[Pages H3211-H3237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT

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

{time} 1127

In the Committee of the Whole

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

{time} 1130

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

[[Page H3212]]

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

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

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

[[Page H3213]]

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

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

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

[[Page H3214]]

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

{time} 1145

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

[[Page H3215]]

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

[[Page H3216]]

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

{time} 1200

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

[[Page H3217]]

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

[[Page H3218]]

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

{time} 1215

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

[[Page H3219]]

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

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

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

[[Page H3220]]

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

{time} 1230

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

[[Page H3221]]

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

[[Page H3222]]

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

[[Page H3223]]

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

H.R. 1544

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

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

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

``TITLE XVIII--FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

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

``TITLE XVIII--FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

``SEC. 1801. DEFINITIONS.

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

[[Page H3224]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H3225]]

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

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

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

[[Page H3226]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H3227]]

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

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

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

[[Page H3228]]

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

SEC. 4. SUPERSEDED PROVISION.

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

SEC. 5. OVERSIGHT.

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Berry

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

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

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

[[Page H3229]]

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

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Berry

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

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

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

[[Page H3230]]

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

{time} 1245

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

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bass

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

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

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

[[Page H3231]]

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

{time} 1300

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H3232]]

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

[[Page H3233]]

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

{time} 1315

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

[[Page H3234]]

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

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Castle

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H3235]]

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

{time} 1330

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

[[Page H3236]]

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 169]

AYES--88

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

NOES--331

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

NOT VOTING--14

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

{time} 1356

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 170]

AYES--409

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

[[Page H3237]]

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

NOES--10

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

NOT VOTING--14

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

{time} 1414

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

____________________