On Thursday, June 17 the Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding released a report containing findings and recommendations. The task force found that state governments met their statutory deadlines in distributing homeland security grants to county and local governments. However, various impediments to rapid distribution of funds were found. The procurement processes of state and local governments, DHS reimbursement procedures and guidelines, a lack of national standards and urgent security needs were all found to have unintentionally delayed the distribution of funds to local and municipal governments. The task force recommended several steps to streamline and speed-up the grant distribution process, including the alteration of state and local procurement processes, the establishment of national standards for grant tracking and management and more effective use of DHS grants for securing short-tem and urgent threats. Throughout the report, the consensus nature of the findings and recommendations were stressed by the task force, which included governors, mayors, county and tribal officials. Placing blame on any single government entity or agency was specifically avoided as unproductive.
Responding to complaints that states had withheld or delayed distributing DHS grants to local and municipal governments, the task force examined the funding process of the DHS to state, county, municipal and tribal governments. Secretary Ridge instructed the task force to look at funding for first responders, catalog best practices and produce recommendations to streamline the distribution of funds. The distribution of $3.3 billion awarded by the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) between the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 was examined.
The report made the following findings:
- DHS and state governments fulfilled their requirement to make grant funds available to local governments within 45 days.
- The reimbursement requirements proscribed by the Cash Management Act of 1990 and DHS and Department of Treasury guidelines were found to be problematic to state and local governments.
- The need for the rapid acquisition of homeland security related goods and services conflicted at times with procurement procedures that stress deliberation.
- A lack of national standards governing the distribution, tracking and oversight of DHS grants added to the delays experienced.
- There are urgent and short-term security needs of a different nature than long-term planning and preparation.
In response to these finding, the report issued these recommendations:
- Congress should exempt DHS grants from the Cash Management Act of 1990 and allow funds to be provided up to 120 days prior to expenditures by state and local governments.
- State and local governments should alter procurement guidelines so that homeland security-related items may be acquired more rapidly. In many states, homeland security-related expenditures could be acquired under emergency authority, which streamlines procurement laws. In addition, state legislatures should work to compose an expedited authorization and appropriations process for homeland security expenditures.
- DHS should work to establish multi-state cooperative purchasing consortia to allow greater access by state and local governments to equipment and expand access the federal procurement systems such as the GSA schedule.
- State and local governments should be allowed to “piggy-back” on existing bulk purchasing agreements and should establish bulk purchasing procedures consistent with the State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies.
- DHS, in coordination with state and local governments, should establish national standards for grant funding and develop an automated grant tracking system. Minimum staffing recommendations for grant management personnel should be established.
- Congress should establish deadlines for obligating funds from one level of local government to another.
- The approved uses of SHSGP funds should be altered to improve response to short term security threats. DHS, other federal agencies, state and local governments should create a method for comprehensive risk assessment, allowing high-risk events and critical infrastructure to be identified.
The topsy--turvy world of congressional scheduling continues. After receiving confirmation early on July 1 that the previously scheduled July 8 mark-up for the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill had been postponed indefinitely, we are now told it is back on. Stay tuned as this could change again.
Congress returns from its "Independence Day Work Period" on Tuesday, July 6. This is a good time to take stock of where things stand with regard to the reauthorization of TEA-21.
House and Senate Conferees will meet on July 7 for their third session. On top of the agenda for this meeting is the House's response to the "offer" made by the Senate at the last meeting to formally adopt $ 318 billion (the Senate's figure) as the total funding for the six-year legislation. When he put this offer before the House at the last meeting, Conference Chair Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) indicated he expected a response from the House on July 7. Many have referred to the Senate move as "throwing down the gauntlet." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) responded within 24 hours to this offer by indicating the Senate number relies on tax increases and gimmicks and can't be sustained. It is unclear whether the House will come to the July 7 meeting with a counter offer or with no offer at all.
In any case, key staffers we have talked to have indicated this upcoming meeting may well be the crucial one for determining the future of this legislation. If the House brings an offer back to the Senate, it is certain it will be no more than $ 275 billion -- the House-passed number. More likely, it would be $ 256 billion -- the Administration's proposed number. If the latter number were offered, the Senate might well push their collective chairs back from the table and declare the conference over. If the former number is offered, there may be a basis for negotiation because this will signal the GOP Leadership of the House is prepared to send the President a bill he may well veto. If the House makes no offer, the Senate might agree to give them another week or so to see if they can come up with one.
While manuevering continues on the "big" number, House and Senate staff have continued to meet to find areas of agreement on more minor issues. So far, they have identified the provisions where the two bodies have very similar positions or where one has a provision and the other doesn't. For most of those they are coming to agreement to insert the provisions in the final product. There has been no discussion so far, even at the staff level, of any topic which could be considered controversial.
We continue to believe there is not enough impetus towards compromise for this legislation to be completed before the November election. However, we continue to behave as if things will progress quickly and are in regular contact with Members and staff on the conference committee.
Watch for another update immediately following the July 7 meeting of the conference.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has postponed action on his proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. Although Hatch had originally wanted to send the measure to the floor before Flag Day, June 14, and then before the Fourth of July, the earliest this measure will advance is July 8 since the Senate is now in recess. The contentious resolution, which is identical to a measure (H J Res 4) passed by House last year, divides much of the Senate along party lines, making it unlikely to garner the necessary two-thirds majority.
Although many states and the federal government used to have similar flag protection laws, in 1989 and 1990 the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional because they violated free expression. Opponents of the amendment agree with this ruling, insisting that flag burning is a legitimate form of expression. Supporters argue recriminalizing flag burning is an appropriate way to honor the flag, which is a universally honored symbol of freedom deserving of constitutional protection. The House has passed many flag protection resolutions since the 1990 Supreme Court ruling, however, the proposals have all died in the Senate.
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) will no longer block a bill to allow off-duty and retired law enforcement officials to carry concealed weapons. Kennedy still opposes the measure, S 253, but will no longer delay its passage by unanimous consent. Senate supporters now await the referral of the House version, HR 218, to the floor by Judiciary Chairman, and sometime Kennedy ally, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Former and off-duty officers would have to maintain their firearms training and registration, as well as carry identification verifying their affiliation with a law enforcement agency to qualify for the program. The exemption would not apply when officers are under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Supporters hope that allowing officers to carry concealed weapons off-duty and after-retirement will help fight crime. Critics of the provision, such as Kennedy, argue that it would unduly prohibit states from enacting their own gun-control statues. In March, the exemption was approved 91-8 as an amendment to a gun liability bill that was later defeated.
Thursday, House Majority Leader and conferee Tom Delay (R-Texas) issued a press release that harshly criticized the Senate’s offer of $318 billion during the TEA-21 reauthorization conference. DeLay ripped into the overall spending level and revenue sources of the bill. “Instead of creating a fiscally responsible highway bill, the Senate is using it as a slush fund to rob other programs and raise taxes,” his press release said. Conference chairman Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) responded quickly. “Having just read the news release of my dear friend of 18 years, I have concluded that he has not read the Senate Highway Reauthorization Bill. In a five paragraph release, not one of the statements is true, not one,” Inhofe’s press release countered. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) added that the House bill provides insufficient funding and adds billions more to the deficit than the Senate bill.
At the center of the dispute are the revenue raising mechanisms in the Senate bill. DeLay considers them tax increases, while Grassley and Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), both of whom sit on the conference committee and Senate Finance Committee, say this view “unfairly [portrays] anti-tax shelter and anti-fraud provision in the highway bill as ‘tax increases.’” According to BNA an aide to DeLay said a “lot of people call things corporate loopholes when they really are tax increases.” DeLay’s comments have further complicated what already promised to be difficult negotiations between the House and Senate.
In an attempt to crack down on gang violence, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to expand federal law enforcement’s role by making it a federal crime to participate in a “criminal street gang.” This legislation (S 1735) authorizes $650 million for gang prevention and suppression programs and criminalizes the recruitment of minors. Although the House has not considered a similar measure, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who is a co-sponsor of the bill, feels a strong federal response is necessary given the recent increase in gang violence.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the bill’s expansion of the federal death penalty, increase in prosecution of juveniles as adults, and failure to address the issues that motivate people to join gangs. The committee rejected two similar measures that would have focused on preventive action rather than prosecution. Support in the full Senate for the bill is not yet definite.
In response to the military’s widely publicized abuse of prisoners, last night the Senate added a provision to the defense authorization bill (S 2400) that would require the Pentagon to inform Congress of the status of detainees. At the end of a long day of hearings, briefings and debate, five Republicans and all but one Democrat voted to require both reporting and justification of all instances where detainees are denied POW status. The result of over a month of debate, the $447.2 billion defense bill passed Wednesday night with Patrick J. Leahy’s (D-Vermont) prisoner abuse amendment added. This amendment stipulates that detainees whose status is ambiguous must be granted the protections of the Geneva Convention and their cases be rapidly prosecuted. It is unlikely that Leahy’s amendment will survive in conference with the House, who passed their version of the defense bill May 20.
Since the defense bill authorizes an additional $25 billion for military operations that will be available upon its enactment, many have been anxious to have the measure pass quickly. Many other Democratic amendments to the defense bill were blocked by the Republican leadership, including one requiring the president to give Congress an estimate of the number of US troops that will be in Iraq next year. The Senate also agreed to an amendment proposed by John McCain (R-Arizona) that would ensure future Pentagon contracts with Boeing Co. are done responsibly.
While the House debates a 30-day extension of TEA-21, a conference committee will meet today to discuss HR 3550, which would reauthorize the existing act for six years. While many of the staff recommendations aimed at mediating the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill are likely to be adopted by the committee, there are still large discrepancies that present real hurdles to passage. Negotiations have been complicated by a letter sent from Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, objecting to many portions contained in versions of the bill, as well as the overall spending levels called for. Mineta's full letter is located on the analysis side of out website.
A fight is expected during the conference over what Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Illinois) sees as an inappropriate expansion of worker protections. The current language of the House bill would require all transit agencies receiving federal funds to protect the rights and benefits of workers paid with these dollars, enlarging the scope of the Davis-Bacon Act. Biggert maintains that the provision, which expands the Department of Labor’s existing jurisdiction, does not belong in a transportation bill. Seen by some as part of a larger strategy by Republicans to weaken laws governing labor relations, this push by Biggert marks the second time in two years that she has publicly battled labor unions. In 2003, she sponsored a bill that would have overhauled overtime pay regulations.
On Tuesday the Senate voted to add a provision increasing the maximum fine for broadcast indecency to the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill. Although this provision has had broad support, it will likely be difficult to hold on to in conference, along with two more controversial ones added by the Senate on media ownership rules and television violence. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) offered this provision, which raises the maximum fine to $275,000 from $32,500 per violation, with a $3 million cap on related violations, as a rider to the defense bill because it is almost certain to clear this year.
The Senate proposal to repeal the FCC’s rules that had made it easier for media consolidation may die in conference due to opposition from House leaders and the White House despite strong support in both the House and the Senate membership. The Senate adopted amendments that have the FCC both evaluate a broadcaster’s size and resources before levying fines as well as attempt to eliminate violent programming from prime time.
Today the House will take up HR 4613, which would provide the Pentagon with $418 billion, with $25 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill was approved by a voice vote by the Appropriations Committee on June 16 and House GOP leaders say they do not expect contentious floor debate. The House Rules Committee approved an open rule for the bill, allowing any germane amendment to be offered during debate.
In the Senate, Ted Stevens, R-AK, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and full Appropriations Committee, has scheduled markups of the Senate’s defense spending measure. Working in coordination with Senate Majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), Stevens intends to bring the spending bill to floor Wednesday. In order to complete the bill before the July 4 recess, Frist has threatened to keep the Senate in session over the weekend if work on it is not completed by Friday.
Advocates of a Senate bill (S 1700) that would provide death row inmates access to potentially exonerating DNA tests as well as enhance the quality of legal counsel in capital cases are starting to look for a new approach. While this bill has been held up on the Judiciary Committee’s agenda for weeks due to opposition from conservatives, a similar measure was easily passed in the House in the fall. The panel, scheduled to mark up the bill on Thursday, should expect a fight from Judiciary Republicans Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jeff Sessions of Alabama. While the bill’s backers do not want to abandon their stand-alone measure, they have begun exploring other options, such as offering it as an amendment to legislation that is more likely to pass.
This legislation, sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) would grant over $1 billion in five years to increase resources for forensic laboratories, test stored biological evidence, and improve law enforcement’s use of these tests. The legislation also embraces a Bush initiative to reduce the backlog of biological evidence by authorizing $755 million over 5 years to accelerate the processing of stored biological samples. Critics of the bill, including Kyl and Sessions, are wary of provisions that make $100 million in federal grants contingent on states meeting certain conditions, including ensuring that defendants have access to competent legal representation. They are expected to offer amendments to strip the bill title when the legislation is considered by the Senate committee. Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella also recently criticized the bill for not sufficiently protecting against abusive litigation and fears these provisions will interfere with the states’ ability to carry out the death penalty.
The House followed the Senate’s lead today and passed S. 2232 by a voice vote, extending the federal flood insurance program through 2008. Funded through homeowner premiums and backed by the credit lines of the Treasury Department, the program covers almost 4.4 million homes in flood prone areas. Efforts to reduce overall costs and repeated payments to homes in frequently flooded communities yielded a $40 million pilot program that will shift payments towards federal buyout and relocation of damaged homes rather than repeated rebuilding. The House was acting under a June 30 deadline, when a temporary authorization for the program expires.
This week the House Appropriations Committee will decide whether to leave a provision in the agriculture spending bill that would make it easier for Americans to import cheaper prescription drugs. The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee approved an $83.1 billion draft bill that would bar the FDA from enforcing the current ban on importing drugs. The amendment, sponsored by the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and opposed by Subcommittee Chairman Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), was adopted with the support of three Republicans.
Last year a similar proposal, opposed by both Bonilla and the White House, was added to the fiscal 2004 agriculture appropriations bill, however, it was stripped in conference. On July 25, 2003, the House passed the proposal making prescription drug imports a separate bill. According to CQ, Appropriations Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Florida), who supports legalizing prescription drug imports but not in an appropriations bill, this legislation has a good chance of surviving in the bill in full committee. The bill, which would fund agriculture, nutrition, rural development programs and the FDA, is scheduled to be considered on Wednesday and would provide $16.8 billion in discretionary spending. Mandatory programs, including crop subsidies and food stamp and nutrition programs, would receive $66.4 billion. While conservation programs would take a hard hit, a 17% decrease from the 2002 farm law and a 29% decrease from the authorized levels in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, agencies managing food safety would all receive more money.
Tomorrow, the House is expected to pass a temporary extension of the 1996 welfare law. The bill (HR 4589) will be considered under suspension of the rules, which bars amendments, limits debate and requires two-thirds support for passage. Democrats are expected to complain that House Republican reauthorization efforts have been excessively partisan.
The law originally was set to expire Sept. 30, 2002 but lawmakers have renewed it for short periods while they work on a full reauthorization. The House measure extends the program through Sept. 30.
The House passed a reauthorization bill in Feb. 2003 that would require participants to work 40 hours a week by 2008 and would fund new programs to promote marriage. The bill backed by the Bush administration, would provide an additional $1 billion in mandatory child care funding over the next five years.
The Senate Finance Committee amended the House bill last year with a measure that would require recipients to work 34 hours a week, with a requirement of 24 hours a week for parents with children younger than 6.
When Senate Republicans brought the measure to the floor last March, Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa) thought he would be able to get the bill passed after the Senate added an additional $6 billion in mandatory child care funding. The sum would be a significant increase for states, which currently receive $4.8 billion annually in child care funding from the government.
However, Senate Democrats demanded that they be allowed to offer an amendment by Sen. Boxer (D-California) that would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7 an hour over the next two years.
Republicans refused to allow that vote, complaining that the minimum wage was unrelated to the welfare debate and that Democrats were more interested in tying up the Senate floor than passing legislation. Senate Republicans fell nine votes short of invoking cloture on the bill, which would have limited debate and blocked further Democratic amendments on a series of workplace and labor issues.
Governors and state welfare officials are lobbying for both sides to reach a compromise and pass a reauthorization bill this year. The fear is that additional child care money in future years could be difficult to secure because of deepening budget deficits.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) on June 18 told the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that he and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) have reached agreement on a path forward on the highway/transit reauthorization which could result in the bill being completed before the August recess.
Staff sources are indicating the two leaders may be planning to advance a bill which would set the funding level for the programs at $275 billion over six years. No one has indicated yet whether the White House has backed-down from its threat to veto any bill with a price tag over $256 billion.
It remains to be seen whether any enthusiasm can be generated amongst rank and file senators for a bill at this funding level. Obtaining a veto-proof majority at this level may be impossible if the pursuit of "equity" in the highway formula continues to be the foremost goal of Senate conference leaders.
We will be taking the pulse of key leaders on Capitol Hill on this issue in the days ahead and will have frequent updates.