Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1544) to provide faster and smarter funding for first responders, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. I am here on the floor today with the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). He and I are here to argue today on behalf of a bill that is strongly endorsed by every single Republican and Democratic member of the Committee on Homeland Security. More than that, this legislation is supported by the Bush administration. We have received a formal statement of administration support for this bill. It is strongly endorsed by the 9/11 Commission whose recommendation that first responder funding be placed on a risk basis this bill implements. It is endorsed by scores of first responder groups, the men and women on the front lines for whom this money is intended. They worked with us over a period of over 2 years, first to identify the problems in the current grant-making system for billions of homeland security and terrorism preparedness dollars and, second, to develop a solution.

The solution that today's bill presents is a simple one. We are going to move away from political formulas for allocating these billions of dollars and toward a system that relies on the intelligence that the American taxpayer already purchases at the price of billions of dollars every year, information about terrorist capabilities and intentions, information about our own critical infrastructure and vulnerabilities and information about the potential consequences of different kinds of terrorist attacks. In combination, this mix of threat, vulnerability and consequence is called risk. Funding for first responders in the future is going to be based upon risk. That is what this bill is all about.

And we solve the second problem. Of the over $30 billion in terrorism preparedness moneys that the Federal Government has made available to States and localities since September 11, some 60 percent of it is not yet spent. It is stuck in the administrative pipeline.

There are a number of reasons for this that our committee has discovered through field hearings across the country, hearings here in Washington, and our own investigation. But at bottom it is this: right now there is an ``ad hockery'' to the way that moneys are passed around the country. There is no predictability about when the funds might arrive, whether reimbursement will be there. And the planning, as a result, tends to take place after the money is received, slowing things down.

In our new system, the planning will be moved at the front end of the process. Every State which already has a statewide terrorism preparedness plan will ensure that when these applications for grants are made, they are directly tied to that statewide plan and also directly tied to the achievement of national objectives for first responder preparedness.

We will have clear standards for the first responders so that they will not have these kinds of questions about reimbursement that have plagued them in the past. We will know that what we are buying in the form of equipment and training will be directly tied to national terrorism preparedness goals.

In recent days, there has been a fair amount of press coverage about abuses of homeland security spending. For example, right here in Washington, D.C., we learned that $100,000 of this grant money meant for first responder terrorism preparedness was instead spent on a Dale Carnegie course for sanitation workers, another $100,000 was spent to develop a rap song purportedly to educate young people about how to be prepared in the case of a terrorist attack.

These kinds of abuses will come to an end as a result of this legislation, and our money will be directed toward keeping our first responders, who are not only first in line to protect us but first in line for the terrorists, the first to die if this system does not work right, keeping these people well trained and well equipped.

I would like to thank, in addition to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, the other members of the Committee on Homeland Security. There has been a great deal of work that has gone into this bill. The last step in bringing this to the floor was a 13- hour markup in our committee. I think what we will find today, Mr. Chairman, is that this debate will go forward in a very bipartisan fashion. We might not agree about all the details of this legislation. We may not agree when we go to conference with the Senate. And when we come back with a conference report, hopefully in just a few weeks or maybe a few months, we may not agree on every detail.

But there is a big change in this bill that we all agree on, and that is that henceforth moneys for terrorism preparedness that go from Washington to States and localities to our police, to our firefighters, to our EMS personnel, to people in hospitals who will be there in case of a biological attack or indeed to treat the wounded in case of any attack, that the people who get these moneys will be assured that, first, the moneys will arrive soon, on time, right after we want them to be available; and, second, they will know how to spend it and they will know, when they spend it in accordance with their plans, they will get reimbursed for it. This will move America in the direction that we need to go to be prepared for another terrorist attack.

A great deal of our work in the Committee on Homeland Security is focused on preventing terrorist attacks,

as well we should be focused; but I have no doubt that someday somewhere terrorists will again strike our country; and when that happens, we are going to rely on our first responders just as we did on 9/11, and next time we want to make sure they have all the training and all the equipment that they need. This bill is a strong step in that direction. It is something that I think we can all be very proud of.

I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi, who, as the leader of the minority, has made it possible for us to keep in mind that when the terrorists attack us, they are not going to attack Democrats or Republicans. They are going to attack Americans. And we are all Americans here, and we are all doing the right thing today.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.

Hon. Christopher Cox,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.

1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act

of 2005.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1544 and

the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.

Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over

certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a

sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my

decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or

otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and

of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional

interest will be included in the Committee report and in the

Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House

Floor.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also

asks that you support our request to be conferees on the

provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-

Senate conference.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Don Young,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the former Attorney General of California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Fossella).

(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the bill before us today expressly permits grant recipients to use, with the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security, up to 10 percent of their covered grant funds for measures to protect critical infrastructure, and this would include building barriers, fences, gates and so on. In the case of New York, that would mean that $21 million would be available for this purpose.

The question of using Federal grant funds to pay for the salaries of local law enforcement officers is a very consequential one with impacts far beyond New York. The resolution of that question and all of its complexity is beyond the scope of this bill, but I want the gentleman to know that I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I will look forward to working with him on these issues in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). This has been a collaborative effort for several years now. I also want to pay homage to the gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) predecessor, Mr. Turner of Texas, who also led the minority ably on this issue.

Today we have an opportunity to establish a new grant process to provide better support to the brave men and women who are the first to rush into burning buildings, the people who place themselves in the line of fire to protect the innocent, the ones who save the sick and wounded under the most trying of circumstances.

It is no accident that this bill has been endorsed by every major first responders group in America, by the Bush administration, by the 9/11 Commission; and, indeed, I expect it will receive a strong endorsement from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1544. By passing this bill, we will take yet another important step since September 11 to help our Nation meet the urgent challenge of terrorism in our cities and hometowns.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, even though I have claimed the time in opposition to the amendment, I actually want to speak in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1544, the bill that the gentleman would amend, as written requires the Department of Homeland Security to analyze risk in rural America. That is a big step forward. For example, the disruption to the agricultural and food sectors by acts of bioterrorism would result in considerable economic and health consequences.

This amendment will ensure that the grants board established by H.R. 1544 contain a member with expertise in this very area. The designee of this amendment, the administrator of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is well versed in agro-terrorism. This is a wise choice.

As a part of the USDA, APHIS is responsible for safeguarding the agriculture and food infrastructures not only from pests and diseases but also biological threats. Indeed, APHIS currently works closely with the Department of Science and Technology directorate, that is, the Department of Homeland Security's directorate, and plays an important role in agro-terrorism preparedness.

Specifically, APHIS is already involved in the following: accelerating the development of countermeasures to agro-terrorism; bio- forensic capabilities; deploying diagnostic technologies; and research, development and training activities.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I strongly urge my colleagues on the committee and my colleagues in the House to vote in support of the Berry amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Mike Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, notwithstanding that I rise in its support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this Berry amendment. It is completely consistent with the intent of the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act. Indeed, H.R. 1544 contains many other provisions with the same purpose: to enhance Federal, State, local, regional and tribal government cooperation in the process of establishing the criteria for prioritizing applications for covered grants. For example, the bill directs the Secretary to establish a first responders task force.

This task force, which will advise the Secretary of Homeland Security on preparedness benchmarks, will consist of 25 members, representative of all of the first-responder disciplines and a substantive cross- section of geography from across the Nation.

The Berry amendment, in my view, will help ensure that the Grant Board's risk-based analysis adequately addresses the concerns of State, local, regional and tribal governments who, after all, have direct jurisdiction and control over the first responders who are the focal point of this legislation. This amendment will provide important comfort to covered grant applicants as the department shifts from a political, formula-driven system to one based on risk.

A dramatic programmatic shift such as the one established by this bill cannot be made in a vacuum. It must be made in close coordination with the people most affected. That is the purpose of the bill as it is written.

I think the Berry amendment clarifies that purpose in a useful way, and I strongly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for the time.

I rise in support of the Bass-Norwood amendment. I strongly support this amendment, and I do so for several reasons.

First, since the attacks of 9/11, States and local governments are increasingly stepping up to the plate and assuming some of what have traditionally been the Federal Government's responsibilities in the area of terrorism preparedness. For example, many State and local governments have entered into agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard or with immigration and customs enforcement or other elements of the Department of Homeland Security to perform responsibilities relating to homeland security.

Second, the Bass-Norwood amendment, which would permit petitioning the Secretary for reimbursement for expenses in this regard, is fiscally responsible. It would not, for example, permit grant recipients to use covered grant funds to supplant routine State or local government expenses. It does not permit, for example, reimbursement for personnel costs.

The Bass-Norwood amendment is also properly targeted in scope. States and localities may defray the costs of their assumed homeland security duties only with the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and States and localities that have assumed these kinds of duties have to have done so pursuant to an agreement with a Federal agency.

The Federal Government, in my view, should encourage States and localities to assist the Federal Government in providing security where it would otherwise be lacking, and that is what this amendment is going to help us do. To support this policy, it is incumbent upon Congress to permit State and local governments to petition the Secretary for reimbursement.

The Bass-Norwood amendment is consistent with other provisions of this bill. Specifically, H.R. 1544, the underlying bill, permits covered grant recipients to satisfy the matching requirements through in-kind contributions of goods or services, or other equipment, fuel, maintenance, personnel overtime and other costs that are associated with State and local assumption of Federal terrorism preparedness duties.

For all of these reasons, I strongly support the Bass-Norwood amendment. I congratulate its authors for presenting it before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I too rise in opposition to this amendment.

I agree with the intention of the author of the amendment to limit the number of grant awards under the Urban Area Security Initiative, but I do not agree with the thrust of the amendment, which is to, in essence, perpetuate a system that sends money exclusively to cities and ignores regions.

One of the important reforms made in H.R. 1544 is that we open up the process to regional grant applications. I come from the most populated State in America: California. My county, just one of 58 counties in California, has 3 million people. Los Angeles, obviously, is an enormous urban center. But the important thing to note about both Los Angeles and New York is that the L.A. region and the New York City region are bigger and geographically more relevant than the city qua city. The municipal boundaries of New York or the municipal boundaries of Los Angeles are not nearly so important, if there is a radiological attack, for example, as understanding where that plume is going to go and what are the evacuation corridors.

We have learned since 9/11 we have got to have regional collaboration. In my home county, Orange County, which as I said has 3 million people, we had two cities get Urban Area Security Initiative money. This was like the fickle finger of fate that touched those two cities and gave them all the cash and ignored the County of Orange, ignored the municipalities situated right next door to them. Happily, due to the leadership of Sheriff Mike Carona and the chairman of the Board of Supervisors Bill Campbell, and the mayor of Santa Ana, Miguel Pulido, and the mayor of Anaheim, Curt Pringle, there has been a workout, a local arrangement made to equitably distribute these urban area security initiative monies. But that is not the way the program is designed.

We have made sense of it in California despite the nonsense of the Federal program itself. Perpetuating this program, trying to focus more emphasis on it is the wrong way to go. UASI is broke, and it makes no sense to place more emphasis upon it.

Finally, let me say that only regional grants, not State grants, may be able to address certain unique terrorism preparedness needs, such as risks that cross interstate or international boundaries, for example, bioterrorism or agro-terrorism. In this respect, I agree with the comments made by the author of the amendment. I think that to the extent we emphasize a regional approach, a mutual-aid approach, we will find ourselves better prepared in the future. That is the aim, one of the chief aims of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and for those reasons I counsel opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Delaware. I would like to assure him that the bill before us today is designed to prepare every State, small, medium and large, to respond in the event of a terrorist attack.

The Department's current method for allocating terrorism preparedness grant funds has not always well served small and medium sized States, including Delaware. The current grant system takes risk into account only in a limited way by specially earmarking funds to a handful of large urban areas under the urban area security initiative. With respect to all the rest of the funding, the current system ignores the threats, vulnerabilities and consequences of acts of terrorism anywhere else in the United States. Yet

throughout America, there are populations and critical infrastructure that terrorists have within their sights.

H.R. 1544 would eliminate this anomaly by requiring a risk-based analysis that covers every part of America, urban, suburban and rural, based on objective criteria. To this end, H.R. 1544 establishes a first-responder grant board to prioritize and evaluate all applications for covered grants on the basis of risk and need.

During this evaluation and prioritization process, the grant board must consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, various critical infrastructure sectors in all areas of the Nation, urban, suburban and rural. Indeed, the 16 critical infrastructure sectors enumerated in H.R. 1544 encompass a large number of critical infrastructure sectors, including agriculture and food, banking and finance, energy, public health and health care, government facilities, transportation systems, and water.

As Delaware's former Governor, the gentleman knows that Delaware contains a great deal of critical infrastructure, including chemical plants, banking and finance, and ports. But he and I also know that, under current law, the Department does not consider these factors in awarding grant funds to his State. Delaware has no jurisdiction that receives grant funds from the urban area security initiative. As a result, like many States under the current system, Delaware only receives grant moneys under the State homeland security grant program. But funding under that program is awarded solely on the basis of an arbitrary political formula without regard to Delaware's actual risk or need. Passage of this legislation, the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act, will remedy these problems.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Delaware for yielding the time but more importantly for offering this important amendment. The House has voted in support of this amendment before. During the 108th Congress, twice it passed the House. As a stand-alone measure, all by itself, on September 14, 2004, and when it was up on its own merits, the recorded vote was 397-3.

This is a commonsense amendment that is vitally important. It would provide protection to people who donate fire control or fire rescue equipment, but more importantly, it would better equip and protect our Nation's firefighters, and that is what this bill is all about. This bill is for our first responders. So is the Castle amendment. It will encourage fire departments, the private sector and other people to donate equipment that the firefighters desperately need so that they can better protect every American.

Many people incorrectly assume that all firefighters work in departments that have the latest and the best equipment. The reality, unfortunately, is far different. It is estimated that 30,000 firefighters every day risk their lives unnecessarily due to inadequate personal protective equipment, just to cite one example.

This is a fiscally prudent amendment. It is going to stretch our dollars. It serves the interests of taxpayers by extending the life of equipment they have already paid for. This is expensive equipment, and it ought to be used. And it provides poorer jurisdictions with capabilities they might not otherwise have and might not have the ability to attain.

I congratulate the gentleman for offering the amendment, I strongly support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support as well.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for a fair and effective system of distributing homeland security grants to our nation's courageous first-responders. As a former Governor, I have long been concerned about our government's ability to accurately assess national threats, risks, and vulnerabilities. For this reason, I have been an adamant proponent of improving and streamlining the application and distribution process for these important grant programs.

The current grant allocation system is largely population-based. While population is an essential factor, the top priority for determining the needs of our first-responders must be based on the risk of terrorism and vulnerability of a community. The 9/11 Commission predicted in their report that one of our greatest challenges would be how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. With the tragic memories of that clear September day still fresh in our minds, it is obvious that first-responders in high-risk and high density areas, such as New York City and Washington, DC, deserve an increased per capita share of the homeland security funding.

While it is essential that we update the distribution process to better reflect an assessment of risk, it is also important that we ensure the homeland security needs of small States and rural areas do not go unnoticed. In its report, the 9/11 Commission notes that due to the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might begin turning their attention to ``softer,'' less protected targets. As representative of our nation's sixth smallest State, I am concerned that in improving the current system, we might inadvertently overlook citizens in States considered less likely to be vulnerable. In Delaware, the State Emergency Management Agency has expressed some concern that our critical infrastructure may be neglected. Such omissions could force small States like Delaware to dip into other important programs, such as disaster prevention, in order to provide the resources and personnel necessary to handle certain attacks.

While this legislation makes an important change in the distribution of homeland security funding by focusing resources on high-risk areas, the challenge to define these risks remains. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has never undertaken a comprehensive national risk assessment, and will not complete their current study until at least 2008. A national risk evaluation is imperative for determining how to allocate first-responder grants, but obviously a thorough study will not be available for several years. Without a detailed study of our Nation's vast critical infrastructure, the Department cannot truly know what level of funding should be dedicated to large States, small States, urban areas, or rural communities.

To ensure first-responders across the country have access to effective homeland security funding, it is essential that we continue to provide each State with a fair and commonsense minimum-funding baseline. Currently, the Department's inconsistent methodology for extracting data about key critical infrastructure assets can potentially result in incomplete and frankly, inadequate vulnerability assessments. Minimum-funding baselines reinforce this evolving system and provide additional protection to the thousands of ``soft targets,'' by ensuring that all States receive sufficient funding to meet basic homeland security needs.

While I support the purpose of this legislation, I intend to remain engaged throughout conference with the Senate to ensure we reach a compromise for a State formula that is fair and refrains from cutting into States' preparedness efforts. Homeland security funding can be both efficient and effective and we should settle for no less.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, like most of my colleagues here today, I support efforts to reform our current system to ensure that more funding for our first responders is determined on the basis of risk. The 9/11 Commission noted that one of our greatest challenges would be in how to allocate these limited resources, and I agree. The gentleman from California's determination for taking on this challenge is commendable.

As the gentleman knows, I have been concerned about the Department's ability to accurately determine national threats, vulnerabilities and consequences. In its report, the 9/11 Commission also notes that, due to the overwhelming focus on specific high-risk areas, terrorists might begin turning their attention to softer, less-protected targets.

As a Member representing our Nation's sixth smallest State by population, second smallest by size, I am concerned that, in improving the current system, we might inadvertently overlook citizens in States considered less likely to be vulnerable. In Delaware, the State Emergency Management Agency has expressed some concern that our high- risk targets may be neglected. Such omissions force small States like mine to dip into other important programs, such as disaster prevention, in order to provide necessary resources and personnel to handle certain attacks.

There needs to be some balance here and recognition that real homeland security needs exist outside of metropolitan areas. To the best of my knowledge, the Department of Homeland Security has not completed a comprehensive national risk assessment. It seems that this type of national risk assessment should serve as a basis for determining how to allocate first-responder grants, but apparently, a thorough study will not be available for several years.

I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments. The gentleman is correct in that my home State, and every other State, deserves equitable consideration. I appreciate his willingness to protect adequate grant allotments for first responders in small States. I support the gentleman's goal of getting these important funds to communities where they can be used effectively and look forward to working with him throughout this process to ensure all States receive fair and realistic homeland security funding.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1544, which is identical to legislation I introduced, H.R. 1088, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act. This legislation overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Congress, 397-3, and was also included as an amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Unfortunately, it was not in the final conference report.

My amendment removes a barrier which currently prevents some organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to fire departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment rather than donating it to volunteer rural and other financially strapped departments. We know that, every day across the United States, firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We may presume that our firefighters work in departments with the latest and best fire fighting and protective equipment when in reality there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack of basic personal protective equipment, PPE. In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. At the same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art innovation. Sometimes the surplus equipment has never been used to put out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to destroy rather than donate millions of dollars of quality fire equipment.

Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save State and local governments $36.8 billion a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than 19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer. Thirteen States, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas, have passed similar legislation. In the 7 years of the Texas program, more than $12 million worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to needy departments. This includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles and more than 1,500 pieces of communications equipment as well. In total, more than 33,000 items have been donated.

Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. Equipping our Nation's first responders is essential as we fight the war on terror. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his past support of this measure, and I am hopeful the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and my colleagues will again join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will close briefly. Let me just reiterate, this has been actually before us before. It is actually a popular amendment. People want it on their legislation for the most part. So we have had a little trouble getting it signed into law because it keeps passing and then getting dropped off for various things. But we voted on it back in September, and I do not know what has changed since then. The vote was 397 to 3. To the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) credit, he did vote ``no'' then. I do not know if a single thing has changed in that interim time.

It is pretty simple. We have large corporations, for the most part, that have their own fire equipment. It is very modern. It is generally unused. They donate it. They are not going to donate it unless this liability provision is removed. Most big States, or at least a lot of big States, have looked at this and have made the decision to go ahead and do that. And it just seems to make sense all over this country, as we try to support our volunteer fire services, that we would give them the best equipment possible. And this simply would allow that to happen.

I would hope that every single Member of the House of Representatives this time would look carefully, if it comes to a roll call, at what is a rather simple amendment and would be in full support of it. And I hope that, as much as I enjoy presenting this amendment, that this is the last time we have to present and it becomes law sooner rather than later so that we can proceed, because even in the last year, we have, unfortunately, lost some opportunities for donation of equipment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like at the outset to follow the conversation, saying this committee has worked very well on this legislation. It is bipartisan. The 14 hours we put in working on it in committee went very well. I would like to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the ranking member of the Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology Subcommittee, for his work on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. Our first responders, whether they are firefighters, law enforcement, or EMS providers, are the first line of defense. We must provide them with additional resources, training, and information they need in order to meet the challenges.

Preparing for, preventing, and responding to any large incident is primarily a local responsibility. Still, the Federal Government has a significant role. H.R. 1544 was introduced in April. It was co- sponsored by all the Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Homeland Security, and it was approved unanimously by voice vote of that same committee. In addition, this bill is supported by every major first responder organization in the country. This version is a compromise that was reached during the 108th Congress in order to pass out of the House of Representatives at that point. The current system for distributing funding to first responders is fundamentally broken and is not getting the funding where it needs to go in a timely fashion.

Currently, funding is distributed solely on the basis of an arbitrary formula that does not consider risk in any part of the country. H.R. 1544 ensures that homeland security funding for first responders is distributed on the basis of risk regardless of community type.

As a former mayor and volunteer firefighter from Mississippi, I am very concerned that the needs of rural America are not adequately being considered when DHS allocates homeland security funding. Maintaining a State minimum of .25 percent for most States and .45 for certain border States strikes a difficult, but necessary, balance. On one hand the government must consider risk in distributing the funding. On the other hand, the government must ensure that each State will have the funding to reach a minimum level of preparedness.

H.R. 1544 does not mean that all funding will go to States and communities with a high population or high threat. For the first time, DHS will assess risk in every community regardless of whether it is urban, suburban, or rural. After all, we do not know where terrorists will strike next.

One issue that is very important to my State is the issue of flood control levees. I worked to ensure that flood control levees are included in the definition of dams on the critical infrastructure.

This bill establishes a First Responder Grant Board to prioritize grant applications using threat, vulnerability, and consequences. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1544 also helps target funding to the essential capabilities of first responders in order to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism.

But this bill is not perfect, Mr. Chairman. There are personnel shortages that ought to be covered in this program. There are a number of other things that I look forward to working with the chairman on correcting in other legislation. However, for what we have before us today, I am in support of it from the outset. It is the right thing to do. We have to target the resources based on risk. This legislation does that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), a member of the Committee on Homeland Security as well as the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has been a constant reminder to us all about needing to do it better.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time we do not have another speaker, and I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the chairman of the committee for working with the minority on this legislation. It has been a very bipartisan effort. It speaks well for his leadership. I compliment him on it.

I look forward to the passage of this legislation and working on other pieces of legislation of mutual agreement which we have already discussed. It appears that additional legislation will be forthcoming. I would like to thank the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), for providing me significant leadership in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) allowing me to speak on his amendment.

My district is reliant on agriculture. This amendment is very supportive of the agriculture through the APHIS program. If the administrator is allowed to participate in the grants board, it will allow us, from an agricultural standpoint, to be adequately considered. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for bringing this to our attention. It is timely in terms of an amendment, and it is something that I am happy to support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

This amendment would ensure that the First Responder Grant Board would coordinate with State and local governments. Throughout this process we have sought to ensure that State, local, and tribal governments are consulted throughout this process. This amendment would make it crystal clear to DHS that we expect them to listen to State, local, and tribal governments as they make their funding decisions. I support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in order to speak on this amendment, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, only for the sake of discussion and procedure do I do that, as I am in absolute agreement with the author of the amendment.

This amendment adds an additional paragraph for reimbursement of costs that a State may incur for terrorism preparedness. It would allow for the reimbursement for activities that a State may perform which are traditionally Federal responsibilities. It is common sense, it is the right thing, and I support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time to speak in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment would limit the number of urban area security initiative grants to 50. I understand what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is trying to accomplish; and he has to do it, he is from New York. However, it is unreasonable to set an arbitrary number, in this case 50, for the number of UASI or regional grants.

In the bill, we already limit the number of regions by requiring a region to have at least 1.65 million people. This would adequately limit the number of recipients in itself. So I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment would remove civil liability barriers from the donation of fire equipment for volunteer fire companies. As a former volunteer firefighter from a small community, I understand how important it is to have the equipment you need to protect fellow citizens. Although I am going to support this amendment, the issue needs to be studied further once we get into conference. I am concerned that there are no assurances that the equipment would perform as expected, and therefore, many of the firefighters who would use this equipment potentially could be harmed.

We must ensure that our firefighters are adequately protected.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The purpose of this amendment is simple. First of all, let me say what this amendment is not. This amendment is not an effort to litigate again the conflict that has arisen in this House between urban Members and rural Members. It is not an effort to revisit the formula question about the minimums. I think that the committee has done a fairly good job on trying to manage that situation, although it is not perfect. My belief is that there should be no minimum guarantee. Money should be allocated based on threats. That is the way I think it should be done, but I understand the efforts of the ranking member and the chairman to address that problem; and they have done so, I think, better than we have up until now.

The question still arises about whether or not we should have a portion of our homeland security funding stream that is dedicated for what we in Congress said we wanted in the 2003 omnibus, which is a pool of money that is designated to go, in the language of the legislation, to address the unique equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs of selected large high-threat urban areas.

We have now, through the course of time, expanded that not just to be cities; it is literally the areas around cities, the cities and the suburbs, and in

many cases it is also the ports authorities and the airports authorities of these major cities.

What my legislation would do would be to address a creeping problem that was not created by this Congress but has been created by the Department of Homeland Security. These high-threat urban area grants, which started out going to six cities, have expanded over time to the point that now they are over 50 cities, and there are also additional areas and airports authorities and the like that get it.

What my legislation would do would be to say, look, there are going to be times when we are going to want to take a city or an area, and they may be under less threat or we may want to add one, but we must not continue down the path for, I think, largely political reasons each year adding more and more and more cities to this pot.

Here is what it is doing. We in the Congress are expressing our views to increase the funding for that pool of money; but the Department of Homeland Security, by administrative fiat, is adding the number of cities that are available, therefore actually reducing the amount and percentage that the larger cities and areas have to contend with.

Now, for my colleagues who represent rural areas, my colleagues who represent suburban areas, my colleagues who represent areas that are not traditionally thought of as large urban areas, I want to assure you nothing in this amendment in any way limits your ability to get funds from this pot. Because under language written by the chairman and the ranking member, now areas can pool together. For example, if Kansas and Iowa and Nebraska want to get together and say we want to create a pool to protect against agro-terrorism, for example, they could be added as a group under my amendment very easily.

This simply says one thing: we have to stop adding more and more cities when that was clearly not the intention of Congress to do. We said in our actions that we wanted this to be a select number of areas. If the Department of Homeland Security is going to continue to add to that list, until we essentially have every single eligible city up to the limit that is laid out in the law, what is the purpose of having the bifurcated system? Maybe we should not.

I mean, I happen to believe that we were trying to address a legitimate concern that many have raised, including the 9/11 Commission, that said, look, there are some areas and cities that we want to have a distinct pot of money for.

Before I reserve, let me just make another point. We are talking about approximately 25 percent of the overall funding stream for homeland security. We are not talking about 75 or 80 percent. We are talking about a discrete amount of money, a discrete percentage of money which would be held for these 50 or fewer cities. Now, I happen to believe 50 is a very high number. When you start thinking about the 50 largest cities, the largest metropolitan areas, there are cities on the list presently that do not even have minor league baseball teams, yet they are considered major urban areas.

I am not saying that we should take all of the funds and just dedicate them to my hometown. I know that is not anything that we should do. We have a law here that is crafted to distribute money based on different types of threat, different types of ways. But we in the legislature here in Congress have said very clearly that we believe there should be a pot of money that is protected from the traditional political back and forth. Let us continue to protect that pot of money.

If you vote for my amendment, it does not mean any of your constituents are not eligible for this money. It does not mean that. But it does mean if you are one of these cities either now, in the past, or in the future, you are not going to be on the list of 300 or 400 cities. It is going to be limited to 50 at most.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, in reaction to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, he is incorrect. The bill defines the size of a region at 1.65 million, but it leaves open cities of any type. We do not know, since the bill is silent on that distinction. You can have a city of 20,000 and be eligible for this. You can have a city of 10,000 and be eligible. The gentleman from Mississippi is correct that a region has to be 1.65 million, but nowhere does it restrict the size of the city.

As for the chairman, the chairman, who has done an excellent job on this bill, regrettably is incorrect as well. There is nothing in my amendment that restricts this from going to cities

or to regions. As I read from line 4 of the bill: ``may not award any more than 50 grants for any fiscal year.'' If the Department of Homeland Security, which by the way this issue is somewhat vague in the bill as drafted, it is silent on how this program is going to be divided. If the Department of Homeland Security says grants are available to areas, which they have been in the past, fine. Limit it to 50. If they say it should be cities, limit it to 50.

If we take the chairman and the ranking member's argument to its logical extension, you could conceivably in this portion of the bill, which the language says ``shall be to exercise the needs of selected large, high-threat urban areas,'' it could be any city of any size. And I do not believe that was the intention of our legislation.

I think what we are doing, and with all due deference to the gentleman from Mississippi, I am not just offering this because I am from New York. It could be that we add the 200 cities to this, 300 cities, 400, 500 cities, and we completely undermine the intention of this Congress when we created the program to begin with. Maybe you are right. In that case, do away with the program. It is not any longer going to be a high-threat, high-density urban area grant program. Then let us eliminate it. Put it in with the other pot of money. But if we are going to have it, let us preserve its integrity.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I am waiting for some clarification on our side, if the majority side has clarification, because it might lead me to withdraw my amendment.

If someone will stand up and say that a city of less than 1.65 million will be ineligible to receive these grants in the future, as has been articulated by the ranking member and implied by the chairman, then we are on to something.

The language in the bill refers to the area which is this new thing that we are trying to do, I think, for good reason. The question is, will a city of 50,000 or 60,000 who does not form a coalition with four or five or six other cities or other regions, will they still be eligible? That is the problem.

I think that what we have here is a very good bill that continues a bifurcated system. On one hand, you have every single corner of the country eligible for money based on threat, based on the Weiner language that was introduced in committee, and I am glad you accepted; on the other side, we have this thing that now only limits the area to 1.65 million. What I am trying to do is not say a city can be on or off but say, let us limit it to 50.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the distinguished Chairman very much for his leadership, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member for yielding. This truly is a bipartisan bill, and it falls on the backdrop of an interesting but yet telling experience.

First of all, let me take the opportunity to thank all of the Capitol Hill staff and the Capitol Hill police, all of the Sergeant of Arms staff. Sometimes we do not share the appreciation for the work that they have to do. And I want to acknowledge them for doing it in a very difficult scenario.

I think yesterday, as I rise to support this bill, particularly, as it is focused on risk analysis, which means that we will do our very best as we support our first responders in the Faster and Smarter Funding for Our First Responders Act, that we will reach out to the most vulnerable cities and areas, but in fact, we will not rest until the entire homeland is secure. I am very gratified that we are still working on empowering what we call citizen corps and to develop what I think is very important, citizen volunteers to perform critical functions in assisting, in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks, and that they should be integrated in through this process in our State and local planning.

But as I looked at yesterday and determined that a small Cessna plane could come between or come near the no-fly area of this particular region, I know that we are in some troubling times. Yes, we survived yesterday, but we survived it because it was a mistake and because there were no intentions for terrorist acts.

This speaks to the need for this legislation, in particular, as we focus on the more troubling areas or the more vulnerable areas to terrorist attacks, but it also speaks to moving quickly to authorize our Homeland Security legislation.

More importantly, one of the concerns I have, Mr. Chairman, is the whole idea of cutting-edge technology. Technology is going to be the key to the whole focus of Homeland Security. Technology at the border, technology as it relates to cybersecurity, technology in airport screening. This is a first step. And because of the heroic efforts of our first responders on 9/11 and the acts of theirs throughout this time frame, this is an outstanding legislative initiative that will set, if you will, us on a pathway of securing our local communities. I hope that we will be smart in our legislative amendments. And I do not believe we need to move forward on the Castle amendment. If there is a certification process on the donated equipment that will come to our Fire Departments, then so be it. But on liability, even volunteer or donated equipment should not endanger our Fire Departments.

This is the right decision to make with respect to this legislation. I hope my colleagues will pass it, but I hope it will be a signal that more work needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation we consider today, H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005. On April 21, 2005, I joined my colleagues in the Committee on Homeland Security to pass this important measure unanimously, and I urge my colleagues to do so today.

I thank Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Thompson for their tremendous efforts to make this legislation bipartisan. I am an original cosponsor of this measure just as I was for that introduced in the 108th Congress, H.R. 3266, so my overall support for this initiative is abundantly clear.

I offered an amendment in the context of H.R. 3266, the rendition of today's legislation

that was introduced in the 108th Congress that proposed to increase the scope of the terrorism exercise programs that will be administered by the Secretary of DHS to include Citizen Corps Councils. Since the creation of this committee even as a select body, I have found it increasingly important that we include local ``second responders'' as often as possible when advancing emergency preparedness legislative initiatives. This body's crafting of a first responder bill as well as an authorization bill has given us an opportunity to make our preparedness exercises more thorough and ``simulated.''

A sense of Congress provision was accepted in the bill introduced in the 108th Congress. However, I offered and withdrew this amendment at the markup of H.R. 1544 because a similar provision, paragraph (11) has been included in House Report 109-65. In addition, I intend to pursue this initiative in the context of the authorization bill that will come before the House likely next week. I hope that my colleagues will work with me to further this important goal. Section 2, paragraph (11) of this report reads:

(11) Private sector resources and citizen volunteers can

perform critical functions in assisting in preventing and

responding to terrorist attacks, and should be integrated

into State and local planning efforts to ensure that their

capabilities and roles are understood, so as to provide

enhanced State and local operational capability and surge

capacity (emphasis added).

The Citizen Corps program was launched by President George W. Bush himself during the 2002 State of the Union address as part of the USA Freedom Corps initiative to engage Americans in volunteer service.

In only 2 years, nearly 1,000 communities around the country, encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population established Citizen Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in emergency preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make our communities safer. Fifty-two states and territories also formed State level Citizen Corps Councils to support local efforts.

Our families need to be aware of the threats that exist from abroad. Homeland security is a very important issue that we may not think about in our daily lives.

The Houston branch of the Citizen Corps Council is headquartered in my Congressional District, Harris County, which is in southeastern Texas, comprises 1,779 square miles, and encompasses the city of Houston, 32 additional smaller cities, and is the home for nearly 4 million residents. Harris County is the third most populous county in the United States and one of the most culturally diverse.

This report language that I cited above is a good step toward getting the necessary funding and support needed to implement the Citizen Corps concept. Overall, the threat-based grant provisions found in the underlying legislation will help high-density threat-laden cities such as Houston, TX.

Harris County is home to numerous potential terrorist targets:

The Port of Houston, which ranks first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, is the leading domestic and international center for almost every segment of the oil and gas industry, houses almost half of the Nation's petrochemicals manufacturing capacity, is the world's sixth largest seaport and the Nation's largest oil port;

The Texas Medical Center, with 42 member institutions, provides leading medical care to people from all over the world and is the world's largest medical complex serving more than 70,000 daily;

The Johnson Space Center, home of NASA's manned space program;

The fourth largest airport system in the country, with more than 43 million passengers traveling through its three area airports to domestic and international destinations;

Three national sport arenas hosting thousands of fans for popular events; and

A nuclear power plant located approximately 70 miles from the county.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1544 will help the Department of Homeland Security allocate the first responder grant funds more prudently and expeditiously. I support the legislation and urge my colleagues to join me.