 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Witness Testimony
The Honorable Christopher Cox
H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004.
Thank you Chairman Bilirakis and Ranking Member Brown for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 3266, the "Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004" - a bill that recently passed the Select Committee on Homeland Security unanimously. As you know, I am the Chairman of the Select Committee, but I am also honored to be a long-time Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I look forward to working with you and all the Members of this Committee to move this first responder bill to the House floor as expeditiously as possible. It is especially fitting that we are focusing on the needs of first responders today, during National Police Week - a time when we honor the sacrifices made by those who protect our communities and our freedom. Effective law enforcement is critical to upholding our national traditions and maintaining our quality of life. As law enforcement officers adapt to their new anti-terrorism missions, we must give them the support necessary to carry out their crucial role in defending our homeland. The bill we are discussing today, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, would do just that. By way of background, since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Congress has appropriated more than $23 billion to help our States, localities, and first responders improve preparedness for future acts of terrorism or other public emergencies. This money has been awarded through multiple grant programs administered by several Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and - since March 2003 - the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Some of this money goes to support traditional, non-terrorism-related missions of our first responders, such as the COPS program and the FIRE Act program. Some of this money goes to support activities that help our first responders prepare for public emergencies, whether terrorist-inflicted or naturally-occurring, such as the HHS public health preparedness grants awarded to State and local public health departments and emergency medical centers. And some of this money - most notably, from the DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness, or ODP - goes specifically to help first responders prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism, particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction. This latter pot of money accounts for the largest single grant awards over the past two years. DHS - and, before it, DOJ - has awarded roughly $6.3 billion to States for this specific purpose since September 11th. The President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget requests an additional $2.6 billion - an increase of more than 2,000 percent over 2001 levels. Despite this enormous increase in funding, our first responders continue to report that they have not yet received most of this money, due to administrative bottlenecks at various levels of government. A recent analysis by the Homeland Security Committee found that roughly $5.2 billion of the $6.3 billion awarded since 2001 remains stuck in the pipeline, unused. An even bigger problem, in my opinion, is that this terrorism preparedness funding is being allocated at the Federal level in a manner that does not direct the money to where we are most threatened by terrorism - a pattern often repeated at the State level. In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, a vital piece of legislation that removed the "wall" that had kept law enforcement and intelligence information separate even in terrorism-related investigations. But the PATRIOT Act also put into statute arbitrary, political formulas for the distribution of anti-terrorism grants to States. It guaranteed that every State - no matter how small its population or actual risk - received .75 percent of the total grant funding each year, resulting in roughly 40 percent of the grant funds being distributed without regard to risk or need. At the time the PATRIOT Act passed, this guaranteed minimum totaled less than $1 million per State. Last year, due to the enormous increase in overall funding, the guaranteed minimum was more than $15 million per State. The remaining 60 percent of these grant funds was distributed to States based solely on population, ensuring that even the smallest State received an additional $2 million last year - for a total of more than $17 million. Frankly, we can't afford to keep spending such sums without regard to actual risk. I introduced H.R. 3266 to address both of these problems - to make this funding both faster and smarter. Faster, by requiring and incentivizing States to pass through their awarded funds to localities within tight timeframes, by penalizing States that fail to do so, and by allowing regions to apply directly for funds in certain circumstances. Smarter, by allocating grant awards to States and regions based on an assessment of terrorist threat, vulnerability and consequences - in other words, the actual risks they face. Terrorists are not arbitrary in their selection of targets. We cannot afford to be arbitrary in how we prepare to deal with them. H.R. 3266 also ensures that this terrorism grant funding is used to achieve clear and measurable preparedness goals, which we call "essential capabilities." Right now, many States and localities simply are not sure how to utilize this money most effectively, which is yet another reason for the delay in actual spending at the local level. We know that not all communities are the same, or face the same types of risks. Accordingly, we need to help communities identify their unique terrorism preparedness needs. The bill before you today will do this, speeding actual use of grant funds and ensuring that the money is wisely spent. Let me emphasize several points for your consideration. First: The bill you are considering covers only those terrorism-specific preparedness grants administered by the Department of Homeland Security. All aspects of the bill - including risk-based allocation of grants; State strategies; creation of essential capabilities; training and equipment standards; and various administrative requirements - apply only in the context of those DHS grants. The bill expressly excludes all grant programs administered by HHS and other Federal agencies. It is an amendment to the Homeland Security Act, tailored to a very specific purpose. Second: The definition of "first responders" in this legislation is exactly the same as the definition of "emergency response providers" that is already in the Homeland Security Act. In addition to firefighters and police officers, this definition includes emergency medical personnel and related agencies. That's consistent with the long-standing practice of ODP even when it was in the Justice Department. This broad definition ensures that the emergency medical community - which works hand-in-hand with the more traditional first responders - is included as a key element in anti-terrorism planning, training, and equipment purchases. In this respect, our bill in no way alters current practice or policy. With the creation of DHS came the potential for overlap with other pre-existing departments and agencies, including HHS. Both DHS and HHS have worked diligently to avoid any duplication in public health preparedness grants. They have largely focused on different end users, and on different priorities. President Bush recently issued a Presidential Directive that is the basis for the ongoing construction of a fully coordinated and streamlined Federal grant process for terrorism and other emergencies. That fully coordinated inter-agency process, which will be completely in place by the middle of next year, should eliminate any concerns about potential overlap in DHS and HHS programs. Finally, the First Responder Essential Capabilities Task Force created by H.R. 3266 should not be confused with the Federal working group established under the authority of the HHS Secretary several years ago to review matters relating to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. First, the HHS bioterrorism working group is focused on public health emergencies, with particular concern for research on and prioritization of pathogens and biomedical countermeasures. Its participants are Federal agencies, and its aim is to ensure coordination among Federal partners in the fight against bioterrorism. By contrast, the Essential Capabilities Task Force in H.R. 3266 is made up of first responders and Federal, state and local officials. Its focus is on creating clearly defined and measurable goals for preparedness, tailored to different types of communities, for all forms of terrorism. This first responder task force is critical because of the importance of hearing from those on the front lines and in our local communities directly about what their needs are and what their priorities should be. And, as noted earlier, the essential capabilities created under H.R. 3266 would not have any impact beyond the DHS grant programs covered by the bill. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004. I urge this Committee to report the bill as quickly as possible to help our Nation meet the urgent challenge of terrorism in our cities and home towns. Thank you for your consideration, and I would be glad to answer any questions Members of this Committee might have on this subject. Related Documents |
|||||||||||
|
