99–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–663 

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT MANAGEMENT 

IMPROVEMENT ACT 

NOVEMBER 30, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, from the Committee on Homeland 

Security, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5562] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 5562) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 

prohibit requiring the use of a specified percentage of a grant 

under the Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program for specific purposes, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 5 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 5 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 5 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6 

Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ... 6 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 6 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 6 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 7 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 7 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 7 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
2 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 5562 is to amend the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002 to prohibit requiring the use of a specified percentage of a 

grant under the Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program for specific purposes, and for other 

purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) is a primary 

funding mechanism for building and sustaining National preparedness capabilities through supporting State and local government efforts to address the risks of terrorism. The HSGP is comprised of 

five interconnected grant programs: State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), Operation 

Stonegarden (OPSG), Metropolitan Medical Response System 

(MMRS), and Citizen Corps Program (CCP). Together, these grants 

fund a range of preparedness activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and management 

and administration. 

Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 [6 U.S.C. 609] 

describes the purpose of the Homeland Security Grant Program 

(HSGP) as ‘‘achieving target capabilities related to preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism, 

consistent with a State homeland security plan and relevant local, 

tribal, and regional homeland security plans.’’ The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that each State—as 

well as each urban area receiving Urban Areas Security Initiative 

homeland security funding—develop a homeland security strategy 

that identifies the target capabilities they want to build and sustain using HSGP funding. 

In the past, FEMA has required State and local jurisdictions to 

use a percentage of their HSGP award for a specific capability even 

if the grant recipients have not identified it as a target capability 

that they need to build with Federal funding. For example, in 2008, 

FEMA required all HSGP grant recipients to spend 25 percent of 

their awards on improvised explosive device (IED) prevention and 

protection activities irrespective of whether a State or urban area 

was facing an IED threat or had previously spent other funds on 

such capabilities. The Committee believes that State and local governments, with guidance from Federal authorities, are in the best 

position to understand which homeland security target capabilities 

need additional resources. Seeking to prevent the imposition of 

blanket mandates, Representative Laura Richardson (D–CA), the 

Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, 

Preparedness, and Response, introduced H.R. 5562 to prohibit 

FEMA from requiring HSGP grant recipients to spend a specific 

percentage of their awards on non-statutory set-asides. Statutory 

directives, such as the 25 percent for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program required under Section 2006 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 607), are unaffected. 

Another aspect of the HSGP program that may need reform relates to management and administration of these grant funds on 

the State and local level. Specifically, prior to 2007, FEMA permitted States and local governments to retain up to 5 percent of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
3 

their grant award to manage and administer (M&A) the program. 

Eligible M&A expenses include managing the entire 3 year lifecycle of the grant from procurement to close-out, financial and programmatic monitoring, technical assistance to subgrantees, and 

completing FEMA data-calls and requirements. Pursuant to the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 

2007, the cap on eligible M&A expenses was lowered to not more 

than 3 percent of the award (Section 2008(a)(1)/6 U.S.C. 

609(a)(11)). 

In recent years, grantees have indicated that as a result of the 

change in the cap for M&A expense they do not have the resources 

to properly manage and administer HSGP. The National Governors 

Association, in testimony submitted at the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response hearing on 

October 27, 2009, stated that: 

‘‘The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) limited M&A to only three 

percent of the grant award, which has put a strain on the 

ability of states to fulfill their management and oversight 

responsibilities and meet the increasing reporting requirements of the grant programs. The often short deadlines associated with the grant programs further exacerbate the 

challenges facing State Administrative Agencies and highlight the need for additional resources. Given the increased 

emphasis on accountability and to ensure the effective use 

of grant funding, allowing five cents of every dollar to support the planning, management and oversight of the funds 

is a wise investment.’’ 

Further, in FEMA’s January 2009 report, ‘‘Analysis of State and 

Local Officials’ Views on Federal Preparedness Requirements,’’ 

State and local grant recipients suggested the M&A cap should be 

raised to 10 percent, the same level that exists in many Federal 

criminal justice grants to localities. 

To ascertain whether the M&A cap warrants adjustment, H.R. 

5562 directs FEMA, in consultation with the National Advisory 

Council, to evaluate whether State and local governments have the 

resources necessary to optimally manage their HSGP awards. Specifically, the bill would require FEMA to evaluate the historical 

trends in M&A expenditures and determine whether the percentage authorized under the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/ 

11 Commission Act is adequate to ensure proper oversight, management, and administration of grant awards. 

Over the years, State and local governments have repeatedly expressed concern about the way that FEMA issues guidance for the 

program. According to FEMA’s 2009 ‘‘Analysis of State and Local 

Officials Views on Federal Preparedness Requirements,’’ a majority 

of State and local governments expressed concern with the HSGP 

grant guidance and application process, including: 

• The grant guidance is not as simple and understandable as it 

should be to effectively support State efforts to enhance levels 

of capability; 

• The high volume of year-to-year changes in the grant guidance 

limits a State’s ability to ‘‘conduct effective, goal-oriented, 

multi-year planning;’’ and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
4 

• FEMA regularly issues the grant guidance late or over the 

holidays, making it harder for State and local governments to 

submit quality applications within the required timeframe. 

To streamline the guidance and application procedures for 

HSGP, H.R. 5562 requires FEMA, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security’s Chief Financial Officer, to evaluate 

the feasibility of issuing multi-year program guidance for HSGP. 

Multi-year guidance could help State and local governments—who are the front-line of keeping our communities secure—establish better long-range homeland security planning and 

ensure that HSGP funding supports only the most effective 

projects. 

HEARINGS

No legislative hearings were held on H.R. 5562. 

However, on October 27, 2009, the Subcommittee on Emergency 

Communications, Preparedness, and Response held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Preparedness: What Has $29 Billion in Homeland Security 

Grants Bought and How Do We Know?’’ The Subcommittee received testimony on H.R. 3837 and FEMA’s new equipment maintenance policy for the Homeland Security Grant Program from Hon. 

Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security; Ms. Kathy Crandall, Director of Homeland Security and Justice Programs Franklin County, Ohio; and Mr. David 

Maxwell, Director, Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. In addition, statements from the National Emergency Management Association and the National Governors Association were 

entered into the record. The National Governors Association statement emphasized the need for FEMA to provide States with greater flexibility to target federal homeland security grants to their 

most pressing needs, and encouraged Congress to provide grantees 

with additional funding for grant management and administrative 

purposes. 

Further, on June 29, 2010, the Subcommittee on Emergency 

Communities, Preparedness, and Response held a hearing entitled, 

‘‘The Future of FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate.’’ The subcommittee received testimony from Hon. Elizabeth Harman, Assistant Administration for Grant Programs Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Anne Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, 

Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chief Alan Patalano, Fire Chief, City of Long Beach, California; and Ms. MaryAnn Tierney, Managing Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Management, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Chief Patalano and Ms. Tierney reiterated the need for Congress and FEMA to reevaluate the 3 percent statutory limit on 

management and administrative activities for the Homeland Security Grant Program. Ms. Richards, testifying on the results of an 

Inspector General Audit, ‘‘Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs,’’ suggested that FEMA could take steps to streamline grant guidance. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
5 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee met on June 23, 2010, to consider H.R. 5562, and 

ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a favorable 

recommendation, without amendment, by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. 

No votes were requested during consideration of H.R. 5562. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight hearings and 

made findings that are reflected in this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 5562, the 

Homeland Security Grant Management Improvement Act, would 

result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

JULY 1, 2010. 

Hon. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5562, the Homeland Security Grant Management Improvement Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel Hoople. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5562—Homeland Security Grant Management Improvement 

Act 

H.R. 5562 would prohibit the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) from requiring that a specific proportion of grant 

funds from the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and 

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) be spent on any particular 

authorized activity. The legislation also would require FEMA to 

conduct two studies related to the SHSP and UASI. CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 5562 would have no significant cost. Enacting this legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
6 

H.R. 5562 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The SHSP provides grants to states to prepare for, protect 

against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other catastrophic 

events. The UASI provides grants to high-threat, high-density 

urban areas for similar purposes. H.R. 5562 would prohibit FEMA 

from requiring that state and local governments use a percentage 

of SHSP and UASI grant funds on a particular authorized activity, 

unless otherwise directed by law. The legislation would not affect 

the authority of FEMA to restrict funding for grant administration. 

CBO estimates that implementing this provision would not significantly alter the expenditures of the grant programs. 

H.R. 5562 also would require FEMA to examine the use of SHSP 

and UASI funds for administrative expenses and the feasibility of 

issuing multiyear program guidance for each program. The agency 

would report to the Congress on its findings within 180 days of enactment. CBO estimates that undertaking those studies would 

have an insignificant cost in 2011. Such spending would be subject 

to the availability of appropriated funds. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople. The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 3837 contains the following general performance goals and objectives, including outcome related goals and 

objectives authorized. 

H.R. 5562 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in order 

to improve the Federal Emergency Management Agency and State 

and local governments’ management of the Homeland Security 

Grant Program. 

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED

TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional auVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:20 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR663.XXX HR663

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
7 

thority for this legislation is provided in Article I, section 8, clause 

1, which grants Congress the power to provide for the common Defense of the United States. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

The short title of this bill is the ‘‘Homeland Security Grant Management Improvement Act.’’ 

Section 2. Prohibition on requiring use of grants under Urban Area 

Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant 

Program for Specific Purposes 

This section would prohibit the Administrator of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from requiring recipients 

of Homeland Security Grant Program awards—authorized under 

Sections 2003 and 2004 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 

U.S.C. 604 and 6 U.S.C. 605 respectively)—to spend a specific percentage of their award on non-statutory set-asides. 

Section 3. Study of percentage of grant funds authorized for administration expenses 

This section would require the FEMA Administrator, in consultation with the National Advisory Council, to (1) study the historic 

management and administration expenditures of Homeland Security Grant Program recipients; and (2) evaluate and determine 

whether the current cap on Management and Administration 

(M&A) expenses is adequate to ensure proper oversight, management, and administration of the grant awards. The FEMA Administrator is required to submit the evaluation to Congress not later 

than 180 days after enactment of the Act to inform legislative adjustments to ensure proper oversight, management, and administration of grant awards. 

Section 4. Study of feasibility of multi-year grant program guidance 

This section requires the FEMA Administrator, in consultation 

with the National Advisory Council and the Department of Homeland Security’s Chief Financial Officer, to evaluate the feasibility of 

issuing multi-year program guidance for the Homeland Security 

Grant Program and to report back to Congress on the findings of 

the feasibility study not later than 180 days after enactment of the 

Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING
8 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XX—HOMELAND SECURITY 

GRANTS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle A—Grants to States and High-Risk 

Urban Areas 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2008. USE OF FUNDS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) LIMITATIONS ON DISCRETION.— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING USE OF GRANTS FOR SPE- CIFIC PURPOSES.—Unless required by statute, the Administrator may not require the recipient of a grant under section 2003 or 2004 to use a specific percentage of the amount 

of the grant for any one of the permitted uses described in 

paragraphs (1) through (10) or (12) through (13) of section 

2008(a). 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with HEARING