[House Report 111-558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-558

======================================================================



 
         STRENGTHENING AND UPDATING RESOURCES AND EQUIPMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

 July 22, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, from the Committee on Homeland Security, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3837]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 3837) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 
provide for clarification on the use of funds relating to 
certain homeland security grants, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     3
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     6
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
  Benefits.......................................................     6
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     6
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     7
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     7
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     7
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Additional Views.................................................    12

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening and Updating Resources 
and Equipment Act'' or the ``SURE Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION ON USE OF FUNDS RELATING TO CERTAIN HOMELAND 
                    SECURITY GRANTS.

  (a) Equipment Maintenance.--
          (1) Amendments.--Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 
        2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended--
                  (A) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting before the 
                semicolon at the end the following: ``, and any related 
                maintenance agreements, user fees, or sustainment 
                costs''; and
                  (B) in subsection (b)(3), by adding at the end the 
                following new subparagraph:
                  ``(C) Equipment maintenance.--
                          ``(i) In general.--The Administrator may not 
                        impose any time limitation, including any 
                        fiscal year limitation, on the use for covered 
                        maintenance costs of amounts awarded as a grant 
                        under section 2003 or 2004, that is in addition 
                        to the limitations described in this subsection
                          ``(ii) Covered maintenance costs defined.--In 
                        this subparagraph the term `covered maintenance 
                        costs' means costs of maintenance and 
                        sustainment costs described in subsection 
                        (a)(4) associated with equipment purchased with 
                        grant funds provided under section 2003 or 2004 
                        for a prior fiscal year.''.
          (2) Application.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall apply to grants made under section 2003 or 2004 of the 
        Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604 and 605) on or 
        after October 1, 2008.
  (b) Specification of Intended Use in Grant Applications.--
          (1) Urban area security initiative grants.--Section 
        2003(c)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
        604(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon 
        at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 
        end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding 
        at the end the following new subparagraph:
                  ``(D) specification of the amount of grant funds the 
                high-risk urban area plans to allocate to maintain and 
                sustain target capabilities, including equipment, that 
                have been supported with prior fiscal year funds 
                awarded under this section or section 2004.''.
          (2) State homeland security grants.--Section 2004(b)(2) of 
        the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605(b)(2)) is 
        amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
        subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of 
        subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the 
        end the following new subparagraph:
                  ``(D) specification of the amount of grant funds the 
                State plans to allocate to maintain and sustain target 
                capabilities, including equipment, that have been 
                supported with prior fiscal year funds awarded under 
                this section or section 2003.''.
  (c) Grant Guidance.--Section 2002 of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 (6 U.S.C. 603) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
  ``(d) Grant Guidance.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall--
                  ``(A) not later than three months after the date of 
                enactment of the Strengthening and Updating Resources 
                and Equipment Act of 2009, issue guidance defining 
                costs eligible to be paid with grants under sections 
                2003 and 2004 for equipment maintenance agreements, 
                user fees, sustainment costs, and any other equipment-
                related costs, as the Administrator determines is 
                appropriate; and
                  ``(B) review and update such guidance as necessary.
          ``(2) Congressional briefing.--The Administrator shall brief 
        the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
        Governmental Affairs of the Senate not less than five days 
        before issuing any guidance, or announcing the award of any 
        grant, under section 2003 or 2004.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 3837 is to amend the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 to provide for clarification on the use of funds 
relating to certain homeland security grants, and for other 
purposes.
    H.R. 3837 would prohibit the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) from placing a time limitation on Homeland 
Security Grant Program (HSGP) funds being used to maintain 
equipment purchased with prior year HSGP awards.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which includes 
the Urban Areas Security Initiative and the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program, is intended to strengthen preparedness 
and response throughout the Nation to the risks associated with 
potential terrorist attacks. In this way, HSGP assists State, 
local, and Tribal partners build and sustain the capabilities 
necessary to protect prevent, protect against, respond to, and 
recover from acts of terrorism.
    Since 2002, State, local, and Tribal governments have 
utilized HSGP funds to purchase highly-technical equipment that 
is required to keep their communities safe. A significant 
amount of this equipment requires expensive annual maintenance 
and sustainment in order to remain operational. Grant 
recipients have always been allowed to allocate a share of 
their future preparedness grant awards to maintain equipment 
that was previously purchased with HSGP funds.
    On September, 22, 2009, FEMA informed States about some 
changes in its policy regarding the use of HSGP funds to 
maintain homeland security equipment. FEMA announced that it 
would not allow grantees to use future year HSPG awards to 
maintain and sustain equipment outside of the performance 
period of the grant that was used to originally purchase the 
equipment.
    The policy that FEMA declared in September represented a 
major departure from past guidance and was widely viewed as 
risking a weakening of critical homeland security capabilities 
across the Nation. Many grantees only purchased specific 
equipment after receiving assurances from FEMA that they could 
use future HSGP grants to keep the equipment maintained. Many 
State, local, and tribal governments communicated to FEMA that 
they are unable to suddenly assume the maintenance costs in 
their budgets will be forced to cancel homeland security 
initiatives that keep their communities more secure, as a 
result of this policy change. Capabilities at risk of being 
reduced or lost as a result of the implementation of the 
September policy include: interoperable emergency 
communications, hazardous materials response teams, 
intelligence and information sharing, radiological detection 
and interdiction, and weapons of mass destruction detection 
systems.
    There is also concern that FEMA's September maintenance 
policy will encourage government waste as State, local, and 
tribal governments will be forced to purchase new equipment 
with HSGP awards rather than spending a smaller amount of their 
award to maintain the equipment that they already purchased 
with HSGP funds.
    Accordingly, H.R. 3837 would overturn FEMA's new policy 
regarding maintenance costs and permit HSGP funds to be used to 
cover the maintenance and sustainment costs of equipment 
purchased in previous years.
    The Committee is pleased to acknowledge that just three 
days after the Full Committee approved H.R. 3837, FEMA issued 
an Information Bulletin rescinding its September 22, 2009 
maintenance policy. While the issuance of the Information 
Bulletin is a positive development and is responsive to H.R. 
3837, it does not have the force of law and can be easily 
supplanted by this or future Administrations. Accordingly, 
local and state grant recipients remain supportive of ensuring 
that State, local, and tribal authorities are allowed to 
allocate a portion of future HSGP funds to the maintenance of 
this critical homeland security equipment in statute.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 3837, however on October 27, 
2009, the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, 
Preparedness, and Response held an oversight hearing entitled 
``Preparedness: What has $29 billion in homeland security 
grants bought and how do we know?'' The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Hon. Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security; Ms. Kathy Crandall, Director, Office of Homeland 
Security & Justice Programs, Franklin County, Ohio; and Mr. 
David Maxwell, Director, Arkansas Department of Emergency 
Management. In addition, statements from the National Emergency 
Management Association and the National Governors Association 
against FEMA's September 22, 2009 equipment maintenance policy 
were entered into the hearing record by unanimous consent.

                        Committee Consideration

    The Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, 
and Response considered H.R. 3978 on November 3, 2009, and 
forwarded the measure to the Full Committee for consideration 
with a favorable recommendation, by voice vote.
    The Committee met on November 17, 2009, to consider H.R. 
3837, and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation, amended, by voice vote. The 
Committee took the following actions:
    H.R. 3837 was adopted, as amended, by voice vote.
    The following amendments were offered:
       An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by 
Ms. Kilroy (#1); was AGREED TO by voice vote.
             An Amendment by Mr. Dent to the Amendment in the 
        Nature of a Substitute (#1a); Page 1, after line 10, 
        insert the following new subparagraph (and redesignate 
        the subsequent subparagraphs accordingly): (A) in 
        subsection (a)(2), by inserting before the semicolon at 
        the end the following: ``, and the Administrator may 
        not require that such training must be certified by the 
        Administrator if such training is conducted by the 
        Department of Justice''.; was WITHDRAWN by unanimous 
        consent.
          A unanimous consent request by Mr. Dent to withdraw 
        his amendment, was not objected to.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded 
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto.
    No recorded votes were requested during consideration of 
H.R. 3837.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight 
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
3837, the ``Strengthening and Updating Resources and Equipment 
Act'', would result in no new or increased budget authority, 
entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                                 November 19, 2009.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3837, the SURE 
Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel 
Hoople.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3837--SURE Act

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3837 would have no 
significant cost over the next five years. Enacting this 
legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    The bill would allow state and local governments to use 
funds awarded during fiscal year 2009 and thereafter through 
the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas 
Security Initiative (UASI) for the maintenance costs of 
equipment purchased under the program in previous years.
    The SHSP provides grants to states to prepare for, protect 
against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other 
catastrophic events. The UASI provides grants to high-threat, 
high-density urban areas for similar purposes. Under current 
law, grant funds may be used to pay for maintenance agreements, 
user fees, and other costs of equipment purchased under those 
programs. Following the performance period of the grant used to 
purchase equipment (three years), however, federal funds may no 
longer be used for maintenance. H.R. 3837 would provide that 
maintenance costs otherwise eligible for funding under the 
grant programs be included as an allowable expense regardless 
of when the equipment was purchased.
    For 2010, the Congress has provided about $1.8 billion for 
SHSP and UASI. Under current law, the Congress also has 
authorized appropriations totaling $4.35 billion for both 
programs in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. CBO does not expect 
that the changes included in this legislation would 
significantly alter expenditures of the grant programs. We 
estimate that implementing H.R. 3837 would have no effect on 
the federal budget over the next five years.
    H.R. 3837 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople. 
This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

     Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, H.R. 3837 contains the following 
general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome 
related goals and objectives authorized.
    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 3837 contains the following 
general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome 
related goals and objectives authorized.
    H.R. 3837 clarifies the definition of permissible uses for 
HSGP to allow recipients to use their awards to maintain and 
sustain equipment purchased with previous HSGP awards. This 
legislation will ensure that State, local, and tribal officials 
are able to build and sustain national preparedness 
capabilities, which are the primary objectives of HSGP. And, 
that this legislation also eliminates the use of fiscal time 
restraints for these funds.

   Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

     In compliance with rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule 
XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in 
Article I, section 8, clause 1, which grants Congress the power 
to provide for the common Defense of the United States.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

     The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate 
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1.  Short title

    This section states that this act may be cited as the 
``Strengthening and Updating Resources and Equipment Act'' or 
the ``SURE Act''.

Section 2.   Clarification on use of funds relating to certain homeland 
        security grants

    This section amends section 2008 of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) to include the related maintenance 
agreements, user fees, and sustainment costs associated with 
purchasing, upgrading, storing, or maintaining equipment, as a 
permitted use of a grant awarded under section 2003 or section 
2004 (6 U.S.C. 604 and 605), the Urban Area Security Initiative 
and the State Homeland Security Grant Program respectively. 
This section further amends section 2008 to prohibit the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency from imposing any time 
limitation, including fiscal year limitation, on a grant 
recipient using a grant awarded under Section 2003 or 2004 to 
maintain and sustain equipment that had been purchased with a 
prior fiscal year grant awarded under those two sections. 
Lastly, this section states that the amendments made to section 
2008 shall apply to grants made under section 2003 or 2004 on 
or after October 1, 2008.
    This section amends Section 2003 of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 to require that an urban area include in its 
application for the Urban Area Security Initiative the amount 
of the award it plans to allocate to maintain and sustain 
target capabilities, including equipment, that have been 
supported with prior fiscal year grant funds awarded under 
Section 2003 or 2004.
    This section amends Section 2004 of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 to require that the State include in its 
application for the State Homeland Security Grant Program the 
amount of the awards it plans to allocate to maintain and 
sustain target capabilities, including equipment, that have 
been supported with prior fiscal year grant funds awarded under 
Section 2003 or 2004.
    This section also amends Section 2002 of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 603) to require the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency to issue guidance within three 
months after enactment of the Act that defines costs eligible 
to be paid for with grants under sections 2003 and 2004 for 
maintenance agreements, user fees, and sustainment costs.
    Finally, this section requires the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to brief the Committee on Homeland Security 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate not less than 
five days before issuing any guidance or announcing any awards 
for grants under sections 2003 and 2004.

    The Committee believes the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's (FEMA) September 22, 2009 policy, which restricts the 
use future year preparedness grants to maintain homeland 
security equipment, violated Congressional intent. Section 
2008(a)(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 stipulates that 
the FEMA Administrator (Administrator) shall permit recipients 
to use grant funds for, ``purchasing, upgrading, storing, or 
maintaining equipment, including computer hardware and 
software.'' The Committee believes that this language clearly 
provides for a grant recipient to use funds, without fiscal 
year limitation, to maintain equipment so long as the 
Administrator determines that the activity the equipment 
supports is consistent with the purpose of the Homeland 
Security Grant Program (HSGP). H.R. 3837 further clarifies 
Congressional intent.
    The Committee has learned that the Department of Homeland 
Security and FEMA have historically allowed grant recipients to 
allocate a share of their awards to maintain equipment. For 
example, the Chair of the Columbus, Ohio Urban Area Working 
Group testified before the Subcommittee on Emergency 
Communications, Preparedness, and Response that they had 
received approval from FEMA to use $735,000 of their Fiscal 
Year 2009 award to maintain equipment they had previously 
purchased under the Urban Areas Security Initiative. Since the 
policy was announced in September, the Committee has been made 
aware of dozens of similar approved maintenance projects from 
multiple State and Urban Area grant recipients.
    With the adoption of H.R. 3837, the Committee acknowledges 
the negative consequences that FEMA's September 2009 equipment 
maintenance policy will have on national capabilities, and the 
financial condition of State and local governments. The 
Committee intends through this legislation to require the 
Administrator to allow maintenance projects that FEMA had 
previously approved for Fiscal Year 2009 to be permitted to 
continue in future grant periods. The Committee is pleased that 
FEMA has recognized the oversight work of this Committee on 
this matter by appropriately repealing the September 2009 
policy with the issuance of a new Information Bulletin on 
November 20, 2009. Notably, this new Information Bulletin was 
released just three days after the Committee approved H.R. 
3837.
    The Committee learned that FEMA's September 22, 2009 policy 
shift was initiated, at least in part, by a grantee asking FEMA 
for clarification on the costs eligible to be spent towards 
maintaining equipment. FEMA told the Committee that it has 
never defined the eligible costs associated with equipment 
maintenance agreements, user fees, and sustainment costs in its 
annual HSGP guidance. In order to provide future clarity to 
grant applicants and recipients, H.R. 3837 directs FEMA to put 
forward guidance defining which eligible costs may be paid for 
with HSGP awards for purposes of satisfying the law, as 
provided in Public Law 110-53 and this Act, with respect to 
equipment maintenance and related costs. The Committee fully 
anticipates this guidance will be in accordance with the Office 
of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for 
State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments. The Committee 
intends for FEMA to look to the OMB Circular and other existing 
sources to inform FEMA's guidance development. The Committee 
does not intend FEMA to interpret this guidance in a way that 
will onerously restrict grantees from appropriately using HSGP 
funds to maintain vital homeland security equipment.
    The Committee believes it is important that FEMA develop 
the capacity to monitor how much HSPG funding is being utilized 
to maintain and sustain homeland security equipment. To assist 
FEMA in building this capacity and increase the transparency of 
HSGP, the act requires State and Urban Areas to include in 
their HSGP applications the amount of funding they intend to 
allocate to maintain equipment previously purchased with HSGP 
funding.
    The Committee makes a special note about the Act's briefing 
requirements. The Committee is troubled that it was not briefed 
or otherwise notified by FEMA of their decision to change the 
permitted uses of HSGP for equipment maintenance prior to the 
change in policy in September 2009. In order to ensure the 
Committee is fully aware of FEMA's management of HSGP, the Act 
requires FEMA to brief the Committee five days prior to any 
announcing any guidance and awards, including Information 
Bulletins, for HSGP. The Committee believes that providing such 
notification will allow the Committee and its Members to 
conduct proper ongoing oversight.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE XX--HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         Subtitle A--Grants to States and High-Risk Urban Areas

SEC. 2002. HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAMS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Grant Guidance.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall--
                  (A) not later than three months after the 
                date of enactment of the Strengthening and 
                Updating Resources and Equipment Act of 2009, 
                issue guidance defining costs eligible to be 
                paid with grants under sections 2003 and 2004 
                for equipment maintenance agreements, user 
                fees, sustainment costs, and any other 
                equipment-related costs, as the Administrator 
                determines is appropriate; and
                  (B) review and update such guidance as 
                necessary.
          (2) Congressional briefing.--The Administrator shall 
        brief the Committee on Homeland Security of the House 
        of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
        Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate not 
        less than five days before issuing any guidance, or 
        announcing the award of any grant, under section 2003 
        or 2004.

SEC. 2003. URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Application.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Minimum contents of application.--In an 
        application for a grant under this section, a high-risk 
        urban area shall submit--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) the name of an individual to serve as a 
                high-risk urban area liaison with the 
                Department and among the various jurisdictions 
                in the high-risk urban area; [and]
                  (C) such information in support of the 
                application as the Administrator may reasonably 
                require[.]; and
                  (D) specification of the amount of grant 
                funds the high-risk urban area plans to 
                allocate to maintain and sustain target 
                capabilities, including equipment, that have 
                been supported with prior fiscal year funds 
                awarded under this section or section 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2004. STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Application.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Minimum contents of application.--The 
        Administrator shall require that each State include in 
        its application, at a minimum--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) a description of how the State plans to 
                allocate the grant funds to local governments 
                and Indian tribes; [and]
                  (C) a budget showing how the State intends to 
                expend the grant funds[.]; and
                  (D) specification of the amount of grant 
                funds the State plans to allocate to maintain 
                and sustain target capabilities, including 
                equipment, that have been supported with prior 
                fiscal year funds awarded under this section or 
                section 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2008. USE OF FUNDS.

  (a) Permitted Uses.--The Administrator shall permit the 
recipient of a grant under section 2003 or 2004 to use grant 
funds to achieve target capabilities related to preventing, 
preparing for, protecting against, and responding to acts of 
terrorism, consistent with a State homeland security plan and 
relevant local, tribal, and regional homeland security plans, 
through--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) purchasing, upgrading, storing, or maintaining 
        equipment, including computer hardware and software, 
        and any related maintenance agreements, user fees, or 
        sustainment costs;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Limitations on Use of Funds.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Limitations on discretion.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) Equipment maintenance.--
                          (i) In general.--The Administrator 
                        may not impose any time limitation, 
                        including any fiscal year limitation, 
                        on the use for covered maintenance 
                        costs of amounts awarded as a grant 
                        under section 2003 or 2004, that is in 
                        addition to the limitations described 
                        in this subsection
                          (ii) Covered maintenance costs 
                        defined.--In this subparagraph the term 
                        ``covered maintenance costs'' means 
                        costs of maintenance and sustainment 
                        costs described in subsection (a)(4) 
                        associated with equipment purchased 
                        with grant funds provided under section 
                        2003 or 2004 for a prior fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    I continue to support the underlying legislation, H.R. 
3837, but provide these additional views to provide additional 
background information and articulate my understanding of an 
agreement between Chairman Thompson and myself reached during 
consideration of H.R. 3837. As a result of this agreement, I 
withdrew my amendment, which would have prohibited the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from requiring the 
Department of Justice to submit its course curriculums to FEMA 
for certification prior to grant awardees being authorized to 
attend such courses.
    In exchange for my withdrawing my amendment, the Chairman 
and his staff agreed to find appropriate legislative text that 
would allow grantees to attend the bomb technician course at 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hazardous Devices School, 
and insert such text in H.R. 3837 through an amendment before 
moving the legislation to the floor, presumably under the 
``Suspension of the Rules'' process.
    By way of background, in July of this year I was contacted 
by the Northeast Pennsylvania Regional Counterterrorism Task 
Force and informed that FEMA was preventing two Pennsylvania 
police departments from sending their employees to the FBI's 
Hazardous Device School to become bomb technicians. The 
reason--FEMA hadn't certified the FBI's bomb technician course.
    According to a letter from FEMA Administrator Fugate 
entered into the record, ``internal restrictions and broader 
concerns'' prevented the FBI from sharing the details of its 
bomb technician course material with FEMA. As a result, FEMA 
refused to certify the FBI's training as sufficient and State 
and locals could not use grant funding to attend. It should be 
noted that FEMA Administrator Fugate promptly provided these 
two police departments exceptions to attend the course. Though 
I have not seen it in writing, I have been told that FEMA would 
now grant similar waivers if so requested.
    The bureaucracy of this process remains troubling. The 
current process requires a FEMA employee to certify that the 
FBI's bomb technician course material is sufficient. The 
Hazardous Devices School is a joint effort between the FBI and 
the U.S. Army, and it is the government's only civilian bomb 
school. It has trained nearly 20,000 bomb technicians since its 
inception and provides training to the Nation's over 450 bomb 
squads. In 2004, the FBI invested another $25 million to make 
further upgrades to this state-of-the-art facility.
    One could understand FBI's hesitation to share the 
intricacies of making and diffusing bombs outside of close law 
enforcement communities, and if FBI employees conduct this 
training, it makes little sense for FEMA to insist on reviewing 
the FBI's course material. While I understand and support 
FEMA's ability to have a significant voice on what training 
grant funding pays for, my amendment balanced these two 
concerns.
    My amendment would have required that grant funding used to 
conduct training related to preventing, preparing for, 
protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism, that 
are consistent with State homeland security plans and are 
conducted by the Department of Justice, would not have to be 
certified by FEMA. However, the language would still have given 
FEMA the final say if the training provided no counterterrorism 
nexus or was inconsistent with the State's homeland security 
plan.
    The amendment would have only impacted those courses FEMA 
determined instructed attendees on how to prevent, prepare for, 
protection against, and respond to acts of terror, that FEMA 
determined was consistent with a State homeland security plant 
and relevant local, tribal, and regional plans, and that are 
conducted by the Department of Justice.
    Some would argue this amendment was too broad. I would 
argue it was probably not broad enough. It would only have 
applied to the Department of Justice's counterterrorism-related 
courses. There are other courses offered by other Departments 
and agencies that are probably just as worthy. However, the FBI 
and the Department of Justice clearly have extensive 
counterterrorism expertise and I would not want them to be 
second-guessed by FEMA personnel.
    Others would argue this amendment was unnecessary, and that 
FBI and DHS should just ``work it out,'' and that what is 
needed is a little ``interagency coordination.'' I agree. 
However, when interagency cooperation fails, the legislative 
process is the only way we can mandate that they ``work it 
out.''
    I am grateful that Chairman Thompson recognized the logic 
of my arguments and agreed to work with me to remedy the 
current situation before moving H.R. 3837 to the floor through 
the suspension process.
                                                   Charles W. Dent.

                                  
