FY2006 Appropriations for State and Local Homeland Security

FY2006 Appropriations for State and Local Homeland Security

Order Code RS22050
Updated July 25, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
FY2006 Appropriations for State and Local
Homeland Security
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
P.L. 109-90 — FY2006 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations
— appropriated a total of $2.97 billion for state and local homeland security grant
programs. This was $645 million less than was appropriated for these programs in
FY2005 ($3.61 billion). The act did not propose to alter the funding formula for the
State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program. It did require, however, that states update their State Homeland
Security Strategies in accordance with the Interim National Preparedness Goal to be
eligible for federal homeland security assistance.
This report is an overview of appropriations for selected programs of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) for assistance to state and local first responders:
firefighters, emergency medical personnel, emergency managers, and law enforcement
officers (it does not cover public safety and preparedness assistance programs1). It covers
only programs that are intended to help state and local recipients enhance their
preparedness for terrorist attacks and that are administered by the Office for Grants and
Training (G&T), within the Preparedness Directorate:
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
! Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP);
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
! Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE);
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG); and
! Citizen Corps Programs (CCP).
FY2006 Budget Request. In the FY2006 budget request, the Administration
proposed roughly $3.36 billion for state and local homeland security assistance programs.
1 Programs not covered include general assistance grant programs that are authorized for a broad
range of public safety activities, such as the Justice Assistance Grants and Community-Oriented
Policing Services. Nor does this report track appropriations for bioterrorism preparedness and
National Guard funding.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
The Administration proposed to combine the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program (LETPP) with the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). It also proposed to transfer five UASI sub-grants
to the Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP). Additionally, the
Administration proposed to change the current formula used to allocate SHSGP funds to
states and localities. The FY2006 budget request proposed $1.02 billion for SHSGP, to
be allocated based on risks, threats, vulnerabilities, and unmet first responder capabilities,
provided that each state and territory was allocated no less than 0.25% of total funds
appropriated for this program. Additionally, the Administration did not request funding
for LETPP, but it proposed that 20% of SHSGP and UASI funding be used for LETPP
activities.2
House-Passed H.R. 2360. As passed by the House on May 17, 2005, H.R. 2360
(FY2006 DHS appropriations) approved $3.19 billion for state and local homeland
security assistance programs; this was $425 million less than was appropriated for these
programs in FY2005. The report accompanying H.R. 2360 (H.Rept. 109-79) directed the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) — now renamed the Office for Grants and
Training (G&T) — to allocate funding to states based on Section 1014 of the USA
PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56). The remainder of total appropriations, however, was to be
allocated based on G&T-assessed threats and risks to states. The House bill also required
G&T to brief Congress on state threat and risk assessments, and the process of
determining unmet state preparedness needs.3
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate passed H.R. 2360 on July 14, 2005,
approving $3.1 billion for state and local homeland security assistance programs. This
was $507 million less than was appropriated for these programs in FY2005. The Collins-
Lieberman Amendment (S.Amdt. 1142), passed by the Senate on July 12, 2005, would
allow states, DC, and U.S. insular areas to select either of two options that yields the
highest funding level. First, funds would be divided as follows: states and DC would
receive 0.55%, and Puerto Rico and specified U.S. possessions and territories would
receive 0.055%, for an aggregate of 28.62% of total appropriations. Second, states could
alternatively choose to receive an amount based on a “sliding scale baseline allocation,”
calculated by multiplying 0.001 times (A) a state’s population ratio, or (B) a state’s
population density ratio.4 After the “base” funds were distributed, the remainder would
be distributed through the risk assessment process, with a maximum of 50% distributed
to high-threat urban areas, and the remainder to the states.5
2 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget for the United States
Government (Washington: GPO, Feb. 2005), Appendix, p. 478.
3 H.Rept. 109-79, H.R. 2360.
4 Section 1801(7) of S.Amdt. 1142 sets out the following alternatives: (A) the value of a state’s
population relative to that of the most populous of the 50 states, where the population of the 50
states has been normalized to a maximum value of 100; and (B) one-fourth of the value of a
state’s population density relative to that of the most densely populated of the 50 states, where
the population density of the 50 states has been normalized to a maximum value of 100.
5 For an in-depth discussion on this risk-based funding formula and other congressional
proposals, see CRS Report RL33050, Risk-Based Homeland Security Grant Legislation: Issues
for the 109th Congress, by Shawn Reese.

CRS-3
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 appropriated a total of $2.97 billion for state and local
homeland security grant programs. This was $645 million less than was appropriated for
these programs in FY2005 ($3.61billion).
P.L. 109-90 did not alter the funding formula for SHSGP and LETPP. It maintained
the current formula in which states, DC, and Puerto Rico received 0.75% of total
appropriations, and U.S. insular areas received 0.08% of total appropriations.6 It did
require, however, states to update their State Homeland Security Strategies in accordance
with the Interim National Preparedness Goal to be eligible for federal homeland security
assistance. Additionally, the act did not specify what risk factors G&T is to consider in
determining the remainder of appropriations following the distribution of state base
amounts.
P.L. 109-90 requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the
threats and risk factors used by the DHS Secretary in determining discretionary grant
allocations — the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and sub-grants7 — and report to
Congress on the review no later than November 17, 2005.
Comparison of Funding and Base Amounts. Table 1 compares the actual
FY2005 appropriations with the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2360, and P.L. 109-
90. Table 2 compares state, DC, and U.S. insular area SHSGP and LETPP base amounts
received in FY2005, and estimated base amounts calculated from the recommended P.L.
109-90 allocations for these programs. Table 3 compares base and risk amounts and
percentages for FY2005 and P.L. 109-90 allocations for SHSGP, LETPP, and
discretionary grants.
6 P.L. 107-56, Section 1014.
7 The sub-grants include port security, trucking industry security, intercity bus security, intercity
passenger rail transportation security, and buffer zone protection grants.

CRS-4
Table 1. FY2005 Appropriations and FY2006 Appropriations for
State and Local Homeland Security Assistance
(All amounts in millions)
FY2006 DHS Appropriations
FY2006
FY2005
Program
Budget
Passed
Passed
Approp.
P.L.
Request
by
by
109-90
House
Senate
State and Local Assistance Grants
—
—
—
$1,518a
—
State Homeland Security Grant
$1,100
$1,020b
$750
—
$550
Program
Equipment, training, exercises,
[$1,100]
[$816]
[$750]
—
[$550]
planning
Law enforcement terrorism
—
[$204]
—
—
—
prevention
Targeted Infrastructure Protection
—
$600c
—
$365d
—
Discretionary Grants
$1,200
$1,020
$1,215
—
$1,155
Urban Area Security Initiative
(equipment, training, exercises,
[$860]
[$816]
[$850]
—
[$740]
planning)
Urban Area Security Initiative
(law enforcement terrorism
—
[$204]
—
—
—
prevention)
Port Security
[$150]
—
[$150]
—
[$175]
Rail Security
[$150]
—
[$150]
—
[$150]
Trucking Industry Security
[$5]
—
[$5]
—
[$5]
Intercity Bus Security
[$10]
—
[$10]
—
[$10]
Non-governmental Organizations
[$25]
—
—
—
[$25]
Security
Buffer Zone Protection
—
—
[$50]
—
[$50]
Law Enforcement Terrorism
$400
[$408]e
$400
$400
$400
Prevention
Assistance to Firefighters
$715
$500
$600
$615
$655
Emergency Management
$180
$170f
$180
$180
$185
Performance Grants
Citizen Corps
$15
$50g
$40
$25
$20
State and Local Homeland Security
$3,610
$3,360
$3,185
$3,103
$2,965
Total
Source: P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS appropriations); U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year
2006 Budget of the United States Government (Washington: GPO, Feb. 2005), Appendix, pp. 478-480; and
P.L. 109-90 (FY2006 DHS appropriations).

CRS-5
a. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 approves $1.518 billion for “state and local assistance grants”; however, it does
not specify amounts for the State Homeland Security Grant Program or the Urban Area Security
Initiative.
b. This amount is to be allocated on risks, threats, vulnerabilities, and unmet first responder capabilities as
determined by the DHS Secretary, provided that each state and territory receives no less than 0.25%
of funds appropriated for this program. Additionally, 20% of this amount is to be used for law
enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
c. This amount is to be allocated at the discretion of the DHS Secretary and is for assistance in securing
ports, transit systems, and other infrastructure determined by the DHS Secretary. Additionally, $50
million is to be used for buffer zone protection plans.
d. This amount includes: $200 million for port security grants; $100 million for rail and transit security
grants; $50 million for buffer zone protection; $10 million for intercity bus security; and $5 million
for trucking industry security.
e. This amount constitutes 20% of the $1.02 billion requested for the State Homeland Security Grant
Program and 20% of the $1.02 billion for the Urban Area Security Initiative for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.
f. This amount is to be allocated based on P.L. 107-56, Section 1014, which guarantees each state a
minimum of 0.75% of total appropriated funds.
g. Ibid.

CRS-6
Table 2. State Homeland Security Grant Program and Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Approximate Base
Allocations: FY2005 and Estimated FY2006
(amounts in millions)
FY2005 Base
P.L. 109-90
States and U.S. Insular Areas
Allocations
Allocations
All states, DC, and Puerto Rico
$11.25
$7.13
U.S. Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, and the Northern
$1.20
$0.80
Mariana Islands
Total base amount
$589.80
$374.00
Source: Amounts based on CRS calculations of FY2005 SHSGP ($1.1 billion) and LETPP ($400 million)
appropriation amounts, and, for FY2006, amounts in P.L. 109-90.
Table 3. Approximate State Homeland Security Grant Program, Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Discretionary
Base and Risk Amounts: FY2005 and Estimated FY2006
(amounts in millions)
FY2005 actual
FY2006 estimated
Program
appropriation
appropriationa
SHSGP
$1,100.0
$550.0
LETPP
$400.0
$400.0
Discretionary Grantsb
$1,200.0
$1,155.0
Total
$2,700.0
$2,105.0
Base amount
$589.8
$374.0
(percentage)
(22%)
(18%)
Risk amount
$2,700.0
$2,500.0
(percentage)c
(78%)
(82%)
a. Appropriation amounts in P. L. 109-90.
b. Includes grant funding for UASI, port security, rail security, trucking security, intercity bus security, and
buffer zone protection programs.
c. In FY2005, DHS used a state’s percentage of the nation’s total population as the only risk factor. In the
conference report accompanying H.R. 2360, the determination of risk factors is at the discretion of
the DHS Secretary.