HR-8874-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Troy Carter (D-LA)
What it does
This bill would amend the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 to require recurring reports — every three years — on how jurisdictions transition after losing eligibility for Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding. The original law required only a single report within 18 months of enactment; this bill would make that a repeating obligation. It does not change the UASI funding formula, eligibility criteria, or grant amounts.
Who benefits
Local governments and emergency management agencies that have lost UASI eligibility, who would gain ongoing federal visibility into their transition challenges. Congress, which would receive regular data to inform future oversight or funding decisions. Researchers, journalists, and the public who may use the reports to track homeland security preparedness gaps. Jurisdictions still eligible for UASI funding, who may benefit indirectly if the reports reveal systemic issues that prompt legislative action.
Who is hurt
Federal agency staff at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who would bear the administrative burden of producing recurring reports. There are no direct financial costs imposed on states, localities, or private parties. Jurisdictions that have lost UASI funding are not directly harmed, though the reports could draw attention to their reduced preparedness in ways that carry political or reputational consequences.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a single one-time report is insufficient to track how cities adapt over time after losing federal homeland security funding, since transition challenges — such as capability degradation or staffing reductions — may not emerge until years later. They contend that recurring three-year reports give Congress the sustained data it needs to identify whether former UASI jurisdictions are maintaining adequate preparedness levels and whether legislative corrections are warranted.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating recurring reports every three years adds a permanent administrative obligation on DHS without evidence that the original one-time report revealed problems serious enough to justify ongoing monitoring. They contend that Congress already has oversight tools — including hearings, GAO studies, and annual appropriations — to track UASI transition issues without codifying a new recurring reporting cycle that may produce duplicative or low-utility outputs.