Arguably, the three most important homeland security public laws enacted following the terrorist attacks on September 2001 are: P.L. 107-56 , "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act)"; P.L. 107-296 , "Homeland Security Act of 2002"; and P.L. 108-458 , "Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004." The PATRIOT Act focused on enhancing domestic security through anti-terrorism measures, specifically, law enforcement and legal responses to terrorism. The Homeland Security Act established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act restructured the U.S. intelligence community to better assist in terrorism preparedness and response. Numerous other recently enacted public laws address homeland security issues such as the following: transportation security; border security; bioterrorism; maritime security; and terrorism insurance. These key laws not withstanding, a host of important state and local homeland security policy issues remain, which the 109 th Congress might address. Some of the issues include reportedly unmet emergency responder needs; the proposed reduction in appropriations for federal homeland security assistance; the determination of state and local homeland security risk assessment factors; the absence of emergency responder equipment standards; the development of state and local homeland security strategies; and the limited number of state and local officials with security clearances. The state and local homeland security issues may be deemed important because they arguably identify critical homeland security needs and policy questions that have not been fully addressed since September 2001. One could argue that the primary state and local homeland security issue is the widely reported unfair and inadequate distribution of federal homeland security assistance; this report, however, does not address that issue. For information concerning FY2006 homeland security grant allocations, a discussion of federal homeland security assistance distribution formulas, risk factors, and state and urban area homeland security strategies see CRS Report RL33583, Homeland Security Grants: FY2003 - FY2006 Evolution of Program Guidance and Grant Allocation Methods , by [author name scrubbed] . The FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) guidelines, which include guidance for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG), and the Citizen Corps Programs (CCP), provide a list of authorized equipment, training courses, exercises, and planning activities that states and localities can purchase with grant allocations. Observers note, however, that the list of authorized expenditures does not adequately address the two most important (according to emergency responders) needsâhiring and retention of personnel, and interoperable communications. Hiring and retention of emergency responder personnel (including law enforcement personnel, fire and emergency medical service personnel, and emergency managers) is not an authorized HSGP expenditure. State and local law enforcement agencies receive federal hiring and retention funding, however, through the Department of Justice (DOJ) Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG). Fire departments receive hiring and retention funding through the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program (SAFER). State and local government officials and emergency responders have stated that the hiring and retention of personnel is one of their principal homeland security needs. Ten months after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Alexander Knopp, Mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, testified before the House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. Mayor Knopp stated that federal funding was needed to expand the number of firefighters and police officers to assist in terrorism preparedness and response. At the same hearing, Christopher J. Lynch, New Cannan, Connecticut, chief of police, stated that emergency responder agencies needed to increase volunteer staff due to the lack of funding for hiring new personnel. In January 2005, 50 House of Representatives Members sent a bipartisan letter to the President asking for a significant increase in the Administration's FY2006 budget for the hiring of first responders. On May 1, 2003, former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that it was not the federal government's role to pay the salaries of state and local employees. Even with the testimony of state and local officials, DHS continues to prohibit the use of federal homeland security funding for the hiring and retention of emergency responder personnel. With the increased role state and local personnel have in homeland security activities, Congress might consider authorizing the use of federal homeland security assistance funding for hiring and retaining emergency responders. One might argue that without a sufficient number of emergency responder personnel, states and localities might have difficulties performing day-to-day operations and responding to homeland security emergencies. On the same subject, in February 2005, the Administration proposed in its FY2006 budget request to reduce funding for COPS and eliminate JAG. On February 7, 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) released a press statement announcing its displeasure with the Administration's proposal. The proposed cut in COPS funding and the elimination of JAG could further reduce state and local homeland security capabilities by reducing the amount of federal funding used to hire and retain emergency responders. One bill in the 109 th Congress, passed by the House on May 12, 2005, H.R. 1544 , "Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005," and another bill, reported on April 12, 2005, by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, S. 21 , "Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005," propose to provide funding for overtime expenses related to homeland security activities. Neither bill, however, authorizes federal homeland security funding to be used for the hiring and retention of emergency responders. According to a National Governors Association (NGA) survey conducted in August 2004, only 22% of the states that responded have developed statewide interoperability communications, while 73% of those that responded stated they are still in the process of developing interoperability. On June 15, 2003, IACP released a list of anti-terror needs, and stated that one of their priorities is interoperable communications among all emergency responder entities. The FY2006 HSGP guidelines authorize states and localities to purchase communications equipment. Interoperable communications equipment, however, is but one of many types of equipment on the DHS Authorized Equipment List (AEL). Even with this funding source, NGA states: Developing statewide interoperability for emergency responders is the chief priority, and states are working diligently to bolster this capacity. Many are struggling with the dual challenges of funding and time. States must either replace outdated equipment with new models, or install software that allows incompatible equipment throughout the state to communicate with each other. Additionally, NGA stated that the survey respondents indicated that additional grant funding would facilitate the acquisition of new technology to enable interoperability. One might assume that because DHS has not provided a separate funding source or a specific amount of grant funding for communications equipment, the department does not recognize the state and local need for interoperable communications. This assumption, however, does not address the issue of state and local governments' responsibility for prioritizing their homeland security needs. The House Appropriations Committee recommended, in H.R. 2360 (FY2006 DHS appropriations), a total of $3.19 billion for federal homeland security assistance, a reduction of $420 million from FY2005 funding (see Table 1 ). This proposed reduction included $350 million less for SHSGP than was appropriated in FY2005. SHSGP is the primary program states use to fund interoperable communications. The ability of emergency responders to communicate has been identified as one of the primary national priorities in the National Preparedness Goal . The proposed reduction in funding could result in states and localities not funding interoperable communications at the level needed to meet the national priority of strengthening this capability. The reduction of federal homeland security assistance funding is another homeland security issue states and localities face. In FY2005, Congress appropriated approximately $3.61 billion for state and local homeland security assistance. In the FY2006 budget request, the Administration proposes a total of $3.36 billion for federal homeland security assistance, a reduction of $250 million from FY2005 funding. Additionally, the FY2006 budget request provides no line item funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). It proposes, however, to direct states and localities to allocate no less than 20% of SHSGP and UASI funding for LETTP activities. Apparently, this would be a reduction in SHSGP and UASI funding for equipment, training, exercises, and planning, which states and localities were authorized to fund with 100% of their allocated amount in FY2005. One could argue that the proposed overall funding reduction of $250 million and the Administration's requirement for states and localities to allocate no less than 20% of their SHSGP and UASI funding to LETPP activities would represent a further reduction of funding for state and local homeland security activities. The Administration's budget proposal requests $500 million for FIRE in FY2006, a cut of 30% from the FY2005 appropriated level. Priority would be given to grant applications enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities. Grants would be available only for training, vehicle acquisition, firefighting equipment, and personal protective equipment. Under the budget proposal, activities such as wellness/fitness and fire station modification would not be funded. Activities such as prevention, public fire safety education and awareness, and fire code enforcement would be funded under a separate fire prevention and firefighter safety grant program. For FY2006, the Administration is requesting no funding of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants, which provide assistance to fire departments for hiring personnel.