![](media/image1.png){width="1.1458333333333333in"
height="0.9583333333333334in"}

**David Price: A History of Advocating for**

**First Responders and Preparedness**

*For two years \-- through seven House Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee hearings and three floor speeches \-- I have raised
concerns about the massive cuts in funding for first responders and
about the Bush Administration's reliance on a "terrorism-only" approach
to preparedness, instead of a broader "all-threats" approach.
Tragically, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina confirmed my worst fears
about the administration's approach.*

*Transcripts of these hearing questions and speeches can be found below
in chronological order.*

*Unfortunately, Administration officials often were not responsive to my
questions and concerns. In some cases, such as the response by DHS
Secretary Tom Ridge in March, 2004, the information provided was
misleading and simply inaccurate. In addition, some witnesses never
fulfilled their promises to provide follow-up information.*

*These hearing excerpts nevertheless provide useful insights into the
problems with the Administration's approach to disaster preparedness and
response and its inadequate support for first responders.*

**Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing**

**Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge**

**March 4, 2004**

**PRICE**: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I would like to focus on funding our first responders, staring with law
enforcement and moving on perhaps in the second round to fire grants. I
bring this up to you because of its importance and also because it does
involve various agencies within your department, and also various
departments within the Executive branch. So there is no question there
is something that requires attention and coordination at the secretary
level.

The Administration's homeland security budget cuts the State Homeland
Security Grant Program by almost 60% form the 1.7 billion to 1 billion
for 2005. This is the grant program that provides a significant portion
of the first responder grant money that our police, our firefighters,
and other first responders count on to protect our country from
terrorists, criminals, and natural disasters.

I understand that there is an \$850 increase in Urban Area Security
Initiative. That is a partial offset of these cuts. But it is also true
that the USAI grants go only to the highest risk urban areas and will do
nothing for many cities and rural areas most affected by the first
responder grant cuts.

As the interdepartmental aspect, the Administration also makes
significant cuts to the Department of Justice grant programs. The COPS
program is cut by 87%. The Brynes Grant and local law enforcement block
grant programs are both zeroed out. DOJ created the new Justice
Assistance Program to replace Bryne and the Block Grants, but the
Justice Assistance Program is only funded at 60% of the level that Bryne
and the block grants were.

So when you combine all this you combine the cuts at Homeland Security,
the cuts at Justice, the Administration- as we calculate the bottom
line- is proposing a 33% decrease in homeland security-related funding
for local law enforcement. The cuts in funding for small and medium-size
cities is almost 50%.

What is going on here? How should we deal with it? The Administration
likes to talk about the perfect storm with the economy right now, saying
it is not of our own making. I am afraid with our first responder we are
facing a perfect storm that is of our making. What kind of coordination
have you had with other departments when you decided which grant
programs to cut? What kind of coordination did they have with you in
drawing up their budgets?

Of course, the reason I am asking the question is because this appears
to be a pretty damaging and a pretty heave set of cumulative cuts on the
ability of our law-enforcement personnel to perform their duties. But it
is not a simple matter, I realize, within your jurisdiction. But
nonetheless it is something that cries out for not only an explanation
but also coordination and I would say improvement.

**RIDGE**: Congressman, the State Homeland Security Grant Program and
the Urban Area Security Initiative programs are clearly available both
to police and fire. These are two programs that heretofore did not
exist. You had the Byrne program and you had the COPS program that
existed before in the law enforcement grants.

But there has been a huge infusion of additional dollars to first
responders, be they first preventers, the law enforcement community, or
the first responders in the past 3 years. Right now we are in the
process of distributing \$8 billion that has been appropriated just in
our Department along, to the first responders. If you approve our
request, there will be an additional \$3.5 million just out of our
department. So I think overall if you take a look at the level of
funding to the aggregate group that you are talking about now, today
prior to 9/11 there had been a substantial increase.

Secondly I think there is just a philosophical difference, Congressman,
with respect to the COPS program and the reason it has been phased out.
I was here when that program was initiated, I think the in the 1980s. I
think it reflects the notion that there are certain responsibilities
towards public safety that different levels of government have. When it
comes to policemen, it is the responsibility of the State and local
government in their overall responsibility, to provide for the safety of
the citizens and to provide for that manpower on the street.

I will tell you candidly if you take a look at my voting record back in
the 80s, I voted against it. As a governor I would tell you that the
notion that we could get money for policeman or a mayor could get money
for a policemen and pay the full salary for the first year, and then see
the salary gradually diminish over a period of time, just did not seem
to be the best use of Federal resources and certainly did not provide a
permanent policemen on the beat anyhow.

Number one, in the aggregate, these worthy organizations have access to
more money than ever before. Secondly, part of it is just a difference
in view as to who should pay for the policeman on the beat. That has
historically been the responsibility of the municipal or State
government until we had the COPS program. Even then, it was a system
where you got the full-time employee for one year and you started
picking up the fiscal responsibility for that employee. This just
reflects our point of view that that is almost a bait and switch kind of
operation and not the best use of dollars to enhance security.

**Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing**

**Border and Transportation Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson**

**March 11, 2004**

**PRICE**: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the subcommittee. Glad to see you.

**HUTCHINSON**: Thank you.

**PRICE**: I want to focus in on the work you do with local law
enforcement and some of the things that I\'ve been hearing from those
officers, leaders who are trying to upgrade their capabilities, but at
the same time perform the responsibilities that they\'ve had since long
before our terrorism concerns.

The administration\'s homeland security budget cuts the State Homeland
Security Grant Program by about 60 percent from \$1.7 billion to \$1
billion for fiscal \'05. At the same time, it increases funding for the
Urban Area Security Initiative by \$850 million.

Now, the idea, as we all understand, is to send grants in the direction
of the highest-risk urban areas. But there are questions, which I\'m
sure you\'ve heard expressed before, about what this does for our
smaller cities, our rural areas that would be most affected by these
first-responder grant cuts.

Now, along with this is \-- because this is what I want to ask you to
focus on \-- along with this when you look over the Commerce, Justice,
State bill and work that\'s going on in the Department of Justice, those
programs are being cut drastically or eliminated.

The COPS program is by cut by 87 percent. The Burn Grant and the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant programs are both removed. They\'re replaced
with the Justice Assistance Program. But the Justice Assistance Program
is only funded at 60 percent of the level that Burn and Law Enforcement
Block Grants were.

So when you combine all of this, the cuts in DHS and Justice funding,
the administration is proposing a 33 percent decrease in homeland
security funding for local police. And the cuts in funding for small and
medium-sized cities is about 50 percent.

Secretary Ridge and I got into this to some extent last week.
Unfortunately, our time ran out before he was able to say much more than
that he felt the federal government should have less responsibility when
it comes to providing funding for law enforcement and that the burden
should be shouldered primarily by the local communities.

So I\'d like to ask you to kind of return to that issue. Did DHS
coordinate with other agencies of the department in deciding which
grants to cut? Did anyone look at the cumulative effect of these cuts on
the ability of first responders to do their job?

And as I said at the beginning, we\'re talking here not just about the
anti-terrorism capabilities that we know we need to put emphasis on and
develop, but we are talking about year-in and year-out responsibilities,
which these agencies almost invariably tell me that these traditional
programs have really been helpful with.

**HUTCHINSON**: Well, there are the two categories of grants. Ours, of
course, are the homeland security grants that are primarily
counterterrorism, but training exercises, equipment that will help the
first responders.

Through the help of Congress, we\'ve added the category to help in
reimbursing on overtime costs during time of high threat level.

I think everyone is very, very happy with what has been provided by
Congress in our department over the last year. I think it\'s well over
\$5 billion that was returned. Much of that \-- some of that money \-- I
shouldn\'t say much \-- some of that money is still in the pipeline. The
states are still getting it out.

I think the questions, to a certain extent, that you asked are related
to the Justice Department grants that are broader in their categories
that can help local law enforcement. And\...

**PRICE**: I\'m talking about the interactive effects on what\'s going
on in the two departments.

**HUTCHINSON**: And that is something that is coordinated, to a certain
extent, at our level. But it\'s also coordinated at a higher level
through OMB, making sure that both are funded at the right and
appropriate level.

Obviously, the president\'s budget reflects a shared responsibility
where, you know, we do continue to help fund in those critical areas,
but there is that responsibility that\'s picked up by our state and
local partners.

**PRICE**: Let me just interrupt you for a moment. I know we have
ideological difference in this body over the COPS program. OK, I mean,
that\'s been a program over which we\'ve had some political differences.

But the thing \-- the requirements that you are placing on these local
law enforcement people does affect their day-to-day operations and their
day-to-day budgets.

For example, I just talked last week to the chief of our highway patrol,
our state highway patrol, and asked him, \"What happens when one of
these alerts goes on? What do you have do?\"

When the alert level goes on, he has to dedicate a significant amount of
resources to increase security measures, and so do, of course, the local
law enforcement departments.

So any debates we have about COPS or any of this stuff aside, there is
an interaction here between these people\'s ability to do their job, and
they\'ve done it for years, and the kind of new responsibilities that
are being placed on them.

And so it\'s hard to argue with their perception that they\'re getting
less rather than more for the total package of responsibilities that
they have to meet.

**HUTCHINSON**: And they do have that perception to a certain extent.
When it comes to overtime because of higher threat levels, there is
money that Congress has provided for reimbursement for those local
communities\' overtime expenses.

And the last time I checked, there was still a couple of hundred million
\-- I think that\'s right \-- that was in the pot that was available for
distribution to local governments that had not been applied for. So I
would certainly hope that they would be encouraged to apply if they had
overtime funding that was mandated or the result of an orange threat
level.

Now there\'s, you know, other overtime expenses that are not covered,
that are not related to that specific threat time.

**PRICE**: Mr. Chairman, this may have to be for the record, since I\'m
gathering from your glance that the time has expired.

(LAUGHTER)

But on this reimbursement practice, with the Homeland Security Exercise
Evaluation Program, in particular, I\'m going to want to ask you as Mr.
Sherwood did, about your time line here, because we\'re told this is
reimbursable money. This is money that has to be fronted and then they
will get all or some of it back.

But we\'re hearing that they don\'t know what the rules are, you know,
that the regulations simply have never been completed, and that it\'s
very, very difficult, very threatening, to have to be fronting this
money when you\'re not certain what is going to be eligible for
reimbursement.

If there is a quick answer to that, fine. If not, I\'d appreciate for
the record some information about how you assess that problem, and also
what the time line is for getting full and complete information out to
these local agencies.

**HUTCHINSON**: I\'d be happy to provide an answer. Were you talking
about the urban area security \...

**PRICE**: No, the Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program dollars
is where we\'ve had specific problems.

**HUTCHINSON**: We\'ll be happy to provide an answer to you on that.

**PRICE**: All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

**\[NOTE: No answer was provided\]**

**Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing**

**Office for Domestic Preparedness Director Suzanne Mencer**

**March 18, 2004**

**PRICE**: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Mencer, welcome to the
subcommittee.

**MENCER**: Thank you.

**PRICE**: I\'m interested in the comments you made about
interoperability and how long this effort has been under way with the
local and state law enforcement to establish interoperative
communications.

I don\'t know where those states and localities are that you\'re
referring to that have been complacent about this. I assure you,
they\'re not in North Carolina.

And when Mr. Sabo talks about not only the funding difficulties that we
see in the president\'s budget on your agency and in your department,
but also the drastic cuts in the traditional sources of funding for
interoperability among other law enforcement assistance functions and
the Commerce, Justice, State bill. This is one of the first things we
think about.

And you cited the Columbine example. That is not post-9/11 terrorism.
That\'s something that day in and day out our first responders need to
be prepared to deal with. Natural disasters in North Carolina loom
large.

I think underlying a lot of these questions \-- certainly underlying a
lot of mine \-- is the kind of anxiety that we\'re not going to
marginalize or minimize our non-terrorist capabilities as we deal with
the post-9/11 reality. I think that\'s what you\'re hearing this
morning.

And I think the fire grants, which I want to turn to, are exhibit A \--
a very, very good example.

This committee, last year, made a major effort, I would say, in writing
the appropriations bill to ensure that in moving the fire grants from
FEMA into ODP that we weren\'t going to lose the virtues of those fire
grants. And by virtues we mean one of the most nonbureaucratic,
noncomplicated application processes that we could see.

I\'d say the COPS program had similar virtues, and our local first
responders very much appreciated that. And I think they benefited from
it.

So we included language to preserve the peer review process for these
fire grants, also to retain the model of direct grants to local
departments.

I must say I was somewhat skeptical about that. In conference committee,
I proposed that we basically keep this program in FEMA. And I did not
prevail.

But when I see your budget proposal I wonder: Is this our reward? I
mean, is this what\'s going on, that we have amid all these needs, we
have a proposed cut of one-third in fire grants, \$249 million off of
last year\'s funding level? The new SAFER program that was enacted by
Congress last year; not a dime.

What\'s going on here? I mean, the consolidation is one thing, the
administrative consolidation. Is the bottom line that we\'re really just
going to do a lot less and that, in particular, in terms of the
traditional functions of these local first responders, they can look for
a lot less help from this administration?

The chairman talks about standards. Well, there\'s some fairly commonly
accepted notions about what local fire departments need. There\'s a FEMA
study entitled, \"A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service.\" It
showed that over two-thirds of the fire departments in this country
operate with staffing levels that do not meet minimum safe staffing
levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association.

You know what happens when fire departments are understaffed: Disasters
are not responded to, firefighters are injured and die.

So I just don\'t understand the reduction in proposed funding. And the
administrative consolidation is one thing. But is it part of a larger
program to basically de-emphasize this function?

**MENCER**: No, sir, I don\'t think it is. I\'d like to speak a little
about dual use for equipment that is purchased with terrorism money or
homeland security grant money or the urban area security money or any of
these other grants that come out of ODP.

I think most of the police departments and fire departments around the
country have come to the realization that whatever equipments they
purchase with this money will serve them and help them in every other
event that they respond to. Because this equipment and these things that
they\'re purchasing are dual-use things. They\'re not going to park
their communications van that they purchased with homeland security
money to be able to respond to a terrorism event if they need it for a
drug operation, or any other thing that they happen to have.

So this equipment has dual use.

We also, I think, need to remember that most terrorism events have
underlying criminal events that predicate them. Either there is money
laundering or there\'s drug trafficking or there\'s some other event
that underlies the terrorism event that sponsors and funds the
terrorists.

So I think, you know, there is a lot of ways to approach this problem.
And law enforcement, for the most part, has figured out that all this
money will help them with everything they do. And certainly, I think in
most areas, that\'s been very well done.

**PRICE**: Well, I know my time\'s expired. You\'re making my point for
me. These responsibilities are additive. The terrorism responsibilities,
yes, they require a lot of the same capabilities that we were well aware
of and working on before 9/11.

So the bottom-line question is: Why the reduction in funding?

**MENCER**: Because they\'ve got increased funding in the homeland
security area\...

**PRICE**: Fire departments? Local fire departments?

**MENCER**: Fire departments can certainly be part of the Urban Area
Security Initiative and the decision-making concerning those grants and
receive money through that grant as well as their Fire Act money.

**PRICE**: Well, all I can say is that the way that money is proposed to
be targeted, our local and, for that matter, state-wide fire department
leaders don\'t believe they\'re ever going to see it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

**Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing**

**Emergency Preparedness and Response Undersecretary Michael Brown**

**March 24, 2004**

**PRICE**: I want to also talk about the EMPGs and the moving of that
program to ODP. As I understand, you are talking about a budget cut from
\$179 million to 170 million for emergency management performance
grants, but what I thing is more worrisome is the reduction in the
percentage of those grant that can be spent of personnel from 50% to 25%

I don't thing NC is unique in this, but let me talk about NC. These
EMPGS are one of the primary means by which we respond to natural
disasters, so these cuts would have a huge effect, which counts on the
EMPGs to pay for our emergency personnel. Our Emergency Management
Department has told me that if this policy is enacted, they will lay off
35 employees, 35 key people. As seems the case with other proposed cuts
in DHS grants programs, and we talked a lot about those in previous
hearings, the areas hardest hit would likely be our poorest most rural
counties.

I have listened very carefully today to your assurances to the Chairman
and others about not letting the terrorism focus obliterate other kinds
of capabilities, but when you are cutting these EMPG grants and more
than that, severely restricting the use for personnel you are hitting us
where we live in terms of our state by state capacity. So I wonder what
possible rational is there for this. I know this is being transferred
and you probably know more about this than anyone, to what extent were
you consulted, were you part of these discussions, and has anyone, you
or anyone else done any studies to predict the impact of this change on
State motilities.

**BROWN**: The ability for FEMA to be successful, as I believe it has
under Republican and Democratic Administrations, James Witt. And Joe
Allbaugh, both did exceptionally go jobs, is based on our ability to
have good strong relationships and partnerships with State and Local
governments because we have to know what their strengths and weaknesses
are. I personally rely very heavily on NEMA and IAEMA for input, for
understanding of their concerns. They have expressed to me very
vociferously and very professionally their concerns about these grants
and we at FEMA recognize their concerns and understand those. WE will do
our best to try alleviate some of the hardships in creative ways we can
find to not lose these people, because these people are indeed very
important at the state and local level.

At the same time I go back to what I told Congresswoman Granger and that
is the Administration's objective here is to really try to shift some of
the costs away from direct personnel costs and instead focus that on
training and exercises.

**PRICE**: Can you offer a little more detail about how this decision
was reached and the kind of input you had. I think it is pretty
fundamental to the partnership you are talking about and I agree, FEMA
has been very good in forming those. I think this is a pretty
fundamental item. I just wonder how and why this decision got made.

**BROWN**: The budget process at DHS is different from our perspective
in the send that internally we would do our budget process and them work
with OMB and get pass back from them. The budget process we go through
now is essentially the same excepts we submit our budget proposals to
DHS as a whole and the management directorate reviews that and we get
passed back from them and go through the process again. It goes to OMB
and comes back to us. So we have had somewhat of a layer imposed upon us
in our budget process and we still go through the same procedures.
Through those procedures at some point a pass comes back and says this
is what you have agreed to. We accept it.

**Floor Remarks During Debate on the FY 05 Budget**

**March 25, 2004**

There have been a lot of numbers used in this debate, and I must give my
Republican colleagues credit. They have used numbers and rhetoric
cleverly. But Americans watching this debate would do well to pay very
close attention to the way numbers are actually being used and also to
what is not being said.

Democrats talked for 20 minutes yesterday about how the Republican
Budget seriously under funds our *first responders*. The Republicans
responded by saying that our numbers were all wrong because they
increase funding for *Homeland Security*, and then they listed off
numbers showing increases in transportation and boarder protection as
examples. Yet they were silent about funding for the police and fire
fighters we had been discussing---for the understandable reason that the
budget gives those programs less support than they had before 9/11.

We have criticized the Republican plans for creating a spiraling deficit
as their spending plans and tax cuts kick in over the next ***TEN***
years. They say we are confused because the Republican plan will cut the
deficit in half over the next ***FOUR*** or ***FIVE*** years. That is
debatable, but I promise you will hear no Republican talk about the
effects of their budget on the deficit five to ten years from now when
their tax cuts for the wealthy and extra spending kick in because the
result is deficits in the \$500 billion range.

We have talked about how the Democratic substitute does not merely
reduce the deficit but eliminates it within 10 years, while directing
resources toward areas Americans care about like education, veterans,
first responders, housing, and safety net programs.

They say we do these things by raising taxes on Americans. Well, clearly
we do understand that there is no free lunch, and we want to reinstate
real pay-as-you-go rules like we had in the 90s. But rather than raising
taxes, we merely freeze scheduled reductions for those making over
\$500,000 a year and close corporate tax loops holes. It is correct that
the tax cuts for millionaires in our plan are less than the tax cuts for
millionaires in theirs. But I doubt you'll hear our Republican friends
putting it that way.

I encourage my colleagues to pay close attention to what numbers are
being used by each side. Budgets are about priorities, and the
Democratic priorities are clear: Fund the programs America needs,
balance our budget, and target tax cuts in ways that stimulate the
economy and do not merely enrich the most fortunate among

**House Floor Remarks on the FY05 Homeland Security Appropriations
Bill**

**June 17, 2004**

Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to my colleagues, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo, for
their conscientious and cooperative efforts reflected in this bill. The
bill directs much needed resources to transportation security, Customs,
and Border Protection and funds the Bioshield program that will play a
vital role in our preparation for bioterrorist attack.

Given the very limited funds Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo had to start with,
theirs was not an easy or enviable task. I fear the final result
reflects the poor hand they were dealt.

During recent funding debates, we have often heard the Republican
leaders say that there "simply are no funds available" to provide what
is needed. I suspect we'll hear them say it again today.

What you WON'T hear them say is that since 9/11, we have spent **22
times** as much on tax cuts as we have on protecting the American people
from terrorist attacks. That's 22 times as much, for tax cuts mainly
aimed at the most privileged Americans!

Look at the numbers:

State Formula Grants, the bread and butter of first responder funding,
have been cut by over 25%.

Fire grants have been cut by 20%. Grants to our police have been hit
hard, too.

These programs were a critical source of funding for first responders
long before 9/11. By cutting them, we are, in effect, deciding that our
police and firefighters need LESS funding in the post 9/11 era, not
more.

Listen to how FEMA describes the bleakness of the situation: A new study
shows that more than 2/3 of fire departments in this country operate
with staffing levels that do not meet the ***minimum*** safe staffing
levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association.

Not only are our first responders ill-equipped and understaffed to
handle potential attacks...they're also struggling to respond to the
everyday crises of crime, accidents, fires, and natural disasters.

It's true that this bill increases funding for the Urban Area Security
Initiatives. That's terrific news for a handful of big cities, and it
does make sense. But first responders in rural and suburban areas need
support, too. Increases for this initiative are not match for the
draconian cuts in overall state grants.

Mr. Chairman, the House leadership and the President have shown
incredible willpower and resolve in ramming trillion dollar tax cuts
through Congress. Yet when it comes to protecting our homeland and
supporting our first responders, they say their hands are tied. They
claim to be tough on terror, but talk is cheap, and unfortunately so are
Congress and the Bush Administration when it comes to supporting our
first responders.

**Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee**

**Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary James Loy**

**February 16, 2005**

**PRICE**: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral, let me add my word of gratitude\...

**LOY**: Thank you, sir.

**PRICE**: \... and commendation for your service. I\'ll try here to
live up to Mr. Wamp\'s billing\...

**LOY**: Into the weeds we\'re going.

**PRICE**: \... by asking, however, a broad question that you can
respond to in terms of specifics. Throughout your testimony, the themes
of streamlining, efficiency, centralization occur again and again. And
often you have a convincing and compelling case of for what you\'ve been
working on, been able to achieve and also what you aspire to. But my
experience on this subcommittee since we began this venture have led me
to some skepticism about the uniformity or the desirability of uniform
streamlining and centralization in certain instances.

And let me just indicate what I\'m thinking about. I\'m thinking about
the flexibility and responsiveness of certain agencies that in the past
have been known for that. FEMA comes to mind. Secondly, the way the
agencies in the department are handling non-terrorism functions, the
conventional functions that they\'ve exercised in years past.

And thirdly, the timeliness, the clarity of the grant process. Let me
just give you a quick example and ask you to reflect on this as you
will. We do hear troubling reports from FEMA about money being siphoned
off for department-wide projects, which may be quite worthy, which have
left FEMA\'s ability to respond in a weakened state. We hear about
hundreds of unfilled positions at FEMA. Maybe you can supply that
figure.

FEMA has gone through a lot of development in the last 15 or so years,
through the \'90s developed a capacity to respond quickly, flexibly,
fast on its feet, a good agency. I\'ve had more experience than I ever
wanted to have with FEMA because of North Carolina being a
disaster-prone state.

**LOY**: Yes, sir.

**PRICE**: My impression is that maybe streamlining integration into
this department has a downside with respect to FEMA, maybe with respect
to other agencies. I\'m not sure we can claim right now that FEMA\'s
virtues have been enhanced by this arrangement. And I think there\'s
some troubling evidence, in fact, to the contrary.

For the handling of non-terrorism functions \-- looking at this
executive budget, according to the figures I have, the president\'s
budget is cutting combined funding for first responders at DHS and
judiciary \-- I mean, and justice \-- by something like 40 percent.
We\'re proposing here in this budget \-- you\'re proposing \--
firefighter grants cut by 30 percent, cuts to emergency management
performance grants and so forth. That is an ongoing concern, I think,
not just with respect to FEMA, but with respect to many, many agencies
within your department.

Yes, we\'re dealing with these new threats and these new challenges. But
are we in the process risking, again, through a kind of streamlining, a
kind of single-mindedness \-- are we risking the compromise of
traditional functions and traditional roles? And I think especially in
the area of first responders and especially the area of disaster
preparedness and response and then finally, the kind of timeliness and
the efficiency of the process that our grantees are facing.

Now my state officials tell me that it takes close to a year to get DHS
approval for their spending plans for first responder grants. Fiscal
\'03 grants weren\'t approved until November of \'04. Often they\'re
waiting for guidance, too, as to what qualifies. These are reimbursable
grants.

Our state put on what was by all accounts a very successful training
exercise last year. They expected to pay for it with grant money. And
then after the exercise was completed, there were new regulations which
said overtime utilized in planning the exercise was not reimbursable. So
the state had to eat all those costs.

That is not the kind of situation that they have to face. And again, we
ought to be looking here for a reasonably quick turnaround for
reasonably clear guidance in advance. And so, I\'m not sure if that
comes under the category of streamlining and efficiency or not. But it
seems like there is a cost perhaps with the centralization of these
functions so that our grantees, our state programs in particular, may be
facing more in the way of red tape and bureaucratic hurdles.

Again, a broad area of concern, I hope with some very specific examples
that you can respond to.

**LOY**: Yes, sir. Let me see if I can. First of all, your endorsement
of FEMA I believe to be right on. You know, I go back to James Lee
Witt\'s turnover, if you will, of the organization from what it used to
be to how he did just a remarkable job of leading that agency to become
the responsive, agile agency you were describing for all the right
reasons. And I think our inheritance of FEMA should never put in
jeopardy its capacity to do what it is responsible for doing.
\[**NOTE:** Base FEMA funding has been cut by almost 10 percent since
2003, and the cuts to FEMA requested by the President have been much
higher. President Bush also removed FEMA's Cabinet status, burying it in
the DHS bureaucracy.\]

That\'s why I think the focus from \-- I think it was Mr. Latham\'s
question about \-- should monies find the way back over there and burden
them with the business of doing grants when their focus ought to be, as
least as I read it, on response and recovery capability and being agile
about delivering those services wherever needed. Certainly the last
hurricane season in Florida would offer that they haven\'t lost very
much of their edge in terms of the astonishingly responsive efforts that
they took to not only North Carolina but to Florida and Georgia and
those impacted states in hurricane season in the last fall when four
major storms back to back really hammered those areas. And the process
of not only immediate relief, but the several funding streams that are
always attendant to their work there has been very, very, very well
done.

On the non-terrorism function side, I think your point is
extraordinarily well taken. And I come, as you know, sir, from a uniform
history in the Coast Guard, probably the most multi-mission agency
anywhere in the federal government. And our ability to be an agile
organization \-- I\'m enormously proud of that.

On the 11th of September, I was sitting in the commandant\'s chair. We
woke up that morning maybe two or 3 percent of our appropriate
capability was focused on port security. And by 24 hours, over 52
percent of our appropriated capability was focused on port security in
this country.

So the ability to shift gears, adaptability and agility are the kind of
attributes I think we should be building into our department to be \--
to do what America needs to have done in these years. The non-terrorism
side of the department\'s budget should never be lost in the shuffle of
our proper focus, but focus only on, you know, the counter-terrorism
piece. So I agree with you 100 percent.

As far as the first responders challenges are concerned, as you know,
Governor Romney from Massachusetts led an effort at Secretary Ridge\'s
request as a member of our homeland security advisory council to take
stock and provide a report back to the secretary on why and where are
the hurdles and the stumbling blocks attendant to getting a flow of
dollars out of the feds to the governor\'s mansion, so to speak, and
then on to the state and local first responders that need those dollars
day in and day out.

The results of Governor Romney\'s study \-- we have taken those
recommendations and acted on them very, very deliberately. And I think
the history last year, a better history this year will be that the
federal dollars are going out the door and getting to the states in the
timely fashion that we want them to get there. But there are huge
challenges attendant to a wide variety of state laws and the
connections, if you will, between state, counties, townships, cities,
villages, whatever around our country that have been part of the
complication process. \[**NOTE:** NC had already dedicated all of their
DHS grant money by this point\]

Now if we can find a way to break through that with federal process, we
should very much be doing it. But we should also understand that
there\'s a lot of other players there that have to be part of the
solution to getting those dollars into the hands of the first responders
in the fashion that we want to.

You talk about the budget for \'06 seeking a dramatic cut in the first
responder monies that will go out the door. I would ask that we put this
in a little bit of context. From 1999 to \'01, we had \$1.3 billion flow
out of the federal coffers to state and local first responders. From
\'02 to \'04, we had \$13 billion flow out of the federal coffers to
help state and local first responders.

So an adjustment as is reflected in the president\'s request for \'06
needs to be put against the backdrop of the flow of money that has
already gone in that direction. And I would ask that we think our way
through that carefully as the committee considers its judgments on the
president\'s requests this year.

**Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee**

**Homeland Security Michael Chertoff**

**March 2, 2005**

**PRICE**: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, welcome. I\'d like to return to the matter raised by Mr.
Sabo and elaborated on by the chairman. And that is the basis on which
funds are distributed and perhaps add a couple of more specific queries
in that regard. I think it\'s fair to say in general we are seeing a
trend in DHS away from funding general preparedness and toward funding
only counter-terrorism efforts in supposedly high- risk areas.

There\'s also a de-funding phenomenon that\'s going on, especially with
respect to first responders, irrespective of the targeting formula. If
you put the DHS and the Justice Department budgets together, which is,
of course, what one should do to adequately assess this, funding for
police in the president\'s budget is cut by nearly 40 percent.

DHS firefighter grants are being cut by 30 percent. Now some of that
money is being shifted into prioritized grants for high-risk areas, but
this is clearly not merely a targeting problem. So I have a couple of
concerns here, first regarding terrorism and secondly, regarding our
ability to respond to conventional disasters and attacks.

The 9-11 attacks originated, of course, from outside New York and D.C.
And many of the border regions where terrorists and weapons appear most
likely to get entrance into the country, of course, are far from urban
centers. Last year, Assistant Secretary Garcia, regarding ICE, confirmed
for me that the enforcement arm of DHS was not focusing exclusively on
high-risk areas or on catching terrorists per say. His response was that
the best way to stop terrorists was to strengthen overall policing and
to work with local police to reduce drug trafficking and human smuggling
and other criminal activities that terrorists often tapped into.

So it would appear that the enforcement arm of DHS is following one
strategy to combat terrorism and yet the funding to the states is
trending in the opposite direction. I wonder if you could help us
understand that.

And then secondly, quickly, I think we need to focus also on our ability
to combat conventional threats and disasters, not purely on
counter-terrorism. Many of what are considered now streamline DHS grants
were originally designed to help prepare for natural disasters like
hurricanes. We\'re seeing massive cuts in the state block grant
programs, fire grants, emergency management performance grants, others
that help our states respond to these conventional disasters.

So our first responders, I think it\'s fair to say, are under- equipped,
under-staffed to handle potential attacks. And they\'re also struggling
to respond to every day crises of crime, accident, fire and natural
disasters. Now I\'m not claiming that I have a magic formula for the
fair and effective distribution of these funds, but I\'m sure from what
you\'ve already said that the rationale or rationales that determine DHS
decisions and budget requests are already commanding your attention.

So particularly with respect to these dimensions I\'ve mentioned, could
you let us in on what you\'re concluding?

**CHERTOFF**: I can tell you what my thinking is in both areas. With
respect to the former area concerning whether we have a philosophy that
is focused on, again, risk-based concerns, both as it relates to
enforcement as well as in grants, the answer to that is yes. I mean, I
don\'t disagree with the proposition that at some level any enforcement
activity has some marginal benefit in terms of terrorism.

But I think we owe the American public a more focused and
priority-driven approach than that because we do have limits on the
number of resources that we can bring to bear. And we have to spend and
expend our efforts in the most wise and judicious way possible. So
clearly, when we look at, for example, enforcement issues, we do want to
look at those that are most focused on potential areas where terrorists
or those that would endanger our security can come in. Human trafficking
is actually a very good example.

Trafficking networks are a danger to our national security because they
can be vehicles through which terrorists can avoid what we\'re doing at
our ports of entry and smuggle themselves and maybe dangerous materials
into the country. So my general philosophy is, of course, we respect the
full range of missions that ICE and other components have, but we need
to always be driving in terms of our emphasis towards those elements
that pay off the greatest dividends in terms of our security here in the
homeland.

And that\'s always a balancing process. But it\'s one where we put a
considerable amount of weight on the terrorism issue.

Likewise with respect to the issue of emergency planning. I do note that
the budget does have enhanced funding for catastrophic planning. And I
think that is not limited just to manmade catastrophes, but it covers
natural catastrophes as well.

You know, one of the advantages, for example, of FEMA as a component of
our entire strategy is precisely that FEMA does focus on all hazards and
all kinds of catastrophes. Because the lessons and the protocols and the
experience that FEMA gets from dealing with hurricanes, for example, has
a good deal of transferable value if we should have to deal with a
manmade event.

So I guess my bottom line, Congressman, is that we do want to make \--
we want to place emphasis on those types of activities, enforcement
activities that pay dividends in terms of dealing with protecting
against terrorists. We want to balance, of course, to make sure we\'re
carrying out all our missions. And we particularly want to pay attention
to those areas where there\'s kind of a double benefit

**Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee**

**FEMA Director Michael Brown**

**March 9, 2005**

**PRICE**: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brown, welcome to the subcommittee. Glad to see you.

I know you\'ve just been through a horrendous hurricane season, with
back-to-back storms. We appreciate the good work of FEMA in responding
to that disaster all along the eastern seaboard, including my state of
North Carolina.

I arrived just in time to hear you responding to the chairman regarding
some of the controversy surrounding some of the FEMA grants. As you
know, there has been some of that in North Carolina as well. And I and
others, I\'m sure, have inquiries pending as to your account of that. So
I won\'t raise that further today.

I will await your response, though, with interest. Because while we
understand just how vital this assistance is and the kind of pressures
that you\'re under in getting it out there quickly, we, of course, all
have a stake in making certain it goes to those most in need.

**BROWN**: And, Congressman Price, I just couldn\'t agree more with how
you just characterized it. That\'s exactly right. And that is the
balancing act that we\'d like.

**PRICE**: Right.

I want to turn to another matter and that is FIRE grants and SAFER
funding \-- or the lack of SAFER funding.

Last year, FEMA released a study entitled \"The Needs Assessment Of The
U.S. Fire Service,\" which showed that over two-thirds of fire
departments in the country operate with staffing levels that don\'t meet
the minimum safe staffing levels required by OSHA and the National Fire
Protection Association.

An estimated one-third of firefighters per shift are not equipped with
self-contained breathing apparatus. Only about one-fourth of all fire
departments can communicate with all of their partners. Many fire
departments in my district don\'t even have sealed doors to their living
quarters, so when diesel trucks are backed up, the fumes are pumped into
the living area, and so forth. You know the story.

I\'m concerned about how these shortfalls will affect our ability to
respond to the full range of emergencies with which our fire departments
must deal.

Now, FIRE grants were taken out of FEMA a couple of years ago. That was
done over my objection, and that of a number of other members. But since
FEMA works more closely with firefighters and understands their needs
better than anyone else over at DHS, I\'m wondering a couple of things.

First, whether FEMA maintains an active role in selecting those
departments that should be awarded grants, whether there\'s any kind of
consultative or other role that you maintain in that process.

And then, secondly, what your thoughts are on the proposed cuts, 30
percent they amount to, in the firefighter grants this year. And the
complete lack of funding for the SAFER fire program. Do you believe
those cuts will improve our security and ability to respond to natural
and manmade disasters? Or would you expect the opposite result?

**BROWN**: President Bush has been no greater supporter of the fire
service than any president that I\'m aware of. \[**NOTE**: That is
technically true. He has NOT been a greater supporter of the fire
service than any president prior. He has constantly tried to defund FIRE
and SAFER funding, despite the fact that 2/3 of this nation's fire
departments are dangerously understaffed and ill-equipped\]. His
\$750,000 million monies that he has put continuously into the FIRE
grant program, I think, has been a tremendous boost to fire departments.

I would also say that the functioning of those grants has not changed in
the least, even though they were pulled out of FEMA. FEMA made certain
of that by transferring the resources and the people to make certain
that the way they were implemented, the way they were distributed, the
way that we had handled them both over the previous years continued in
the same vein.

**PRICE**: Well, as you know, even though the Appropriations Committee
did consent \-- the majority did consent to transfer the program, there
were provisions written into the appropriations bill that year which did
mandate the continuation of the basic model of the program.

**BROWN**: That\'s right. And that has not changed a bit. And in fact, I
would say that it is still, in my humble opinion, one of the best bangs
for the buck that the American taxpayer gets, because those FIRE grants
go out to fire departments, to the local fire departments, based on a
peer-review process where they, among themselves, have decided who has
the greatest need for this money and where do we get the greatest
benefit for the money. And that money goes straight to them. \[**NOTE**:
For the past two years, President Bush has proposed cutting this program
by 30%\]

And I think that\'s why the president has always supported the FIRE
grant program. And it\'s just one of the best that is out there.

We will continue to do whatever we have to do within FEMA to, one,
comply with the law, to make certain that we are doing what the
appropriations language says. And just because it\'s good public policy,
too, to make certain that the way we handle those grants doesn\'t get
lost as it moves over to ODP.

**PRICE**: How do you reconcile that professed commitment, though, with
this kind of budget whack? I mean, this is serious business, a 30
percent cut. I mean, these departments have depended on these for years.

And of course we are all focused on terrorist incidents and how these
emergency responders will be called upon. But after all, they\'re
ongoing responsibilities, and your own data show serious deficiencies in
the way these departments are equipped.

We all have the experience of having dozens of fire departments applying
for these grants, and one or two coming through. We\'re happy to
celebrate those. But I don\'t think we can begin to argue that this need
is being addressed.

**BROWN**: The only thing I can say with regard to the philosophy is
that, as much as we can make certain that the local governments are
funding the personnel costs, that\'s where personnel cost should be
funded.

Beyond that, Mr. Price, the SAFER Act, those grants are within ODP, and
I don\'t know what they\'re doing with them, or the basis for which
their dollars were requested. But I\'ll go back and find out, because I
need to know that, too.

**PRICE**: I know my time has expired.

Could you also incorporate the equipment needs\...

**BROWN**: Certainly.

**PRICE**: \... if appropriate, in that response.

\[**NOTE:** FEMA never provided an answer**\]**

**BROWN**: Certainly. And I\'ll also pass on your concerns to ODP.

**PRICE**: All right, thank you.

**Floor Remarks on the FY06 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill**

**May 17, 2005**

Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to my colleagues, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo, for
their conscientious and cooperative efforts reflected in this bill.

This bill would provide much needed additional funding to protect our
borders. It would also boost DHS's efforts to track down potential
terrorists and criminal aliens that are already in our country.

It would shorten the backlog for people seeking to legally live in this
country as permanent residents or citizens. And it would help protect
our ports and chemical and nuclear facilities.

Given the very limited funds Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo had to start with,
theirs was not an easy or enviable task, and they have done an
exceptional job with the poor hand they were dealt.

BUT...I've said before, and I'll say it again: we *can* do better. We
*mus*t do better. And we *would* do better, if we made better budget
choices.

The vote today does not exist in a vacuum. During recent funding
debates, we have heard the Republican leaders say there "simply are no
funds available" to provide what is needed. I suspect we'll hear them
say it again today.

What you WON'T hear them say is that since 9/11, we have spent over **20
times** as much on tax cuts, mainly benefiting the wealthiest Americans,
as we have on protecting the American people from terrorist attacks. And
just the other week, we passed another tax cut that will only benefit
people inheriting estates that are worth millions of dollars. And so we
go over the cliff fiscally, and our Republican friends try to pin the
blame on discretionary domestic spending, including spending for
security. We pass budget resolutions that fall far short, so that by the
time we try to write appropriations bills within their limits, we have
nothing left to talk about. All we can do is lamely speak of the things
we just aren't able to do in this bill because we do not have the funds.

Well, we chose not to have those funds. And, to name one conspicuous
example, for the second year in a row, we will cut the FIRE grant
program---one of the most successful federal programs we have.

And despite the fact that a recent FEMA study showed that 2/3 of our
fire departments operate with staffing levels that do not meet the
***minimum*** safe staffing levels required by OSHA and the National
Fire Protection Association, we are again badly under funding the SAFER
program, which assists understaffed departments hire additional
personnel.

We pass bills *authorizing* improvements and grants. But when it comes
time to *pay* for these programs, we'd rather put the country's money
toward tax breaks for the wealthy than for police officers who are
protecting our communities. Trillion-dollar tax breaks get rammed
through Congress, but in this bill, the leadership says we have "no
choice" but to cut state block grants by 14%.

Today our choices are indeed limited, although I'm hopeful we can make
some improvements at the margins, for example by passing Mr. Sabo's
first responder amendment.

At the end of the day, we should pass this bill, and I am hopeful
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it. But we should
understand why the bill, despite our subcommittee's best efforts, falls
short. And we should resolve to fix our country's budget policy so that
at long last our nation's people and their security can come first.