Order Code RL31475
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Updated October 7, 2002
Ben Canada
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Summary
In its FY2003 budget request, the Administration proposed a new grant
program, called the “First Responder Initiative,” to help state and local first
responders prepare for possible terrorist attacks. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency would administer the program, which, if approved, would
provide $3.5 billion to states and localities. The Administration’s primary goal for
the program is to improve the ability of first responders (police, firefighters, and
emergency medical personnel) to respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of
mass destruction. The proposed program would fund a broad range of activities in
the areas of planning, training, exercises, and equipment.
On October 1, 2002, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committed
approved S. 2664, the First Responder Terrorism Preparedness Act of 2002. The bill
contains several features proposed by the Administration, including a 25% matching
requirement, a wide range of eligible activities, and a requirement that states
distribute 75% of funds to sub-state regions. S. 2664 also contains some provisions
not specified in the Administration proposal, such as establishing standards for
training and equipment and prohibiting the use of funds for overtime expenses.
While the need for federal assistance for first responders seems to be widely
acknowledged, the proposal raises a number of issues, including the following:
! Will creation of the Department of Homeland Security affect the
proposal?
! Should funds be distributed to states or localities?
! Should the use of funds be limited to standardized activities and
equipment?
! Should infrastructure security and overtime costs be eligible
activities?
! How will the funds be accounted for?
! Should the program maintain an all-hazards approach, or fund only
terrorism preparedness activities?
This report will be updated as Congress takes action on the proposal and the
Administration releases more information.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the Administration Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Amount of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Eligible Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Method of Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Overview of S. 2664 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Issues and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Will Creation of the DHS Affect the Proposal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Should States or Localities Receive Funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Should the Use of Funds Be Limited to Standardized
Activities and Equipment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Should Infrastructure Security and Overtime Expenses
Be Eligible Activities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How Should the Funds Be Accounted For? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Should the Program Maintain an All-Hazards Approach? . . . . . . . . . 10
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hearings in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Introduction
Following the terrorist attacks of September 2001, Congress has given
considerable attention to the role of first responders in the nation’s homeland security
efforts. First responders may be generally defined as local (and sometimes state)
firefighters, emergency medical technicians, law enforcement officers, and public
health officials.1 More than 20 bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress
proposing federal assistance to state and local first responders.2 The House and
Senate are also debating the structure and duties of the Department of Homeland
Security, which will be responsible for assisting states and localities with their
homeland security efforts.3
Overview of the Administration Proposal
In its FY2003 budget, the Bush Administration proposes roughly $38 billion for
homeland security efforts. One component of the budget is a new grant program to
support state and local first responders called the “First Responder Initiative.” The
Administration requests $3.5 billion in funding for the program, which would be
distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to states and
localities for emergency planning, equipment, training, and exercises. While the
program is specifically intended to help responders better prepare for terrorist attacks
involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the Administration contends that the
program will lead to overall system-wide improvements in emergency management.4
At present, state and local first responders can apply for several types of
assistance, including emergency planning, training, equipment, exercises, and
technical assistance. Assistance is currently provided by the Federal Emergency
1 While some federal response units, such as Urban Search and Rescue Teams (US&Rs), are
capable of rapid deployment, they are generally not considered first responders.
2 For a list of related bills in the 107th Congress, see the Appendix in CRS Report RL31266,
State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism: Policy Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.
3 For more information on the proposed Department of Homeland Security, see CRS Report
RL31490, The Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues, by
Ben Canada.
4 White House Office of Homeland Security, press release, Jan. 24, 2002, available at the
OHS web site, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland], visited May 3, 2002.

CRS-2
Management Agency, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and
Human Services.5
Bills proposing a Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005 and S. 2452)
both propose locating FEMA within the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Division of the new department. Neither bill, however, addresses the First
Responder Initiative; therefore, it appears likely that responsibility for the program
is proposed to rest with the new department’s Emergency Preparedness and Response
Division (EPR).
Amount of Funding. The Administration proposal for $3.5 billion in funding
for the First Responder Initiative would be a major increase in federal support of state
and local terrorism preparedness. In FY2001, the federal government provided
roughly $370 million in assistance for these activities.6 In FY2002, Congress
appropriated roughly $2.1 billion in assistance, most of which came in the emergency
supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-38, P.L. 107-117, and P.L. 107-206).7
S. 2664 would match the Administration proposal. The bill provides $3.5
billion in funding, although a small portion of funds would go directly to FEMA’s
Urban Search and Rescue task forces.8
The Senate Appropriations Committee has taken a different approach to funding
state and local preparedness in FY2003. The Committee approved roughly $3.785
billion for preparedness programs, more than the President requested for the First
Responder Initiative. The Committee, however, would divide the funding between
FEMA and the Justice Department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). It
would appropriate $1.747 billion to FEMA for the Assistance to Firefighters
program,9 interoperable communications equipment, and emergency planning, among
other activities.10 The Committee would also appropriate $2.038 billion to ODP for
5 For descriptions of current preparedness programs, please see CRS Report RL31227,
Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of Selected Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated
by Ben Canada.
6 Figure based on CRS analysis of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Annual
Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, 2001
(Washington: April 2001).
7 Figure based on CRS analysis of the FY2002 enacted budget and emergency supplemental
appropriations (P.L. 107-38, 107-117, and 107-206). For more information on preparedness
grants in FY2002 supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report RL31406, Supplemental
Appropriations for FY2002: Combating Terrorism and Other Issues
, by Amy Belasco and
Larry Nowels.
8 S.2452, sec. 626. For more information on Urban Search and Rescue task forces, see CRS
Report RS21073, Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces: Fact Sheet, by Ben Canada.
9 For more information on the Assistance to Firefighters program, see CRS Report RS21302,
Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
10 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Veterans Affairs
and House and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2003
,
report to accompany S. 2797, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 107-222 (Washington: GPO,
(continued...)

CRS-3
planning, equipment, training, and exercises. In report language, the Committee
indicated its continued support for ODP, stating that it believes the Office’s law
enforcement approach to providing assistance is more appropriate for terrorist attacks
than FEMA’s “all hazards” approach.11 Specifically, the Committee said:
Responding to an act of terrorism is manifestly different than responding to
natural disasters. Grouping terrorism preparedness and response, especially as
it concerns weapons of mass destruction (WMD), under an emergency
management “all hazards” approach puts our first responders, as well as the
general public, at risk. Treating both types of catastrophe response in the same
manner does not account for the fundamental differences between the national
security/law enforcement response to terrorism and the emergency management
response to terrorism.12
Eligible Activities. The Administration proposal would allow recipients to
use funds in four basic areas: emergency planning, equipment, training, and
exercises. Although the proposed program would allow recipients discretion in their
activities, the Administration believes roughly one-third of the funds would be used
for interoperable communications infrastructure.13
S. 2664 lists a range of eligible activities and gives the FEMA Director
discretion to approve related activities. The bill’s listed activities include the
following:
! purchase interoperable equipment;
! train first responders according to FEMA guidelines;
! upgrade training facilities;
! develop emergency operating centers;
! develop response plans;
! procure communications equipment; and,
! conduct exercises.14
Method of Distribution. As proposed by the Administration, FEMA would
distribute funds to states using a population-based formula. The states would have
discretion in using 25% of the funds, but would have to redistribute the remaining
75% to sub-state jurisdictions. States would, however, have flexibility to assist not
10 (...continued)
2002), pp. 103-105.
11 Differences between Justice Department and FEMA approaches to providing assistance
to first responders are further discussed in RL31490, Department of Homeland Security:
State and Local Preparedness Issues
, see section on “Focus of Training Programs.”
12 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
, report to accompany S.
2778, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 107-218 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 44-49.
13 An interoperable communications system allows responders from multiple jurisdictions
to communicate with one another. For more information, see CRS Report RL31375,
Meeting Public Safety Spectrum Needs, by Linda K. Moore.
14 S. 2664, sec. 630(c).

CRS-4
only individual cities, towns, and counties, but also metropolitan areas and regional
organizations.15 The Administration has also proposed that recipients satisfy a
matching requirement of 25%.16
S. 2664 takes the same approach in requiring states to distribute at least 75% of
funds to states. The bill, however, instructs FEMA to consider other factors, besides
population, in distributing funds to states. S. 2664 would establish a base amount of
$15 million for each state, and would distribute remaining funds to states using such
factors as population and location of “vital infrastructure,” such as military
installations, public buildings, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, national
landmarks, and international borders.17
Overview of S. 2664
The structure of S. 2664, which the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee reported on Oct. 1, 2002, parallels that of the Administration proposal.
Provisions found in both S. 2664 and the Administration proposal include the
following:
! FEMA to administer the program;
! $3.5 billion in funding, distributed on a formula basis;
! wide range of eligible activities;
! 25% matching requirement for recipients;
! states must distribute 75% of funds to sub-state regions.
S. 2664, however, contains some provisions that the Administration has not
proposed (or not explicitly addressed). For example, the bill would give the FEMA
Director discretion to distribute funds using not only the variable of population, but
also such variables as location of vital infrastructure and proximity to nuclear power
plants, chemical stockpiles, and other potential terrorist targets. The Administration
has made no similar proposal. Also, S. 2664 would prohibit the use of funds for
overtime expenses. The Administration has no clearly stated position on this issue,
but Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge indicated that the Administration may
consider allowing recipients to use a portion of grant funds for security activities and
law enforcement overtime.18
S. 2664 specifies reporting requirements that states must satisfy. Within three
years after enactment, states would have to participate in a response exercise to
“measure the progress of the State in enhancing the ability of State and local first
15 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of National Preparedness, “The
First Responder Initiative,” press release, Feb. 2002.
16 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Justification of Estimates, Fiscal Year
2003
(Washington: Feb. 2002), p. EM-1.
17 S. 2664, sec. 630(d).
18 David S. Broder, “Mayors Seek Clear Security Plan,” Washington Post, June 18, 2002,
p. A10. Also see U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Letter to Hon. Dennis Hastert and Richard
Gephardt,” July 10, 2002.

CRS-5
responders to respond to incidents of terrorism, including incidents involving
weapons of mass destruction.”19 States would also have to submit annual reports on
the use of grant funds.
Furthermore, S. 2664 instructs the FEMA Director to coordinate the new block
grant program with existing assistance programs that have related goals. The FEMA
Director would coordinate activities with the U.S. Fire Administration, which
administers the Assistance to Firefighters grant program, and the Department of
Justice, which administers the Community Oriented Policing Services grant program.
Issues and Analysis
As Congress considers creating a new grant program for first responders, it is
expected to debate a number of issues. The following section describes issues that
may arise specifically in the context of funding first responder improvements.20
Will Creation of the DHS Affect the Proposal? One issue that arises is
whether the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will affect the
proposed First Responder Initiative. The Administration proposed that FEMA’s
Office of National Preparedness (ONP) administer the program. Since May 2001,
when President Bush proposed the ONP, the Administration has stated that the office
would coordinate all federal programs addressing preparedness for attacks with
weapons of mass destruction (WMD).21 The President’s budget requests $50 million
for the ONP to develop its capacity to administer the program.22
H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 call for FEMA to be placed within the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Division of the new Department of Homeland Security.
The bills, however, do not address the proposed First Responder Initiative; therefore,
it appears likely that responsibility for the program would rest with the Emergency
Preparedness and Response division (EPR) of the new department. Advocates state
that one of the primary missions of the EPR division should be to coordinate all first
responder programs and information with state and local governments. To support
this role, H.R. 5005 and S. 2452 would also incorporate the responsibilities of the
19 S. 2664, sec. 630(h).
20 For a discussion of more general issues that may arise during the legislative design of a
grant program, please see CRS Report RL30778, Federal Grants to State and Local
Governments: Concepts for Legislative Design and Oversight
, by Ben Canada.
21 The President’s directive for the ONP was based on concerns about duplications, gaps,
and inconsistencies in federal preparedness programs. In the FY2002 emergency
supplemental appropriation, Congress provided FEMA $15 million for establishment of the
ONP. Congress also instructed FEMA to report on the status of the ONP by Feb. 15, 2002.
See U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Report to Committee on
Appropriations on the Structure of the Office of National Preparedness
(Washington: Feb.
15, 2002), pp. 2, 8.
22 U.S. OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003, p. 317.

CRS-6
Office for Domestic Preparedness (DOJ) and the National Domestic Preparedness
Office (FBI).23
Whether or not FEMA is ultimately incorporated into a Department of
Homeland Security, several factors have been cited to support FEMA’s selection as
the administrator of the First Responder Initiative: (1) the program is consistent with
FEMA’s current mission to help states and localities better prepare for disasters; (2)
FEMA has considerable experience in providing funding, training, and technical
assistance to first responders; and (3) it would be consistent with the
Administration’s goal of making ONP the central point of coordination for all
terrorism preparedness programs.24 On the other hand, some may argue that FEMA
does not have sufficient experience working with law enforcement agencies and
offering training in law enforcement contexts. Responding to terrorist attacks can
involve procedures not typically used in natural disasters, such as evidence
recognition and crime scene preservation.
Should States or Localities Receive Funds? Several organizations
representing state and local governments and first responder groups have generally
approved of the Administration’s and Congress’s proposals to increase funding to
states and localities. Some organizations representing local governments, however,
such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) and the National Association of
Counties, have expressed concern that the First Responder Initiative would give
states substantial decision-making authority and offer local governments little
discretion in the use of funds. A USCM survey, for example, showed that 87% of
city mayors believed that the channeling of federal funds through states would
ultimately “hamper” city preparedness efforts.25
Organizations representing states, however, contend that state coordination of
federal assistance is crucial to improving preparedness. One state emergency
manager, representing the National Emergency Management Association, testified
that, “[a]ll efforts to increase emergency management capacity building must be
coordinated through the states to ensure harmonization with the state emergency
operations plan, ensure equitable distribution of resources, and to synthesize
resources [for mutual aid compacts]....”26
23 See Office of Domestic Preparedness (DOJ) web site: [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/];
and National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI) web site: [http://www.ndpo.gov/]. For
more information on the DHS reorganization, see CRS Report RL31490, The Department
of Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues
, by Ben Canada.
24 For more information on FEMA’s authority and the Office of National Preparedness, see
CRS Report RL31510, Proposed Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland
Security
, by Keith Bea.
25 U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Homeland Security: Mayors on the Frontline,” June 2000,
available at: [http://www.usmayors.org/70thAnnualMeeting/madison_061302.asp], visited
June 19, 2002.
26 Statement of Woodbury Fogg, on behalf of the National Emergency Management
Association, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Public Works and Environment, First
Responder Initiative
, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 12, 2002.

CRS-7
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in its report
accompanying S. 2664, seemingly agreed with the state-level approach. The report
states:
There is a need to provide funds to both State and local first responders in
a coordinated, strategic, and prompt manner. To ensure a coordinated effort at
the State level, the Act designates that all funds will be awarded to the Governors
of the States, who may retain up to 25 percent of the funds they receive for State-
level first responder needs ... To ensure that the majority of these funds go to the
local first responders as soon as possible, States must coordinate with local
governments and local entities, and directly provide them with at least 75 percent
of the funds received by the State within 45 days.27
Should Congress determine that greater local discretion over the use of funds
is desirable, it might instruct the administering agency to distribute a portion of funds
directly to localities, as is proposed in S. 2038/H.R. 4059.28 On the other hand,
Congress might find that states require discretion in the use of funds to effectively
coordinate state-wide preparedness efforts. Thus, it could enact the Administration’s
proposal to distribute most or all funds through the states.
Should the Use of Funds Be Limited to Standardized Activities and
Equipment? Congress sometimes requires grant recipients to satisfy specified
conditions in order to receive federal funds.29 Placing certain requirements on first
responder grants could lead to state and local adoption of minimum standards for
equipment, response plans, mutual aid agreements, training, and other elements of
preparedness. Some analysts suggest that attaching requirements to preparedness
grants may be necessary to ensure that all states and localities adhere to such
standards, and thus achieve a minimum level of preparedness:
The intergovernmental system has long been built on a clear bargain: the federal
government provides benefits (whether money or flexibility) in exchange for
state and local governments’ achievement of prescribed standards. In federal
homeland security grants to state and local governments, therefore, the critical
issue is not so much whether the federal government can—and should—define
such standards. It is what those standards ought to be—and how much flexibility
state and local governments ought to be allowed in meeting them.30
Some requirements, such as requiring states and localities to participate in
mutual aid compacts, would arguably lead to more efficient use of emergency
management resources. Mutual aid compacts can allow governmental units to pool
27 U.S. Congress, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, First Responder
Terrorism Preparedness Act of 2002
, report to accompany S. 2664, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.,
S. Rept. 107-295 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 5.
28 See “Additional Views of Senator Clinton,” in S. Rept. 107-295, p. 13.
29 For more information on options for federal requirements, see CRS Report RL31266,
State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism: Policy Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.
30 Donald F. Kettl, “Promoting State and Local Government Performance for Homeland
Security,” The Century Foundation Homeland Security Project (New York, June 2000), p.
10. Available at :[http://www.homelandsec.org/WGfederal/index.htm], visited Aug. 9, 2002.

CRS-8
resources and overcome legal and financial obstacles that might interfere with
emergency responses across multi-jurisdictional boundaries. Other requirements,
such as requiring recipients to purchase standardized types of interoperable
communications equipment, for example, could enable states and localities to
communicate with one another during emergencies.
While the Administration has yet to make specific recommendations, FEMA
requested comments on a range of possible requirements, including:
! state participation in the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact;31
! local government participation in a regional mutual aid compact;
! national standards for training, exercises, equipment, and
interoperable communications infrastructure;
! creation of a Citizen Corps volunteer organization.32
S. 2664 would arguably require recipients to satisfy a number of requirements.
The bill would allow a wide range of eligible activities, but would require recipients
to purchase interoperable equipment, develop training programs consistent with
FEMA standards, and develop response plans consistent with federal and state
strategies.33
On the other hand, requirements could force state and localities to adopt policies
that they believe do not enhance their preparedness. They could also limit the ability
of recipients to adapt federal assistance to their unique needs. Stringent requirements
might deter some states and localities from accepting federal assistance, since
requirements could prove costly, even with additional federal resources. This
consequence might be more likely in jurisdictions that perceive themselves at low
risk of a terrorist attack. But, considering the nationwide salience of the issue of
terrorism preparedness and the fact that many states are experiencing significant
budget difficulties, states and localities may readily accept federal assistance and any
accompanying conditions.
Should Infrastructure Security and Overtime Expenses Be Eligible
Activities? Some state and local officials may wish to use first responder grants to
help secure public infrastructure facilities, such as water treatment plants, electricity
plants, and transportation hubs. They may also wish to use the funds to compensate
for overtime pay for public safety officers. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, for
example, recommended that “at least a portion of the funding be authorized for
31 For more information on this interstate compact, please see CRS Report RS21227,
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC): An Overview, by Ben Canada.
32 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “First Responder Initiative Grant Process,”
Federal Register, vol. 67, no. 73, April 9 ,2002, p. 18621.
33 S. 2664, sec. 630(c).

CRS-9
overtime assistance under the first responders initiative so that our local police and
fire personnel can be fully integrated into the national homeland defense effort.”34
The Administration proposal does not mention infrastructure security or
overtime expenses as eligible activities. In a meeting with the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge indicated that the Administration
may consider allowing recipients to use a portion of grant funds for security activities
and law enforcement overtime.35 S. 2664 does not list infrastructure security as an
activity and explicitly prohibits using funds for overtime expenses.36 Other bills,
however, such as S. 2038/H.R. 4059 and S. 2077, propose a wider range of eligible
activities than S. 2664, including security for water infrastructure, power plants,
tunnels, bridges, pipelines, and salary over-time expenses.37
Authorizing infrastructure security and overtime as eligible activities could,
arguably, change the focus of the grant program. Were states and localities to
allocate funds to security and overtime, fewer funds would be available for enhancing
the capabilities of first responders to respond to weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
attacks, which is the Administration’s stated goal for the program.38 Were Congress
to agree with the Administration’s goal, it might prohibit the use of funds for
infrastructure security and overtime, or limit the percentage of funds that can be used
for that purpose, since those activities arguably do not enhance response capabilities.
On the other hand, Congress might find that states and localities need assistance with
security improvements and thus authorize funding for such activities.
How Should the Funds Be Accounted For? The Administration has
emphasized in press releases and testimony that it hopes to minimize the
administrative requirements placed on states and localities. For example, FEMA
Director Joe Allbaugh testified that FEMA will “[e]stablish a consolidated, simple,
and quick method for disbursing Federal assistance to States and localities.”39 The
Administration, however, has not released specific details about the administrative
and regulatory requirements that it would support for this program.
A balancing consideration is whether a speedy method of distribution with
minimal administrative requirements would inhibit Congress’s ability to oversee the
program’s efficiency and effectiveness. Were Congress to enact the program, it
34 U.S. Conference of Mayors, Letter to Hon. J. Dennis Hastert and Hon. Richard A.
Gephardt, “First Responders Initiative and America’s Cities,” July 10, 2002.
35 David S. Broder, “Mayors Seek Clear Security Plan,” Washington Post, June 18, 2002,
p. A10. Also see U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Letter to Hon. Dennis Hastert and Hon.
Richard Gephardt,” July 10, 2002.
36 S. 2664, sec. 630(c)(2).
37 For more examples, see S. 2038, sec. 6 and S. 2077, sec. 4.
38 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of National Preparedness, “The
First Responder Initiative,” press release, Feb. 2002.
39 See Statement of Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, First Responder
Initiative
, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 2002.

CRS-10
could require the administering agency to develop application and reporting
requirements that would facilitate program evaluation. S. 2664 arguably includes
such provisions. The bill would require states to report annually on the use of funds.
Furthermore, it would require each state to report to Congress within three years on
the outcome of an exercise designed to evaluate the state’s response to a weapons of
mass destruction incident.40 On the other hand, Congress might decide that urgent
state and local needs outweigh the needs of oversight and could instruct the
administering agency to distribute funds as expeditiously as possible.
Should the Program Maintain an All-Hazards Approach? Some are
concerned that the President’s First Responder Initiative, or a similar program, would
alter FEMA’s focus on “all-hazards management.” FEMA states that one of its goals
is to help state and local governments take a comprehensive, risk-based approach to
emergency management, preparing for both natural and man-made disasters.41 Some
emergency managers have expressed concern that new federal policies may allocate
disproportionate resources to terrorism preparedness, leaving states and localities less
prepared for catastrophic natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes.42
In its FY2003 budget proposal, the Administration states that funding from other
programs, including FEMA’s Assistance to Firefighters program, would be merged
into the new program.43 At present, roughly 17 federal programs provide assistance
that is specifically for terrorism preparedness, or that may be used for terrorism
preparedness.44 The Assistance to Firefighters program (FIRE grants) is intended to
help fire and rescue departments with general improvements, not specifically with
terrorism preparedness.45 The International Association of Fire Chiefs has
encouraged Congress and the Administration to enact the First Responder Initiative,
but also to preserve the Assistance to Firefighters program as a separate grant
program to help states and localities maintain an all-hazards approach to emergency
management.46
40 S. 2664, sec. 630(h).
41 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Guide for All-Hazard Emergency
Operations Planning
(Washington: Sept. 1996), Foreward.
42 Eric Tolbert, President, National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), Remarks
before the Virginia Emergency Management Association, March 15, 2002.
43 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2003
(Washington: Feb. 2002), p. 317.
44 For a catalog of existing preparedness programs, see CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism
Preparedness: Catalog of Selected Federal Assistance Programs
, coordinated by Ben
Canada.
45 For more information on the Assistance to Firefighters program, see CRS Report
RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
46 Statement of Chief Stephen D. Halford, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management, and International Relations, How Effectively are Federal, State and Local
Governments Working Together to Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Attack?
,
hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., March 1, 2002.

CRS-11
In S. 2664, the Assistance to Firefighters program would be preserved as a
distinct program from the First Responder Initiative. In its accompanying report, the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee emphasized that both programs,
along with other assistance programs, “... are important components of a coordinated
effort to provide supplemental assistance to States and local communities.”47 The
Senate Appropriations Committee is also arguably taking such an approach by
proposing increased funding in FY2003 for terrorism preparedness programs, but
also significantly increasing funding to the Assistance to Firefighters program.48
Were Congress to determine that maintaining an all-hazards approach is a high
priority, it could maintain funding to the Assistance to Firefighters program and other
general assistance programs to help states and localities fund general preparedness
improvements. Alternatively, Congress might be concerned about increased federal
spending in the area of emergency management and modify programs and funding
accordingly.
Conclusion
Should Congress take further action on S. 2664, or a similar proposal, it will
address a number of attributes common to all grant programs, including range of
eligible activities, matching requirements, and program accountability. Congress
would also address issues specifically related to homeland security, such as
determining which federal agency can best assist states and localities with
preparedness efforts and determining if certain requirements would lead to
preparedness improvements.
Hearings in the 107th Congress
House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations. How
Effectively Are Federal, State and Local Governments Working Together to
Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Attack?
hearings, 107th Cong.,
2nd sess., March 1, 2002.
——. The Silent War, Are Federal, State, and Local Governments Prepared for
Biological and Chemical Attacks, hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 5,
2001.
Senate Committee on Appropriations. Homeland Security, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd
sess., April 10, 2002.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. First Responder Initiative,
hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 2002.
47 S. Rept. 107-295, p. 6.
48 Senate Committee on Appropriations, VA-HUD Appropriations Bill, 2003, S.Rept. 107-
222, pp. 104.

CRS-12
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Local Role in Homeland Security,
hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 11, 2001.