FY2005 Appropriation for First Responder Preparedness: Issues and Analysis

CRS Report for Congress
FY2005 Appropriations for First Responder
Preparedness: Issues and Analysis
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Conference report H.Rept. 108-774, accompanying H.R. 4567, appropriated
roughly $3.6 billion to first responder grant programs. This was $229 million more than
requested by the Administration, $145 million more than proposed by the Senate in S.

2537; however, it was $70 million less than proposed by the House in H.R. 4567.

The only new program funded was $25 million appropriated for securing non-
governmental organizations (as defined by sec. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986) from terrorist attacks. Additionally, the conference report stated that the State
Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program funding would be allocated according to the same formula used for FY2004
appropriations for these programs. Funding for Citizen Corps programs, however, was
not mentioned in the conference report.
H.R. 5024, “9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004,”
H.R. 5040, “9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004,” S. 2774, “9/11
Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004,” S.Amdt. 3705 (introduced by Senator
Collins and agreed to on the floor of the Senate on October 4, 2004) to S. 2845,
“National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004,” and H.R. 10, “9/11 Recommendations
Implementation Act” (passed by the House on October 6, 2004), proposed to change the
allocation formula used in distributing first responder grant funding to states and
localities.
This report provides an overview of the conference report H.Rept. 108-774,
accompanying H.R. 4567, the Administration’s FY2005 budget request H.R. 4567, and
S. 2537 for state and local terrorism preparedness.¹ Preparedness may be defined as
enhancing a state or local government’s capability to respond effectively to a terrorist

¹ H.R. 4567 and S. 2537 are both entitled “Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
of 2005.”
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

attack, particularly one involving a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The programs²
identified assist traditional first responders, including firefighters, emergency medical
personnel, law enforcement officers, and other entities that may serve as first responders.
There is no consensus on which federal grant programs should be included in a definition
of state and local terrorism preparedness programs. This report tracks FY2004
appropriations, the Administration’s FY2005 budget request, H.R. 4567, S. 2537, and the
conference report (H.Rept. 108-774) accompanying H.R. 4567 for selected programs
whose goals are related to homeland security, and whose funds may be used for terrorism
preparedness activities. Programs for first responders tracked in this report include the
following, all administered by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) — renamed
the Office for Grants and Training (G&T) in FY2006:³
^!State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
^!Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);⁴
^!Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grants (LETPP);
^!Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE);
^!Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG);⁵
^!Citizen Corps Grant Programs (CCP); and
^!Port Security Grants (PSA).⁶
These programs were not the only assistance programs available to state and local
governments; by appropriating roughly $3.6 billion, however, Congress signaled the
importance of these programs as sources of grant funding for terrorism preparedness
activities.
Issues and Analysis. Two issues are discussed in this report:
^!ODP consolidation with the Office for State and Local Government
Coordination (SLGCP); and
^!Proposed grant formula changes.
Office for Domestic Preparedness Consolidation. On January 26, 2004, DHS
Secretary Tom Ridge informed Congress of his intention to consolidate ODP, at the time
within the Border and Transportation Security Directorate, with the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination (SLGC). SLGC was within the Office of the DHS
Secretary, and Congress gave the Secretary consolidation authority in the Homeland

² This report uses the term “program” to refer to selected federal entities, accounts, and grants.
³ On Mar. 26, 2004, DHS Secretary Ridge consolidated ODP with the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination, and renamed it the Office for State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP).
⁴ UASI programs include rail, port, intercity bus, and trucking security grants.
⁵ On Mar. 26, 2004, DHS Secretary Ridge transferred EMPG from FEMA to ODP/SLGCP.
⁶ On Mar. 26, 2004, DHS Secretary Ridge transferred PSA from the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to ODP/SLGCP.

Security Act of 2002.⁷ This new consolidated office was named the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), and reported directly to the
DHS Secretary.
The basis for this consolidation was the stated need for the establishment of a “one-
stop-shop,” within DHS, for state and local governments. This one-stop-shop integrated
numerous federal preparedness initiatives into a single, streamlined comprehensive
program.⁸ H.R. 4567 proposed to support the DHS Secretary’s decision to consolidate
ODP with SLGC by listing ODP programs under the title of “Office for State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness”.⁹ S. 2537 also supported this transfer.¹⁰
Table 1. Consolidated Terrorism Preparedness Programs
Within the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness
ProgramPresent Administering Agency
Metropolitan Medical Response SystemEmergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate (EPR)
Assistance to FirefightersODP
Emergency Management PerformanceFEMA
Grants
Citizen CorpsODP
Interoperable CommunicationsFEMA
Port Security GrantsTransportation Security Administration
(TSA)
Intercity Bus Security GrantsTSA
Operation Safe CommerceTSA
Trucking Industry Security Grant ProgramTSA
State Homeland Security Grant ProgramODP
Law Enforcement Terrorism PreventionODP
Grants
National Exercise ProgramODP
Urban Area Security initiativeODP
^So^urce^:^{DHS Secr}^etar^y^T^o^m^Rid^g^{e, letter}^to^Sen^a^to^r^Su^san^Co^llin^{s, Ch}^air^m^an^o^f^th^e^Sen^a^te^Co^m^m^ittee^oⁿ
^G^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^al^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^,^Jan^.^{26, 2004.}
This report only tracks the FY2004 appropriations and FY2005 appropriations for
SLGCP first responder programs.

⁷ P.L. 107-296, sec. 872.
⁸ Tom Ridge, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, letter to Senator Susan Collins, Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Jan. 26, 2004.
⁹ H.R. 4567, Title III.
¹⁰ S. 2537, Title III.

Proposed Formula Changes. DHS indicated that it will propose changes to the
formula for ODP’s State Homeland Security Grant, Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Grant, and Citizen Corps programs. These programs provide each state a
minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for state and local domestic preparedness in
accordance with sec. 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act.¹¹ The Administration proposed
to change the formula to one which allocates funding based on population concentrations,
critical infrastructures, and other significant terrorism risk factors, as determined by the
DHS Secretary.¹²
Arguably, this could reduce the amount some states would receive from these grant
programs, due to their lack of population concentrations, critical infrastructures, and other
determined terrorism risk factors. Additionally, a large portion of states rely on these
programs to fund not only anti-terrorism efforts, but to also fund natural hazard
preparedness efforts. DHS officials, however, have stated that a cut in funding to states
and localities would not hinder their anti-terrorism efforts due to the amount of federal
aid received since September 11, 2001. DHS Secretary Ridge said that this new
reformulation is intended to send anti-terrorism grants to large cities and other population
areas that were the likeliest targets for terrorists.¹³
Conference report H.Rept. 108-774, accompanying H.R. 4567, does not propose to
change the formula used to distribute funding from SHSGP, LETPP, EMPG and CCP.
It states that Sec. 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56), which guarantees a state
minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for state and local domestic preparedness, will
be used to distribute funds for these grant programs in FY2005.¹⁴ However, H.R. 5024,
“9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004,” H.R. 5040, “9/11
Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004,” and S. 2774, “9/11 Commission
Report Implementation Act of 2004” propose to change the funding formulas for the
majority of first responder grant programs to be based on threat and risk assessments.¹⁵
Additionally, S.Amdt. 3705 (introduced by Senator Collins and agreed to on the floor of
the Senate on October 4, 2004) to S. 2845, “National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004,”
and H.R. 10, “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” (passed by the House on
October 6, 2004), propose to change the current formula used in distributing first
responder grant funding to states and localities.¹⁶
What Other Programs Might Be Considered? The programs discussed above
do not include general assistance grant programs that are authorized for a broad range of
public safety activities. These programs include the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG), the Byrne Memorial Formula Grant, and Community-Oriented Policing

¹¹ P.L. 107-56, sec. 1014.
¹² U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2005 Budget of the United States
Government, (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 470.
¹³ Philip Shenon, “The President’s Budget Proposal: Domestic Security,” The New York Times,
Feb. 3, 2004, p. 15A.
¹⁴ H.R. 4567, Title III; S. 2537, Title III.
¹⁵ H.R. 5024, sec. 601, H.R. 5040, sec. 801, and S. 2774, sec. 801.
¹⁶ H.R. 10, Title V, Subtitle A.

Services (COPS). States and localities that receive funds through these programs may use
a portion of the funds for homeland security activities. While some observers believe
these programs should not be considered terrorism preparedness programs, due to their
wide range of eligible activities, other observers believe they are a critical element of the
federal government’s overall effort to better prepare states and localities for terrorism.
What Is Not Tracked. This report does not track appropriations for critical
infrastructure protection programs,¹⁷ National Guard funding, or emergency management
appropriations for the District of Columbia.

¹⁷ For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RL31465, Protecting Critical
Infrastructure from Terrorist Attack: A Catalog of Selected Federal Assistance Programs,
coordinated by John Moteff.

CRS-6
Table 2. FY2004 Appropriations, FY2005 Budget Request, and
H.R. 4567: Terrorism Preparedness Assistance Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2004FY2005House^ASenate^BConf. Rept. H.Rept. 108-
SLGCP ProgramAppropriationsRequestApprovedApproved774
ate Homeland Security Grants$1,700$700$1,250$940$1,100
ban Area Security Initiative$725$1,446$1,000$1,200$1,200
Rail Security Grants[$50] — [$100][$150][$150]
Trucking Industry Security Grants^C — — — [$15][$5]
Intercity Bus Security Grants^D — — — [$10][$10]
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RS21736}Non-governmental Organizations^E — — — — [$25]
^g/w
^s^.or Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grants$500$500$500$400$400
^le^ak^F
i refighters $750 $500 $600 $700 $715
^://wiki^G
^h^ttp Corps$40$50$20 $30 —
— — $125[$150]^H[$150]^I
ergency Management Performance Grants^J$180$170$170$180$180
irst Responder” Assistance Total$3,895$3,366$3,665$3,450$3,595
^:^C^R^S^cal^cu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^bas^e^{d on}^am^ouⁿ^t^s^f^r^om^P.L^.^108-^{90, U}^.^S^.^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^d^Bu^dg^et^,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar^{2005 Budget}^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d St}^at^es^G^o^ver^nm^ent⁽^W^a^s^hi^ngt^oⁿ^:^G^P^O^,
^.^R^.^{4567, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{451, S}^.^{2537, S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^280.
^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^th^is^colu^mⁿ^com^e^f^r^om^H.R^e^{pt. 108-}^{451 accom}^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^H.^R^.^{4567, pas}^s^e^{d by}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es^on^Juⁿ^e^{18, 20}^04.
^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^th^is^colu^mⁿ^com^e^f^r^om^S^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^{280 accom}^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^S^.^2537.
^S^S^ecret^ary^Rⁱ^dg^{e t}^r^an^s^f^{erred t}^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^f^r^om^T^S^A^t^o^S^L^G^C^{P on}^{Mar. 26, 2004.}
^H^S^S^ecret^ary^Rⁱ^dg^{e t}^r^an^s^f^{erred t}^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^f^r^om^T^S^A^t^o^S^L^G^C^{P on}^{Mar. 26. 2004.}
ⁿ^-^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^al^org^aⁿⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^s^elⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^f^o^{r t}^hⁱ^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{are def}ⁱⁿ^e^{d i}ⁿ^s^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{501(c)(3) of}^t^h^{e In}^t^e^rn^al^R^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^C^{ode of}¹⁹⁸⁶^.
^o^{r t}^o^F^Y^{2004, t}^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^w^a^s^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^{ered by}^F^E^MA^.
^o^{r t}^o^F^Y^{2004, t}^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^w^a^s^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^{ered by}^F^E^MA^an^{d con}^f^eren^{ce report}^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{774 does}ⁿ^o^t^s^p^eci^f^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^.
^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{280 propos}^es^f^o^{r t}^hⁱ^s^am^ouⁿ^t^t^o^com^e^f^r^om^U^A^S^I^prog^ram^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
ⁿ^f^eren^{ce report}^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{774 appropri}^a^t^e^s^t^hⁱ^s^am^ouⁿ^t^f^r^om^t^h^{e U}^A^S^I^prog^ram^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^’^s^F^Y^{2005 bu}^dg^et^requ^es^t^an^{d H}^.^R^.^{4567 w}^o^u^l^{d t}^r^an^s^f^{er t}^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^t^o^S^L^G^C^P.