TheWeekInCongress.com
Week Ending May 13, 2005
HR 1544 to provide faster and smarter funding for first responders, and for other purposes.
BRIEF
The committee report accompanying the bill explains that a good percentage of funds appropriated and dispersed for grants to fire and police and other public organizations that respond to terrorism have not been spent: “Since September 11, 2001, the Administration and Congress have made an enormous investment--more than $30 billion--in State and local terrorism and natural disaster preparedness programs. With regard to the Department's terrorism preparedness programs from fiscal years 2002 through 2004, State and local governments have spent only 31 percent of the $6.3 billion awarded by DHS. As a consequence, approximately $4.1 billion in such funds remain in the pipeline for use by local recipients--with another $2.4 billion recently added from fiscal year 2005. In fact, according to the latest quarterly reports submitted to DHS, five metropolitan regions and six transit authorities had not spent any fiscal year 2003 UASI grant funds, which are purportedly targeted to our Nation's most high-risk areas and are due to expire in the next several months.”
The bill would set forth provisions to govern first-responder grants from three grant funds: The State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. A First Responders Grant Board would be established to oversee the application process, intended use of the grants and other matters that would target grants more appropriately in terms of where the money is spent and on what.
Because some states applied grants where they may not have been most needed the bill would require three-year plans form State applicants for the grants. The Board itself would make determinations on prioritized use from information provided by the Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection's most current risk assessment of terrorist threats against the United States.
The bill prioritizes infrastructure to be protected, type of threats to those particular infrastructures and to populations in all of the US. Larger awards would be made to States with international borders.
A Task Force on Terrorism would be established to help update, revise and replace capabilities for terrorism preparedness and to submit a report in twelve months and again every two years with recommendations.
The bill prohibits “the use of grant funds to supplant State or local funds, to construct physical facilities, to acquire land, or for any State or local government cost sharing contribution (and) sets the Federal share of the costs of activities carried out under covered grants at 100 percent of the total for the two-year period following enactment of this Act and at 75 percent thereafter."
Not necessarily in order of importance the bill identifies the following infrastructure priorities: “Agriculture and food, Banking and finance, Chemical industries, The defense industrial base, Emergency services, Energy, Government facilities, Postal and shipping, Public health and health care, Information technology, Telecommunications, Transportation systems, Water, Dams, Commercial facilities, National monuments and icons.”
The type of threats to be aware of are: “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 any terrorist group.”
Sponsor: Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA-48th)
Vote: Passed House 409 to 10 (RC 170) (May 12, 2005)
Cost to the taxpayers: CBO concludes that the bill would have no impact on Federal budget because it only reorganizes how already appropriated funds are distributed.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.
MORE INFORMATION
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE BILL (From the Committee Report)
FIRST RESPONDER GRANTS BOARD AND AREAS OF PRIORITY
WHY GRANT MONEY HAS NOT MADE IT TO THE FIELD (From the Committee Report)
SECTION ANALYSIS AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSION (From the Committee Report)
WHY GRANT MONEY HAS NOT MADE IT TO THE FIELD
Only a very small portion of awarded funds has been utilized to date by State and local recipients, in part, due to poor advance planning and other administrative requirements and bottlenecks at various levels of government. Since September 11, 2001, the Administration and Congress have made an enormous investment--more than $30 billion--in State and local terrorism and natural disaster preparedness programs. With regard to the Department's terrorism preparedness programs from fiscal years 2002 through 2004, State and local governments have spent only 31 percent of the $6.3 billion awarded by DHS. As a consequence, approximately $4.1 billion in such funds remain in the pipeline for use by local recipients--with another $2.4 billion recently added from fiscal year 2005. In fact, according to the latest quarterly reports submitted to DHS, five metropolitan regions and six transit authorities had not spent any fiscal year 2003 UASI grant funds, which are purportedly targeted to our Nation's most high-risk areas and are due to expire in the next several months.
One of the principal reasons for the delay in the flow of first responder grants is that the planning to spend such funding frequently occurs after the grants are actually received. Many States have obligated grant funds to local governments, notwithstanding the absence of a plan for how they actually would spend the money. In such cases, localities have waited to begin the planning process until after they received confirmation of the exact amount of the grant and permission from the State to spend it.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE BILL
H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005, reforms the manner in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department) issues Federal grants to enhance the ability of States, local governments, regions, Indian tribes, and first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism. H.R. 1544 does not create a new grant program. Rather, it establishes a common set of rules for three of the Department's existing terrorism preparedness grant programs--the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). At its most fundamental level, H.R. 1544 is designed to expedite the delivery of Federal terrorism preparedness assistance to first responders where it is needed most and, at the same time, end undisciplined homeland security spending. It does so by: (1) requiring States, territories, regions, localities, Indian tribes, and first responders to decide how to spend their terrorism preparedness grant funding before they submit their applications; (2) allocating grant awards to States, territories, regions, and directly eligible tribes based on an assessment of risk and need; (3) ensuring that grant recipients use their awards to achieve, maintain, and enhance clear and measurable essential capabilities, and providing a substantial role for State and local governments and first responders in determining such capabilities; (4) requiring and incentivizing States to pass through their awarded funds to localities within tight time-frames and penalizing States that fail to do so; (5) requiring States to prioritize their allocation of Federal anti-terrorism grants to address their greatest threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences; and (6) holding grant recipients accountable for how they spend their Federal terrorism preparedness funds.
The need for legislative reform of the current Federal terrorism preparedness grant funding process is obvious. Several Federal studies and independent analyses have identified a myriad of problems with the current system, including: (1) the Department's reliance on an arbitrary formula--rather than risk or need--to allocate the vast majority of its terrorism preparedness grant funds; (2) the lack of Federal terrorism preparedness standards or goals to guide the expenditure of such funds at the State, local, territorial, and tribal levels of government; (3) the slow rate of draw-down, or spending, by State and local recipients of these Federal grants; and (4) the failure by many States and territories to allocate such funds to localities within their jurisdictions on the basis of risk and need.
SECTION ANALYSIS AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Subsection (a) of section 3 amends the `Homeland Security Act of 2002' (Public Law No. 107-296) by adding at the end a new Title XVIII--Funding for First Responders. This new title includes seven sections. These sections--sections 1801-1807--are as follow:
Section 1801--Definitions
This section provides a number of definitions. Among other definitions, the term `region' is defined to include only those geographic areas consisting of two or more states or local governments that have a combined population of 1,650,000 or have an area of not less than 20,000 square miles. Regions also may be designated by the Secretary with the consent of the State or States in which the local governments that comprise the region are located. This section also adopts the definition of `emergency response providers' in section 2(6) of the Homeland Security Act as the definition of `first responder' for purposes of this bill (although in subsection (b) of this section the bill amends the Homeland Security Act definition to make clear that the fire service and governmental and non- governmental organizations and personnel are included in the definition of `emergency response providers').
This section also adopts the definition of `emergency preparedness' in section 602 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Moreover, it defines the term `terrorism preparedness,' which is used extensively throughout H.R. 1544, to mean `any activity designed to improve the ability to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, or recover from threatened or actual terrorist attacks.'
Section 1802--Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders
Subsection (a) of this section states that the provisions of new Title XVIII apply only to those grants that the Department of Homeland Security provides 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. Specifically, such terrorism preparedness grants are those administered under the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI).
Subsection (b) expressly excludes from coverage of this title all non-DHS Federal grants, as well as the DHS firefighter assistance grants and the emergency management planning and assistance grants. The Committee notes that grants awarded under critical infrastructure programs, the Citizen Corps Program, and the Metropolitan Medical Response System are not covered under H.R. 1544.
Section 1803--Covered Grant Eligibility and Criteria
This section provides that States, regions, and directly eligible tribes may apply for covered grants. The Committee notes that, although States will continue to play a central role in homeland security planning and coordinating grant fund distribution to first responders at the local level, H.R. 1544 ensures that the unique preparedness needs of regions and Indian tribes can be addressed by the Secretary through regional and tribal grants. For purposes of the grant application process, only certain geographic areas will qualify as regions and only a limited number of Indian tribes will qualify as directly eligible.
H.R. 1544 recognizes the primary role of States in the Nation's terrorism preparedness efforts. Accordingly, this section requires that, to be eligible to receive a covered grant, a State must first submit for the Secretary's approval a comprehensive three-year state homeland security plan tied to the achievement, maintenance, and enhancement of the essential capabilities established by the Secretary. Specifically, the plan must be developed in consultation with, and subject to appropriate comment by, local governments, tribes, and first responders within the State, and must--
describe the essential capabilities that communities within the State should possess, or to which they should have access, based on the terrorism risk factors relevant to such communities;
demonstrate the extent to which the State has achieved its essential capabilities;
demonstrate the needs of the State necessary to achieve, maintain, or enhance its essential capabilities;
prioritize the State's needs based on threat, vulnerability, and consequences; and
describe how the State intends to address its needs at the city, county, regional, tribal, state, and interstate levels, with particular emphasis on regional planning and coordination.
A State may revise its previously approved homeland security plan subject to the Secretary's approval.
The Committee notes that there is a category of private, not-for-profit institutions, as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that provides services that are at high risk of being the target of terrorist attacks. The Committee recommends that, in their state homeland security planning efforts, States should specifically consider the risk to such institutions.
The Secretary may not approve any state, regional, or tribal application that is inconsistent with any such state plan. Accordingly, to be eligible for a covered grant, a region must submit its application to each State of which any part is included in the region for review and concurrence. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt, the State must either submit the region's application to the Secretary or notify the Secretary that the application is inconsistent with the State's homeland security plan and provide an explanation of the reasons thereof. If the Secretary approves a regional application, then the Secretary must distribute the regional award to the State that submitted the region's application. Within forty-five (45) days after receiving the regional award, the State must pass through to the region all covered grant funds or resources purchased with such funds, except those necessary for the State to fulfill its responsibilities with respect to the regional application. Under no circumstances may the State pass through less than eighty (80) percent of the regional award.
To be eligible for a covered grant, a directly eligible tribe must submit its application to each State within the boundaries of which any part of such tribe is located. The State must simultaneously submit to DHS the application of the directly eligible tribe with its application. Although the State has no formal concurrence responsibility as with regions, it has the opportunity to submit comments to the Secretary on the consistency of a directly eligible tribe's application with the State's homeland security plan. The Secretary has final authority to determine such consistency and to approve the tribe's application.
All applications must adhere to the following general requirements. An applicant must include in its application at a minimum: (1) the purpose for which such funds are being sought and the reasons why such funds are needed to meet essential capabilities; (2) a description of how, by reference to the applicable state homeland security plan, the allocation of such funds would assist it in fulfilling the essential capabilities specified in such plan; (3) a statement whether a mutual aid agreement is applicable; (4) a capital budget; and (5) a statement on how the applicant intends to meet the matching requirement.
Moreover, in its application, a State must include a description of how it intends to allocate covered grant funds to regions, local governments, and Indian tribes. If the applicant is a region, the region's application must include the information required to be submitted by a State as described above, as well as: (1) a description of the region and a specification of all participating and non-participating local governments within it; (2) an explanation of which governmental entity will administer the funds; and (3) the designation of a regional liaison. And, if the applicant is a directly eligible tribe, the tribe's applicant must designate a specific individual to serve as a tribal liaison.
The Committee believes that the sharing of resources, training, planning, personnel, and equipment among neighboring jurisdictions through mutual aid agreements and regional cooperation enhances our Nation's terrorism preparedness. Such regional cooperation--both intra- and inter-State--should be supported, where appropriate, through grants from the Department. The Committee is encouraged by the long-standing, well-established network of intra- and inter-State regional entities. Indeed, many multi-jurisdictional councils of governments, regional planning commissions and organizations, development districts, and consortiums have responsibility for implementing emergency response plans and coordinating cross-jurisdictional response capabilities. The Committee urges the Department to support the continued development of such intra- and inter-State entities.
The Committee also recognizes that mutual aid agreements that include Indian tribes involve additional issues particular to Indian Country, such as tribal sovereignty, tribal sovereign immunity, and complicated jurisdictional relationships between the Federal, State, and tribal governments. This is especially true for Indian tribes adjacent to high-risk, urban areas and international borders. For this and other reasons, the Committee urges the Secretary to assist all communities, including Indian tribes located contiguous to major metropolitan areas, in developing and implementing mutual aid agreements. In doing so, the Committee further urges the Secretary to utilize the mutual aid matrix that the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and Response is required to establish pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Specifically, section 7406 of that Act directs the Directorate to identify and catalog existing agreements and to disseminate the best examples to States, local governments, and Indian tribes as models for such governments to emulate.
Section 1804--Risk-Based Evaluation and Prioritization
This section establishes the First Responder Grant Board (Grant Board) to assist the Secretary in awarding covered grants to States, territories, regions, and directly eligible Indian tribes. The Secretary (or Deputy Secretary) will chair the Grant Board, which will consist of the Department's Under Secretaries for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Border and Transportation Security, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and Science and Technology, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the Administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration. Specifically, the Grant Board shall be responsible for evaluating and prioritizing all covered grant applications, based upon the degree to which they would, by achieving, maintaining, and 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 and seasonal populations) and critical infrastructure from a terrorist attack. In evaluating threat for such purposes, the Grant Board shall give greater weight to terrorist threats based on their specificity and credibility, including any pattern of repetition.
The Grant Board must consider a number of factors during this evaluation and prioritization process. The Grant Board must base its evaluation and prioritization on the most current risk assessment of the threats of terrorism against the United States available from the Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Moreover, the Grant Board must consider various types of threats, such as biological (including human and animal infectious diseases), nuclear, chemical, and radiological, and numerous critical infrastructure sectors in all areas of the Nation, urban and rural. The sixteen (16) critical infrastructure sectors listed in H.R. 1544, which correspond roughly to those contained in the President's Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 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. These sectors are broad categories, within which there are many distinct components. For example, the transportation systems sector includes mass transit, such as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the State of New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the Chicago Transit Authority, as well as aviation, maritime, ground/surface, and rail systems. Moreover, the dam sector includes flood control levees, especially when their destruction would cause substantial loss of life and property. With respect to the national monuments and icons sector, the Committee notes that it is the people who visit or are near such sites, not their symbolic value, that merit consideration in the risk-based analysis.
The purpose of incorporating such a variety of critical infrastructure sectors into H.R. 1544 is not to mandate, or otherwise require, the Grant Board to award funds to each sector. Rather, it is to ensure that the Grant Board considers the different types of threats and vulnerabilities relating to all of our Nation's critical infrastructure when determining the proper allocation of terrorism preparedness grants for first responders. For example, the inclusion of the sectors such as agriculture and food, which are primarily located or originate in rural communities, should ensure that the Grant Board does not overlook such communities. By requiring the Grant Board to evaluate the risk to all critical infrastructure sectors, including those in rural America, H.R. 1544 will avoid a situation in which the Department allocates its terrorism preparedness resources solely to large, urban jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, the Committee also recognizes that urban areas make inviting targets. Specifically, it is clear that cities with large ports or borders present unique homeland security challenges. The proximity of these communities to our Nation's major points of entry makes them potentially the first targets of opportunity for terrorists who manage to enter the country, and also provide state and local officials the first opportunity to identify and interdict such terrorists before they carry out acts of terrorism. Moreover, in port and border communities, the potential harm to the national economy from acts of terrorism would be significant and extend beyond those communities. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Grant Board to consider the volume of border crossings and commerce moving across these borders and through port communities when evaluating and prioritizing covered grant applications.
After evaluating and prioritizing all covered grant applications on the basis of risk and need, the Grant Board shall then ensure that each State, territory, and up to twenty (20) directly eligible tribes receive no less than a defined minimum amount of funding. Specifically, this section requires DHS to allocate such grants based on risk and then provide additional funds for those applicants that have not met a minimum threshold of funding. The minimum threshold for each of the States, other than the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, is 0.25 percent of the total funds available for covered grants that fiscal year. Because of the unique terrorism preparedness needs of States with international borders, this section provides a minimum threshold of 0.45 percent of the total funds available for covered grants that fiscal year for each State that has a significant international land border or adjoins a body of water within North America through which an international boundary line extends. The minimum threshold for each of the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands is 0.08 percent of the total funds available for covered grants that fiscal year. The minimum threshold for directly eligible tribes, collectively, is 0.08 percent of the total funds available for covered grants that fiscal year. This minimum threshold, however, will not apply in a fiscal year if the Secretary receives less than five (5) applications for such fiscal year from such tribes or does not approve at least one (1) such application.
In awarding covered grants to regions, the Committee urges the Grant Board to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that such funds are distributed among the jurisdictions that could reasonably be expected to provide support to the region in the event of a terrorist attack. Moreover, the Committee believes that such distributions should be made on the basis of the risk profile of sub- areas within each region.
Section 1805--Task Force on Terrorism Preparedness for First Responders
This section requires that the Secretary of DHS establish a twenty-five (25) member advisory body pursuant to section 871(a) of the HSA for the purpose of assisting the Secretary in updating, revising, or replacing the essential capabilities. The Secretary, in appointing the twenty-five (25) members of this advisory body--to be known as the Task Force on Terrorism Preparedness for First Responders (Task Force)--should, to the greatest extent practicable, include a geographic (including urban and rural) and substantive cross-section of governmental and non-governmental first responder disciplines from the state and local levels and representatives from both management and labor. The Secretary also must coordinate the selection of the Task Force's members who are health professionals, including emergency medical professionals, with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The Committee believes that membership of the Task Force should encompass all first responder disciplines. For example, the Committee urges the Secretary to appoint Task Force members knowledgeable about emergency medical services (EMS). EMS responders provide extrication, rescue, and emergent care after a terrorist incident; they are critical to our Nation's terrorism preparedness. However, based on the findings of recent reports, including one issued by the Department's Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, EMS concerns often do not receive the same level of attention as those of other first responder disciplines. The Committee also urges the Secretary to appoint an animal health expert to provide the Task Force with an understanding of the preparedness issues involved in the transmission of animal and plant diseases in agricultural communities and the protocols for the quarantine of animals and humans.
To achieve its advisory mission, the Task Force must submit for the Secretary's consideration a report within twelve (12) months of its establishment, and every two (2) years thereafter, on recommended essential capabilities for different types of communities. Among other things, the Task Force's report must include a priority ranking of essential capabilities and a methodology by which a state or local government can determine whether it possesses or has access to these essential capabilities. When making its recommendations for essential capabilities to the Secretary, the Task Force must ensure that such capabilities: (1) are made within the context of a comprehensive state emergency management system; (2) are consistent with those of a Federal working group to be established by the Department of Health and Human Services; and (3) take into account any capabilities that State or local officials have determined to be essential and have undertaken to prevent or prepare for terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. For instance, the Task Force should evaluate whether regional air support constitutes an essential capability for certain communities.
Section 1806--Use of Funds and Accountability Requirements
This section provides a list of permitted and prohibited uses of grant funds, establishes specific time-lines for the expenditure of covered grant funds, and creates a series of reporting requirements for both DHS and state, regional, and tribal grant recipients.
This section provides that a covered grant may be used for appropriate activities as determined by the Secretary of DHS, including specifically the following: purchasing and upgrading of equipment (including computer software); exercises and training; developing or updating response plans; establishing or enhancing mechanisms for information sharing; systems architecture and engineering, program planning and management, and product evaluation; personnel costs directly attributable to elevations in the threat alert level of the Homeland Security Advisory System by the Secretary, or an equivalent elevation in the threat alert level issued by a State, region, or local government with the Secretary's approval; classified information receipt and storage costs; critical infrastructure protective measures, up to $1,000,000 per project or, if approved by the Secretary, up to ten (10) percent of the total amount of the covered grant; costs associated with the purchase of commercially available equipment that complies with national voluntary consensus standards and that facilitates interoperability of emergency communications; developing educational curricula for first responders to ensure their preparedness for terrorist attacks; training and exercises to assist public elementary and secondary schools in developing terrorism preparedness programs; paying three (3) percent of the administrative expenses directly related to administration of a grant; paying for the conduct of any activity permitted under LETPP; and other activities as determined by the Secretary.
In order to ensure that our Nation's first responders fulfill their new terrorism preparedness mission in an effective and efficient manner, grant recipients may only purchase equipment, training, and exercises in accordance with authorized lists compiled by the Department. The Department's Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) has an Authorized Equipment List (AEL) that delineates specific types of specialized equipment necessary to enhance our Nation's terrorism preparedness. For example, the AEL includes special-purpose vehicles for the transport of CBRNE terrorism response equipment and personnel to incident sites and excludes non-CBRNE tactical/armored assault vehicles. Through the Law Enforcement Support Organization 1033 program operated by the Defense Logistic Agency (DLA), over 145 jurisdictions in 30 States currently use the M-113 Family of Vehicles (FOV) for first responder purposes. Indeed, the M-113 FOV can be used for a variety of purposes, including as emergency response vehicles, mobile command posts, fire suppression, or fire rescue vehicles. The M-133 FOV, however, is not part of the AEL. Because of its wide-spread use and easy adaptability, the Committee urges the Department to consider updating the AEL to include the M-113 FOV.
The Committee also encourages grant recipients, such as firefighters and other first
responders, to take advantage of the Department's ODP/DLA Emergency Responder Equipment Purchase Program. This program provides the opportunity for recipients of first responder grants to procure commercially available emergency response equipment through the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP). The equipment offered by the DSCP's prime vendors includes equipment on the AEL.
Covered grants also 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 in the use of equipment and on prevention activities, provided that such reimbursement is not considered compensation for purposes of rendering such a first responder an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A covered grant, however, may not be used: to supplant state or local funds; to construct buildings or other physical facilities; to acquire land; or to alleviate any state or local government cost sharing contribution. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section expressly permits state and local governments to use covered grant funds in a manner that enhances first responder preparedness for emergencies and disasters unrelated to acts of terrorism, so long as such use assists such governments in achieving the essential capabilities for terrorism preparedness established by the Secretary.
This section also requires that state recipients of covered grants pass-through eighty (80) percent of their funds to local governments, first responders, and other local groups not later than forty-five (45) days after their receipt of such funds. State recipients that fail to pass-through these funds may face reduced payments, termination of payments, or other restrictions. Further, upon a specific and detailed showing, the Secretary has authority to re-direct a portion of a delinquent State's grant amount to a local government directly, consistent with the state plan and application. This section requires that, two (2) years following the enactment of this legislation, all grant recipients--States, regions, and directly eligible tribes--must contribute, or match, at least twenty five (25) percent of the cost of the activities carried out with covered grants. This matching requirement may be satisfied with in-kind contributions of goods or services.
Further, this section requires each recipient to submit to the Secretary annual reports describing the use of covered grant funds, the achievement of essential capabilities, and remaining needs. A state recipient also may submit a quarterly report, which identifies the amount obligated to, and expended by, such recipient and a summary description of the items purchased, in exchange for a two (2) percent increase in the Federal match. Finally, this section also requires an annual report from the Secretary to the Congress containing an analysis of the Nation's progress in achieving, maintaining, and enhancing essential capabilities.
Section 1807--National Standards for First Responder Equipment and Training
This section adds to the HSA provisions requiring the Secretary, in consultation with the Under Secretaries for Science and Technology and Emergency Preparedness and Response, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and relevant public and private sector groups, to develop, promulgate, and update as necessary national voluntary consensus standards for first responder equipment and training. In establishing any national voluntary consensus standards that involve or relate to health professionals, including emergency medical professionals, the Secretary also must coordinate with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
With regard to equipment, the standards for the performance, use, and validation should be focused on maximizing interoperability, interchangeability, durability, flexibility, efficiency, portability, and safety. Such standards also should cover all appropriate uses of the equipment. Applicants who seek to purchase or upgrade equipment with covered grants must either buy items that meet these standards or explain why non-standard items will be superior. With regard to training, the standards should ensure that training is consistent with the principles of emergency preparedness for all hazards.
The Committee stresses the importance of developing national voluntary consensus standards that are dynamic, and that will encourage a wide variety of creative, private sector-generated solutions to homeland security challenges. Appropriate national voluntary consensus standards will help private sector entities identify potential markets and their characteristics. To the extent that they do, they can serve as an indirect stimulus to economic growth, while ensuring that first responders get the equipment and training most likely to help them prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from acts of terrorism.
In addition to the organizations identified in section 1806(c), the Committee is aware of numerous private and not-for-profit organizations working with State and local governments to implement first responder equipment and training standards. The Secretary should consult with as many of these organizations as practicable in the development of the national voluntary consensus standards.
As noted above, subsection (b) of section 3 of H.R. 1544 amends the Homeland Security Act definition to make clear that the fire service and governmental and non-governmental organizations and personnel are included in the definition of `emergency response providers.' The Committee believes that this change to the definition of `emergency response providers' covers non-governmental organizations, such as the American Red Cross and the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, that are signatories to, and have assigned responsibilities under, domestic preparedness and response incident plans. In addition, the Committee notes that the definition of `emergency response providers' in the Homeland Security Act includes a reference to `emergency medical' providers. The Committee believes, and for purposes of H.R. 1544 intends, that the `emergency medical' language in the definition of `emergency response providers,' incorporated into the definition of `first responders,' should be construed broadly to include any personnel that would be called upon to respond to suspicious outbreaks of diseases that could be caused by acts of bioterrorism.
FIRST RESPONDER GRANT BOARD AND AREAS OF PRIORITY
`(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.
`(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.
CONGRESS FINDS…
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.
HOUSE AMENDMENTS
Amdt. 1. to include the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to the First Responder Board.
Sponsor: Representative Marion Berry (D-AR-1st)
Status: Agreed to by voice vote. (May 12, 2005)
Amdt. 2 Requires the Dept of Homeland Security to coordinate with State, local and tribal governments in establishing criteria for prioritizing applications for first responder grants.
Sponsor: Representative Marion Berry (D-AR-1st)
Status: Agreed to by voice vote. (May 12, 2005)
Amdt. 3 to allow states to petition the Sec. of Homeland Security to use Federal homeland security funds for the cost of any activity relating to prevention of, preparation for, response to or recovery from acts of terrorism that would otherwise be Federal duty performed by Federal agencies and under agreement with the State or local government and a Federal agency.
Sponsor: Charles Bass (R-NH-2nd)
Status: Agreed to by voice vote (May 12, 2005)
Amdt. 4 To limit the number of Urban Area Security Initiative grants during any fiscal year to 50.
Sponsor: Representative Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY-9th)
Status: Failed 88 to 331 (RC 169)
Amdt. 5 to better equip and protect our communities’ firefighters and encourage donations by raising the liability standard for donors of fire fighting equipment from negligence to gross negligence.
Sponsor: Representative Michael N. Castle (R-DE-At large)
Status: Agreed to by voice vote (May 12, 2005)
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com.
No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.