expected level of capabilities in homeland
security functions, including emergency response,
communications interoperability, and prevention. Each State
would be required to report annually on its progress in meeting
these standards. DHS would be required to report annually to
Congress on the status of meeting these goals and objectives,
State and local adherence to performance standards, the total
amount of resources provided to State and local governments,
and how the funds were used. Until such standards are
developed, DHS would assist States and localities in developing
Interim Performance Measures.
In addition to these overall performance standards,
Congress has long recognized the importance of establishing,
maintaining, and adopting certifiable uniform national training
standards for first responders to strengthen basic and advanced
preparedness and response capabilities. Current law establishes
federal national training centers such as the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center and the National Fire Academy that
promote effective basic core competencies and national
standards for first responders.
Congress has also provided resources for specialized
training to State and local emergency responders through the
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium. While the Consortium
is an important part of a broad national domestic preparedness
training infrastructure, a number of independent studies have
identified a need for federal level national training centers
to develop standardized training requirements and help train
first responders to prepare for and respond to the consequences
of terrorists' use of weapons of mass destruction.
The Committee agrees with these assessments and directs
that the Office for Domestic Preparedness designate a lead
federal level national domestic preparedness training center,
and consider designating additional regional federal level
national domestic preparedness training centers. The lead
center, along with the additionally designated regional federal
level national domestic preparedness training centers
designated by the Office for Domestic Preparedness, shall
assist in developing, maintaining, and adopting certifiable
training standards to help first responders prepare for and
respond to the consequences of terrorists' use of weapons of
mass destruction. The federal national training centers will
possess recognized training expertise, staff, and facilities to
assist the Secretary in creating training guidelines,
conducting exercises, developing equipment, and identifying
emerging training opportunities, such as distance learning,
virtual and live training and mobile training teams. These
training centers must work closely with the Department of
Homeland Security's grant making office to maximize State and
local training, equipment and exercise programs.
State and local flexibility
The needs of our States, localities, and first responders
vary widely across the nation. This legislation would ensure
that federal homeland security assistance is sufficiently
flexible to meet these diverse needs.
Prior to the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act of 2003, the Office for Domestic Preparedness allocated the
same percentage of each State's funds for training, equipment,
exercises, and planning, thus leaving no room to accommodate
different States' priorities. In each and every State, 70
percent of the federal funds were required to be spent for
equipment, 18 percent for exercises, 7 percent for planning,
and 5 percent for training. In allocating funds this way, the
federal government effectively said that Maine must spend
exactly the same portion of its homeland security dollars on
training as Ohio and Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer
surplus funds from one category to another to meet their needs.
The inflexible structure of past homeland security funding,
along with shifting federal requirements and increasing amounts
of paperwork, poses a number of challenges to State and local
governments as they attempt to provide these funds to first
responders. These challenges may have contributed to the fact
that a substantial amount of homeland security funds that have
been appropriated still remain either unallocated by the
federal government or unspent by State and local governments.
The bill would give State and local governments greater
flexibility with previously appropriated ODP grant funds by
allowing grant recipients to request and the Secretary to
approve funding transfers among different activities, including
equipment, training, exercises, and planning. For new funding,
State and local governments have even more flexibility in
funding, provided that such spending is consistent with the
State homeland security plan.
Smuggling weapons of mass destruction
The bill would impede the smuggling of weapons of mass
destruction into the United States using vehicles that carry
municipal solid waste. About 180 municipal trash trucks from
Canada cross the U.S. border every day, for example, to deposit
cargo in Michigan landfills. Because the dense and variable
cargo in these vehicles, sometimes including sludge, resists
analysis using the mechanical inspection devices typically at
U.S. border crossings, and because discovery last year of
illegal drugs on one such Canadian vehicle confirmed the
trucks' use in smuggling, serious questions have arisen about
the effectiveness of current border screening procedures for
detecting chemical, nuclear, biological or radiological
materials that could be concealed on these vehicles.
The bill would bar further entry of these vehicles into the
United States unless and until the Secretary certifies to
Congress that the methods and technologies being used to screen
these vehicles for such weapons are as effective as the methods
and technologies being used to screen for such weapons in other
items of commerce entering the United States via other
commercial vehicle transport. This provision is intended to
prompt a thorough re-evaluation of the screening procedures now
being used for vehicles carrying municipal solid waste, and to
strengthen U.S. border protections against efforts to use these
vehicles to secretly transport chemical, nuclear, biological or
radiological materials into the country.
II. Background
At present, State and local governments receive assistance
for homeland security activities from a range of Federal
departments and agencies as well as DHS. Despite the origin of
funding, these Federal programs share a similar goal: To assist
State and local governments in their efforts to enhance the
capabilities of first responders to prepare for and respond to
terrorist attacks, particularly attacks involving weapons of
mass destruction.
The vast majority of these activities fall into the
categories of emergency planning, training, equipment, and
exercises. Congress has also provided limited funding for
personnel compensation and overtime expenses incurred during
times of heightened alert through these entities and programs.
Most of this Federal assistance originates from the following
three sources within the Department of Homeland Security:
The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP);
The Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE grants);
and
The Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
Account (EMPA).
Federal assistance is also available from programs that are
not specifically oriented to first responders or terrorism
preparedness. State and local governments may seek emergency
preparedness assistance in the form of block grants and
categorical grants from programs administered by the
Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ),
and Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, both
Congress and the President have given increased attention to
the role of first responders in the nation's homeland security
efforts. This attention is evident in the funding Congress
provided in regular and supplemental appropriations in fiscal
year 2003, which totaled $3.23 billion for ODP; $750 million
for the FIRE grants; and $443.1 million for EMPA. The
Administration and Congress have made numerous proposals to
restructure existing first responder assistance programs. Thus
far, none has been enacted into law.
A wide range of policy concerns led to the development of
S. 1245. These concerns are not limited to first responder
preparedness programs. Rather, they are pertinent to the
broader debate over Federal assistance for State and local
homeland security efforts. Each policy concern is discussed
briefly below.
Complexity of grant applications and planning requirements
At present, State and local governments seeking Federal
assistance for their homeland security efforts, and emergency
preparedness in general, may apply to DOJ, DOT, EPA, and HHS,
as well as to entities within DHS, such as ODP and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This multitude of programs
presents a complex array of application requirements. Nearly
all applications contain planning requirements that are
intended to promote the effective use of funds, but they also
create an overwhelming amount of paperwork for State and local
officials. The various application and planning requirements
are often duplicative, calling for similar assessments,
analyses, and spending plans. State and local officials have
told the Committee that each program requires numerous
administrative steps. For example, to receive funds from ODP's
State Homeland Security Grant Program, States must go through
as many as 12 steps in order to obtain approval.
S. 1245 would address this problem in two ways. First, the
bill creates an Interagency Committee to identify duplicative
application and planning requirements in emergency preparedness
programs and make recommendations on streamlining those
requirements. Second, the bill sets up a single, clear set of
goals for ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program, which
has, in the past, subjected State and local governments to
annual changes in planning and application requirements.
Coordination of emergency preparedness programs
Federal programs provide much needed support to ensure a
basic level of equipment and training among first responders.
However, these programs lack the very coordination expected of
State and local governments.
In testimony before the Committee, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge
emphasized the importance of integrating all preparedness
programs into a single DHS office. He suggested that existing
programs such as the Assistance to Firefighters Program could
be moved within the Department, without decreasing the
program's effectiveness. The Committee shares this view, but
strongly believes the Department should administer the
Assistance to Firefighters program in its current fashion, with
grants peer reviewed by the firefighting community and with
grants made directly to fire departments. The Department also
should consider utilizing existing US Fire Administration staff
that have successfully managed the Assistance to Firefighters
Program.
S. 1245 seeks to integrate these programs administered by
DHS into a single office to create one-stop shopping within DHS
for first responders, and for State and local governments to
obtain grants, information, and other government wide homeland
security assistance. S. 1245 would integrate selected programs
into a single DHS entity--the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination (OSLGC). ODP, in its entirety, would
become part of OSLGC.
The Assistance to Firefighters Program would be transferred
to OSLGC, but it would be maintained as a distinct and separate
program. Administering the Assistance to Firefighters Program
in its current fashion is paramount to continuing the program's
successes. Since its inception in 2001, the FIRE Act has made
more than $1.2 billion dollars in federal funds available to
local fire departments. As fire departments across the country
grapple with increasing demands and responsibilities and
decreasing local budgets, the Assistance to Firefighters
Program is the most successful federal grant program that has
provided funding directly to local fire departments.
The bill also authorizes a formula grant program to States
that would be administered by ODP, which would replace the
existing State Homeland Security Grant Program.
The Committee also supports coordination of programs and
information within DHS. The Committee directs the Office for
Domestic Preparedness to work with the Science and Technology
Directorate and the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate to ensure State and local governments
and first responders receive information regarding threat,
vulnerability assessments, and mitigation technologies for high
risk areas such as manufacturing facilities using chemicals and
hazardous shipments.
Distribution of funds
Organizations representing State and local governments and
first responders all support proposals to increase Federal
funding. There is disagreement, however, among these
organizations, and some policymakers, as to whether a new
formula program should distribute funds initially to States or
directly to local entities.
A number of State and local organizations, including the
National Conference of State Legislatures, the National
Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the
National Association of Counties, the Council of State
Governments, and the International City/County Management
Association have supported State coordination of the first
responder grant program, with 80 percent of the resources being
distributed by the States to units of local government. The
Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, established in
accordance with Section 1405 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261,
agreed with this approach. In its fourth annual report to
Congress, the Advisory Panel, also known as the Gilmore
Commission, concluded that States must have discretion over the
use of grant funds to ensure the allocation of resources on the
basis of assessed needs.
In testimony before the Committee during the May 1, 2003
hearing entitled, ``Investing in Homeland Security:
Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs,''
Secretary Ridge supported the State-level approach, suggesting
that distributing funds directly to localities might inhibit
consistency with statewide homeland security and emergency
preparedness plans. Ridge stated, ``we shouldn't distribute a
dollar, a security dollar, unless it is consistent with a
[homeland security] plan, an overarching plan brought to us by
the States.''
In testimony before the Committee during the April 9, 2003
hearing entitled, ``Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges
on the Front Line,'' Edward P. Plaugher, Fire Chief and
September 11 Incident Commander at the Pentagon, Arlington
County Fire Department, Virginia, also expressed his support
for State coordination. He stated that, ``* * * the State
coordination effort [that] is absolutely critical in homeland
security.''
The Committee agrees that state-wide coordination in
homeland security planning is needed, but also wants to ensure
that funding reaches the local level in a timely manner.
Section 4 of S. 1245 would require 10 percent of funds to be
allocated directly to local governments in a timely manner. It
would further require States, consistent with their State
Homeland Security Plan, to provide 80 percent of the remaining
grant funds to local governments. This approach would allow
States to coordinate their Homeland Security Plans with local
entities while ensuring that the majority of homeland security
funding is provided to localities. Furthermore, States would be
required to distribute funds to localities within 45 days of
receipt.
The Committee recognizes that there is a category of
private, not-for-profit institutions, as described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which provides
services that are at high risk of being the target of terrorist
attacks. The Committee recommends that in preparing their 3-
year State homeland security plans, States should specifically
consider the threat to such institutions as part of their
vulnerability and threat assessments. The Committee urges the
Secretary to instruct States that they may utilize such grant
funds to undertake measures to enhance security against
terrorist attacks directed at such at-risk institutions.
The Committee recognizes that Indian tribes, authorized
tribal organizations, and Alaska Native villages play an
important role in protecting our communities from terrorist
incidents, and that the government to government relationship
with the federal government must be preserved and respected.
Accordingly, the Secretary and the States should include Indian
tribes, authorized tribal organizations, and Alaska Native
villages in statewide planning.
In addition, the Committee intends that Indian tribes,
authorized tribal organizations, and Alaska Native villages be
eligible for discretionary grants if they otherwise meet the
criteria set forth for high threat areas. The Committee further
recognizes that because S. 1245 does not allocate any of the
remaining homeland security grant funds to Indian tribes,
authorized tribal organizations, or Alaska Native villages,
States are responsible for ensuring that tribal communities are
prepared for a terrorist incident and for allocating federal
resources to those sovereign entities accordingly. As a result,
Indian tribes, authorized tribal organizations, and Alaska
Native villages will be eligible for funding directly from the
States, rather than through any local government and shall
enjoy the same opportunity to participate in statewide planning
and receive funding as any other jurisdiction or other unit of
government designated by the State to conduct needs assessments
and allocate funding.
In general, funds should be allocated based on the State
Homeland Security Plan approved by the Secretary. The Committee
believes, however, that State and local officials and first
responders should be given some amount of discretionary
authority to address security needs, such as those required to
protect large public events, not foreseen during the
development of the homeland security plan. The Secretary should
ensure that State and local governments and first responders
have sufficient flexibility to meet these immediate security
needs, should they arise.
The Committee recognizes that State and local governments
face numerous challenges in developing their State Homeland
Security Plan and seeking out homeland security best practices.
In numerous cases, State and local governments have received
unsolicited proposals, or sought assistance from, for-profit
and non-profit firms to develop threat and vulnerability
assessments. However, they often lack the expertise to
adequately evaluate products from these firms. The Committee
supports ODP's efforts to work on a national and regional basis
to provide assistance to State and local governments and first
responders. As part of this effort, the Committee directs ODP
to assist State and local governments in identifying whether
such firms have the necessary capacity to provide information,
independent analysis, evaluation assistance and provide other
management tools related to homeland security. The Committee
also urges ODP to provide information to State and local
governments and first responders regarding best practices for
protecting the basic needs of the public, including, but not
limited to, individual safety in public buildings and
protection of air, water, food sources and infrastructure such
as transportation, power, and communications.
The bill requires the Secretary to set aside ten percent of
the appropriated grant program funds for distribution directly
to local governments in high-threat urban areas. This
discretionary grant program builds upon the High Threat Urban
Area grant program that has been earmarked for funds in DHS
appropriations committee reports, but is not yet described
explicitly in a statutory provision. The Secretary is directed
to identify eligible high threat areas based upon specified
criteria, consisting of an area's population, population
density, the presence of significant threats, risks and
vulnerabilities involving critical infrastructure or key
national assets, the need to guard international borders or
coastlines, and other threat factors to be specified in writing
by the Secretary.
The Secretary would also be required to issue grants that
encourage neighboring local governments and mutual aid partners
to coordinate their homeland security efforts, and should take
into consideration core cities, contiguous jurisdictions, and
development of a regional metropolitan approach to address
threats. The bill language and the Committee favor grants with
a regional metropolitan approach to address the unique
equipment, training, planning, exercise, and operational needs
of large urban areas, and assist these areas in building an
enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond to, and
recover from threats or acts of terrorism. Providing funding
directly to local governments in the high-threat area is a
shift in policy from the current Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI), under which the Secretary requires States to pass
through 80 percent of the funding to the local level. The
Committee believes that states need not serve as intermediaries
for high-threat funding, provided that local governments commit
to spending the funds in accordance and consistent with state
plans.
States, therefore, will continue to play a vital role in
this program. The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure
that the funding provided for high threat areas is coordinated
with the State homeland security plan. The Committee also
expects that the Department of Homeland Security will not
provide funds under the high threat program without input from
first responders in the high threat region.
Distribution formula
At present, the largest grant program for emergency
preparedness is ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program.
Funds are distributed to States with each State receiving a
base amount of 0.75 percent of the total appropriation. ODP
points to Sec. 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act as the authorization
for this base amount. Sec. 1014, however, gives little
statutory guidance on the structure of assistance programs.
After base amounts are determined, the remaining funds are
distributed to States on the basis of per capita population.
In testimony before the Committee during the May 1, 2003
hearing, Secretary Ridge supported a formula that provides a
base level of funding to each State. In response to a question
posed by the Chairman, Secretary Ridge stated, ``* * * I do
start with the notion that every State needs a minimum level of
funding * * *.''
The Committee agrees that each State needs a baseline level
of funding in order to undertake heightened homeland security
efforts. S. 1245 would preserve the 0.75 percent base amount,
as currently applied by ODP in its State Homeland Security
Grant Program. This base amount should ensure that every State
would be able to achieve a minimum baseline of capability.
Every State has homeland security needs and vulnerabilities.
After all, each State must protect its critical infrastructure
and address its vulnerabilities.
Some have contended that the current formula is unfair
because less populous States like Wyoming receive more per
capita than densely populated areas like the District of
Columbia. Others note that the Department of Homeland Security
provides monetary assistance to larger, more populous States
through a number of grant programs for high threat urban area
security, transportation security, and port security. In 2003,
for example, New York received an additional $211 million
beyond its State allocation through urban area and port
security grants.
The Committee has attempted to strike a balance between
those who support the current formula and those who would like
less populous states to receive fewer homeland security
dollars. To ensure that States with high risks and
vulnerabilities receive sufficient homeland security funding,
the Secretary would provide a baseline level of homeland
security dollars to each State, but then distribute the
remaining 60 percent of funding based on threat, risk, and
vulnerability. High threat areas would receive a substantial
amount of this funding since States must pass through 80
percent to the local level. S. 1245 would also direct the DHS
Secretary to reserve 10 percent of all funds for Section 4
grants to assist high threat urban areas.
Hence, the Committee believes that the terrorism
preparedness formula program should distribute a significant
portion of the funds available on the basis of risk rather than
population. On May 1, 2003, Secretary Ridge agreed with this
view in his testimony before the Committee. In response to
written questions submitted during the May 1, 2003 Committee
hearing, Secretary Ridge wrote, ``Starting in FY04, the
Department will seek to make changes in how it distributes
funding to the States. Each State and territory will continue
to receive a base amount, but the balance of funds will utilize
a multi-faceted formula, taking into account factors including
threat and risk assessments, critical infrastructure of
national importance, and population density.''
Using a risk-based formula would reflect the threats and
vulnerabilities in different regions of the country. Although
population data are readily available for use in distribution
formulas, the Committee believes that DHS must develop a risk-
based formula to direct additional Federal assistance to States
and localities that face the highest threat and have the
greatest vulnerability.
Accordingly, S. 1245 would direct DHS to administer a risk-
based formula program. The Committee believes it is necessary
to give DHS flexibility in designing the distribution formula
within certain guidelines. The bill would provide DHS Secretary
with guidance on factors to consider, but it would give the
Secretary discretion in determining the relative weights of the
factors. This approach would allow the Department to interpret
legislative guidelines to fit changing risk conditions, reflect
the latest intelligence information, and adapt to changing risk
assessments.
Allocations of first responder funding provided by the
Secretary of Homeland Security should fully address all
military and tourist populations residing in a State. DHS
should work with the states and other organizations to
accurately measure tourist populations. Currently, first
responder grant funding is based on a State's population as
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, which does not include
military and tourist populations. As a result, States with
military and tourist populations are shortchanged because they
receive federal funding to protect fewer people than those who
are present at a given time in the State. In States with large
military and tourist populations, the current system results in
significant funding shortfalls for first responders. The bill
corrects this inconsistency by ensuring that first responder
funding addresses the entire State population, including
military and tourist populations.
Flexibility of Homeland Security grant funds
At present, terrorism preparedness programs generally fund
four broad categories of assistance: planning, training,
equipment, and exercises. In some instances, funding may also
be used for personnel compensation, overtime, and construction.
Prior to the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act
of 2003, ODP's formula program, which is the largest grant for
terrorism preparedness, gave recipients separate allocations
for planning, training, equipment, and exercises, but did not
give them discretion to transfer funds among these activities.
Many State and local officials have told the Committee that
the range of eligible activities should be expanded to give
State and local recipients broad discretion in the use of
funds. Specifically, they have asked for the flexibility to
transfer past funds among different activities (i.e., planning,
training, equipment, and exercises) and for overtime expenses
incurred during times of heightened alert.
During the May 1st Committee hearing, Secretary Ridge
addressed the issues of funding for hiring and overtime costs,
and the transfer of funds within the four categories of the
ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program. The Secretary said
that Federal, State, and local governments should share
responsibility for increasing preparedness levels, and that
Federal funding for hiring and salaries would not be an
appropriate activity. However, the Secretary stated that
overtime costs, especially during times of heightened alerts,
are a legitimate expense that merits Federal assistance. He
also testified that allowing States, with DHS approval, to
transfer funds from one grant program category to another to
meet State homeland security needs is consistent with how he
feels the country should address homeland security issues.
The Committee agrees with this opinion. S. 1245 would give
State and local governments greater discretion over the use of
terrorism preparedness grant funds. Section 4 would allow
grants to be used to fund overtime expenses relating to
training activities and increased security during times of
heightened alert status, as determined by the Secretary. Unless
waived by the Secretary, recipients would not be permitted to
use more than 5 percent of funds for overtime for training
purposes. Section 5 would allow States, with DHS approval, to
transfer funds from one State Homeland Security Grant Program
category to another. The ability to use funds for different
activities better ensures that grant funding will match the
States' homeland security needs. This transfer authority does
not supersede the requirement that states pass through 80% of
the funds under this section to local jurisdictions.
The Committee also recognizes that certain areas or
geographic regions often face higher overtime costs associated
with a specific threat or vulnerability. As the Secretary
considers requests to waive the limitation on overtime expense,
the Secretary should link waivers to specific threats as well
as to national alerts. Where there has been a specific threat
in a geographic area or where the threat level under the
nationwide threat warning system currently being reviewed by
the Secretary has been raised, the Secretary should give
serious consideration to granting requests to waive the
limitation on overtime expenses in selected areas.
The Committee is concerned by testimony that local
jurisdictions have been unable to take advantage of WMD
training for first responders due to the cost of
``backfilling'' positions of employees assigned to training.
The Committee directs ODP to allow the use of formula grant
funds for overtime costs that are directly attributable to
participation in ODP-funded first responder training.
Timely distribution of funds
State and local officials have emphasized that a timely
distribution of funds must be a priority in all preparedness
assistance programs. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees addressed this issue in their reports accompanying
the Fiscal Year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-11). The Appropriations Committees
recommended deadlines both for ODP to distribute funds to
States, and for States to distribute funds to localities. The
2003 Supplemental Appropriations Act required ODP to open the
grant application process to States within 15 days of
enactment. States were required to complete and submit their
applications 30 days following enactment, and ODP was
instructed to act on each application 15 days following the
receipt of the State's application. Following a grant award,
each State was required to provide the funds to local entities
within 45 days of receipt.
Section 4 of S. 1245 addresses the issue by requiring
States to distribute funds or resources purchased with grant
funds to local governments within 45 days of receipt of DHS
grant funds. The bill also gives the Secretary authority to
enforce these deadlines, to ensure that local governments
receive homeland security grants as expeditiously as possible,
by terminating, reducing or limiting the use of grant funds to
the State and by permitting local governments to petition to
receive such grant funds directly where a State has failed to
provide the funds in a timely fashion.
The Committee has listened to some concerns that new
regional homeland security entities have caused certain law
enforcement agencies to receive little homeland security
funding. In many cases, these agencies are charged with
protecting high risk areas. Because of these concerns, the
Committee directs the Secretary to ensure that the creation of
new regional homeland security entities does not cause
inequitable distribution of homeland security dollars by
utilizing allocation methods that do not take into account the
relative responsibilities of local first responders and core
jurisdictions within regions. To make sure those at the local
level are able to express any concerns, S.1245 requires the
Secretary to consider dissenting views of the homeland security
advisory committee, and also requires both urban and rural
representation on the homeland security advisory committee.
Soft match requirement
The Committee believes that State and local governments
should partner with the federal government by contributing non-
Federal resources to emergency preparedness efforts. This
belief is shared by the Administration, which, in its fiscal
year 2004 budget request, proposed that ODP formula grants be
accompanied by a 25 percent matching requirement.
The former U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations (ACIR) published a number of reports on Federal
grants-in-aid, many of which included observations on the
potential benefits of matching requirements.
The Committee recognizes these potential benefits, but does
not believe states or localities should be required to commit a
hard match, or cash spent for project-related costs.
Accordingly, S. 1245 requires all recipients of grant funds
under the Act to match 25 percent of the grant amount with non-
Federal in kind contributions. While S. 1245 presents a new
financial requirement for States and localities, the match does
not need to be a cash match, and may include, but is not
limited to, the valuation of in-kind services. The Committee
also recognizes that some recipients may have difficulty
satisfying the match obligation. Hence, the bill gives DHS
Secretary flexibility to waive the requirement for recipients
experiencing economic distress. The requirement for matching
funds would not take effect until two years after enactment of
the Act.
III. Legislative History
S. 1245, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, was
introduced on June 12, 2003 by Senator Susan M. Collins of
Maine, Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Senator John D.
Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, Senator George Voinovich of
Ohio, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Senator Mark
Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Senator
John Sununu of New Hampshire, Senator Daniel K. Akaka of
Hawaii, and Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado.
Prior to the consideration of S. 1245, the Committee held a
series of three hearings to examine how the federal government
can more efficiently and effectively provide first responders
with the federal assistance they need. The Committee's April 9,
2003 hearing focused on the challenges of those on the front
lines, our first responders. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom
Ridge testified on the Department's efforts to better secure
our communities at the second hearing, held on May 1, 2003. At
the May 15, 2003 hearing, State and local elected officials
discussed the challenges to developing effective homeland
security strategies.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee met on June 17,
2003, to consider S. 1245. A manager's amendment was adopted by
voice vote. The manager's amendment, offered by Chairman
Collins and cosponsored by Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman of
Connecticut, Senator Akaka, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama,
and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, allows grants to be used to
fund overtime expenses relating to increased security during
times of heightened alert status and to training; provides the
Secretary with the authority to waive the limitation on
eligible overtime expenses; increases local participation in
the homeland security planning process; requires the Secretary
to consider dissenting views of the homeland security advisory
committee; allows the Secretary to waive the State and local
match for economically distressed communities; allows
communities to apply directly to the Secretary if a State fails
to comply with this legislation; clarifies the allocation of
10% of all DHS state grant funds for grants to high threat
areas; clarifies the definition of high threat areas; and
creates an office to coordinate training activities within ODP.
The Committee also adopted by voice vote an amendment
offered by Senator Levin to increase border protections against
the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction into the United
States on vehicles carrying municipal solid waste. The
amendment would bar entry of these vehicles into the United
States unless and until the Secretary certifies to Congress
that the methods and technologies being used to screen these
vehicles for such weapons are as effective as the methods and
technologies being used to screen for such weapons in other
items of commerce entering the United States via other
commercial vehicle transport.
The Committee opposed, in a 9-8 rollcall [Vote 1], an
amendment sponsored by Senator Lieberman to set a specific $10
billion authorizing level for the first year of the grant
program created by Section 4 of the legislation and for such
sums as are necessary for each fiscal year thereafter. The
Committee then ordered the bill reported on a 9-0 rollcall
[Vote 2] and sent it to the Senate.
IV. Section-by-Section
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
Section 1 sets the short title of S. 1245 as the ``Homeland
Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003.''
SECTION 2. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE TO COORDINATE AND STREAMLINE HOMELAND
SECURITY GRANT PROGRAMS
At present, there are several grant programs in DHS and
other departments including DOJ, HHS, DOT, and EPA. While all
these programs are meant to enhance homeland security, they are
not sufficiently coordinated among the different executive
departments. According to congressional witnesses this
proliferation of programs has led to duplication of
administrative requirements and development of multiple State
and local plans. These administrative difficulties cause
confusion among State and local officials attempting to adapt
Federal grant programs to State and local homeland security
needs.
The Interagency Committee to Coordinate and Streamline
Homeland Security Grant Programs would ensure coordination of
separate Federal department or agency grant programs. The
Interagency Committee would also ensure coordination among all
DHS grant programs for State and local preparedness.
Subsection (a) would amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) by inserting a new section 802
following section 801.
Interagency Committee
Subsection (a) of the new Section 802 would establish an
Interagency Committee to Coordinate and Streamline Homeland
Security Grant Programs. This Interagency Committee would
report all findings to the information clearinghouse
established under section 801 (c), and consult with State and
local governments and emergency response providers regarding
their homeland security needs and capabilities. This
Interagency Committee would also advise DHS Secretary on the
development of performance measures for homeland security grant
programs, and the national strategy for homeland security.
These performance measures would be the basis for measuring
State accountability, which are based on the goals and
objectives addressed in the State Homeland Security Plans (as
established in Section 4).
Paragraph (4) would, in subparagraph (A), require the
interagency committee to, not later than 60 days after the
enactment of this Act, compile a list of homeland security
assistance programs and their reporting requirements. This list
would include programs administered by such DHS entities as
ODP, FEMA, and TSA, as well as other Federal departments,
including DOJ, HHS, DOT, EPA, and any other related Federal
assistance programs.
Subparagraph (B) would require the Interagency Committee to
identify all homeland security planning requirements of
emergency preparedness, and public safety programs administered
by Federal agencies to streamline and standardize planning
requirements to eliminate duplication and promote coordination.
Congressional witnesses testified before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee that the multiple planning
requirements in homeland security grants duplicate one another,
draining State and local resources, personnel, and time. These
witnesses also testified that these planning requirements were
not coordinated and often duplicated requests for information.
The plans the Interagency Committee would study include, but
are not limited to, terrorism preparedness, all-hazard
emergency preparedness, and any other plans required by
homeland security grant programs.
Paragraph (5) would require the Interagency Committee to
report to Congress on the studies carried out under paragraph
(4). The report would be due not later than 120 days after
enactment of the Act.
Paragraph (6) would instruct the Interagency Committee to
provide, not later than 150 days after enactment of the Act,
recommendations to the agencies identified in paragraphs (4)(A)
and (4)(B). With regard to homeland security grants with
planning, reporting, and application components, the
Interagency Committee would make recommendations on
streamlining, standardizing, reducing duplicative
administrative requirements, and promoting coordination.
Paragraph (7) would instruct the Interagency Committee, not
later than 250 days after the enactment of this Act, to report
to Congress on all actions taken under this subsection.
Subsection (b) would establish the membership of the
Interagency Committee. The Interagency Committee would be
composed of representatives of departments and agencies with
homeland security assistance programs. Specifically identified
departments and agencies are DHS, HHS, DOT, DOJ, EPA, and any
other department or agency determined necessary by the
President.
Subsections (c), (d) and (e) would require DHS to provide
administrative support to the Interagency Committee, designate
a chairperson, and establish the frequency of meetings.
Interagency Committee reports
Subsection (b) of Section 2 amends the table of contents of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) to
reflect the inclusion of section 802. It also requires the
Interagency Committee, not later than 120 days after the
effective date of this Act, to review all applications,
reporting and other administrative requirements contained in
grant programs in ODP, FEMA, TSA, DOJ, HHS, and EPA and report
all redundant and duplicative requirements to the appropriate
committees of Congress and the agencies represented in the
committee. The Interagency Committee would be required to
review all homeland security planning and other administrative
requirements required by such DHS entities as ODP, FEMA, and
TSA, and other Federal departments, including DOJ, HHS, and
EPA. The Interagency Committee would report all redundant and
duplicate requirements to the appropriate committees of
Congress and the agencies represented in the committee.
Not later than 150 days after the effective date of this
Act, the Interagency Committee would provide recommendations to
the relevant Federal departments to streamline and standardize
application, reporting, and administrative requirements. These
recommendations would seek to eliminate duplication and promote
coordination of homeland security planning grants.
SECTION 3. STREAMLINING FEDERAL HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS
Section 3 amends section 801 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) by enhancing the role of DHS'
Office of State and Local Government Coordination (OSLGC). This
section would incorporate into the OSLGC the Assistance to
Firefighters Program, but maintain it as a distinct grant
program. The need to keep this program distinct was reinforced
when congressional witnesses testified to the effective way the
Assistance to Firefighters Program is administered. Section 3
would also transfer ODP, in its entirety, out of the
Directorate of Border and Transportation Security and into
OSLGC. These two transfers would assist in making the OSLGC a
one-stop shop for State and local officials seeking Federal
assistance for first responders. This one-stop shop would
reduce the cumbersome need for State and local governments to
contact numerous agencies and departments, thus reducing the
time, effort, and resources that State and local governments
expend in coordinating their homeland security needs.
Section 3 would also establish a Homeland Security
Information Clearinghouse that would provide information on
homeland security grants, technical assistance, best practices,
and use of Federal funds to State and local governments. This
clearinghouse would build on existing capacities such as ODP's
existing resource center. This clearinghouse would further
increase the coordination of Federal assistance for homeland
security within DHS and establish a one-stop shop for
information on homeland security and emergency preparedness
grants and best practices.
Office for State and Local Government Coordination
Subsection (a) of Section 3 would amend section 801 of the
Homeland Security Act, to provide that the Office for State and
Local Government Coordination (OSLGC) will be headed by a
Director who is to be appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
Assistance to Firefighters Program
Paragraph (5) (also within Section 3(a)) would amend
section 801 to place administering authority of the Assistance
to Firefighters Program in OSLGC. Subparagraph (A) instructs
OSLGC to coordinate the Firefighters program with emergency
preparedness grants made under section 4 of this Act, and
grants made under other Federal programs to enhance emergency
preparedness. This transfer of administering authority is
intended to not affect the process by which the program is
administered and to ensure it is retained as a distinct
program. This transfer would also further establish OSLGC as a
``one-stop shop'' for State and local governments, ensuring
that a single office within DHS coordinates all homeland
security assistance programs.
Subparagraph (B) would instruct OSLGC to award grants on a
competitive basis directly to fire departments of a State, in
consultation with the chief executive of the State (governor),
to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting
personnel against fire and fire related hazards. This
consultation would ensure that grants are coordinated with
State level homeland security and emergency preparedness plans.
Subparagraph (C) would instruct OSLGC to retain the current
administrative requirements for the Firefighters program set
forth in the United States Code (15 U.S.C. 2229) and Code of
Federal Regulations (44 CFR 152).
Subparagraph (D) instructs OSLGC to ensure that all
equipment purchased with grant funds meet existing voluntary
consensus standards.
Paragraph (3) would amend section 801 of the Homeland
Security Act by having all references to ``Director'' in
section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of
1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229) refer to the Director of the OSLGC.
Office for Domestic Preparedness
Subsection (b) of section 3 of this Act amends the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) by placing the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) in OSLGC and having the
ODP Director report directly to the OSLGC Director. ODP would
manage the Homeland Security Information Clearinghouse
established under section 801(c).
Subsection (b) would also create within ODP an internal
office to support all national domestic preparedness, training,
education, and exercises within the OSLGC. The ODP Director
would be instructed to appoint an office head with recognized
expertise in first responder training and exercises.
Subsection (c) of section 3 amends the table of contents of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) by
striking the reference of ODP in section 430 and inserting
section 803, ODP, following the new section 802 of this Act.
Homeland Security Information Clearinghouse
Subsection (d) of section 3 would amend section 801 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) by
establishing a Homeland Security Information Clearinghouse.
Paragraph (2) would have the clearinghouse assist State and
local governments, and first responders by creating and
maintaining a web site, a toll-free number, and a single
publication containing information on homeland security grant
programs.
Paragraph (3) would have the clearinghouse, consulting with
the interagency committee, coordinate any Federal agency's
technical assistance to State and local governments to conduct
threat and vulnerability assessments. It would also have the
clearinghouse establish templates for conducting threat
analyses and vulnerability assessments.
Paragraph (4) would instruct the clearinghouse to work with
State and local governments, first responders, the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and private organizations to
gather and validate best practices in State and local homeland
security. Under paragraph (5), information on equipment,
training, and other services acquired with Federal funds under
the homeland security grant programs would be gathered by the
clearinghouse and made available to State and local
governments, and first responders. Information regarding
voluntary standards of training, equipment, and exercises would
also be provided to State and local governments and first
responders.
Paragraph (6) instructs the clearinghouse to provide
States, localities, and first responders with any other
information the Secretary determines necessary.
SECTION 4. HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
Section 4 would authorize a Homeland Security Grant
Program. This section provides precise statutory authority for
DHS to make grants to States and localities for emergency
preparedness activities in general, and, specifically, for
terrorism preparedness activities. This section would also
provide legislative guidance for DHS to follow in designing the
structure of emergency preparedness assistance programs.
Definition
Subsection (a) would give the term ``State'' the same
meaning given in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002. That Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296) defines State
as ``any State of the United States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and any possession of the United States.'' The
Committee intends that the term ``local government'' also be
construed to have the same meaning as that given it in the
Homeland Security Act.
General authority to award grants
Subsection (b) would provide general authority to the
Secretary to award grants to States for homeland security. The
remaining subsections in section 4 provide guidance to the
Secretary on the structure of homeland security grant programs
authorized under this Act.
General guidance
Subsection (c) would provide the Department of Homeland
Security with basic guidance in how recipients should use grant
funds. In general, State and local governments may use the
funds to address emergency preparedness needs, including
building response capacity, related to acts of terrorism.
Recipients may not use funds to supplant ongoing first
responder expenses or general protective measures. With some
exceptions, Federal funds under this program are not intended
to cover operating expenses.
Use of funds
Paragraph 2 of Subsection (c) lists the allowable uses of
State Homeland Security Grant Program funds.
Subparagraph (A) permits funds to be used for the
development of State plans or risk assessments, including State
Homeland Security Plans that are required as part of the
assistance program. The approach taken in developing plans
funded through this program should be coordinated with the
planning guidance set forth in section 201 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief Act (42 U.S.C. 5131). Planning and
risk assessment activities should address all hazards emergency
planning, including response to terrorist attacks, and should
ensure that State plans are adequately coordinated with
Federal, State, and local governments, first responders, and
State and local health agencies. The Committee intends that
these funds may be used to develop plans for the recovery from
terrorist attacks or other emergencies, such as the restoration
of essential services. The development of a State plan is
intentionally listed first, since all preparedness activities
should flow from well-formulated plans.
Subparagraph (B) would allow funds to be used to develop
State, regional, or local mutual aid agreements. Mutual aid
agreements have been identified by many observers as an
important aspect of emergency preparedness. Such agreements
facilitate the sharing of resources and improved coordination
of response.
Subparagraph (C) would permit the purchase or upgrading of
equipment. State and local acquisition of equipment should be
based on the needs identified in the State Homeland Security
Plan.
Subparagraph (D) would allow recipients to use funds for
exercises. Such exercises would include the emergency
responders identified in the State Homeland Security Plan,
including law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical
service personnel. Exercises are critically important to
emergency preparedness as they allow State and local
governments to test and evaluate their response plans,
training, incident command systems, and other elements of
preparedness.
Subparagraph (E) would allow funds to be used for overtime
expenses under two conditions: (i) training activities
consistent with the goals outlined in the State Homeland
Security Plan, or (ii) as determined by the Secretary,
activities relating to increased threat levels under the
Homeland Security Advisory System. This paragraph is consistent
with the current application of grant monies for overtime
expenses related to training. At present, States and localities
may use funds from ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program
for overtime during training activities. In FY2003, Congress
also made funds available for overtime expenses through the
High Threat Urban Area program and for critical infrastructure
security grants (P.L. 108-7, P.L. 108-11). Through its
administrative discretion, ODP is allowing recipients to use
funds from these two programs for overtime expenses incurred
during times of heightened alert.
Subparagraph (F) allows funds to be used for homeland
security training. Such training includes the use of equipment
(including detection, monitoring, decontamination, and personal
protective equipment) and for emergency response to a
threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction. At present,
grant recipients under the ODP State Homeland Security Grant
Program may use funding for training.
Prohibited use of funds
Paragraph (3) of Subsection (c) places some prohibitions on
the use of funds. Subparagraph (A) prohibits the use of grants
under subsection (b) to construct buildings or other physical
facilities, except for those described in section 611 of the
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5196), or to acquire
land. The Committee understands that section 611 would cover
construction to alter or remodel existing buildings for the
purpose of making them secure against terrorist attack or able
to withstand or protect against chemical, radiological or
biological attack, such as by altering HVAC systems or
providing secure testing and treatment facilities in public
health laboratories or in hospitals; and grants under
subsection (b) of this bill could therefore be used for such
construction. Of course, when grants under this bill are used
to construct buildings or facilities as described in section
611, all of the terms of section 611 will be applicable and the
Committee expects them to be fully complied with.
Subparagraph (B) would limit to 5 percent the amount of
funds that can be used for overtime expenses for training. The
Secretary would have discretion, however, to waive this
limitation if the Secretary determines that such funds are
necessary to provide effective training or adequate protection
in the event of an increase in the threat level under the
Homeland Security Advisory System.
The Committee recognizes that States and localities face a
significant financial burden when they increase the level of
security during times of heightened alert. The Committee also
recognizes that the traditional purpose of Federal grants-in-
aid is to assist States and localities with long-term (or
capital) improvements, not with operational expenses. During
FY2003, selected amounts of ODP grants could be used for
overtime expenses relating to an increase in the threat level
under the Homeland Security Advisory System. This subparagraph
seeks a compromise on this issue by allowing recipients to use
a portion of grant funds for overtime expenses, while focusing
funds on preparedness enhancements.
Subparagraph (C) would not allow recipients to use grant
funds to satisfy the Federal cost-share (or matching
requirement) in another Federal grant program.
Application
Subsection (d) would establish legislative guidance for
grant applications. Paragraph (1) would require States to apply
for grants by submitting an application to the DHS Secretary.
The Secretary would have discretion to establish the
application timeframe and required information. Paragraph (2)
would allow States to revise their homeland security plans,
authorized in subsection (e), at the time applications are
submitted. Paragraph (3) would instruct the DHS Secretary not
to award a grant unless the State application includes a
homeland security plan meeting the requirements of subsection
(e). Paragraph (4) instructs the DHS Secretary to release grant
funds to States with approved plans and approved applications.
Homeland Security Plan
Subsection (e) would establish guidance for the State-level
Homeland Security Plans required under the grant program. Such
guidance addresses plan contents, development process,
intergovernmental coordination, scope, approval, and other
attributes. State and local officials have observed that there
are too many application steps and much duplication in the
planning requirements of various Federal assistance programs.
This subsection of the bill would address this problem by
establishing legislative guidelines for DHS' programs for State
and local preparedness.
Paragraph (1) of Subsection (e) generally requires State
applications to include a certification that the State has
prepared a three-year State Homeland Security Plan that has
been approved by the Secretary.
Paragraph (2) establishes the contents of the State
Homeland Security Plans. The plans would contain measurable
goals and objectives that:
Establish a three-year strategy for allocating
funding to political subdivisions based on risk,
capabilities, and needs (specific guidance on these
attributes is addressed in paragraph (3)(C));
Provide for interoperable communications;
Provide for local coordination of response and
recovery efforts, including effective incident command
procedures that conform with the National Incident
Management System mandated in the Homeland Security Act
(P.L. 107-296, sec. 502);
Ensure that first responders and other emergency
personnel have adequate training and equipment for the
threats that may occur;
Provide for improved coordination and collaboration
among first responder disciplines, including police,
fire, and public health authorities at the State and
local levels;
Coordinate emergency response and public health
plans;
Mitigate risks to critical infrastructure that may be
vulnerable to terrorist attacks;
Promote regional coordination among contiguous local
governments;
Identify necessary protective measures by private
owners of critical infrastructure;
Promote orderly evacuation procedures when necessary;
Ensure support from the public health community for
measures needed to prevent, detect, and treat
biological, radiological, and chemical incidents;
Increase the number of local jurisdictions
participating in local and statewide exercises;
Meet preparedness goals as determined by the DHS
Secretary (preparedness goals are further addressed in
subsection (h)); and
Include a report from the advisory committee
(established in paragraph (3)(D) of this subsection)
that documents the areas of support, disagreement, or
recommended changes to the plan before its submission
to the DHS Secretary.
Paragraph (3) establishes guidance and criteria for the
process States would use in developing State Homeland Security
Plans.
Subparagraph (A) would provide broad guidance, requiring
each State to: (i) provide for the consideration of all
homeland security needs; (ii) follow a process that is
continuing, inclusive, cooperative, and comprehensive; and
(iii) coordinate the development of the plan with the homeland
security planning activities of local governments.
Subparagraph (B) would require States to allow input from
local stakeholders, including local officials, State
legislators, first responders and emergency response providers,
and private sector companies. Local government representation
would include officials from rural, high-population, and high-
threat jurisdictions. This better ensures that States will
accept ideas and suggestions from local government officials
and first responders who will be the recipients of 80 percent
of the State formula grants.
Subparagraph (C) would establish guidance and criteria for
the scope of State Homeland Security Plans. Each State would be
required to complete a comprehensive risk assessment that will
include a vulnerability assessment, threat assessment, and
public health assessment (in coordination with the State
bioterrorism plan). Risk analysis, which is advocated in the
Administration's National Strategy for Homeland Security,
assists decision makers by providing quantitative and
qualitative estimates of the chance, and possible consequences
of, an adverse event. This paragraph seeks to integrate risk
analysis procedures that are currently required in grant
programs administered by DHS and the Department of Health and
Human Services.
Subparagraph (C) also provides for an assessment of
capabilities and needs, including the following three
components:
An evaluation of current preparedness, mitigation,
and response capabilities (using an assessment
mechanism determined by the DHS Secretary);
An evaluation of the capabilities needed to address
the State's risks; and
An assessment of the shortfall between the State's
current capabilities and capability needs.
Subparagraph (D) would require each State preparing a plan
to establish an advisory committee to receive comments from the
public and local stakeholders. The advisory committee would
include State legislators, local officials, local first
responders, and emergency response providers that are
representative of the counties and municipalities of all sizes
within the State. Local government representation would include
officials from rural, high-population, and high-threat
jurisdictions. This paragraph further emphasizes the role of
local input in developing the State Homeland Security Plans,
and builds on the input requirements established in
subparagraph (B).
Paragraph (4) of Subsection (e) would provide the DHS
Secretary with basic guidance in approving State plans. The
Secretary shall approve a plan upon finding that the plan meets
the requirements set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (e). Approved plans must also meet the
accountability requirements established in subsection (h), as
well as any other criteria determined necessary by the
Secretary.
Paragraph (5) would require the Secretary to review the
recommendations made by the advisory committee report
incorporated into a plan, including any dissenting views of
advisory commission members, to ensure cooperation and
coordination between local and State jurisdictions in planning
the use of grant funds under this section. This paragraph
strengthens the role of the advisory committee in developing
the State Homeland Security Plans.
Discretionary grant program
Subsection (f) would create a discretionary grant program
to provide funding directly to local governments in high threat
areas. The bill requires the Secretary to set aside ten percent
of all appropriated funds for homeland security state grants
for these discretionary grants. The Secretary is directed to
identify eligible high threat areas based upon specified
criteria, consisting of an area's population, population
density, the presence of significant threats, risks and
vulnerabilities involving critical infrastructure or key
national assets, the need to guard international borders or
coastlines, and other threat factors to be specified in writing
by the Secretary.
The Secretary would also be required to ensure that the
grants encourage neighboring local governments and mutual aid
partners to coordinate their homeland security efforts, and
should take into consideration core cities, contiguous
jurisdictions, and development of a regional metropolitan
approach to address threats. The bill language and the
Committee favor grants with a regional metropolitan approach to
address the unique equipment, training, planning, exercise, and
operational needs of large urban areas, and assist them in
building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent,
respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism.
Providing funding directly to local governments in the high-
threat area is a shift in policy from the current Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI), under which the Secretary requires
States to pass through 80 percent of the funding to the local
level. The Committee believes that states need not serve as
intermediaries for high-threat funding, provided that local
governments commit to spending the funds in accordance and
consistent with state plans.
States, therefore, will continue to play a vital role in
this program. The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure
that the funding provided for high threat areas is coordinated
with the State homeland security plan. The Committee also
expects that the Department of Homeland Security will not
provide funds under the high threat program without input from
first responders in the high threat region.
Paragraph (1) instructs the DHS Secretary to use 10 percent
of the funds appropriated under this section for grants to
local governments for use in high threat areas.
Paragraph (2) establishes the criteria to be used in
awarding discretionary grants. Discretionary grants awarded
under subsection (f) shall go to localities that:
Have a large population and high population density;
Have a high degree of threat, risk, and vulnerability
related to critical infrastructure or key national
assets, as identified in the State Homeland Security
Plan;
Have an international border with Canada or Mexico,
or coastline bordering international waters of Canada,
Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean; and
Are subject to other threat factors specified in
writing by the DHS Secretary.
Paragraph (2) gives the Secretary basic criteria to use in
awarding grants, but would give the Secretary discretion in how
the listed factors are applied, and flexibility to use other
criteria if necessary. Secretary Ridge testified before the
committee on May 1, 2003 that DHS used the factors of
population density, location of critical infrastructure, and
threat and vulnerability assessments to determine FY2003 grants
under the High Threat Urban Area program. This approach allows
Congress to rely upon the expertise of DHS in designing
specific aspects of the formula, without giving up oversight
over how funds are distributed. It also gives DHS a degree of
discretion to change formula factors depending on risk
conditions and threat assessments.
Paragraph (3) would require grant funds awarded under
subsection (f) to supplement and support, in a consistent and
coordinated manner, those activities and objectives described
in State Homeland Security Plans.
Paragraph (4) requires the DHS Secretary to ensure that all
discretionary grant awards made under subsection (f) encourage
multiple contiguous units of local government and mutual aid
partners to coordinate any homeland security activities.
Formula grants
Subsection (g) lays out the method for distributing the 90
percent of funds remaining after 10 percent is set aside for
discretionary grants under subsection (f). This section is
intended to provide superceding statutory authority for the
formula grant program now administered by ODP under section
1014 of the USA Patriot Act. The formula grant laid out in
subsection (g) is similar to the existing ODP formula program,
but with a revision to specify more risk factors than
population in awarding some of the funds. Subsection (g) would
distribute funds to states under two formulas, one providing a
per-state minimum and the other using a formula that specifies
various risk factors rather than the population-based formula
currently used by ODP.
Paragraph (2) would provide a base amount of funding for
all the States and territories. Each State with an approved
application, including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, would receive a base amount of 0.75 percent of the
appropriated funds in any fiscal year. The United States
territories of American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands would receive a base
amount of 0.25 percent of appropriated funds. This approach to
providing States with a base amount is the one currently taken
in ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program. The primary
purpose of the base amount is to allow each State to maintain a
baseline level of capability. Approximately, forty percent of
formula funds under subsection (g) would be distributed through
the base amounts.
Paragraph (3) would direct the Secretary to distribute all
remaining funds on the basis of specified risk factors,
including a state's population, population density, the
presence of significant threats, risks or vulnerabilities
involving critical infrastructure or key national assets, the
need to guard international borders or coastlines, and other
factors designated by the Secretary. The specified criteria
that the Secretary should use to distribute formula funds to
States are as follows:
Population, including tourist and military
populations, and population density;
Threat, risk, and vulnerability related to critical
infrastructure or key national assets, as identified in
the State Homeland Security Plan;
International borders with Canada or Mexico, or
coastline bordering international waters of Canada,
Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean; and
Other factors specified in writing by the DHS
Secretary.
This approach to the formula establishes basic criteria,
but would give the Secretary discretion to determine the
weighting of the factors or to add other factors.
Paragraph (4) would require State recipients to distribute
not less than 80 percent of formula funds (or resources
purchased with such grant funds) to local governments, first
responders, and other local groups, consistent with the State
Homeland Security Plan. States would be required to distribute
funds to the local level within 45 days after receiving formula
grant funds.
Paragraph (5) would require all recipients of grant funds
under Section 4 to match 25 percent of the grant amount with
non-Federal contributions. State and local governments may
count in-kind contributions as part of their cost share. The
match, however, would not take effect until two years after
enactment of the act. In addition, the matching requirement
would not apply to any grant recipient deemed economically
distressed.
With this language, the committee requires States and
localities to contribute non-Federal resources, including in
kind contributions, to preparedness efforts. This would be a
departure from current practice, as the ODP State Homeland
Security Grant Program, the largest grant program for first
responder preparedness, does not have a matching requirement.
While this provision represents a new requirement for States
and localities, the committee agrees that grant recipients
would be obligated to commit non-Federal resources to homeland
security activities.
The committee also recognizes that some recipients may have
difficulty meeting this requirement, thus, the bill's language
gives DHS flexibility in applying the matching requirement--the
Secretary would have discretion in determining the criteria for
economic distress.
Paragraph (6) would require all grant recipients to report
annually on the distribution and use of funds. Specifically,
States and localities would report: the amount of State and
local funds spent on homeland security activities under the
applicable State Homeland Security Plan; and, information
regarding the use of grant funds by units of local government
as required by the Secretary. DHS, as well as Congress, would
find such information useful in assessing both State and local
contributions to homeland security and their use of Federal
grant funds.
Paragraph (7) would prohibit recipients from using grants
under this section to supplant other State and local public
funds dedicated to homeland security purposes. This provision,
typically called a maintenance-of-effort provision, ensures
that Federal funds would be used to supplement State and local
funds and lead to preparedness enhancements, rather than just
maintenance of the status quo.
It is the intent of the Committee that grant funds shall
not be used to replace previously obligated State or local
funds. It is not the intent of the Committee to require that
State or local government maintain the same overall level of
expenditure from year to year, which they may not be able to do
because of fiscal constraints. Many State and local governments
have increased expenditures in anticipation of promised Federal
assistance and the Committee does not want to penalize them. In
addition, the Committee intends that the funds under the bill
would be available to assist in announced plans, such as for
training, as long as the funds for those plans have not been
obligated.
Accountability
Subsection (h) would create mechanisms for achieving
accountability in the grants awarded under this section.
Paragraph (1) would instruct the Secretary to assist States
in establishing Interim Performance Measures based on the goals
and objectives set in State Homeland Security Plans and any
other factors determined by the Secretary. These interim
measures are intended to serve as temporary indicators of State
and local performance until the Secretary establishes the
National Performance Standards under paragraph (2) in this
subsection. Each State with an approved plan shall submit to
the Secretary a report detailing the State's progress meeting
the interim performance measures.
Paragraph (2) would require the Secretary to establish
National Performance Standards based in part on the goals and
objectives in State Homeland Security Plans and any other
factors the secretary determines relevant. Once established,
the Secretary shall also ensure that State plans are in
conformance with these standards. States with approved plans
shall annually report to the Secretary on their progress in
meeting such standards.
Several observers, including Administration officials,
State and local emergency managers, and scholars, have noted
the importance of establishing standards for emergency
preparedness. Among other potential benefits, such standards
would provide a gauge for measuring the level of preparedness
of particular localities, States, and the nation as a whole.
Paragraph (3) would require all grant recipients, as well
as DHS, to make available to the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) all information regarding the activities carried out
under this section. This strengthens the ability of GAO to
evaluate the grant program's effectiveness and efficiency.
Paragraph (4) would require all grant recipients that
expend $300,000 or more in Federal funds during any fiscal year
to submit to the Secretary an organization wide financial and
compliance audit report. This provision meets the financial
reporting requirements established in chapter 75 of title 31 of
the United States Code and OMB circular A-133.
Remedies for non-compliance
Subsection (i) would provide the DHS Secretary with
authority to enforce the various requirements established in
this grant program. Paragraph (1) gives the Secretary options
for remedies if, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for
a hearing, the Secretary finds that a recipient has failed to
substantially comply with any provision in this section.
Remedies may include the following: termination of payment of
grant funds; reduction in the amount of grant funds by an
amount equal to the amount of grant funds not expended by the
recipient in accordance with this section; or, limitation of
the use of grant funds to programs, projects, or activities not
affected by the failure to comply. Paragraph (2) would instruct
the Secretary to apply an appropriate penalty under paragraph
(1) until such time as the Secretary determines that the grant
recipient is in full compliance with this section.
Paragraph (3) would permit local governments to petition
the Secretary for funds or resources to be provided directly to
the local government. This could be done if a State fails to
substantially comply with any provision of this section,
including failing to distribute grant funds in a timely
fashion.
Reports to Congress
Subsection (j) would direct the Secretary to report
annually to Congress on the grant program established in this
Act. Specifically the report would include:
Findings related to the performance standards
established under subsection (h);
The status of preparedness goals and objectives;
An evaluation of how States and local governments are
meeting preparedness goals and objectives;
The total amount of resources provided to the States;
The total amount of resources provided to units of
local government; and,
A list of how these resources were expended.
Congress needs this information to accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of the grant program authorized under this Act,
as well as national homeland security efforts in general.
Authorization of appropriations
Subsection (k) would authorize to be appropriated such sums
as are necessary to carry out this section.
SECTION 5. FLEXIBILITY IN UNSPENT HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDS
Guidelines for ODP's formula grant in past appropriations
did not allow internal transfer of funds from its funding
tracks (equipment acquisition, exercise planning, planning
support, and training assistance). This inability to move
appropriations within the ODP forced States to fund activities
and programs that may not necessarily match their homeland
security needs or plans.
Subsection (a) would allow States to request reallocation
of State Homeland Security Grant Program to meet their homeland
security needs. This reallocation would be among the four
categories of equipment, training, exercises, and planning.
Subsection (b) would allow the Director ODP to approve this
request by States for reallocation of State Homeland Security
Grant Program funds. This approval would be in accordance to
State plans and any other relevant factors that the DHS
Secretary deems necessary.
Subsection (c) would ensure the requirement of 80 percent
of funds for homeland security needs pass through to
localities.
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION RELATIVE TO THE SCREENING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE TRANSPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES
This section is intended to strengthen border protections
against the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction into the
United States on vehicles carrying municipal solid waste. This
section would require the Secretary to deny entry into the
United States any commercial motor vehicle (as defined in 49
U.S.C. 31101(1)) carrying municipal solid waste unless and
until the Secretary certifies to Congress that the methods and
technology being used to inspect such vehicles for the presence
of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons are
as effective as the methods and technology being used to
inspect for such weapons in other items of commerce entering
the United States by commercial vehicle transport. In this
section, the term ``municipal solid waste'' includes sludge (as
defined at 42 U.S.C. 6903). This provision is intended to
prompt a thorough evaluation of the screening procedures now
being used for these vehicles and to strengthen U.S. border
security against efforts to smuggle chemical, nuclear,
biological or radiological materials into the country.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill
evaluate the ``regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out this bill.'' Carrying out S. 1245 would have no
regulatory impact.
VI. CBO Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2003.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1245, the Homeland
Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie
Middleton.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
S. 1245--Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003
Summary: S. 1245 would authorize the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to make administrative changes in order to
improve the coordination of homeland security grants across the
federal government and would establish an interagency committee
to coordinate and streamline homeland security grants and an
information clearinghouse for homeland security assistance. In
addition, this bill would establish a homeland security grant
program within DHS and would authorize the appropriation of
such sums as are necessary for that program.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary sums, CBO estimates
that implementing the bill would cost about $1.5 billion over
the 2004-2008 period. Enacting S. 1245 would not affect direct
spending or revenues.
S. 1245 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
The bill would provide several benefits to state, local, and
tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1245 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750
(administration of justice).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending under current law:
Estimated Authorization Level \1\..................... 3,230 3,287 3,310 3,405 3,506 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 1,357 2,253 2,859 3,206 3,413 1,989
Proposed changes:
Estimated Authorization Level......................... 0 * * * * 3,600
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 * * * * 1,512
Spending under S. 1245:
Estimated Authorization Level \1\..................... 3,230 3,287 3,310 3,405 3,506 3,600
Estimated Outlays..................................... 1,357 2,253 2,859 3,206 3,413 3,501
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2003 level is the amount appropriated for that year; the 2004-2007 levels assume the grants program
continues at the 2003 level, adjusted for anticipated inflation.
Notes.--* = Costs of less than $500,000 for administrative changes that would be made by the bill.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1245 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2004 and
that the necessary funds will be appropriated for each year.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 1245 would cost about $1.5
billion over the 2004-2008 period.
S. 1245 would authorize a homeland security grant program
that is almost identical to the grant program that the Office
of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) within the Department of
Homeland Security is implementing under current law. The ODP
derives its primary authority to distribute grants to states
and localities to prepare and respond to terrorism from the USA
Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56). The agency also cites the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-132) and the Defense Authorization Act of 1997 (P.L. 104-
201) as additional sources of its authority to distribute such
grants. The grant programs authorized by the USA Patriot Act
will expire in 2007. Therefore, CBO assumes that the authority
to provide homeland security grants that would be provided by
this bill would not affect spending until 2008. The estimated
2008 authorization level--$3.6 billion--is the amount provided
in 2003 for grants, adjusted for anticipated inflation.
CBO estimates that implementing the administrative
provisions in this bill, including establishing a committee to
coordinate and streamline homeland security grants and an
information clearinghouse for homeland security assistance,
would cost less than $500,000 in each year.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1245
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. Section 6 of the bill would deny entry of
commercial motor vehicles carrying municipal solid waste into
the United States unless the methodologies and technologies to
screen for weapons are certified to the Congress to be as
effective as the screening of other commerce materials entering
the United States by commercial motor vehicle transport. Based
on information from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
of the Department of Homeland Security indicating that such
certification would likely be forthcoming, CBO has determined
that this requirement would not be a mandate.
Several provisions in the bill would benefit state and
local governments by reorganizing offices within the Department
of Homeland Security to coordinate and simplify security grant
programs. For example, the bill would create an information
clearinghouse for grant assistance and planning requirements.
It also would create an interagency committee to recommend ways
to streamline grant processes and make resources more readily
available to state and local governments. Further, the bill
would create the Homeland Security Grant Program. These grants
would provide funding for states to strengthen their capacity
to respond to homeland security threats. States would have to
meet several requirements in order to be eligible for these
grants, and they would have to provide a 25 percent state or
local match of federal funds. Any costs would result from
complying with conditions of aid.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa
Merrell. Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Additional Views
----------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
S. 1245 includes many constructive provisions to improve
the homeland security grant process, which I support. I commend
Chairman Collins for her hard work on this legislation, which
will provide states and local governments more flexibility in
the use of homeland security grants, better coordination of
homeland security plans, and a one-stop shopping process for
information about grants. S. 1245 also will embed into law the
principle that more funds should be distributed based on real
threats and actual vulnerabilities faced by states and
localities. I am pleased that Chairman Collins joined me in a
series of amendments, accepted by the Committee,which will
significantly strengthen the role of local governments in many
aspects of the grant process and expand the categories of
eligible funding. These changes, which were achieved with the
invaluable assistance of the conference of Mayors and the
National League of Cities, will help local governments across
the country better prepare to protect their citizens.
Unfortunately, despite these important improvements, S.
1245 still misses the mark in some critical areas. First, it
does not authorize a specific amount of funding to meet the
dire needs of our states, localities, and first responders and
preventers for sufficient resources, which the Bush
Administration has failed to provide. I offered an amendment to
authorize $10 billion in the first year to fund the initiatives
of the bill--a relatively modest amount still well below what
experts believe is needed--but it was rejected along party
lines. Second, only 10 percent of the funding provided for in
the bill goes directly to where the most need exists: the local
governments in high threat areas that train, employ, and
recruit our nation's first responders. The Committee did not
have an opportunity to consider may amendment to resolve this
deficiency. Accordingly, I hope that this bill will be
appropriately amended on the floor.
During the markup, Senator Levin indicated that he had
concerns that the bill's funding formula, whereby each state
receives a base amount of .75% of funding, results in less
homeland security funding going to those areas facing the
gravest threats, either because of their populations and
population density or other vulnerabilities. Senator Levin said
he would be offering floor amendments on this issue, and I
would expect this topic will be the subject of a thorough
debate. There are legitimate issues raised on all sides that
must be reviewed. Unfortunately, as I have noted, the Committee
rejected my amendment to approve funding levels well above the
President's budget proposals--which would result in more
appropriate levels of funding for all states and thus mitigate
some of the concerns about the effect of the bill's formula.
Adequate funding
One of the federal government's primary responsibilities
under the Constitution is to provide for a common defense.
Today, in the face of the terrorist threat, that means more
than building a mighty, well-equipped, and well-trained Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It means
strengthening the shared of our fifty states and their cities
and towns, as well as our territories. Today, the readiness of
our firefighters and police officers and public health
professionals is every bit as important to our national
security as the readiness of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
Homeland security is expensive. Because the war against
terrorism is a national fight and a substantial portion of the
responsibility falls to the federal government, we must invest
in the people and technologies that can prevent or help respond
to terrorism. We must employ, train, and equip top-flight first
responders just as robustly as we have our soldiers, sailors
and airmen for combat overseas. We must hire more border
personnel, install information sharing networks, and develop
biological and chemical testing and treatment capabilities.
Securing the nation's ports as well as our chemical and nuclear
plants must become a top priority. In transportation, we must
improve aviation security and also secure mass transit,
highways, rails, air cargo, pipelines, tunnels, and bridges.
These tough jobs and countless others cannot be accomplished by
placing an unfair share of the burden on state and local
governments who are already facing the worst fiscal crises in
decades. Even before we established the Department of Homeland
Security (``DHS''), many of us were asking this Administration
to provide adequate resources, to provide them quickly, and to
target them ore effectively. But unfortunately, that hasn't
happened.
Across the country, states and localities are being spread
thinner than ever at the moment they can least afford it. Only
our firefighters can respond to attacks with chemical weapons
or rescue families trapped in buildings. But in some cities and
states around the country today, our first preventers and
responders are actually being laid off because of budget
cutbacks. That's like reducing your troop force in a time of
warfare. It doesn't make sense and it must stop, and money from
Washington is needed to make it stop. Yet, this Administration
has failed to provide sufficient money to support the men and
women who are our first line of defense in the war against
terrorism.
In February 2003, I proposed spending an additional $16
billion on homeland security above the President's Fiscal Year
2004 budget--$7.5 billion of which was for first responders. I
argued that we must approach homeland security with the same
urgency, and resources, that we would deploy against terrorists
overseas.
A recent report by an Independent Task Force sponsored by
the Council on Foreign Relations--composed of distinguished
former government officials, including a director of the CIA
and the FBI, our former colleague Senator Warren Rudman, a
White House terrorism adviser, and a former chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff--corroborates the conclusions I and
others reached months ago. The report, entitled ``Drastically
Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' (the ``Task Force
report'') determined that ``the United States has not reached a
sufficient national level of emergency preparedness and remains
dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on
American soil,'' \1\ and warned ``If the nation does not take
immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs
of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could have
an even more devastating impact than the September 11th
attacks.'' \2\ Indeed, the Task Force report found that the
U.S. is on track to fall nearly $100 billion short of meeting
critical emergency responder needs over the next five years.\3\
In order to meet this need, which was echoed by a number of
state and local government witnesses in hearings before our
Committee,\4\ the federal government would have to quintuple
its expenditures for emergency responders from the current
level of $5.4 billion per year to an annual expenditure of $25
billion.\5\ This estimate does not even include some known
needs--such as detection or protection gear for police--because
the Independent Task Force could not obtain reliable estimates
for those areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Warren Rudman, Richard Clark, Jaime Metzl, et al.,
``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared: Report of an
Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations,''
Council on Foreign Relations (2003), available at http://www.cfr.org/
pdf/Responders_TF.pdf, at 7.
\2\ Id. at 2.
\3\ Id. at 13.
\4\ For example, at the Committee hearing on April 9, 2003, Captain
Chauncey Bowers of the Prince George's County, Maryland, Fire
Department testified on behalf of the International Association of Fire
Fighters that, ``in the current environment, fire departments are
facing the dual pressures of homeland security and reduced resources
caused by local budget deficits. This is a receipe for disaster. We
need a national commitment to homeland security preparedness. We must
work to ensure that every fire department in America has the resources
to protect our citizens.'' Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges
on the Front Line, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at
15.
\5\ This assumes that the Federal government would provide all of
the additional funding identified by the Task Force, which includes
funds to improve public health preparedness, support first responders,
and meet other needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1245 does not authorize any specific amount of funding,
only ``such sums as are necessary.'' Given this
Administration's inadequate commitment to providing enough
resources to meet the homeland security needs of this nation, I
believe the Committee should have approved the funding amount
in my amendment.
The Task Force report listed a number of urgent needs left
unmet due to lack of funding. Among them: to obtain
interoperable communications for all emergency responder groups
across the country so that those on the front lines can
communicate with one another while on the scene of an attack;
to enhance urban search and rescue capabilities of major
cities; to extend the emergency 911 system nationally; to
provide protective gear and weapons of mass destruction
remediation equipment to first responders; and to increase
public health preparedness and develop surge capacity on the
nation's hospitals.\6\ The report's findings are sobering. For
example, the report noted, ``On average, fire departments
across the country have only enough radios to equip half the
firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatus for only one
third. Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States
have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building
collapse.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Warren Rudman, Richard Clarke, Jaime Metzl, et al.,
``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared: Report of an
Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations,''
Council on Foreign Relations (2003), available at http://www.cfr.org/
pdf/Responders_TF.pdf, at 14.
\7\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Task Force report found cities without the means to
determine whether terrorists had struck with dangerous
chemicals or pathogens, and public health labs incapable of
responding to a chemical or biological attack. For example, the
report notes that even though cyanide is found both naturally
and commercially in 41 states, only two states have the
technology to test for the deadly compound. In fact, 75 percent
of state laboratories reported being overwhelmed by too many
testing requests.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local fire and police officials at our hearings also told
us that they do not have the resources to pay for training or
equipment that they need to prepare for a possible attack.\9\
First responders need equipment such as personal protective
clothing, respirators, and devices for detection of chemical,
biological, and radiological hazards, and they need training in
using such equipment, and training in how in general to respond
to an attack. Most emergency workers, however, still do not
have the training or the equipment they require. The December
2002 needs assessment of the U.S. Fire Service, conducted by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in conjunction
with the National Fire Protection Association, found that about
one-third of firefighters per shift are not equipped with self-
contained breathing apparatus, and nearly half of all fire
departments have no map coordiante system.\10\ And with respect
to training, the assessment found that 27 percent of fire
department personnel involved in providing emergency medical
services lacked any formal training even in those duties, and
73 percent of fire departments failed to meet regulations for
hazardous materials response training.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Captain Bowers told the Committee that approximately 57,000
firefighters lack personal protective clothing and many fire
departments do not have enough portable radios to equip more than half
of the firefighters on shift. He recommended full funding for the Fire
Act, which provides funds directly to local fire departments for basic
needs, and first responder programs. Investing in Homeland Security,
Challenges on the Front Line, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9,
2003), at 16.
\10\ ``A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service: A Cooperative
Study Authorized by U.S. Public Law 106-398,'' Federal Emergency
Management Agency and National Fire Protection Association, December
2002, available at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/
fa-240.pdf, at vii.
\11\ Id. at v, 24; see also Investing in Homeland Security,
Challenges on the Front Line, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9,
2003), at 16 (Testimony of Chauncey Bowers, Captain, Prince George's
County, Maryland Fire Department).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration's own budget documents estimate that
only about 80,000 first responders were trained and equipped in
2002 with funding at the federal level of $750 million.\12\
Unless this Administration provides significantly more funding,
it will take us decades to train our first responders to cope
with weapons of mass destruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Department of Homeland Security, Budget of the United States
for Fiscal Year 2004, Office of Management and Budget, GPO, Washington,
D.C. 2003, at 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we could supply training and equipment to all of
our first responders, there are simply not enough of them. A
survey by the Democratic Leadership Council of 44 of the
largest police departments found that 27 of them--nearly two-
thirds--are experiencing personnel shortfalls as a result of
inadequate budgets and problems attracting new recruits.\13\ A
report on the survey results concludes that, with the nation
under unprecedented threat of attack and our police
increasingly engaged in a two-front war on terrorism and crime,
``many big city departments are actually losing officers faster
than they can replace them.'' \14\ For example, the report
notes that Los Angeles, with its police department more than
1,000 police officers short of its authorized strength, suffers
from one of the worst cop crunches in the country. According to
the report, ``After growing more than 12 percent during the
1990s, the LAPD shrank 6 percent between 2000 and 2002, and the
number of officers leaving the department outpaced new recruits
by an average of 189 each year.\15\ Other cities are facing
similar crunches: the survey found that St. Louis had reduced
its force by over 10% from 2000-2002 and that the size of New
Orleans' police force had declined by almost 5% during the same
period.\16\ This report is deeply disturbing at a time when we
should be enhancing our first line of defense. It highlights
the need to provide adequate funding to hire additional police
officers and firefighters and makes clear the need for adequate
funding for overtime related to training and elevated threat
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Jose Cerda III. ``Special Report: Cop Crunch,'' Blueprint:
Ideas for a New Century, March/April 2003 at 8.
\14\ Id. at 7.
\15\ Id. at 8.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, according to the Conference of Mayors, cities
across America spent $70 million per week when the homeland
security alert was raised to orange--much of it for overtime
expenses.\17\ Most recently, when the terror alert level was
raised to orange between December 21, 2003 and January 9, 2004,
the city of Los Angeles reported spending some $2 million per
week during the alerts, at a time when the city already faces a
multimillion-dollar budget deficit. Since September 11, 2001,
the city has spent between $15 million and $20 million in costs
directly related to alert level increases, but has only
received promises of $4.5 million from the federal
government.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Conference of Mayors, ``Survey on Cities' Direct Homeland
Security Cost Increases Related to War/High Threat Alert,'' March 27,
2003, at 1.
\18\ Jack Weiss, Op-Ed, ``Orange Crunch,'' New York Times, January
14, 2004, at A19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, even if local police and fire departments had
sufficient personnel, they lack the ability to communicate
effectively in a time of emergency. In most areas of the U.S.,
police, firefighters, and emergency technicians in the same
jurisdiction have no way to communicate in the field because
their equipment is not compatible. Lack of interoperability in
communications systems has been cited as contributing to the
deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11,
2001, because police could not reach them prior to the collapse
of the World Trade Center towers.\19\ A number of local
officials told the Committee that solving this problem should
be a priority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ National Task Force on Interoperability, ``Why Can't We Talk?
Working Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives: A
Guide for Public Officials,'' February 2003, available at http://
www.agileprogram.org/ntfi/ntfiguide_pdf, at 4.
\20\ Captain Bowers of the Prince George's County, Maryland Fire
Department testified that even though he was sitting next to Chief
Plaugher from nearby Arlington County, Virginia, ``if we had to go to
the Pentagon today, we do not necessarily have a reliable way of
communicating with his agency. We have to institute patchwork measures
to try to get that to occur, so that [interoperability] is absolutely a
key factor that needs to be addressed, not only in this area but across
the country.'' Chief Horvath of Delaware testified that, because of the
state's small size, they have installed an 800-megahertz system that
would allow police and firefighters to communicate. However, he said
the concern is that in the event of an attack with weapons of mass
destruction, the system will likely be knocked out, and ``there is no
high-band backup to it any more.''Investing in Homeland Security,
Challenges on the Front Line, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieving this goal, however, will be expensive, and the
Administration's funding commitment is simply insufficient. The
Public Safety Wireless Network, a joint Treasury and Justice
Department policy group, has estimated it could cost up to $18
billion.\21\ According to the National Task Force on
Interoperability, at the state level, replacing basic radio
systems for a single public safety agency can cost between $100
million and $300 million.\22\ Meanwhile, Secretary Ridge
testified before the Committee on May 1, 2003, that $40 million
had been appropriated to run ``some demonstration projects with
regard to interoperability of communications.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Public Safety Wireless Network, ``LMR Replacement Cost Study
Report,'' June 1998, at 5.
\22\ National Task Force on Interoperability, ``Why can't We Talk?
Working Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives; A
Guide for Public Officials,'' February 2003, available at http://
www.agileprogram.org/ntfi/ntfiguide_ pdf., at 25.
\23\ Investing in Homeland Security: Streamlining and Enhancing
Homeland Security Grant Programs, Hearing Before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-84 (May 1,
2003), at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2003, Project SAFECOM, (Wireless Public SAFEty
Interoperable COMmunications), the umbrella initiative now run
out of DHS to coordinate all federal, state, local, and tribal
users to achieve national wireless communications
interoperability, issued a report on interoperability efforts.
The report notes that due to budget constraints at all levels
of government many agencies plan based on only their own needs
with little concern for multi-jurisdictional or multi-
disciplinary interoperability requirements.\24\ The report also
states that there are almost no ``life-cycle funding strategies
at any level of government'' to solve the interoperability
problem quickly.\25\ This is an inadequate response to a long-
standing and expensive problem, and will leave our first line
of defense without the basic equipment they need for many years
to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ A Report Submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives
Appropriations Committee for the Department of Homeland Security On the
Current State of the Government's Response to Federal, State and Local
Interoperable Efforts, Including the Current Total Estimated Cost,
Scope and Schedule of the SAFECOM Program and to outline the Necessary
Steps to Improve Response and Coordination. Department of Homeland
Security, December 15, 2003, at 3.
\25\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they lack sufficient funds, first responders find
themselves both hampered in their homeland security work and
struggling to keep up with the other day-to-day critical
services they provide to their communities. One police chief
told the Committee that he had to eliminate or cut back
community police, drug enforcement, traffic enforcement, and
programs in schools in order to station most of his force at
the airport.\26\ These concerns were echoed by other police
chiefs in testimony before the Committee.\27\ In light of the
Administration's failure to provide for adequate resources to
state and local governments, authorizing an initial $10 billion
to meet the basic needs of our first preventers and responders
is particularly important. As they labor under tight budgets
due to the poor economy, states and localities desperately need
financial help to support the critical missions of their first
preventers and first responders and other homeland security
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges on the Front Line,
Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong.,
S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 26 (Testimony of Michael J.
Chitwood, Chief of Police, Portland, Maine, Police Department).
\27\ Jeffrey Horvath, Dover, Delaware, Chief of Police told a
similar story, saying his force is taking away from normal police
duties to cover homeland security issues. Investing in Homeland
Security, Challenges on the Front Line, Hearing Before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9,
2003), at 27. Edward P. Plaugher, Fire Chief, Arlington County,
Virginia, Fire Department said that the stress of protecting the
homeland without adequate resources is also affecting the morale of
first responders. He said, ``They see their chief out doing national
efforts to make resources available, but they are seeing nothing coming
out the end of the stream, and so the frustrations just continue to
mount, from their perspective, and again I am at the highest injury
level ever in the history of my department, and that is an enormous
cost to my community. So it is eroding other basic services.''
Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges on the Front Line, Hearing
Before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong. S. Hrg.
108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct funding
Ensuring that the money goes where it is most needed is
just as essential as ensuring there is enough of it. S. 1245
provides for 10 percent of the amounts allocated pursuant to
the bill to go directly to local governments in high threat
areas, and requires 80 percent of the remaining amount, which
is set to go to the states, to be provided to localities within
45 days. I believe that is not enough. While the Committee
adopted my amendment to speed up the pass-through process to
get the money to local governments more quickly, the Committee
did not have an opportunity to consider my other amendment,
which would have increased the amount going directly to local
governments in high threat areas.
The simple fact is that funds to protect the American
people are not getting to the front lines with sufficient
dispatch. This fact was underscored most recently in a January
2004 report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors which found that
76 percent of cities are still ``left empty-handed and have not
received any money from the largest homeland security program
designed to assist first responders, such as police, fire, and
other local officials.'' \28\ The report was based on responses
from 215 cities, representing all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Forty-five percent of cities had neither received funds nor
been notified that they would. In addition, in 59 percent of
the cities, officials said they had not been given an adequate
opportunity to influence their states regarding how funds could
be used in their cities. A prior survey, released in September,
found that 90 percent of the 168 cities surveyed had not
received any funding. The most recent survey found that five
months after the release of the first one, some cities had
received FY 2003 funding through some of the programs, but most
had not.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Mayors Release New Homeland Security Survey at 72nd Winter
Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors,'' United States Conference of
Mayors, Press Release, January 22, 2004; see also United States
Conference of Mayors Homeland Security Monitoring Center, ``Second
Mayors' Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal Homeland Security Funds
Sent to the 50 State Governments, A 215-city/50-state Survey,'' January
2004, at 2.
\29\ ``Mayors Release New Homeland Security Survey at 72nd Winter
Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors,'' United States Conference of
Mayors, Press Release, January 22, 2004; see also United States
Conference of Mayors Homeland Security Monitoring Center, ``Second
Mayors' Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal Homeland Security Funds
Sent to the 50 State Governments, A 215-city/50-state Survey,'' January
2004, at Foreword and 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In releasing the report, Mayor Martin O'Malley of
Baltimore, Maryland, pointed out that cities are on the
frontline of homeland security, but ``in the back of the line
for funding.'' He added, ``The Administration and Congress
should act now to direct appropriate homeland security funds to
cities and eliminate the bureaucracy of a middle man.'' \30\
Sugar Land, Texas Mayor David Wallace said the analysis
``clearly shows that cities of all sizes--small, medium, and
large--are not getting the money they need to prepare their
first responders and protect residents.'' \31\ Gary, Indiana
Mayor Scott King said, ``Not only are we last in line for
funding, we are last in line to be consulted about what it
takes to protect our residents. More than half of the cities
say they have not been at the table to influence decisions and
coordinate response efforts. Cities know their needs best.''
\32\ Hempstead, New York Mayor James A. Garner, President of
the Conference of Mayors, said ``Today's survey shows that
there are still too many cities that have not received funds.
As leaders of cities which must be prepared to move at any time
to higher terrorism threat levels--just as we did one month
ago--this is completely unacceptable.'' \33\ We should listen
to what the mayors, police chiefs, and fire chiefs of our major
localities have been telling us for months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Mayors Release New Homeland Security Survey at 72nd Winter
Meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors,'' United States Conference of
Mayors, Press Release, January 22, 2004.
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Conference of Mayors also registered its
concern on this subject in a letter, dated June 13, 2003, to
Chairman Collins regarding S. 1245, in which the mayors
``strongly reaffirm'' their call for direct funding to local
governments and their first responder groups: ``Simply stated,
mayors are extremely concerned that simply sending funding to
the states with no sub-allocation formula or guidance will
result in major population centers, high-risk communities, and
cities with critical infrastructure not receiving adequate or
timely assistance.'' \34\ Indeed, witnesses from local police
and fire departments told the Committee that they were getting
``very little, if any, monies'' at the local level from federal
homeland security funding, and that the amounts they were
getting were substantially delayed due to bureaucratic
hurdles.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Letter dated June 13, 2003 to the Honorable Susan Collins from
the United States Conference of Mayors, signed by the Honorable James
Garner (Mayor of Hempstead, New York, President of U.S. Conference of
Mayors), the Honorable Martin O'Malley (Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland,
Chair, Homeland Security Task Force), the Honorable J. Christian
Bollwage (Mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey, Chair, Criminal and Social
Justice Committee), and J. Thomas Cochran (Executive Director, U.S.
Conference of Mayors).
\35\ Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges on the Front Line,
Hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong.,
S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 18 (Testimony of Edward P. Plaugher,
Fire Chief, Arlington County, Virginia, Fire Department). See also id.
at 19 (Testimony of Chauncey Bowers, Captain, Prince George's County,
Maryland, Fire Department and Testimony of Jeffrey Horvath, Chief of
Police, Dover, Delaware).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way to deal with bureaucratic obstacles is to eliminate
them where possible. We should take a page from the success
story of the COPS program, which Portland, Maine Police Chief
Michael Chitwood described in his testimony before the
Committee as ``one of the best things for law enforcement that
I have ever seen in my 38 years'' because it allowed ``local
police departments to articulate a particular need directly to
the federal government.'' \36\ We would give local governments
the same opportunity to obtain assistance with their homeland
security needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. at 20 (Testimony of Michael J. Chitwood, Chief of Police,
Portland, Maine, Police Department).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases, direct funding is the most efficient method
of distributing homeland security funds. Unless states
distribute these funds based on the level of threats
communities face, some particularly vulnerable areas may be
left without sufficient financial help. In fact, the nation's
mayors have expressed concern that factors other than threats
and vulnerabilities can guide decisions by states on how
homeland security funds are distributed. For example, Mayor
Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit, testifying on behalf of the
Conference of Mayors, told the Committee that homeland security
funding often becomes ``political and partisan'' in state
capitals around the country and urged the Congress to provide
funding in a manner which allows for consideration of unique
issues in localities around the country.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Investing in Homeland Security: Challenges Facing State and
Local Governments, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-83 (May 15, 2003), at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Mayor Dick Murphy of San Diego, California,
large cities, in particular, may receive much less from the
state than they would if permitted to apply directly to the
federal government.\38\ A large city--despite its comprising a
good chunk of the region's population--is but one of many
jurisdictions within a county or a state, all of which will
have some claim on the state's homeland security funding. Mayor
Murphy told the Committee in written testimony that the city of
San Diego received only 24 percent of the region's share of
funding, despite the fact that it represents 43 percent of the
population and has unique responsibilities for the entire
region, such as providing hazardous material response
actions.\39\ Mayor Murphy noted that with respect to a city as
large as San Diego--which has a population larger than Rhode
Island or New Hampshire and has a large city government--the
extra layer of bureaucracy involved in going through the state
can mean significant delays.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id. at 104 (Written Testimony of the Honorable Dick Murphy,
Mayor, Dan Diego, California.
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These concerns have been echoed by mayors across the
country and reflect the political reality that governors as
well as mayors face. We should listen to these concerns.
Congress must acknowledge that, just like Members of Congress,
governors also face competing pressures when distributing
federal homeland security dollars to multiple jurisdictions.
Providing adequate funding directly to local governments in
high threat areas will alleviate the mayors' legitimate
concerns and make sure that funding flows faster to where it is
needed most.
Nor is this to say that the states do not have an important
role in the funding process and that some funding should not be
distributed through the states. States clearly have a key role
in the planning, coordination, and cooperation that we all want
to promote. For this reason, I am pleased that the legislation
includes adequate incentives for local governments to
coordinate and work cooperatively with surrounding
jurisdictions and state governments. The bill makes clear that
local governments that receive direct funding will still be a
critical part of the state's overall homeland security plan.
Localities must use their direct funding under the bill only to
``supplement and support, in a consistent and coordinated
manner with, those activities and objectives'' of their states'
homeland security plans (Section (4)(f)(3)).
For their part, the nation's mayors are also keenly aware
of the benefits of coordinating with surrounding jurisdictions
and state governments. For example, at the Committee hearing on
May 15, 2003, Mayor Kilpatrick testified that he wholeheartedly
agrees that cities need to sit at the table with their state
governments to figure out how to best coordinate homeland
security funding. He pointed out that Detroit has already begun
to work on interoperable communications systems, and told the
Committee that ``we do not believe that should be done in a
vacuum * * *. We believe now more than ever that efforts need
to be coordinated so all of us are able to talk to one another
in the event of an emergency.'' \41\ Mayor Kilpatrick testified
that the city of Detroit is working cooperatively with
surrounding jurisdictions and, for example, as ``brought all of
[the] hospital systems in the entire southeastern Michigan
region together.'' \42\ But mayors also know that when an
emergency happens, the local police officers and local
firefighters will be the first in and the last to leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Investing in Homeland Security: Challenges Facing State and
Local Governments, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-83 (May 15, 2003), at 14.
\42\ Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must offer faster and fuller funding to the front lines
of our domestic war on terror so that our nation's first
responders will be prepared in the face of another major
attack. The American people expect and believe that we are
doing our utmost to ensure that sufficient funds are provided,
but in too many communities the reality is unlikely to meet the
expectations. The Administration simply has not provided
sufficient homeland security funds to those who need it most:
the local firefighters, police officers, emergency technicians,
and public health workers who protect and serve us every day.
Despite the lack of authorized funding and the failure to
provide sufficient direct grants to high threat localities, S.
1245 represents steps forward for the nation's security in a
number of ways that I mentioned earlier. The six amendments I
advocated, which were accepted by the Committee as part of a
package of amendments introduced with the Chairman, further
strengthened the bill by expanding the uses for federal
homeland security funding, enhancing the role of local
officials in the state planning process, and protecting and
expediting the funds for local governments and first
responders.
The first amendment addressed the critical need for funding
to help pay overtime expenses for first responders. In hearings
before the Committee last year, state and local leaders
expressed their concern about the costs of overtime for
firefighters and police due to the additional vigilance
required for homeland security.\43\ Secretary Ridge testified
before the Committee on May 1, 2003, that the overtime expense
incurred by state and local governments during heightened
threat levels ``is a legitimate cost that we should help them
absorb.'' \44\ Thus I proposed an amendment, which is now part
of the bill, to ensure that funding will be available to states
and local governments for overtime expenses related to an
increase in the threat level under the Homeland Security
Advisory System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Jeffrey Horvath, Chief of Police of Dover, Delaware,
emphasized to the Committee in a hearing on April 9, 2003, that federal
resources ``cannot be used to hire new police, they cannot be used to
pay overtime expenses that we incur each and every time Secretary Ridge
changes the threat level.'' Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges
on the Front Line, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 12.
Moreover, according to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the federal
government provided funding to support the Salt Lake City Olympics not
only for officers who were directly involved in the effort, but also
for those who had to work overtime to cover local needs because so many
local officers were diverted to secure the games. He noted, ``[I]n this
circumstance, I think, we have an unusual setting, and that is that the
homeland security challenge has been unanticipated and unplanned. And
cities and towns and the states have not put in place a structure for
being able to deal financially with this sudden post-9/11 financial
crisis. And therefore, the prospect of receiving support or
reimbursement for not only equipment but also personnel I think is
appropriate in these kinds of unplanned, unanticipated emergencies.''
Investing in Homeland Security: Challenges Facing State and Local
Governments, Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,
108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-83 (May 15, 2003), at 28-29.
\44\ Investing in Homeland Security: Streamlining and Enhancing
Homeland Security Grant Programs, Hearing Before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-84 (May 1,
2003), at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Prince George's County, Maryland Fire Department
Captain Chauncey Bowers, on behalf of the International
Association of Fire Fighters, testified before the Committee on
April 9, 2003, that overtime costs related to training, one of
the most significant training expenses for local governments
and first responders, can be prohibitive for many fire
departments.\45\ Thus I proposed an amendment, also now part of
S. 1245, that would allow the Secretary of DHS to waive the
five percent cap on the amount of funds that can be used for
overtime related to training. Although it is my belief that the
cap is unwise and should be eliminated entirely, this is a step
in the right direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges on the Front Line,
Hearing Before the State Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong.,
S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to another amendment I proposed, the bill now takes the
important step of strengthening the role of local officials in
the planning process. The legislation originally provided that
the states would ``allow'' input from local stakeholders in
developing state homeland security plans. The amendment I
proposed requires states to seek and include this input and
expands the definition of local stakeholders to include rural
as well as high-population and high-threat jurisdictions, areas
whose residents are most likely to be at risk. It also gives
local officials the opportunity to be heard about their state's
homeland security plans by allowing them to provide dissenting
views directly to the Secretary of DHS, who will be required to
review their concerns.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The importance of this was made clear by Chief Edward Plaugher
of the Arlington County, Virginia Fire Department, who testified before
the Committee on April 9, 2003 that Virginia, in a pre-9/11 assessment
program at the Justice Department, gave the Pentagon an inappropriately
low rating on the list of target hazards in the state. Officials in
Arlington County, where the Pentagon is located, did not agree, but
were given no opportunity to influence funding decisions at the federal
level. Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges on the Front Line,
Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong.,
S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the April 9, 2003 Committee hearing, Dover, Delaware
Police Chief Jeffrey Horvath said that one of his top concerns
is that ``we are not receiving funds in a timely fashion,''
despite being expected to do so much more since September 11,
2001.47 To address this fundamental problem, I
proposed an amendment, accepted by the Committee, to require
states to pass through funds to local communities within 45
days, which is the time frame adopted by current regulations
promulgated by the Office of Domestic Preparedness (``ODP'')
and required by the FY 2003 Supplemental Appropriations bill.
The bill as drafted would have lengthened that time frame to 60
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges on the Front Line,
Hearing Before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 108th Cong.,
S. Hrg. 108-82 (April 9, 2003), at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another amendment I proposed, which is also now part of S.
1245, ensures that if a state fails to comply with the
requirements of the bill, local governments within that state
may petition the federal government directly for homeland
security funds. As initially drafted, the bill would have
allowed the Secretary simply to reduce, restrict, or terminate
the funding to a state that failed to comply; such penalties
might unfairly diminish the amounts available to localities,
which had no part in the non-compliance and employ the first
responders on the front lines protecting the American people.
Another amendment I proposed that was accepted would allow
the Secretary to waive the 25 percent matching requirement in
the bill, which goes into effect two years following enactment,
in order to protect funding for economically distressed local
governments. Already, some local communities and first
responder organizations do not even apply for homeland security
funding because of burdensome matching requirements. The
amendment ensures that those who cannot afford the match will
not be left out in the cold.
Our police officers, firefighters, emergency management
officials, and public health officals--those we call first
responders and first preventers in the fight against
terrorism--are struggling to protect us from unprecedented
dangers. They need more information, better training, more
personnel, better technology, and more guidance and leadership
in providing effective security in these dangerous times. S.
1245 will make some much-needed improvements in the grants
process. But administrative changes in the grants process will
not have the necessary impact if the funds do not go where they
are needed, or if there are not enough funds to meet critical
needs. Those funds must come from Washington because this is a
national fight, and budgets are tight and getting tighter in
state and local governments across our nation. Unfortunately,
most of my pleas and those of my colleagues--along with those
of independent, bipartisan experts and state and local
governments--have not succeeded in persuading this
Administration.
Training
Finally, the report accompanying S. 1245 ``directs'' ODP to
designate a lead federal level national domestic preparedness
training center, and consider designating additional regional
federal level national domestic preparedness training centers.
According to the report, the lead center, along with the
additionally designated regional federal level national
domestic preparedness training centers designated by ODP,
``shall assist in developing, maintaining, and adopting
certifiable training standards to help first responders prepare
for and respond to the consequences of terrorists' use of
weapons of mass destruction.''
Despite the language in the Committee report, I must note
that S. 1245 does not include language ``directing'' ODP to
establish a lead domestic preparedness training center, nor was
this issue debated during the mark up of the legislation. I
believe that the issue of training, and training centers,
deserves the full attention of the Committee. I also believe
that training and education for first responders must be made
part of a broader framework developed by DHS to educate and
train its personnel, its partners and counterparts in state and
local government and the private sector, as well as first
responders. Consequently, I do not think it wise to essentially
legislate on this important issue through language in the
Committee report before this issue has been adequately
considered by the full Committee.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR SPECTER
The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, S. 1245,
proposes many useful improvements to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) grant process for states, localities and first
responders/first preventers. For example, this legislation
provides a mechanism for streamlining and providing flexibility
to homeland security grant programs. It is vital in high threat
states like Pennsylvania that first responder/first preventer
funding gets to intended recipients as quickly and efficiently
as possible. Therefore, I support your efforts to streamline
the pass-through of funds by states to localities. This is
especially important as we move toward a more dynamic, threat-
based approach to funding.
However, as I stated prior to the Government Affairs
Committee mark-up of this legislation, I believe that setting
aside only 10 percent of total funds for a ``high threat, high
density'' program would undermine needed efforts to increase
funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). I fear
that S. 1245 will divert homeland security funding away from
UASI, which deviates from my position and that of Secretary
Ridge and the Administration.
Also, limitation of reimbursable overtime expenses related
to training to not more than 5 percent of Homeland Security
Grant Program funds would likely dramatically impact on
Pennsylvania's ability to offset the overtime and backfill
costs associated with training. It is my understanding that the
DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) does not cap overtime
costs in this fashion.
Finally, Pennsylvania's Governor Edward Rendell has raised
a continuing objection to the minimum state funding formula
contained in S. 1245. The minimum state funding formula
provides each state with a base amount of 0.75 percent of the
appropriated state and local grant funds allocated through ODP
each fiscal year. Approximately 40 percent of those funds are
distributed pursuant to this formula under S. 1245. Because
Governor Rendell informs me that this ``inequitable''
distribution of homeland security funds is ``unfair'' to
Pennsylvania, and that this may in turn unduly impact upon
funding to other high threat areas of Pennsylvania, I abide by
his request for a modification reducing the state funding
minimum levels contained in S. 1245. This position appears to
find support in the Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2005.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR LEVIN AND SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Maintaining an adequate level of funding for first
responders and streamlining the first responder grant process
at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are critical to
protecting our country from terrorist attack. The Homeland
Security Grant Enhancement Act, S. 1245, proposes many useful
improvements to the DHS grant process for states, localities
and first responders. For example, this legislation begins the
process of streamlining and providing flexibility to homeland
security grant programs so that our first responders begin to
get the funding they need. The legislation also directs the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop
National Performance Standards. Further, this legislation
directs the Office of Domestic Preparedness to consider
designating additional regional federal level domestic
preparedness centers, which will help coordinate state and
local officials as they work to coordinate homeland security
efforts with the DHS. It remains vitally important that DES
proceed with its efforts to create a plan for the location of
its regional centers.
However, S. 1245 is seriously flawed. It imposes a minimum
state funding formula (``small state provision'') which
requires a disproportionately large portion of the grant funds
to go to small states, regardless of need. The small state
formula arbitrarily benefits approximately 30 so-called small
population states and uses a state minimum that was nearly
unprecedented when first established in the USA Patriot Act two
years ago.
Other federal grant programs provide a minimum state
funding level to ensure funds reach all areas of the country.
These small state guarantees have in many instances resulted in
some real distortion and unfairness. For instance, in the
highway bill, for 50 years states with small populations and
small size have benefited from a skewed formula. The remaining
20 states are known as donor states and have historically sent
more money to the Highway Trust Fund than were returned in
transportation infrastructure funding. It is one thing to say
that all states should receive a minimum amount of funding to
support their homeland security goals, but the issue is how to
balance per state funding with grants that will protect all
Americans by targeting funds to address the greatest terrorist
threats. S. 1245 fails to strike the right balance.
S. 1245 establishes three types of homeland security grants
for states and localities. First, it allocates 10 percent of
all funding for direct grants to local governments in high
threat urban areas. Second, it establishes a minimum state
funding formula grant which provides each state with a base
amount of 0.75 percent of the remaining appropriated funds each
fiscal year. This formula uses up about 40 percent of those
funds. Third, the bill distributes remaining funds to states
using a risk-based formula to be developed by DHS, using
variables such as state population and population density,
threats to critical infrastructure or key national assets, the
need to guard international borders or coastlines, and other
threat factors.
The 0.75 percent minimum state funding formula is taken
from the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Because this statute was
enacted quickly, in the aftermath of the 9-11 tragedy, Congress
did not have adequate time to debate this unusually high
minimum, which significantly exceeds the normal state minimum
of 0.25 to 0.50 percent. A leading organization that analyzes
federal grants, the Federal Funds for Information for States
(FFIS) has stated: ``The structure of the 0.75% minimum as a
base represents a departure from traditional small state
minimums, which are typically 0.50% or less.'' A search of
other federal grant programs found that the 0.75 percent
formula was nearly unprecedented for a state minimum when
enacted in 2001. With the help of the Congressional Research
Service, my staff identified only one other program with a
minimum of 0.75 whereas all other federal grant programs (more
than 50 in all) contain a state minimum funding level of 0.50
percent or less.
The consequence of the 0.75 percent formula is that states
with smaller populations receive far more, per capita, than
more populated states. For example, using the 0.75 percent base
for Office of Domestic Preparedness grants in FY 2004, Texas
will receive $4.04 per capita, whereas Wyoming will receive
$28.72 per capita. The result is that while Texas has 42 times
the population of Wyoming, it receives approximately one
seventh of what Wyoming receives per capita. Allocating scarce
federal dollars disproportionally to states with the fewest
persons, and often less risk, is not an effective or fair use
of federal homeland security grant programs.
In a 2003 report titled Emergency Responders: Drastically
Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, the Council on Foreign
Relations writes that ``Congress should work to establish a
system for distributing funds based less on politics and more
on threat.'' Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge testified before the
Senate Commerce Committee last year that ``[T]he Office of
Domestic Preparedness * * * had a formula that we don't believe
* * * provides the appropriate distribution for counter
terrorism, anti-terrorism, prevention dollars * * * [W]e hope
to achieve some bipartisan support and get it done * * * so we
make a permanent change so that distribution reflects the
reality of the needs of communities to combat terrorism.''
In addition to policy experts and the Administration, the
Governors of some of our most populous states, with significant
vulnerabilities, oppose the formula in S. 1245. Governor
Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Governor James E. McGreevey of
New Jersey, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Governor Edward
Rendell of Pennsylvania, Governor Bob Taft of Ohio, and
Governor Mark R. Warner of Virginia have written letters
opposing the 0.75 percent formula in S. 1245. According to
Texas Governor Perry, ``Because basic formula grants awarded by
the Office of Domestic Preparedness are currently distributed
disproportionately to states with small populations, full
consideration is not given to key risk factors within our
state.'' According to Ohio's Governor Taft, ``Reducing the
minimum funding percentage from 0.75% to a level more commonly
used is appropriate. While all levels of government have major
work to accomplish, assigning higher percentages of assistance
to areas believed to have lower threat levels is not
justified.''
The basic problem is that by setting the per state minimum
so high, S. 1245 makes less funds available for programs needed
to counter the highest priority terrorist threats. The bill
attempts to address this problem in two ways: by devoting 10
percent of all state, local and first responder funds to a
discretionary grant program for high threat urban areas, and by
distributing other funds according to a risk-based formula to
be developed by DHS. While helpful, these risk-based grant
programs do not make up for the fact that the S. 1245 seeks to
set aside a disproportionately large percentage of all homeland
securities funds for use by small population states, regardless
of need.
While there is a disagreement over this unusual formula, we
want to express our appreciation for the Committee's acceptance
of several clarifying amendments to S. 1245, and an amendment
Senator Levin offered during markup to strengthen U.S. border
protections against attempts to smuggle weapons of mass
destruction on vehicles carrying municipal solid waste into the
United States.
This bill represents significant progress in many areas and
hopefully there can be an equitable solution found to its
arbitrary and excessive allocation of funds to small states.
VIII. Changes to Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing laws made by
S. 1245 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, an existing law in which no changes is proposed is
shown in roman):
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 6--DOMESTIC SECURITY
CHAPTER 1. HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION
Subchapter IV--Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
PART C--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec.
[238. Office for Domestic Preparedness.]
* * * * * * *
Subchapter VIII--Coordination with Non-Federal Entities; Inspector
General; United States Secret Service; Coast Guard; General Provisions
PART A--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES
SEC. 361. OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general._There is established within the
Office of the Secretary the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination, to oversee and coordinate
departmental programs for and relationships with State
and local governments.
(2) Director.--The Office established under paragraph
(1) shall be headed by the Director of State and Local
Government Coordination, who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
(b) Responsibilities.--The Office established under
subsection (a) of this section shall--
(1) coordinate the activities of the Department
relating to State and local government;
(2) assess, and advocate for, the resources needed by
State and local government to implement the national
strategy for combating terrorism;
(3) provide State and local government with regular
information, research, and technical support to assist
local efforts at securing the homeland; [and]
(4) develop a process for receiving meaningful input
from State and local government to assist the
development of the national strategy for combating
terrorism and other homeland security activities[.];
and
(5) administering the firefighter assistance grant
program established under section 33 of the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2229) by--
(A) coordinating grant making activities
with--
(i) emergency preparedness and
response personnel;
(ii) grants made under section 4 of
the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement
Act of 2003; and
(iii) grants made under other Federal
programs to enhance emergency
preparedness.
(B) awarding grants on a competitive basis
directly to fire departments of a State, in
consultation with the chief executive of the
State, for the purpose of protecting the health
and safety of the public and firefighting
personnel against fire and fire-related
hazards: and
(C) complying with the administrative
requirements set forth in section 33 of the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974
(15 U.S.C. 2229) and retaining the
administrative requirements set forth under
part 152 of title 44, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
(D) ensuring that all equipment purchased
with grant funds for which there are voluntary
consensus standards meet such standards; and
(c) Reference.--All references to ``Director'' in section
33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15
U.S.C. 2229) shall be deemed to refer to the Director for State
and Local Government Coordination.
(d) Homeland Security Information Clearinghouse.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Office for State and Local Government Coordination a
Homeland Security Information Clearinghouse (referred
to in this section as the ``Clearinghouse''), which
shall assist States, local governments, and first
responders in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5).
(2) Homeland security grant information.--The
Clearinghouse shall create and maintain a web site, a
toll-free number, and a single publication containing
information regarding the homeland security grant
programs identified under section 802(a)(4)(A).
(3) Technical assistance.--The Clearinghouse, in
consultation with the Interagency Committee established
under section 802, shall--
(A) coordinate technical assistance provided
by any Federal agency to States and local
governments to conduct threat analyses and
vulnerability assessments; and
(B) establish templates for conducting threat
analyses and vulnerability assessments.
(4) Best practices.--The Clearinghouse shall work
with States, local governments, emergency response
providers and the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium, and private organizations to gather,
validate, and disseminate information regarding
successful State and local homeland security programs
and practices.
(5) Use of federal funds.--The Clearinghouse shall
compile information regarding equipment, training, and
other services purchased with Federal funds provided
under the homeland security grant programs identified
under section 802(a)(4)(A), and make such information,
and information regarding voluntary standards of
training, equipment, and exercises, available to
States, local governments, and first responders.
(6) Other information.--The Clearinghouse shall
provide States, local governments, and first responders
with any other information that the Secretary
determines necessary.
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
Public Law 107-296
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 430. Office for Domestic Preparedness.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL;
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Coordination With Non-Federal Entities
Sec. 801. * * *
Sec. 802. Interagency Committee To Coordinate and Streamline Homeland
Security Grant Programs.
Sec. 803. Office for Domestic Preparedness.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. * * *
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL;
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Coordination with Non-Federal Entities
SEC. 801. * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 802. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE TO COORDINATE AND STREAMLINE HOMELAND
SECURITY GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an Interagency
Committee to Coordinate and Streamline Homeland Security Grant
Programs (in this subtitle referred to as the ``Interagency
Committee''), which shall--
(1) report all findings to the Information
Clearinghouse established under section 801(c);
(2) consult with State and local governments and
emergency response providers regarding their homeland
security needs and capabilities;
(3) advise the Secretary on the development of
performance measures for homeland security grant
programs and the national strategy for homeland
security;
(4) not later than 60 days after the effective date
of the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of
2003--
(A) compile a list of homeland security
assistance programs and their reporting
requirements, including--
(i) those administered by the Office
for Domestic Preparedness, such as--
(I) the State Homeland
Security Grant Program;
(II) high threat urban area
grants;
(III) critical infrastructure
security grants;
(IV) research and development
grant programs;
(V) training and technical
assistance grants; and
(VI) other discretionary or
and assistance grant programs;
(ii) Federal Emergency Management
Agency assistance programs, such as--
(I) the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program;
(II) Citizen Corps;
(III) grants for emergency
operations centers;
(IV) interoperable
communications grants;
(V) Urban Search and Rescue
task forces; and
(VI) other Federal Emergency
Management Agency assistance
programs, except those grants
intended to reimburse States,
localities, and other
applicants for costs resulting
from disasters or emergencies
declared under to the Disaster
Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq.);
(iii) Transportation Security
Administration assistance programs,
such as port security grants;
(iv) Department of Justice assistance
programs, such as--
(I) the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant;
(II) the Byrne Memorial
Formula Grant Program; and
(III) the Community Oriented
Policing Services program;
(v) Department of Health and Human
Services assistance programs, such as--
(I) the Public Health
Bioterrorism Preparedness
program, administered by the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; and
(II) the Hospital
Bioterrorism Program,
administered by the Health
Resources and Services
Administration;
(vi) related Federal assistance
programs, such as--
(I) the Hazardous Materials
Emergency Preparedness Program
of the Department of
Transportation; and
(II) the water security
assistance programs
administered by the
Environmental Protection
Agency; and
(vii) any related grant or assistance
program, as determined by the
Interagency Committee; and
(B) identify all homeland security planning
requirements contained in homeland security
emergency preparedness, and public safety
programs administered by Federal agencies,
including--
(i) terrorism preparedness plans,
such as those required by the Office
for Domestic Preparedness and other
entities within the Department;
(ii) all hazards emergency
preparedness plans, such as those
required in the Emergency Management
Performance Grants administered by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
(iii) bioterrorism response plans,
such as those required in bioterrorism
preparedness programs administered by
the Department of Health and Human
Services;
(iv) hazardous materials response
plans, such as those required by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Transportation;
(v) critical infrastructure security
plans, such as those required by--
(I) the Transportation
Security Administration;
(II) the Environmental
Protection Agency;
(III) the Department of
Transportation; and
(IV) the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission;
(vi) law enforcement and public
safety plans administered by the
Department of Justice, such as those
required by--
(I) the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant;
(II) the Byrne Memorial
Formula Grant Program; and
(III) the Community Oriented
Policing Services program; and
(vii) any other planning requirement
identified by the Interagency
Committee;
(5) not later than 120 days after the effective date
of the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003,
review--
(A) all application, reporting, and other
administrative requirements contained in grant
programs under paragraph (4)(A) and report all
redundant and duplicative requirements to the
appropriate committees of Congress and the
agencies represented in the Interagency
Committee; and
(B) all homeland security planning and other
administrative requirements under paragraph
(4)(B) and report all redundant and duplicative
requirements to the appropriate committees of
Congress and the agencies represented in the
Interagency Committee;
(6) not later than 150 days after the effective date
of the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003,
provide recommendations to--
(A) the agencies with the requirements
identified under paragraph (4)(A) to streamline
and standardize application, reporting, and
administrative requirements to eliminate
duplication and promote coordination of
homeland security planning grants; and
(B) the agencies involved with the grant
programs under paragraph (4)(B) to streamline
and standardize planning requirements to
eliminate duplication and promote coordination;
and
(7) not later than 250 days after the effective date
of the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003,
issue a report to Congress regarding its actions under
this subsection.
(b) Membership.--The Interagency Committee shall be
composed of a representative of--
(1) the Department of Homeland Security;
(2) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(3) the Department of Transportation;
(4) the Department of Justice;
(5) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
(6) any other department or agency determined to be
necessary by the President.
(c) Administration.--The Department shall provide
administrative support to the Interagency Committee, which
shall include--
(1) scheduling meetings;
(2) preparing agenda;
(3) maintaining minutes and records; and
(4) producing reports.
(d) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall designate a
chairperson of the Interagency Committee.
(e) Meetings.--The Interagency Committee shall meet--
(1) at the call of the Secretary; or
(2) not less frequently than once every 1 month.
[SEC. 430] SEC. 803. OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS.
(a) In General.--The Office for Domestic Preparedness shall
be within [the Directorate of Border and Transportation
Security] the Office for State and Local Government
Coordination.
(b) Director.--There shall be a Director of the Office for
Domestic Preparedness, [who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness shall
report directly to the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security.] who shall report directly to the
Director of State and Local Government Coordination.
(c) Responsibilities.--* * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) assisting and supporting the Secretary, in
coordination with [other] the Directorates and entities
outside the Department, in conducting appropriate risk
analysis and risk management activities of State,
local, and tribal governments [consistent with the
mission and functions of the Directorate]; [and]
(8) carrying out those elements of the Office of
National Preparedness of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency which relate to terrorism, which
shall be consolidated within the Department in the
Office for Domestic Preparedness established under this
section[.]; and
(9) managing the Homeland Security Information
Clearinghouse established under section 801(c).
(d) Training and Exercises Office Within the Office for
Domestic Preparedness.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall create within
the office for Domestic Preparedness an internal office
that shall be the proponent for all national domestic
preparedness, training, education, and exercises within
the Office for State and Local Government Coordination.
(2) Office head.--The Secretary shall select an
individual with recognized expertise in first-responder
training and exercises to head the office, and such
person shall report directly to the Director of the
Office for Domestic Preparedness.
[d](e) Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004.--During fiscal year 2003
and fiscal year 2004, the Director of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness established under this section shall manage and
carry out those functions of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness of the Department of Justice (transferred under
this section) before September 11, 2001, under the same terms,
conditions, policies, and authorities, and with the required
level of personnel, assets and budget before September 11,
2001.