Securing the Cities Improvement Act

Bill Number

H.R. 1374

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Emergency Management

Status

Passed House

Latest Action

2025-03-11: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Last Updated

2026-07-10T20:43:22Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Securing the Cities Improvement Act (H.R. 1374) aims to enhance the Securing the Cities (STC) program under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The STC program focuses on preventing terrorist attacks or other high-impact events involving nuclear or radiological materials in vulnerable areas. The legislation refines how participating areas are selected, introduces performance tracking, and increases congressional oversight to make the program more effective and accountable.

Key Provisions

• Eligibility Criteria: Expands and clarifies how jurisdictions (such as cities or regions) are chosen for the STC program. Selection now depends on a jurisdiction's readiness and ability to prepare and respond to threats, along with its level of risk (threat, vulnerability, and potential consequences) from nuclear or radiological attacks.
• Performance Metrics: Requires DHS to create specific goals and benchmarks (metrics and milestones) for the program, monitor spending, and regularly evaluate progress against these goals.
• Reporting Requirement: Mandates that DHS submit a detailed report to Congress within two years of the law's enactment. The report must cover program participation, established metrics and milestones, actual performance, and any proposed future changes to the program.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill amends Section 1928 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 596b), which previously authorized the STC program for "high-risk urban areas" based on broader risk assessments under another law (Section 2003). Key updates include:

• Replacing vague references to "high-risk urban areas" with a more precise, threat-based designation process tied directly to nuclear/radiological risks.
• Adding mandatory performance tracking and expenditure monitoring, which were not explicitly required before.
• Introducing a formal congressional reporting obligation, shifting from optional updates to a structured, time-bound requirement for transparency.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: DHS will face increased administrative duties to develop metrics, track performance, and report to Congress, potentially leading to more efficient use of funds and better resource allocation for homeland security.
• On Citizens: Residents in high-risk jurisdictions may benefit from improved detection and prevention capabilities against radiological threats, enhancing public safety in urban areas prone to terrorism.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though stronger U.S. preparedness could indirectly bolster global counter-terrorism efforts by reducing vulnerabilities that might affect international security cooperation.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Primary implementer, responsible for designations, metrics, and reporting.
• Designated Jurisdictions: Local governments, cities, or regions selected for the program, which gain access to resources for radiological threat preparedness but must meet new capability standards.
• Congress: Oversight committees (House Committee on Homeland Security and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) receive reports, enabling better legislative monitoring and funding decisions.
• First Responders and Security Personnel: Benefit from enhanced training and equipment in participating areas to handle nuclear/radiological incidents.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Strengthens accountability in federal grant programs by mandating metrics and reports, potentially setting a precedent for similar oversight in other DHS initiatives. No conflicts with existing statutes are evident, as it builds directly on the Homeland Security Act.
• Constitutional Implications: Aligns with Congress's authority under Article I to regulate commerce and provide for national defense, emphasizing federal support for local preparedness without infringing on state powers (as participation remains voluntary).
• Political Implications: Promotes bipartisan interest in counter-terrorism by focusing on measurable outcomes, which could influence future budgets and program expansions. The emphasis on transparency may reduce political disputes over fund allocation in high-risk areas.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2]

Cosponsors (2)

Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3], Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2]

Recent Actions

• 2025-03-11: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
• 2025-03-10: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
• 2025-03-10: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1056)
• 2025-03-10: Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1056)
• 2025-03-10: DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1374.
• 2025-03-10: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1056-1057)
• 2025-03-10: Mr. Green (TN) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
• 2025-02-14: Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
• 2025-02-14: Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology.
• 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
• 2025-02-14: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Securing the Cities Improvement Act — issued 2025-03-10 — PDF (4 pages)
• Securing the Cities Improvement Act — issued 2025-02-14 — PDF (3 pages)
• Securing the Cities Improvement Act — issued 2025-03-11 — PDF (3 pages)