Order Code RL31475
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Updated December 11, 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 February 2002, the Bush Administration proposed a new block grant program
called the “First Responder Initiative,” to help state and local first responders prepare
for possible terrorist attacks. Under the Administration proposal, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 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 (WMD). The program would fund a broad
range of activities in the areas of planning, training, exercises, and equipment.
The 107th Congress considered a number of bills similar to the Administration
proposal. On October 1, 2002, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committed reported S. 2664, the First Responder Terrorism Preparedness Act of
2002. The bill contained 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 contained 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. Other proposals for preparedness block grants were introduced in the 107th
Congress, including S. 2038/H.R. 4059.
While the need for federal assistance for first responders seems to be widely
acknowledged, the proposals raise a number of issues, including the following:
! How will the implementation 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 the 108th Congress takes action proposals to create
or modify terrorism preparedness grant programs.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the Administration Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Amount of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Eligible Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Method of Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
S. 2664 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
S. 2038/H.R. 4059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Issues and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
How Will Implementation of the DHS Affect the Proposal? . . . . . . . . 6
Should States or Localities Receive Funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Should the Use of Funds Be Limited to Standardized Activities and
Equipment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Should Infrastructure Security and Overtime Expenses Be Eligible
Activities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
How Should the Funds Be Accounted For? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Should the Program Maintain an All-Hazards Approach? . . . . . . . . . 11
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hearings in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Introduction
Since 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, and law enforcement officers.1 More than 20 bills
were introduced in the 107th Congress proposing federal assistance to state and local
first responders. Congress also authorized the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security (P.L. 107-296), which will be responsible for assisting states and
localities with their homeland security efforts.2
Overview of the Administration Proposal
In its FY2003 budget, the Bush Administration proposed roughly $38 billion for
homeland security efforts. One component of the budget was a new grant program
to support state and local first responders called the “First Responder Initiative.” The
Administration requested $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. S. 2664,
reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in October 2002,
paralleled the Administration proposal in several aspects. 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.3
At present, state and local first responders can apply for several types of
assistance, including grants for emergency planning, training, equipment, exercises,
and technical assistance. Assistance is currently provided by the Federal Emergency
1 Although some analysts consider public health officials to be “first responders,” this report
will not address the public health sector. Proposals for the First Responder Initiative do not
address public health preparedness, and there are separate funding mechanisms for public
health preparedness in the Department of Health and Human Services.
2 For more information on the Department of Homeland Security, see CRS Report RL31490,
Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada.
3 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.4
Nearly all preparedness grant programs will be transferred to the new
Department of Homeland Security. The Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296),
however, does not specifically address the First Responder Initiative, nor does it
authorize any new funding for state and local preparedness. It does, however, direct
the Office for Domestic Preparedness (in the Border and Transportation Security
division) to direct and supervise terrorism preparedness grant programs.5 (This issue
is discussed below in greater detail.)
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 $2.0 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
In their reported FY2003 appropriations bills, the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees have taken different approaches to funding first
responder programs. The Senate Appropriations 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 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
4 For descriptions of current preparedness programs, please see CRS Report RL31227,
Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of Selected Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated
by Ben Canada.
5 P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(d)(3).
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 “Selected Federal Funding for State and
Local Terrorism Preparedness,” congressional distribution memorandum, Nov. 26, 2002,
by Ben Canada, available from the author.
8 S.2664, 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.

---

CRS-3
activities.10 The Committee would also appropriate $2.038 billion to ODP for
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
The House Appropriations Committee reported the appropriations bill covering
FEMA, but not the bills covering DOJ and HHS. The Committee recommended
$450 million in funding for FEMA’s Assistance to Firefighters program. At the time
of this writing, it is uncertain whether the House will adopt the approach taken by the
Senate and fund states and localities through existing programs, support the
Administration’s preference to create a First Responder Initiative, or choose an
alternative approach.
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, as reported during the 107th Congress, listed a range of eligible
activities and gave the FEMA Director discretion to approve related activities. The
bill’s listed activities included the following:
! purchase interoperable equipment;
! train first responders according to FEMA guidelines;
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,
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.

---

CRS-4
! 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
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 took the same approach in requiring states to distribute at least 75% of
funds to states. The bill, however, instructed FEMA to consider other factors,
besides population, in distributing funds to states. S. 2664 established a base amount
of $15 million for each state, and distributed 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
Related Legislation
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 included
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, contained some provisions that the Administration did not
propose (or not explicitly address). For example, the bill gave 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 prohibited the use of funds for overtime
14 S. 2664, sec. 630(c).
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).

---

CRS-5
expenses. The Administration has no clearly stated position on this issue, but
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge indicated that the Administration might
consider allowing recipients to use a portion of grant funds for security activities and
law enforcement overtime.18
S. 2664 specified 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
responders to respond to incidents of terrorism, including incidents involving
weapons of mass destruction.”19 States also had 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.20
S. 2038/H.R. 4059. These bills proposed a Homeland Security Block Grant
to be administered by FEMA. Like S. 2664, they proposed $3.5 billion in funding,
of which $3 billion would be distributed to states and localities for homeland security
improvements. Seventy percent of the $3 billion would be distributed to cities and
urban counties, and the remaining 30% would go to states for use in non-
metropolitan areas. Eligible activities would include purchasing equipment,
developing emergency response plans, improving infrastructure and transportation
security, and covering overtime expenses of law enforcement and other first
responder units. Under the bill, the remaining $500 million would be distributed to
states and regional organizations for emergency planning, developing training
facilities, and improving interoperable communications systems. Recipients would
have to provide a 10% match with non-federal funds.21
S. 2038/H.R. 4059 would require states and localities to submit a plan that
would include homeland security objectives, short-term and long-term needs, and
projected use of funds. Furthermore, grant recipients would be responsible for
submitting annual performance reports.22
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.
19 S. 2664, sec. 630(h).
20 S. 2664, sec. 630(i).
21 S. 2038, sections 6, 7(a)(2), 7(d)(1), 8, and 12.
22 S. 2038, sec. 5. For more information on this bill, see “Additional Views of Senator
Clinton,” in 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. 13.

---

CRS-6
Issues and Analysis
As the 108th Congress considers creating and modifying grant programs for first
responders, it is likely to debate a number of issues. The following section describes
issues that may arise specifically in the context of funding first responder
improvements.23
How Will Implementation of the DHS Affect the Proposal?24 One
issue that arises is how the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) will affect the proposed First Responder Initiative. The Bush Administration,
in its initial DHS proposal, would have placed responsibility for all first responder
assistance programs in the EPR division, which has FEMA as its cornerstone. The
Homeland Security Act does not specifically address the proposal, or any other
proposed assistance programs. It does, however, instruct the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (in the Border and Transportation Security division) to direct and
supervise terrorism preparedness grant programs.25 The legislation also directs
FEMA to transfer to the ODP all terrorism-related functions of its Office of National
Preparedness.26 Thus, if the First Responder Initiative is approved, ODP may be an
appropriate office to administer the program.
There are arguments, however, for both FEMA and ODP administration of the
program. Proponents of FEMA contend that: (1) the program is consistent with
FEMA’s current mission to help states and localities better prepare for all 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 creating a “one stop shop” for preparedness assistance.27
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
23 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.
24 Potential impacts of the Department of Homeland Security on state and local preparedness
are discussed in CRS Report RL31490, Department of Homeland Security: State and Local
Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada.
25 P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c)(3).
26 P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c)(8). 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). 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.
27 For more information on FEMA’s authority and the Office of National Preparedness, see
CRS Report RL31510, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, by
Keith Bea.

---

CRS-7
contexts. Proponents of the ODP counter that its has the necessary expertise to assist
first responders in preparing for terrorist attacks, which may involve procedures not
typically used in natural disasters, such as evidence recognition and crime scene
preservation. Like FEMA, ODP also has experience providing funding, training, and
other assistance to first responders.
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.28
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 agreements]....”29
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in its report
accompanying S. 2664, seemingly agreed with the state-level approach. The report
stated:
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.30
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 was proposed in other bills introduced in the 107th Congress
28 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.
29 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.
30 S.Rept. 107-295, p. 5.

---

CRS-8
(S. 2038/H.R. 4059).31 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.32 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.33
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
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;34
! local government participation in a regional mutual aid compact;
! national standards for training, exercises, equipment, and
interoperable communications infrastructure;
31 Also see “Additional Views of Senator Clinton,” in S.Rept. 107-295, p. 13.
32 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.
33 Donald F. Kettl, “Promoting State and Local Government Performance for Homeland
Security,” The Century Foundation Homeland Security Project (New York, June 2002), p.
10. Available at :[http://www.homelandsec.org/WGfederal/index.htm], visited Aug. 9, 2002.
34 For more information on this interstate compact, please see CRS Report RS21227,
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC): An Overview, by Ben Canada.

---

CRS-9
! creation of a Citizen Corps volunteer organization.35
S. 2664 would arguably have required recipients to satisfy a number of
requirements. The bill allowed a wide range of eligible activities, but required
recipients to purchase interoperable equipment, develop training programs consistent
with FEMA standards, and develop response plans consistent with federal and state
strategies.36
On the other hand, requirements could force states 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.37 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
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.”38
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.39 S. 2664 did not list infrastructure security as an
activity and explicitly prohibited using funds for overtime expenses.40 Other bills
introduced in the 107th Congress, however, such as S. 2038/H.R. 4059 and S. 2077,
35 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “First Responder Initiative Grant Process,”
Federal Register, vol. 67, no. 73, April 9 ,2002, p. 18621.
36 S. 2664, sec. 630(c).
37 Existing infrastructure security programs are described in CRS Report RL31465,
Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Terrorist Attack: A Catalog of Selected Federal
Assistance Programs, coordinated by John Moteff.
38 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.
39 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.
40 S. 2664, sec. 630(c)(2).

---

CRS-10
proposed a wider range of eligible activities than S. 2664, including security for
water infrastructure, power plants, tunnels, bridges, pipelines, and salary over-time
expenses.41
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.42 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 administrative
requirements in the proposed program. 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.”43 The Administration,
however, has not released specific details about the administrative and regulatory
requirements that it would support for this program. State and local officials have
emphasized that speedy distribution of funds should be a priority in all preparedness
assistance programs.44
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
could require the administering agency to develop application and reporting
requirements that would facilitate program evaluation. S. 2664 arguably included
such provisions. The bill required states to report annually on the use of funds.
Furthermore, it required 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.45 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.
41 For more examples, see (107th Congress) S. 2038, sec. 6 and S. 2077, sec. 4.
42 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of National Preparedness, “The
First Responder Initiative,” press release, Feb. 2002.
43 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.
44 U.S. Conference of Mayors, “One Year Later, Cities are Safer but Still Await Financial
Assistance from Washington,” press release, Sept. 9, 2002.
45 S. 2664, sec. 630(h).

---

CRS-11
Should the Program Maintain an All-Hazards Approach?46 Some are
concerned that the President’s First Responder Initiative, or a similar program, would
transfer federal resources away from the traditional “all-hazards” approach to
emergency 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.47 The Homeland Security Act
transferred FEMA into the DHS, but instructed the agency to continue its traditional
approach.48 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.49
In its FY2003 budget proposal, the Administration proposed that funding from
other programs, including FEMA’s Assistance to Firefighters program, be merged
into the new program.50 At present, roughly 17 federal programs provide assistance
specifically for terrorism preparedness, or that may be used for terrorism
preparedness.51 The Assistance to Firefighters program (FIRE grants) is intended to
help fire and rescue departments with general improvements, not specifically with
terrorism preparedness.52 The International Association of Fire Chiefs, and other
nongovernmental organizations, 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.53 Since releasing its FY2003 budget,
the Administration has not renewed its call to consolidate this program into the First
Responder Initiative.
46 The “all-hazards” approach is further discussed in CRS Report RL31490, Department of
Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada; and CRS Report
RL31510, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, by Keith Bea.
47 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Guide for All-Hazard Emergency
Operations Planning (Washington: Sept. 1996), Foreward.
48 P.L. 107-296, sec. 507.
49 Eric Tolbert, President, National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), Remarks
before the Virginia Emergency Management Association, March 15, 2002.
50 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2003 (Washington: Feb. 2002), p. 317.
51 For a catalog of existing preparedness programs, see CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism
Preparedness: Catalog of Selected Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben
Canada.
52 For more information on the Assistance to Firefighters program, see CRS Report
RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
53 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-12
In S. 2664, the Assistance to Firefighters program was 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.”54 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.55
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 the President’s proposed First Responder
Initiative, 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.
54 S.Rept. 107-295, p. 6.
55 Senate Committee on Appropriations, VA-HUD Appropriations Bill, 2003, S.Rept. 107-
222, pp. 104.

---

CRS-13
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Local Role in Homeland Security,
hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 11, 2001.
Related CRS Products
CRS Report RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
CRS Report RL31266, State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism: Policy Issues
and Options, coordinated by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of Selected Federal
Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada
CRS Report RL31510, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security,
by Keith Bea.

---