By Ed Somers
April 25, 2005

Homeland security committees in both the House and Senate have approved legislation that would change the way the federal government provides funding to first responders. Both bills would alter the current funding formula, replace the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) with new regional application systems, and rely more on threat, risk and essential capability needs.

On April 13, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved S. 21 by Chair Susan Collins (ME) and Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman (CT) to authorize $2.9 billion for the new program.

On April 21, the House Homeland Security Committee approved H.R. 1544 by Committee Chair Chris Cox (CA), which does not contain a specific authorization level.

The House and Senate failed to reconcile homeland security authorization bills last year, and it is not yet known whether they will be able to reach a compromise this year in time to influence the appropriations process.

One of the most contentious issues in Congress has been state minimums and debate over population vs. threat in the allocation of funding.

Under current law, each state receives a minimum of 0.75 percent of block grant funding, with the remainder distributed based on population. This approach has come under attack from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and some states and metro areas that want the funding distributed based on risk and threat.

Under the Senate bill, the state minimum would be reduced to 0.55 percent. States that are larger and/or more densely populated would receive a higher baseline amount, based on a formula that combines population and population density. However, the state minimums — but not necessarily the total state allocations - would actually be higher than under current law in that both the block grant and UASI funding would be included in this distribution subject to the minimum, rather than just the state block grant as under current law.

All funds beyond those necessary to cover the baseline allocations would be distributed based on the relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences faced by an area from a terrorist attack.

Under the House bill, funding would be assigned to each state based on a DHS assessment of its risk of terror attack. If the assessment determined that a state would get less than 0.25 percent of the available funds, the department would make up the difference, and certain border states would get at least 0.45 percent. The remainder of the funding would be allocated based on risk.

The Conference of Mayors has no policy on the formula debate.

Both the Senate and House bills would eliminate or make major changes to the current UASI high-threat program. Currently, DHS develops a formula for UASI grants and makes the distributions based on that formula. Under the new bills, regions would apply for funding to DHS, and would be judged and ranked based on a number of factors.

Under the Senate bill, communities would be given flexibility in forming regions to apply for funding, but the regions must be made up of two or more contiguous municipalities, counties, parishes or Indian tribes, and must include the largest city in the metropolitan area. And, only regions within the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) would be automatically eligible to apply, though other regions could apply with the consent of the Governor and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Grants to regions would be prioritized based on threat, vulnerability and consequences from a terrorist attack, with consideration to be given to such factors as population, population density, proximity to international borders and coastlines, and the proportion of the relevant metropolitan area participating in the regional application.

Grants to regions could comprise up to 50 percent of the threat-based grant funding (30 percent of total funding because of state minimums).

Under the House bill, regional applications would be allowed for: 1) geographic areas consisting of all or parts of two or more contiguous states, counties, municipalities or other local governments that have a combined population of 1.65 million or encompassing an area of not less than 20,000 square miles; or 2) areas certified as regions by DHS with the consent of both the State/States in which they are located, and the incorporated jurisdictions within the region. No specific percentage of funding is reserved under the House bill for regional applications.

Regional grants would be prioritized based on their ability to lessen the threat to, vulnerability of, and consequences for persons (including transient commuting and tourist populations) and critical infrastructure based on national risk assessments and threats of terrorism.

Under both the House and Senate bills, the regional funding would still flow through the states, as under the current UASI program, with states required to pass at least 80 percent of the regional money to the regions. The same 80 percent pass-through rule would apply to state block grant funding.

A number of current UASI communities expressed concern prior to the markups that neither bill grandfathers previously-designated UASI areas as individually eligible regions, and in fact the criteria could make it difficult for some UASI cities and regions to qualify.

The Senate bill would allow federal funding to be used for overtime to cover 1) training that is consistent with the goals of the approved State plan; and 2) increases in the threat level under the Homeland Security Advisory System, as defined by the DHS Secretary. In addition, the Secretary can designate up to 25 percent of the state block grant money for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, under which overtime is allowed for activities included in the approved state plan.

The House bill would allow overtime for training and for elevated threat levels of orange or red, either at the national level or within a specific state, region or local government as approved by DHS.

The Senate bill would require no match of the federal funding, as under the current system.

The House bill would require at least a 25 percent match two years after enactment of the new law. In-kind matches would be allowed such as personnel overtime, administrative costs, equipment fuel and maintenance, and rental space.