By Ed Somers and Ron Thaniel
July 25, 2005

On July 14, the Senate approved a FY 2006 funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with major cuts to first responder and transit security programs.

Combined funding for state block grants and urban area grants was cut by almost $400 million, from $2.7 billion in FY 2005 to $2.308 billion. Within this total, rail and transit grants were cut from $150 million to $100 million.

And, separate funding for fire programs was cut $100 million, from $715 million to $615 million.

The Senate bill also eliminates the specific pot of funding for Urban Area Security (UASI) grants, and instead allows the DHS to decide how much to put into this program out of the overall pot after allocating a portion of the funding to states under required minimums. DHS has been supporting major increases for USAI grants and a greater focus on risk and threat factors.

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Judd Gregg (NH) stated that a major reason for the cuts was the fact that $7 billion in previous years’ funding is still unspent. The United States Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities and National Association of Counties responded to this statement in a letter saying, “For many years, we have expressed serious concern with the grant system and the inherent delays that have resulted. Unfortunately, Congress and the Administration have continued to delay altering this system.”

The House-passed bill includes about the same level of cuts in first responder funding, although under a different structure that maintains the specific pot for UASI and with level funding for transit grants. A comparison chart is available at usmayors.org.

Exactly one week after terrorist bombings on the London mass transit system killing more than 50 people and injuring hundreds, and to the opposition of The United States Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Senate rejected a bipartisan amendment led by Senators Richard C. Shelby (AL), Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, Paul S. Sarbanes (MD), Ranking Member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and Jack F. Reed (RI) to increase homeland security funding for mass transit and rail to $1.2 billion.

The Senate also rejected an amendment offered by Senator Robert C. Byrd (WV), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, which would have provided $1.4 billion for transit and rail.

Both amendments were challenged by Gregg, who offered his own amendment to increase transit and rail security by $100 million by taking money away from state and local first responder grants.

The Shelby, Sarbanes, and Reed amendment received a majority of votes, 53-45, but fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the budget point of order. The Byrd amendment also required new money above the budget cap. Gregg’s amendment was defeated 43 – 55.

As passed by the Senate, the $31.9 billion FY06 Homeland Security bill (HR 2360) includes only $100 million for transit and rail, $50 million less than FY05.

The Conference of Mayors will mount another campaign to increase transit and rail security when the Senate bill goes to conference with the House measure expected after the August recess. The House approved $150 million for transit and rail security.

In a letter to the Senate leadership, Conference of Mayors Executive Director Tom Cochran wrote, “mayors have repeatedly called for increased funding to safeguard the nation’s public transportation and rail systems.”

“Transit agencies working with mayors have identified $6 billion in transit security needs; and yet since September 11, 2001, public transportation and rail have received only $250 million in targeted federal security,” wrote Cochran.

Port Security Increased

The Senate approved $200 million for port security, which is $50 million more than the House approved in May; however, $200 million less than what has been identified as needed by port authorities in FY06. For FY05, port security received $150 million.

The Senate added a new first responder authorization to the appropriations bill during floor action. The debate centered on competing proposals regarding how much states should receive in minimum funding versus how much should be allocated based on threat and risk.

The Senate approved legislation sponsored by Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Joseph Lieberman (CT) to reduce the current state minimum of 0.75 percent 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 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.

The Senate defeated (32-65) a competing proposal sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA) and John Cornyn (TX) that would have lowered the state minimum to 0.25 percent. The Administration sent a letter supporting lower state minimums and greater use of risk factors.

Under the Senate-passed 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.

The Senate bill would allow federal funding to be used to cover some overtime, and there is no match.

The House has approved an authorization bill that is more similar to the defeated Feinstein-Cornyn bill (but the House bill requires a 25 percent match) with more money allocated based on risk, and these competing proposals now have to be reconciled.