Analyzing Congress's homeland security agenda
a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has routinely ignored the Stafford Act’s pliable requirement and treated even comparatively small disasters as requiring a federal response.” Congress “should redefine what constitutes a disaster under the Stafford Act in a way that includes only those disasters that truly overwhelm state and local response — a step that would ensure that scarce tax dollars are used when needed the most.”
Reform the Homeland Security Grant structure. The 9/11 Commission said homeland security grants were becoming pork barrel legislation. “The commission was right. DHS continues to hand out grants based on highly suspect criteria.” Congress should reduce the number of UASI-eligible cities to the 35 highest-risk cities and require 100 percent pass-through of UASI funds, ensuring that the money goes in the locations where it is needed the most. More fundamentally, “the grant structure is the wrong tool for increasing homeland security because it does not foresee substantial federal involvement when in fact DHS is integrally involved — from issuing requirements to unfunded mandates to requiring yearly applications for funds.” A better approach would be the use of cooperative agreements, which will see “the federal government and the states and localities can sit down as true and equal partners and negotiate outcomes at the beginning, including covering programmatic and financial oversight requirements, and then direct funds to achieve those desired outcomes without the need for yearly applications.”
Encourage state and local immigration enforcement efforts. The federal government has consistently failed to address the ever-growing illegal immigration crisis. As a result, states have begun enacting their own legislation and policies aimed at reducing illegal immigration from a grassroots level. Federal law, though, still hangs over the states and localities as they take these steps. For instance, “the Immigration Reform and Control Act carves out exceptions for state and local initiatives only if they deal with ‘licensing or similar laws’ concerning the employment of illegal immigrants.” States, though, still retain extensive police powers by which they can control illegal immigration in their jurisdiction and have the inherent power to enforce federal law. “Given these powers, the federal government should encourage states and localities to devise innovative methods of enforcement that do not call for federal intervention. Congress, for its part, should look to eliminate statutory restrictions that limit the actions that states and localities can take to curtail illegal immigration.”
The authors concludes that “Setting the right homeland security agenda this autumn is the best way to mark the eighth anniversary of 9/11 and the best way for Congress to meet its responsibilities for keeping the nation safe, free, and prosperous.”
