[House Report 111-558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-558
======================================================================
STRENGTHENING AND UPDATING RESOURCES AND EQUIPMENT ACT
_______
July 22, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, from the Committee on Homeland Security,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3837]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 3837) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to
provide for clarification on the use of funds relating to
certain homeland security grants, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 3
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 6
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 6
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 6
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 7
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 7
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 7
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Additional Views................................................. 12
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening and Updating Resources
and Equipment Act'' or the ``SURE Act''.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION ON USE OF FUNDS RELATING TO CERTAIN HOMELAND
SECURITY GRANTS.
(a) Equipment Maintenance.--
(1) Amendments.--Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting before the
semicolon at the end the following: ``, and any related
maintenance agreements, user fees, or sustainment
costs''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(3), by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Equipment maintenance.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator may not
impose any time limitation, including any
fiscal year limitation, on the use for covered
maintenance costs of amounts awarded as a grant
under section 2003 or 2004, that is in addition
to the limitations described in this subsection
``(ii) Covered maintenance costs defined.--In
this subparagraph the term `covered maintenance
costs' means costs of maintenance and
sustainment costs described in subsection
(a)(4) associated with equipment purchased with
grant funds provided under section 2003 or 2004
for a prior fiscal year.''.
(2) Application.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to grants made under section 2003 or 2004 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604 and 605) on or
after October 1, 2008.
(b) Specification of Intended Use in Grant Applications.--
(1) Urban area security initiative grants.--Section
2003(c)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
604(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon
at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) specification of the amount of grant funds the
high-risk urban area plans to allocate to maintain and
sustain target capabilities, including equipment, that
have been supported with prior fiscal year funds
awarded under this section or section 2004.''.
(2) State homeland security grants.--Section 2004(b)(2) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605(b)(2)) is
amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) specification of the amount of grant funds the
State plans to allocate to maintain and sustain target
capabilities, including equipment, that have been
supported with prior fiscal year funds awarded under
this section or section 2003.''.
(c) Grant Guidance.--Section 2002 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 603) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Grant Guidance.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall--
``(A) not later than three months after the date of
enactment of the Strengthening and Updating Resources
and Equipment Act of 2009, issue guidance defining
costs eligible to be paid with grants under sections
2003 and 2004 for equipment maintenance agreements,
user fees, sustainment costs, and any other equipment-
related costs, as the Administrator determines is
appropriate; and
``(B) review and update such guidance as necessary.
``(2) Congressional briefing.--The Administrator shall brief
the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate not less than five days
before issuing any guidance, or announcing the award of any
grant, under section 2003 or 2004.''.
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 3837 is to amend the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 to provide for clarification on the use of funds
relating to certain homeland security grants, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 3837 would prohibit the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) from placing a time limitation on Homeland
Security Grant Program (HSGP) funds being used to maintain
equipment purchased with prior year HSGP awards.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which includes
the Urban Areas Security Initiative and the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, is intended to strengthen preparedness
and response throughout the Nation to the risks associated with
potential terrorist attacks. In this way, HSGP assists State,
local, and Tribal partners build and sustain the capabilities
necessary to protect prevent, protect against, respond to, and
recover from acts of terrorism.
Since 2002, State, local, and Tribal governments have
utilized HSGP funds to purchase highly-technical equipment that
is required to keep their communities safe. A significant
amount of this equipment requires expensive annual maintenance
and sustainment in order to remain operational. Grant
recipients have always been allowed to allocate a share of
their future preparedness grant awards to maintain equipment
that was previously purchased with HSGP funds.
On September, 22, 2009, FEMA informed States about some
changes in its policy regarding the use of HSGP funds to
maintain homeland security equipment. FEMA announced that it
would not allow grantees to use future year HSPG awards to
maintain and sustain equipment outside of the performance
period of the grant that was used to originally purchase the
equipment.
The policy that FEMA declared in September represented a
major departure from past guidance and was widely viewed as
risking a weakening of critical homeland security capabilities
across the Nation. Many grantees only purchased specific
equipment after receiving assurances from FEMA that they could
use future HSGP grants to keep the equipment maintained. Many
State, local, and tribal governments communicated to FEMA that
they are unable to suddenly assume the maintenance costs in
their budgets will be forced to cancel homeland security
initiatives that keep their communities more secure, as a
result of this policy change. Capabilities at risk of being
reduced or lost as a result of the implementation of the
September policy include: interoperable emergency
communications, hazardous materials response teams,
intelligence and information sharing, radiological detection
and interdiction, and weapons of mass destruction detection
systems.
There is also concern that FEMA's September maintenance
policy will encourage government waste as State, local, and
tribal governments will be forced to purchase new equipment
with HSGP awards rather than spending a smaller amount of their
award to maintain the equipment that they already purchased
with HSGP funds.
Accordingly, H.R. 3837 would overturn FEMA's new policy
regarding maintenance costs and permit HSGP funds to be used to
cover the maintenance and sustainment costs of equipment
purchased in previous years.
The Committee is pleased to acknowledge that just three
days after the Full Committee approved H.R. 3837, FEMA issued
an Information Bulletin rescinding its September 22, 2009
maintenance policy. While the issuance of the Information
Bulletin is a positive development and is responsive to H.R.
3837, it does not have the force of law and can be easily
supplanted by this or future Administrations. Accordingly,
local and state grant recipients remain supportive of ensuring
that State, local, and tribal authorities are allowed to
allocate a portion of future HSGP funds to the maintenance of
this critical homeland security equipment in statute.
Hearings
No hearings were held on H.R. 3837, however on October 27,
2009, the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness, and Response held an oversight hearing entitled
``Preparedness: What has $29 billion in homeland security
grants bought and how do we know?'' The Subcommittee received
testimony from Hon. Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security; Ms. Kathy Crandall, Director, Office of Homeland
Security & Justice Programs, Franklin County, Ohio; and Mr.
David Maxwell, Director, Arkansas Department of Emergency
Management. In addition, statements from the National Emergency
Management Association and the National Governors Association
against FEMA's September 22, 2009 equipment maintenance policy
were entered into the hearing record by unanimous consent.
Committee Consideration
The Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness,
and Response considered H.R. 3978 on November 3, 2009, and
forwarded the measure to the Full Committee for consideration
with a favorable recommendation, by voice vote.
The Committee met on November 17, 2009, to consider H.R.
3837, and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with
a favorable recommendation, amended, by voice vote. The
Committee took the following actions:
H.R. 3837 was adopted, as amended, by voice vote.
The following amendments were offered:
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by
Ms. Kilroy (#1); was AGREED TO by voice vote.
An Amendment by Mr. Dent to the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute (#1a); Page 1, after line 10,
insert the following new subparagraph (and redesignate
the subsequent subparagraphs accordingly): (A) in
subsection (a)(2), by inserting before the semicolon at
the end the following: ``, and the Administrator may
not require that such training must be certified by the
Administrator if such training is conducted by the
Department of Justice''.; was WITHDRAWN by unanimous
consent.
A unanimous consent request by Mr. Dent to withdraw
his amendment, was not objected to.
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto.
No recorded votes were requested during consideration of
H.R. 3837.
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R.
3837, the ``Strengthening and Updating Resources and Equipment
Act'', would result in no new or increased budget authority,
entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
November 19, 2009.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3837, the SURE
Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel
Hoople.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3837--SURE Act
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3837 would have no
significant cost over the next five years. Enacting this
legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.
The bill would allow state and local governments to use
funds awarded during fiscal year 2009 and thereafter through
the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas
Security Initiative (UASI) for the maintenance costs of
equipment purchased under the program in previous years.
The SHSP provides grants to states to prepare for, protect
against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other
catastrophic events. The UASI provides grants to high-threat,
high-density urban areas for similar purposes. Under current
law, grant funds may be used to pay for maintenance agreements,
user fees, and other costs of equipment purchased under those
programs. Following the performance period of the grant used to
purchase equipment (three years), however, federal funds may no
longer be used for maintenance. H.R. 3837 would provide that
maintenance costs otherwise eligible for funding under the
grant programs be included as an allowable expense regardless
of when the equipment was purchased.
For 2010, the Congress has provided about $1.8 billion for
SHSP and UASI. Under current law, the Congress also has
authorized appropriations totaling $4.35 billion for both
programs in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. CBO does not expect
that the changes included in this legislation would
significantly alter expenditures of the grant programs. We
estimate that implementing H.R. 3837 would have no effect on
the federal budget over the next five years.
H.R. 3837 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople.
This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, H.R. 3837 contains the following
general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome
related goals and objectives authorized.
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 3837 contains the following
general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome
related goals and objectives authorized.
H.R. 3837 clarifies the definition of permissible uses for
HSGP to allow recipients to use their awards to maintain and
sustain equipment purchased with previous HSGP awards. This
legislation will ensure that State, local, and tribal officials
are able to build and sustain national preparedness
capabilities, which are the primary objectives of HSGP. And,
that this legislation also eliminates the use of fiscal time
restraints for these funds.
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits
In compliance with rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule
XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in
Article I, section 8, clause 1, which grants Congress the power
to provide for the common Defense of the United States.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
This section states that this act may be cited as the
``Strengthening and Updating Resources and Equipment Act'' or
the ``SURE Act''.
Section 2. Clarification on use of funds relating to certain homeland
security grants
This section amends section 2008 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) to include the related maintenance
agreements, user fees, and sustainment costs associated with
purchasing, upgrading, storing, or maintaining equipment, as a
permitted use of a grant awarded under section 2003 or section
2004 (6 U.S.C. 604 and 605), the Urban Area Security Initiative
and the State Homeland Security Grant Program respectively.
This section further amends section 2008 to prohibit the
Federal Emergency Management Agency from imposing any time
limitation, including fiscal year limitation, on a grant
recipient using a grant awarded under Section 2003 or 2004 to
maintain and sustain equipment that had been purchased with a
prior fiscal year grant awarded under those two sections.
Lastly, this section states that the amendments made to section
2008 shall apply to grants made under section 2003 or 2004 on
or after October 1, 2008.
This section amends Section 2003 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 to require that an urban area include in its
application for the Urban Area Security Initiative the amount
of the award it plans to allocate to maintain and sustain
target capabilities, including equipment, that have been
supported with prior fiscal year grant funds awarded under
Section 2003 or 2004.
This section amends Section 2004 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 to require that the State include in its
application for the State Homeland Security Grant Program the
amount of the awards it plans to allocate to maintain and
sustain target capabilities, including equipment, that have
been supported with prior fiscal year grant funds awarded under
Section 2003 or 2004.
This section also amends Section 2002 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 603) to require the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to issue guidance within three
months after enactment of the Act that defines costs eligible
to be paid for with grants under sections 2003 and 2004 for
maintenance agreements, user fees, and sustainment costs.
Finally, this section requires the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to brief the Committee on Homeland Security
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate not less than
five days before issuing any guidance or announcing any awards
for grants under sections 2003 and 2004.
The Committee believes the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) September 22, 2009 policy, which restricts the
use future year preparedness grants to maintain homeland
security equipment, violated Congressional intent. Section
2008(a)(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 stipulates that
the FEMA Administrator (Administrator) shall permit recipients
to use grant funds for, ``purchasing, upgrading, storing, or
maintaining equipment, including computer hardware and
software.'' The Committee believes that this language clearly
provides for a grant recipient to use funds, without fiscal
year limitation, to maintain equipment so long as the
Administrator determines that the activity the equipment
supports is consistent with the purpose of the Homeland
Security Grant Program (HSGP). H.R. 3837 further clarifies
Congressional intent.
The Committee has learned that the Department of Homeland
Security and FEMA have historically allowed grant recipients to
allocate a share of their awards to maintain equipment. For
example, the Chair of the Columbus, Ohio Urban Area Working
Group testified before the Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response that they had
received approval from FEMA to use $735,000 of their Fiscal
Year 2009 award to maintain equipment they had previously
purchased under the Urban Areas Security Initiative. Since the
policy was announced in September, the Committee has been made
aware of dozens of similar approved maintenance projects from
multiple State and Urban Area grant recipients.
With the adoption of H.R. 3837, the Committee acknowledges
the negative consequences that FEMA's September 2009 equipment
maintenance policy will have on national capabilities, and the
financial condition of State and local governments. The
Committee intends through this legislation to require the
Administrator to allow maintenance projects that FEMA had
previously approved for Fiscal Year 2009 to be permitted to
continue in future grant periods. The Committee is pleased that
FEMA has recognized the oversight work of this Committee on
this matter by appropriately repealing the September 2009
policy with the issuance of a new Information Bulletin on
November 20, 2009. Notably, this new Information Bulletin was
released just three days after the Committee approved H.R.
3837.
The Committee learned that FEMA's September 22, 2009 policy
shift was initiated, at least in part, by a grantee asking FEMA
for clarification on the costs eligible to be spent towards
maintaining equipment. FEMA told the Committee that it has
never defined the eligible costs associated with equipment
maintenance agreements, user fees, and sustainment costs in its
annual HSGP guidance. In order to provide future clarity to
grant applicants and recipients, H.R. 3837 directs FEMA to put
forward guidance defining which eligible costs may be paid for
with HSGP awards for purposes of satisfying the law, as
provided in Public Law 110-53 and this Act, with respect to
equipment maintenance and related costs. The Committee fully
anticipates this guidance will be in accordance with the Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for
State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments. The Committee
intends for FEMA to look to the OMB Circular and other existing
sources to inform FEMA's guidance development. The Committee
does not intend FEMA to interpret this guidance in a way that
will onerously restrict grantees from appropriately using HSGP
funds to maintain vital homeland security equipment.
The Committee believes it is important that FEMA develop
the capacity to monitor how much HSPG funding is being utilized
to maintain and sustain homeland security equipment. To assist
FEMA in building this capacity and increase the transparency of
HSGP, the act requires State and Urban Areas to include in
their HSGP applications the amount of funding they intend to
allocate to maintain equipment previously purchased with HSGP
funding.
The Committee makes a special note about the Act's briefing
requirements. The Committee is troubled that it was not briefed
or otherwise notified by FEMA of their decision to change the
permitted uses of HSGP for equipment maintenance prior to the
change in policy in September 2009. In order to ensure the
Committee is fully aware of FEMA's management of HSGP, the Act
requires FEMA to brief the Committee five days prior to any
announcing any guidance and awards, including Information
Bulletins, for HSGP. The Committee believes that providing such
notification will allow the Committee and its Members to
conduct proper ongoing oversight.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
* * * * * * *
TITLE XX--HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Grants to States and High-Risk Urban Areas
SEC. 2002. HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Grant Guidance.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall--
(A) not later than three months after the
date of enactment of the Strengthening and
Updating Resources and Equipment Act of 2009,
issue guidance defining costs eligible to be
paid with grants under sections 2003 and 2004
for equipment maintenance agreements, user
fees, sustainment costs, and any other
equipment-related costs, as the Administrator
determines is appropriate; and
(B) review and update such guidance as
necessary.
(2) Congressional briefing.--The Administrator shall
brief the Committee on Homeland Security of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate not
less than five days before issuing any guidance, or
announcing the award of any grant, under section 2003
or 2004.
SEC. 2003. URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Application.--
(1) * * *
(2) Minimum contents of application.--In an
application for a grant under this section, a high-risk
urban area shall submit--
(A) * * *
(B) the name of an individual to serve as a
high-risk urban area liaison with the
Department and among the various jurisdictions
in the high-risk urban area; [and]
(C) such information in support of the
application as the Administrator may reasonably
require[.]; and
(D) specification of the amount of grant
funds the high-risk urban area plans to
allocate to maintain and sustain target
capabilities, including equipment, that have
been supported with prior fiscal year funds
awarded under this section or section 2004.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2004. STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) Application.--
(1) * * *
(2) Minimum contents of application.--The
Administrator shall require that each State include in
its application, at a minimum--
(A) * * *
(B) a description of how the State plans to
allocate the grant funds to local governments
and Indian tribes; [and]
(C) a budget showing how the State intends to
expend the grant funds[.]; and
(D) specification of the amount of grant
funds the State plans to allocate to maintain
and sustain target capabilities, including
equipment, that have been supported with prior
fiscal year funds awarded under this section or
section 2003.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2008. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Permitted Uses.--The Administrator shall permit the
recipient of a grant under section 2003 or 2004 to use grant
funds to achieve target capabilities related to preventing,
preparing for, protecting against, and responding to acts of
terrorism, consistent with a State homeland security plan and
relevant local, tribal, and regional homeland security plans,
through--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) purchasing, upgrading, storing, or maintaining
equipment, including computer hardware and software,
and any related maintenance agreements, user fees, or
sustainment costs;
* * * * * * *
(b) Limitations on Use of Funds.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Limitations on discretion.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Equipment maintenance.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator
may not impose any time limitation,
including any fiscal year limitation,
on the use for covered maintenance
costs of amounts awarded as a grant
under section 2003 or 2004, that is in
addition to the limitations described
in this subsection
(ii) Covered maintenance costs
defined.--In this subparagraph the term
``covered maintenance costs'' means
costs of maintenance and sustainment
costs described in subsection (a)(4)
associated with equipment purchased
with grant funds provided under section
2003 or 2004 for a prior fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
I continue to support the underlying legislation, H.R.
3837, but provide these additional views to provide additional
background information and articulate my understanding of an
agreement between Chairman Thompson and myself reached during
consideration of H.R. 3837. As a result of this agreement, I
withdrew my amendment, which would have prohibited the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from requiring the
Department of Justice to submit its course curriculums to FEMA
for certification prior to grant awardees being authorized to
attend such courses.
In exchange for my withdrawing my amendment, the Chairman
and his staff agreed to find appropriate legislative text that
would allow grantees to attend the bomb technician course at
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hazardous Devices School,
and insert such text in H.R. 3837 through an amendment before
moving the legislation to the floor, presumably under the
``Suspension of the Rules'' process.
By way of background, in July of this year I was contacted
by the Northeast Pennsylvania Regional Counterterrorism Task
Force and informed that FEMA was preventing two Pennsylvania
police departments from sending their employees to the FBI's
Hazardous Device School to become bomb technicians. The
reason--FEMA hadn't certified the FBI's bomb technician course.
According to a letter from FEMA Administrator Fugate
entered into the record, ``internal restrictions and broader
concerns'' prevented the FBI from sharing the details of its
bomb technician course material with FEMA. As a result, FEMA
refused to certify the FBI's training as sufficient and State
and locals could not use grant funding to attend. It should be
noted that FEMA Administrator Fugate promptly provided these
two police departments exceptions to attend the course. Though
I have not seen it in writing, I have been told that FEMA would
now grant similar waivers if so requested.
The bureaucracy of this process remains troubling. The
current process requires a FEMA employee to certify that the
FBI's bomb technician course material is sufficient. The
Hazardous Devices School is a joint effort between the FBI and
the U.S. Army, and it is the government's only civilian bomb
school. It has trained nearly 20,000 bomb technicians since its
inception and provides training to the Nation's over 450 bomb
squads. In 2004, the FBI invested another $25 million to make
further upgrades to this state-of-the-art facility.
One could understand FBI's hesitation to share the
intricacies of making and diffusing bombs outside of close law
enforcement communities, and if FBI employees conduct this
training, it makes little sense for FEMA to insist on reviewing
the FBI's course material. While I understand and support
FEMA's ability to have a significant voice on what training
grant funding pays for, my amendment balanced these two
concerns.
My amendment would have required that grant funding used to
conduct training related to preventing, preparing for,
protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism, that
are consistent with State homeland security plans and are
conducted by the Department of Justice, would not have to be
certified by FEMA. However, the language would still have given
FEMA the final say if the training provided no counterterrorism
nexus or was inconsistent with the State's homeland security
plan.
The amendment would have only impacted those courses FEMA
determined instructed attendees on how to prevent, prepare for,
protection against, and respond to acts of terror, that FEMA
determined was consistent with a State homeland security plant
and relevant local, tribal, and regional plans, and that are
conducted by the Department of Justice.
Some would argue this amendment was too broad. I would
argue it was probably not broad enough. It would only have
applied to the Department of Justice's counterterrorism-related
courses. There are other courses offered by other Departments
and agencies that are probably just as worthy. However, the FBI
and the Department of Justice clearly have extensive
counterterrorism expertise and I would not want them to be
second-guessed by FEMA personnel.
Others would argue this amendment was unnecessary, and that
FBI and DHS should just ``work it out,'' and that what is
needed is a little ``interagency coordination.'' I agree.
However, when interagency cooperation fails, the legislative
process is the only way we can mandate that they ``work it
out.''
I am grateful that Chairman Thompson recognized the logic
of my arguments and agreed to work with me to remedy the
current situation before moving H.R. 3837 to the floor through
the suspension process.
Charles W. Dent.