Enhanced 911 Emergency Communications Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to streamline and strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first responders protect our homeland. I am pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues including Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, and Akaka.

Last year, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security currently allocates billions of dollars of grant funds according to formulas borrowed from the USA Patriot Act. The Homeland Security Act left the decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated for another day. Today is that day.

Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders of State and local officials across America, especially our first responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews on the front lines. Over the past months, the Committee on Governmental Affairs has listened to them describe the challenges associated with constructing effective homeland security strategies. We have also listened to State and local officials as well as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. This series of three hearings looked at the issues from a variety of perspectives and helped shape the legislation we introduce today.

At our first hearing, we heard from first responders: our firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical technicians, who discussed the challenges they face protecting our communities.

Arlington Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, the incident commander at the Pentagon on September 11, told the Committee that he had received little homeland security funding since 9-11. Chief Paugher also underscored the gaps in the homeland security planning process. Many law enforcement officials shared Chief Plaughter's concerns. Portland, ME, Police Chief Mike Chitwood, for example, expressed his frustrations about the roadblocks to accessing Federal funding and the lack of coordination by Federal agencies with local jurisdictions.

Secretary Ridge testified at our second hearing. He discussed the ongoing challenges involved in providing Federal resources to States, communities and first responders. He also outlined ways we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of homeland security grant programs to help first responders get the resources they need.

Secretary Ridge's comments underscored the need to improve the way the Department of Homeland Security's first responder grant programs are organized within the Department, and the way the Department distributes these grants.

The Committee's third hearing featured State and local officials who expressed their support for more flexibility, coordination, and simplification of Federal homeland security grant programs.

Maine's emergency manager, Art Cleaves, said the current maze of homeland security programs has caused so much paperwork that States may be forced to hire additional staff just to deal with a multiplicity of forms and planning documents.

Other witnesses, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, outlined the need for coordinating homeland security funding across the Federal Government. Their comments underscored how communities can access funding for interoperable communications equipment through six different Federal programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, two Department of Health and Human Services' bio-terrorism grant programs, FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these grants--to purchase interoperable equipment--Federal agencies are under no requirement to coordinate their efforts.

While State and local officials agreed on the need to coordinate programs and make it easier to apply for grants, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Governor Romney commented on the differences between States and localities regarding how best to allocate funds, through States or directly to the local level.

I am pleased that these hearings have helped to build a consensus on this issue. Yesterday, I received a letter from State and local organizations including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association, which have come together in support of our approach, to provide funds through States, but to require that eighty percent be passed through to the local level.

Our legislation will provide a map that will better connect our front-line protectors with the funding they need. It will eliminate duplicative homeland security planning requirements; make it easier to apply for grants; coordinate the many grant programs that provide homeland security funds; and promote a community-based approach to homeland security funding. I would like to briefly describe the approach we have taken.

The first provision of our legislation would promote the same kind of coordination among Federal agencies that we require of our States and localities. It would require Federal agencies to build a clear, well- marked path that would lead our first responders to the funding that enables them to do what they do best: prepare for and respond to emergencies.

Second, the legislation would coordinate government-wide homeland security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other resources within the new department. The clearinghouse would improve access to homeland security grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds.

The legislation also recognizes the importance of building on existing successful programs, such as the FIRE Act, which provides funding directly to fire departments for equipment and training on a competitive, peer reviewed basis. It would allow the FIRE Act to continue to be administered in its current form, but would coordinate its activities with other Federal programs. For example, it would make sure that two neighboring jurisdictions receiving funding from the FIRE Act are aware of industry standards regarding the interoperability of communications equipment.

The third provision of our legislation would strengthen the Office for Domestic Preparedness's State Homeland Security Grant Program by simplifying the grant process, promoting more local input in homeland security funding, and promoting more flexibility in the use of funds.

The lack of guidance in the Homeland Security Act has forced State and local governments and first responders to engage in a 12-step odyssey to obtain funding from ODP's State homeland security grant program. And this program is just one of several homeland security grant programs to which a State, locality, police, or fire department can apply.

The legislation distills the homeland security grant process from twelve steps to two. First, State and local governments and emergency responders will develop a three-year homeland security plan that outlines vulnerabilities and capabilities, and a process for allocating resources to meet State and local needs. This plan will also require the development of

measurable goals and objectives, such as increasing the number of local jurisdictions participating in local and statewide exercises. Second, States and communities will apply for funds based on this plan, which they can revise each year pending approval from the Secretary.

This legislation would ensure that local government officials and first responders have a louder voice in the homeland security planning process and can access homeland security dollars and equipment in an efficient manner. It would also require that eighty percent of these resources reach the local level within sixty days of the grant allocation.

When I met with the Maine fire chiefs, they expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility in homeland security funding, especially in the area of overtime costs for training. They told me that since homeland security funds cannot be used for most overtime costs, some of Maine's firefighters have been forced to turn down training opportunities at the National Fire Academy. Because there was no funding to pay the overtime costs for someone to fill in while the firefighter trained at the Academy, they had to forego this valuable training opportunity.

Our legislation would address their concerns by allowing funds to be used not only for planning, equipment, exercises, and training, but also for certain overtime costs associated with training activities.

Our legislation also recognizes that certain high threat areas have critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed immediately. This legislation will direct the Secretary to use ten percent of total funding for this program to address these critical vulnerabilities. While this provision provides flexibility, it requires that any direct funding be consistent with the State plan. Furthermore, this legislation formally authorizes the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant, which provides resources to the backbone of our emergency management structure, and ensures an adequate level of funding under this program.

While some States and communities face a more imminent threat, our Nation must provide for the safety of all of our citizens. This grant program maintains the current baseline level of homeland security assistance to each State. It then allocates the bulk of the funds not based solely on population, as is the case now, but on risk assessments undertaken for each State.

Right now, States and localities must complete numerous homeland security plans, each with its own set of questions and benchmarks. Terrorists will not be deterred by paperwork or by communities answering the same question six different ways.

That's why our legislation would streamline the planning process by requiring a single set of cooperatively developed performance standards to help States and localities evaluate homeland security plans.

When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency, they told me that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our State.

In past years, for example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness's homeland security grant program allocated the same percentage of each State's funds for training, equipment, exercises, and planning, thus leaving no room to accommodate different States' priorities. In allocating funds this way, the Federal Government effectively said that Maine must spend exactly the same portion of its homeland security dollars on training as Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer surplus funds from one category to another to meet their needs.

As a result, Maine may be forced to return some of the Homeland Security funds allocated for exercises. This one size fits all formula used in past homeland security funding makes no sense. I believe all States and communities should have the flexibility to spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed. That is why this legislation would allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent.

The current homeland security grant structure is unacceptable. Secretary Ridge has done an admirable job distributing billions of dollars of homeland security funds based on borrowed authorities and with no real guidance. It is time to deal the Secretary a full hand of cards and give our States, localities, and first responders a straight path to homeland security programs, not a maze. We must topple the mountain of paperwork. We must help, not hinder, our front-line defenders.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months and years ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today as Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to introduce the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2003, which is the companion bill to H.R. 1387, which bears the same name and was reintroduced in the House by Congressman Robert Brady of Pennsylvania earlier this year.

I want to commend Representative Brady for his hard work on behalf of small businesses not just from his home State of Pennsylvania but for every trades industry entrepreneur that has ever attempted to open his or her own business.

Often Americans who work in the trade sector--construction, plumbing, electrical work etc.--enter these professions with the goal of one day starting a business; however many of these aspiring business owners who partake in career training or vocational training in certain trades, unfortunately, fail to obtain the necessary education in the successful growth and development of their newly formed business. This initiative would develop a program that allows workers within the trades industry to move toward starting a new business.

The purpose of the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act is to assist in the development of curricula that will encourage the successful growth of small businesses. This legislation passed the House last Congress on October 2, 2001 and was subsequently taken up and passed by this Committee last Congress, but was not taken up by the full Senate.

The bill, in a business-education partnership, establishes a ``vocational entrepreneurship development demonstration program,'' under which the SBA would provide grants, through the Small Business Development Centers program, to provide technical assistance to high school and technical career institutes, Vo-Tech schools, to promote small business ownership in their curriculum.

The SBDC program is designed to deliver such up-to-date counseling, training and technical assistance in all aspects of small business management and is the ideal candidate to provide such a program. Each grant awarded under this program will be worth over $200,000--which, in today's environment where Vo-Tech programs get short-changed in government education budgets, can do a great deal to help rebuild a worker-strapped trades industry.

I urge all of my colleagues to support Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator John Ensign, and the cosponsors of our legislation in reintroducing the National

Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.

The bill we are reintroducing today is the same Cleland-Kerry legislation that was introduced last Congress, and it is the companion to Congressman Sweeney's bill, H.R. 205, which bears the same name as our legislation. The Sweeney bill recently passed the House overwhelmingly, 417-4, with the strong support of the House Committee on Small Business, as it did in the 107th. Our Senate version, which is nearly identical to the Sweeney bill, passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last year but was not taken up by the full Senate. Because Senator Ensign and I are fully committed to helping small business owners understand and navigate complicated government regulations, we are reintroducing this legislation, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.

Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few employees, often face an overwhelming task when seeking advice on how to comply with Federal regulations, especially when implementation varies for different regions of the country, or from state to state. Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to comply. Often, small businesses are afraid to seek guidance from Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses.

One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory agency. The Small Business Administration's, SBA, Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this type of assistance.

Our bill establishes a pilot program to award competitive grants to 20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state.

Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those who receive compliance assistance, which is integral to the reaching out to as many small businesses as possible. This privacy provision has also been extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance from their local SBDC.

The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and will serve to complement current small business development assistance as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this legislation introduced in previous Congresses used Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants.

Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with Federal regulations.

I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely with us since January of last year to draft the Senate version of this legislation, as well as support from National Small Business United, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney.

I want to express my sincere thanks to Senator Ensign for his hard work and continued support on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003, legislation that greatly improves the method currently used to distribute much-needed first responder aid.

When my colleagues and I on the Governmental Affairs Committee worked last year under Senator Lieberman's leadership to create the Department of Homeland Security, we all hoped that what we were setting up would help the Federal Government be better able to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. As of March 1st of this year, we have in place the skeleton of an organization that aims to pull together under one roof information on threats and vulnerabilities and use that information to improve security and prepare first responders.

As I've pointed out a number of times, however, no matter how well Secretary Ridge does his work on the Federal level, we will not be much safer than we were on September 10, 2001 unless our first responders are better prepared to do their work on the local level. While homeland security should certainly be a shared responsibility, it is vitally important that the Federal Government does its part to provide each State and its first responders with the assistance necessary to ensure that the citizens they serve are adequately protected. The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act is an important step toward making this happen.

Today, States, localities and first responders can receive Federal assistance from a number of different aid programs administered by several different agencies. All of the programs serve different purposes and require different applications. The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act sets up a process to streamline these programs to allow them to work well together and avoid imposing redundant or duplicative requirements on applicants. The aim is not to eliminate programs, but to ensure that existing homeland security and homeland security-related grant programs are well coordinated and impose as small an administrative burden on applicants as possible.

The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also creates a ``one-stop shop'' for grant information within the Department of Homeland Security by moving the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with administering the current state homeland security grant program, from the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security to the Office for State and Local Government Coordination. In its new location, ODP will operate a ``clearinghouse'' for grant information that would offer services such as a toll-free hotline and a list of recommended first responder equipment. ODP will also maintain a compilation of ``best practices'' made up of successful homeland security programs from across the country and offer states technical assistance in developing the terrorism risk assessments that will be a part of the new State grant program.

Most importantly, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also makes key improvements to the formula for distributing first responder aid among the States. The new formula maintains the requirement that all money go to State governments and that 80 percent of that money be passed through to cities and localities. It also maintains the current small state minimum in which each State receives an equal share of 40 percent of funds made available for state grants. It makes a major improvement, however, by dividing the remaining 60 percent of the money among the states according to an analysis of potential threats in each State.

The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores the fact that Delaware, though small in population, is located in the Northeast midway between New York and Washington. It ignores the fact that Delaware is home to a major port, oil refineries and chemical plants. It ignores the fact that Delaware every day hosts scores of ships, trains and trucks on their way to destinations up and down the East Coast. It also ignores the fact that Delaware is home to the Dover Air Force Base, a facility that played a crucial role in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I understand the need to give larger States, especially those with densely populated urban areas, enough resources to protect their larger populations. No State, however, should be less safe than its neighbors simply because it has a smaller population. The Federal Government should be working to bring every state and locality to the point where they are capable of responding effectively to any potential threat. I am concerned that the current formula, based mostly on population does not prepare all States adequately.

The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act still requires that population be taken into account when distributing first responder aid. However, it adds the requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security also account for threats and risk to critical infrastructure identified in State risk assessments that would be submitted to the department as part of the grant application process. The bill also ensures that all localities within States get their fair share of money by requiring that local leaders be included in the planning and application process in each state and that the distribution method a given state will use once it receives its money is approved by the department before a check is cut.

Finally, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act gives states new flexibility in spending their first responder aid by incorporating provisions from S. 838, legislation Ms. Collins and I introduced in April. That bill allows States to apply for a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security so that they can move their first responder aid around between the four categories--equipment, training, exercises and planning--in which it is sent to them. This change will allow States to better meet needs identified in their State terrorism response plans.

I applaud the Senator from Maine for her leadership on these important issues. I look forward to working with her and all of my colleagues in getting this important legislation passed and signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to introduce legislation that will help many young families in America meet the financial challenges associated with raising children. The legislation I am introducing attempts to alleviate some of the financial costs incurred by the more than one out three families when one of the parents decides to leave the work force to raise children at home.

Current tax law recognizes that when both parents remain in the work force, they incur additional child care costs because, in order to keep their jobs, they have to pay for day care services. Current tax law provides a sliding scale tax credit that allows parents to claim a tax credit of up to 35 percent to offset as much as $3,000 of day care costs for one child, $6,000 for two or more children. The maximum $1,050 tax credit, $2,100 for two or more children, phase down as income rises. The minimum, 20 percent credit, applies to families with incomes above $43,000.

I strongly support this dependent care tax credit because it makes it easier for husbands and wives to maintain their careers and provide for their families. However, there are many families that have made the decision that one of the parents will give up a job in order to raise their children. In fact, this is a growing trend. In 2001, 37.7 percent of families had one parent at home raising the child; that's up from 35.3 percent in 1995. And the stay-at-home parent is, overwhelmingly, the mother. Barely 3.6 percent of stay-at-home parents are husbands.

When a working woman makes the decision to interrupt her career to raise her child, the family incurs an immediate financial penalty. And more often than not, the career interruption may damage the woman's future earnings potential, what some have referred to as the ``Mommy Track.''

The immediate loss of income when a parent leaves the workforce significantly changes the family's lifestyle. For example, consider a childless couple where the husband earns $35,000 and

the wife earns $27,000. After paying Federal income and payroll taxes, the family retains slightly more than $50,000 in disposable income. If the family has a child, and both parents continue their careers, after taxes they still will keep more than $49,000 of their earnings, even if they incur child care expenses of $3,000. However, in this example, if the father gives up his job, the family's disposable income drops by nearly 40 percent to less than $32,000. Put another way, the family's monthly income drops from $4,100 to $2,700. That's a difficult adjustment for any family, especially one that has to incur the additional costs of a newborn.

I respect the parents who choose to maintain their careers while raising a family and the parents who make the financial sacrifice to give up their careers to raise a family. But I believe the tax code should treat both equally.

My legislation attempts to alleviate the current inequity in the code by giving stay-at-home moms or dads a $200 a month tax credit. This credit would be indexed for inflation. The credit would apply until the child reaches the age of 6. While this credit could never make up the financial loss that families face when one of the parents stops working, it will provide some important financial relief to these families. In the example I cited earlier, if the father did not work for a full year, the $2,400 tax credit would completely eliminate the family's $1,500 Federal tax bill, giving the family that much more to spend on their living expenses.

In addition, under this proposal, any unused tax credits could be carried forward indefinitely. Many parents who leave the work force to raise their children return to work when their kids enter school. By allowing the carry forward of unused credits, the parent who re-enters the work force will be able to keep more of his or her earnings to make up for the financial sacrifice made when choosing to stay home with the family. I think it is only fair that society recognize the financial sacrifice these parents have made.

Congress recently acted to eliminate the marriage penalty. We should now act to eliminate the penalty imposed on families when a parent leaves the workforce to raise a child at home. It makes sense for our families and it is good tax policy.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I join my esteemed colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003.

In the past, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, bills received bipartisan votes at the end of a long, divisive and arduous process. What makes today's introduction of a bipartisan IDEA bill so unique is that it is bipartisan in its inception.

The reason this is a bipartisan bill is because it strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the educational rights of children with disabilities while simultaneously making IDEA less litigious and compliance based. Above all, the bill is designed to ensure that IDEA resources are directed to help children with disabilities obtain the same opportunity to succeed as all other students.

The bill streamlines State and local requirements to ensure that paperwork focuses on improved results for children with disabilities. By eliminating the need for an 800+ procedural checklist, these amendments favor the improvement of educational and functional results for children with disabilities over burdensome bureaucratic rules.

The bill responds to concerns that we've heard from both parents and school administrators alike on how the law has evolved into a full employment government program for lawyers. Over and over again, we hear of fights about past procedural issues and technical errors instead of making sure that the children are being well served in the here and now.

The bill includes many common sense provisions to alleviate the stress in disagreements between schools and parents and encourages them to seek out mediation to address their concerns before they move to formal hearings. The bill restores trust by; providing parents with better access to information and resources to understand their rights and work through conflicts; making clear that parents can request an initial evaluation of a child for IDEA services and making it easier for parents to make changes to their child's individual education plan; requiring complaints of either the school or parents to be clear and specific before going to due process; and requiring hearing officers to make decisions based upon substantive grounds not technical issues that have no bearing on a child's education.

This bill currently does not specifically address the issue of full funding, because Senator Kennedy and I decided at the very outset to postpone that issue to the floor, since that is an issue that merits the attention and active participation of the entire Senate. However, in addition to simplifying funding formulas so that both States and local school districts have a better indication of the funding available, the bill includes 2 key provisions that will provide additional fiscal relief for school districts than what is provided to them under current law.

First, we allow school districts to treat 8 percent of their IDEA funds as local funds. This will allow school districts to better align funding among programs based on local priorities. Second, we require States to reserve 2 percent of their overall IDEA Part B grant to establish risk pool accounts to provide new resources to assist local school districts and charter schools in addressing the costs of providing services to high-need children and unanticipated enrollment of students with disabilities.

Finally, the bill addresses the discipline provisions in current law that schools and parents have found to be confusing, hard to administer, and have resulted in outcomes that were not always fair to every child. The bill simplifies the framework for schools to administer the law, while ensuring the rights and the safety of all children.

Importantly, the bill will require schools to consider whether a child's behavior was the result of their disability when considering disciplinary action, and ensure that individualized education plans contain positive behavioral interventions and supports when a child's behavior impedes his or her own learning, or that of others.

Senator Kennedy and I were determined to make this a bipartisan process from the beginning. We have crafted a bill that we're confident will be overwhelmingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats--and most importantly by parents, the disabled community and the school community.