Order Code RL31475
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Updated March 19, 2003
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 FY2004 request, 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 proposal, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), within the Department of Homeland Security, would administer
the $3.5 billion program. The program’s primary purpose would be to improve the
ability of first responders (police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel) to
respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. The program
would fund a 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. In October 2002, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
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. It 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.
There are a limited number of terrorism preparedness block grant proposals in
the 108th Congress. The Homeland Security Block Grant (S. 87/H.R. 1007) proposes
roughly $3.5 billion to be distributed on a formula basis. S. 87, however, has a wider
range of eligible activities, such as infrastructure security and overtime expenses, and
would distribute the majority of funds directly to localities. S. 466 proposes $5
billion to fund grants for equipment, training, facilities, and overtime expenses.
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?
! Would a new program replace existing assistance programs?
! 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?
This report will be updated as the 108th Congress takes action on proposals to
create or modify terrorism preparedness grant programs.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Existing Preparedness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Administration Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Amount of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Eligible Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Method of Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Issues and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
How Will Implementation of the DHS Affect the Proposal? . . . . . . . . 6
Would a New Program Replace Existing Assistance Programs? . . . . . 7
Should States or Localities Receive Funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Should the Use of Funds Be Limited to Standardized
Activities and Equipment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Should Infrastructure Security and Overtime Expenses
Be Eligible Activities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
How Should the Funds Be Accounted For? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hearings in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

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 In creating the
Department of Homeland Security (P.L. 107-296), Congress stipulated that the new
department would be responsible for assisting states and localities with their
homeland security efforts.2 In February 2003, The Bush Administration proposed the
First Responder Initiative, a new grant program meant to help first responders
prepare for terrorism, particularly for weapons of mass destruction. Congress,
however, did not authorize or fund the new program in FY2003 appropriations, but,
rather, increased funding to existing programs. At the time of this writing, a limited
number of proposals affecting assistance programs have been introduced in the 108th
Congress.
Overview of Existing Preparedness Programs
State and local governments generally obtain federal assistance for terrorism
preparedness from three main sources.3 All of these programs are located in the new
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Office for Domestic Preparedness. The Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP) was transferred from the Justice Department to the Border and Transportation
Security directorate of the DHS on March 1, 2003. ODP awards equipment grants,
administers training programs, and provides technical assistance, among other
activities.4 Authorization comes from at least four different statutes instructing
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 This section only discusses those programs that fund terrorism preparedness
improvements. It does not discuss general assistance programs that may fund general public
safety improvements.
4 The ODP web site is [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/]. At the time of this writing, the web
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
federal agencies to assist states and localities with terrorism preparedness.5 The
Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296) enhanced the ODP’s duties by making it
responsible for, among other things, “... directing and supervising terrorism
preparedness grant programs of the federal government ....”6 The office distributes
grants for equipment, training, and exercises. It also funds federal training centers
and research and development activities. Congress provided $1 billion for ODP in
FY2003.
Assistance to Firefighters Program. This program, also known as the
FIRE grants program, awards grants directly to local fire departments, rather than
awarding funds to states for “pass through” grants.7 Grants can be used for a wide
variety of purposes, including firefighter safety programs, training, equipment, and
facility improvements. It is administered by the U.S. Fire Administration, which is
now located in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of DHS.
Congress and the President enacted the program in October 2000 with an authorized
funding level of $100 million in FY2001 and $300 million in FY20028. Following
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 2001, however, Congress raised the authorized amount
to $900 million for FY2003 and FY2004.9 In the FY2003 consolidated
appropriations bill, Congress provided $750 million.
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance Account.
Authorization for the programs in the Emergency Management Preparedness and
Assistance account (EMPA) come from Title VI of the Stafford Act.10 The statute
does not specify an authorized funding amount for any program in the account. The
largest grant program in EMPA is the Emergency Management Performance Grants
(EMPG), which fund state-level emergency planning. Grants are also awarded for
emergency operations centers, interoperable communications equipment, urban
search and rescue teams, and community emergency response teams (CERTs).
Congress appropriated $295 million for EMPA in FY2003.
Administration Proposal
In its FY2004 budget, the Bush Administration requested $3.558 billion in
funding for the First Responder Initiative, which would be distributed by the Office
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) in the Department of Homeland Security. Grants
would go to states and localities for emergency planning, equipment, training, and
4 (...continued)
site had not been updated to reflect ODP’s new duties and transition to DHS.
5 See P.L. 104-132, sections 819, 821, 822; P.L. 104-201, sections 1412, 1415; P.L. 107-56,
sections 1005, 1014; P.L. 107-296, sec. 430.
6 P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c).
7 The program web site is: [http://www.usfa.fema.gov/dhtml/inside-usfa/grants.cfm]. Also
see CRS Report RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
8 15 U.S.C. 2229, sec. 33.
9 P.L. 107-107, sec. 1061.
10 42 U.S.C. 5195-5196.

---

CRS-3
exercises. While the program is specifically intended to help responders better
prepare for terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the
Administration has contended that the program will lead to overall system-wide
improvements in emergency management.11 The Administration first proposed the
program in February 2002, as part of its FY2003 budget request.12
Amount of Funding. In FY2003, Congress funded terrorism preparedness
for first responders through at least three existing programs that correspond to the
First Responder Initiative proposal—the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP),
Assistance to Firefighters program (FIRE grants), and FEMA’s Emergency
Management Planning and Assistance account (EMPA). For FY2003, Congress and
the President appropriated roughly $2.045 billion for these programs. Of this
amount, $1 billion will go to the ODP, $750 million to the Assistance to Firefighters
program, and $295 million to the EMPA account.13 In FY2002, Congress
appropriated roughly $1.237 billion in assistance for these corresponding programs,
most of which came in the emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-117,
and P.L. 107-206).
The FY2004 Administration proposal for $3.558 billion in funding for the First
Responder Initiative would arguably present a major change in the structure of
assistance to states and localities for terrorism preparedness. Out of the $3.558
billion in the FY2004 proposal, $500 million would be allocated to the Assistance
to Firefighters program, and another $500 million used for grants to state and local
law enforcement. The request would also allow ODP to use up to $181 million for
Citizen Corps initiatives.14 The DHS Budget-in-Brief states that remaining funds will
support state and local planning, training, equipment purchases, and exercises.15 (The
Administration has also proposed consolidating existing programs into the Initiative.
This issue is discussed below.)
Eligible Activities. The DHS Budget-in-Brief for FY2004 states that grants
would fund four basic activities: emergency planning, equipment, training, and
exercises.16 This matches the activities proposed by the Administration’s original
proposal in February 2002. Although the proposed program would allow recipients
11 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.
12 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix
(Washington: GPO, Feb. 2002), pp. 646, 936.
13 Since enactment of the FY2003 appropriations, at least one bill has been introduced
calling for further appropriations for preparedness grants during FY2003—H.R. 764, the
First Responders Expedited Assistance Act of 2003. For more information on FY2003
funding, see CRS Report RS21400, FY2003 Appropriations for First Responders: Fact
Sheet, by Ben Canada and Shawn Reese.
14 For more information on Citizen Corps, see [http://www.citizencorps.gov].
15 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2004 Budget-in-Brief (Washington: GPO, Feb.
2003), p. 9. Available at: [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
FY_2004_BUDGET_IN_BRIEF.pdf], visited March 14, 2003.
16 Ibid.

---

CRS-4
discretion in their activities, the Administration has suggested that roughly one-third
of the funds would be used for interoperable communications infrastructure.17
Method of Distribution. As proposed by the Administration in February
2002, the administering agency 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.18 At the time of this writing, it
is uncertain whether the Administration will seek the same method of distribution.
The FY2004 request did, however, stipulate that all recipients should provide a
matching amount not less than 25%.19
Legislation in the 107th Congress
S. 2664. The structure of S. 2664, which the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee reported on Oct. 1, 2002, paralleled that of the Administration
proposal in February 2002. Provisions found in both S. 2664 and the Administration
proposal included the following:
! $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 administering
agency 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
made no similar proposal. Also, S. 2664 prohibited the use of funds for overtime
expenses. The Administration has had no clearly stated position on this issue, but
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge indicated in June 2002 that the
Administration might consider allowing recipients to use a portion of grant funds for
security activities and law enforcement overtime.20
17 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.
18 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of National Preparedness, “The
First Responder Initiative,” press release, Feb. 2002.
19 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix
(Washington: GPO, Feb. 2003), pp. 456-457.
20 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
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.”21 States also had to submit annual reports on the use
of grant funds.
Furthermore, S. 2664 instructed 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.22
S. 2038/H.R. 4059. These bills proposed a Homeland Security Block Grant
to be administered by FEMA. The bills have been reintroduced in the 108th Congress
as S. 87/H.R. 1007. (For an overview, see “Legislation in the 108th Congress”)
S. 2077. This bill proposed a block grant funded at $4 billion. As in the
Administration proposal, funds would be allocated to states on a formula basis, and
states would distribute 75% of funds to local governments. Eligible activities
included improving infrastructure security, developing interoperable communications
systems, and training and equipping first responders. States would have to submit
an application for funds, including a basic plan for improving terrorism
preparedness.23 The bill did not propose a matching requirement.
Legislation in the 108th Congress24
S. 87/ H.R. 1007. These bills propose a Homeland Security Block Grant to
be administered by the DHS. The bills, which were introduced in the 107th Congress
as S. 2038/H.R. 4059, propose $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 bills, the
remaining $500 million would be distributed to states and regional organizations for
emergency planning, developing training facilities, and improving interoperable
21 S. 2664, sec. 630(h). (107th Cong.)
22 S. 2664, sec. 630(i). (107th Cong.)
23 S. 2077, sec. 4, sec. 5, and sec. 6. (107th Cong.)
24 This section only discusses legislation that proposes programs similar to that proposed by
the Administration. Other first responder assistance programs have been introduced in the
108th Congress, however, that propose categorical programs, rather than block grants. For
example, see H.R. 1118/S. 544, H.Res. 78, and S.Res. 34.

---

CRS-6
communications systems. Recipients would have to provide a 10% match with non-
federal funds.25
S. 87/H.R. 1007 would require states and localities to submit a plan that would
include homeland security objectives and projected use of funds. Furthermore, grant
recipients would be responsible for submitting annual performance reports.26
S. 466. This bill proposes a First Responders Partnership Grant Program. It
would authorize $5 billion to state and local governments. The program would have
components for different types of communities, including Indian tribes, rural states,
metropolitan cities and urban counties. All recipients would face a matching
requirement of at least 10%. Funds could be used to “fund overtime expenses,
equipment, training, and facilities to support public safety officers in their efforts to
protect homeland security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism.”27 The bill
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to administer the program, but does
not specify an agency within DHS.
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.28
How Will Implementation of the DHS Affect the Proposal?29 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 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EPR)
of the DHS, which has FEMA as its cornerstone. The Homeland Security Act did not
specifically address the First Responder Initiative, or any other proposed assistance
programs. It did, however, instruct the Office for Domestic Preparedness (in the
Border and Transportation Security Directorate) to direct and supervise terrorism
preparedness grant programs.30 The legislation also directs FEMA to transfer to the
25 S. 87, sections 6, 7, and 8. (108th Cong.)
26 S. 87, sec. 5. (108th Cong.)
27 S. 466, sec. 3(b)(2). (108th Cong.)
28 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.
29 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.
30 P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c)(3).

---

CRS-7
ODP all terrorism-related functions of its Office of National Preparedness.31 Thus,
if the First Responder Initiative is approved, ODP may be an appropriate office to
administer the program.
There are arguments, however, for both EPR and ODP administration of the
program. Proponents of EPR contend that: (1) the program is consistent with the
directorate’s mission to help states and localities better prepare for all disasters; (2)
EPR, with FEMA as its cornerstone, 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.32 Authorizing any agency other than ODP to administer the
program would require changes to the Homeland Security Act and would likely raise
questions about the ODP’s role in the new department.
Some observers argue that the new EPR does not have sufficient experience
working with law enforcement agencies and offering training in law enforcement
contexts. Proponents of the ODP counter that it 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 EPR, ODP also has experience providing funding, training, and
other assistance to first responders.
Would a New Program Replace Existing Assistance Programs?
Although details have not been published, Administration officials have previously
stated that some existing programs should be integrated into the First Responder
Initiative. The existing programs in ODP, for example, would likely serve as the
foundation for the new program.33 In its FY2004 request, the Administration has also
proposed transferring the Assistance to Firefighters program from the U.S. Fire
Administration to ODP. Funding for the Firefighters program would make up $500
million of the proposed $3.558 billion for ODP. The Administration’s proposal for
the EMPA account is uncertain, as the FY2004 budget request does not address this
account.
31 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. For
more information, 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.
32 For more information on FEMA’s authority and the Office of National Preparedness, see
CRS Report RL31670, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security: Issues
for Congressional Oversight, by Keith Bea.
33 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Joe Allbaugh, former Director, statement
before Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, First Responder Initiative,
hearing, 107th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 2002.

---

CRS-8
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.34 The Assistance to Firefighters program and several programs in the
EMPA account, for example, were created to help fire and rescue departments with
general improvements, not specifically with terrorism preparedness.35 Such a
consolidation could arguably transfer federal resources away from the traditional all-
hazards approach, since the mission of ODP, and the purpose of the First Responder
Initiative, is to prepare responders for terrorist attacks, not natural disasters (although
there is overlap in skills and resources).36
The Administration’s proposals to integrate existing programs into the First
Responder Initiative has encountered criticism from some observers. Following the
initial proposal in February 2002, 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.37
Department of Justice Programs. The Administration’s FY2004 request
would also eliminate or reduce funding to a number of existing general assistance
programs that help states and localities with public safety activities (see Table 1).38
Recipients may use these funds for terrorism preparedness activities. The
Administration would, however, create a new block grant program for public safety,
call the Justice Assistance Grant Program, and would allocate $500 million from the
First Responder Initiative for law enforcement assistance.39 Following the signing
of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 108-7), the President expressed his
34 Eric Tolbert, President, National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), Remarks
before the Virginia Emergency Management Association, March 15, 2002.
35 For more information on the Assistance to Firefighters program, see CRS Report
RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
36 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
RL31670, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security: Issues for
Congressional Oversight, by Keith Bea.
37 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.
38 For more information on this issue, see CRS Report RL31309, Appropriations for
FY2003: Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, coordinated
by Susan Epstein; and, CRS Report 97-196 GOV, The Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) Program: An Overview, by David Teasley and JoAnne O’Bryant.
39 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix
(Washington: GPO, Feb. 2003), pp. 640-645.

---

CRS-9
desire for Congress to transfer funding for general public safety programs to “higher-
priority” terrorism preparedness programs. Specifically, he stated,
Most troublesome, [the bill falls] short of my request for State and local law
enforcement and emergency personnel, and in particular underfunds terrorism
preparedness for first responders. [The bill funds] existing State and local grant
programs, which are not directly related to higher-priority terrorism preparedness
and prevention efforts. This is unsatisfactory, and my Administration will use
every appropriate tool available to ensure that these funds are directed to the
highest priority homeland security needs.40
Some observers agree with the Administration’s approach. A report from the
Heritage Foundation, for example, recommended that Congress transfer funding for
the Community Oriented Policy Services (COPS) and other programs to the ODP in
order to create a new, single flexible assistance program.41 Other observers disagree,
however, including the National Association of Police Organizations, which argued,
The Administration’s proposed budget once again calls for drastic reductions in
the COPS program and the merging of LLEBG and Byrne grant moneys into a
small grant fund. In their place, the Administration has not funded adequate
alternatives that could meet the abilities of these threatened programs.42
Table 1. Funding for Selected General Public Safety Programs
(All amounts in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Program
Department
AppropriationA
Appropriation
Request
Community
Justice
1,005
929
164
Oriented Policing
Services (COPS)
Byrne Memorial
Justice
595
651
0
Formula Grant
Local Law
Justice
400
400
0
Enforcement Block
Grant
Source: P.L. 107-77, P.L. 108-7, and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2004
Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, pp. 641-644.
A FY2002 Appropriation amount includes the emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-117
and P.L. 107-206).
40 U.S. President (Bush), “Statement by the President,” Feb. 20, 2003. Available at:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030220-9.html], visited March 14,
2003.
41 Michael Scardaville, “Emphasize How, Now How Much, in Domestic Preparedness
Spending,” Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1628, Feb. 27, 2003. Available at:
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg1628.cfm], visited March 14, 2003.
42 National Association of Police Organizations, “Legislative Update,” available at:
[http://www.napo.org/legislative-update/legislativeupdate.htm], visited March 14, 2003.

---

CRS-10
Policy Alternatives. Congress could continue funding the Assistance to
Firefighters program and other general assistance programs to help states and
localities with general preparedness and public safety improvements. This approach
was endorsed in S. 2664, as reported during the 107th Congress. The accompanying
report stated that the First Responder Initiative would be “separate and distinct” from
the Assistance to Firefighters Program and the COPS program. The Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee also observed that both programs, along
with other assistance programs, “... are important components of a coordinated effort
to provide supplemental assistance to States and local communities.”43
In light of the increasing federal budget deficit, however, Congress might be
concerned about additional federal spending in the area of emergency management
and modify programs and funding accordingly. If the First Responder Initiative were
funded at the proposed amount of $3.5 billion and existing programs with related
functions were funded at current levels, this would present a significant increase in
assistance to states and localities for emergency management activities.
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. On the other hand, such organizations representing local
governments 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.44 S. 87, as introduced in the 108th
Congress, would award the majority of funds directly to local governments.45
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]....”46 The Gilmore Commission, in its fourth
annual report to Congress, also agreed with this approach, concluding that states must
43 S.Rept. 107-295, p. 6.
44 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.
45 S. 87, sec. 7. (108th Cong.)
46 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-11
have discretion over the use of grant funds to ensure that “resources are allocated on
the basis of assessed needs.”47
In the 107th Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
seemingly agreed with the state-level approach. Its report on S. 2664 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.48
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 has been proposed in S. 87. 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 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.49 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.50
47 Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction (Gilmore Commission), Fourth Annual Report to the
President and Congress (Washington: RAND, Dec. 15, 2002), pp. 34-35. Available at:
[http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/index.html], visited March 14, 2003.
48 S.Rept. 107-295, p. 5.
49 For more information on options for federal requirements, see CRS Report RL31680,
Homeland Security: Standards for State and Localities, by Ben Canada.
50 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.

---

CRS-12
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, in April
2002, FEMA requested comments on a range of possible requirements, including:
! state participation in the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact;51
! 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.52
S. 2664 (as reported in the 107th Congress) 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.53
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.54 They may also wish to use the funds to compensate
51 For more information on this interstate compact, please see CRS Report RS21227,
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC): An Overview, by Ben Canada.
52 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “First Responder Initiative Grant Process,”
Federal Register, vol. 67, no. 73, April 9 ,2002, p. 18621.
53 S. 2664, sec. 630(c). (107th Cong.)
54 Existing infrastructure security programs are described in CRS Report RL31465,
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
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.”55
The Administration proposal does not mention infrastructure security or
overtime expenses as eligible activities. In a meeting June 2002 meeting with the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge indicated
that the Administration may consider allowing recipients to use a portion of grant
funds for security activities and law enforcement overtime.56 S. 87 (as introduced in
the 108th Congress) would allow recipients to use funds for infrastructure security and
overtime expenses. In the 107th Congress, S. 2664 did not list infrastructure security
as an activity and explicitly prohibited using funds for overtime expenses.57
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.58 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. Following the Administration’s FY2003
budget request, former FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh testified that FEMA would
“[e]stablish a consolidated, simple, and quick method for disbursing Federal
assistance to States and localities.”59 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
54 (...continued)
Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Terrorist Attack: A Catalog of Selected Federal
Assistance Programs, coordinated by John Moteff.
55 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.
56 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.
57 S. 2664, sec. 630(c)(2). (107th Cong.)
58 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of National Preparedness, “The
First Responder Initiative,” press release, Feb. 2002.
59 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-14
distribution of funds should be a priority in all preparedness assistance programs.60
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. A number of observers have stressed the
need for accountability in any new block grant program. The Gilmore Commission,
for example, emphasized that,
Program evaluations must be more than just an audit trail of dollars and must be
part of an integrated metrics system ... [W]ithout a comprehensive approach to
measuring how well we are doing with the resources being applied any point in
time, there will be very little prospect for answering the question, “How well
prepared are we?”61
Were Congress to enact the program, it could require the administering agency to
develop application and reporting requirements that would facilitate program
evaluation. 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.
S. 87 (as introduced in the 108th Congress) calls for applicants to submit a
statement of activities, including preparedness objectives and projected use of funds,
before receiving grant funds. Recipients must also submit annual performance
reports to the DHS.62 In the 107th Congress, S. 2664 arguably included accountability
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.63
Conclusion
Should Congress take further action on the 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.
60 U.S. Conference of Mayors, “One Year Later, Cities are Safer but Still Await Financial
Assistance from Washington,” press release, Sept. 9, 2002.
61 Gilmore Commission, Fourth Annual Report, p. 37.
62 S. 87, sec. 5. (108th Cong.)
63 S. 2664, sec. 630(h). (107th Cong.)

---

CRS-15
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.
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 RL31549, Department of Homeland Security: Consolidation of Border
and Transportation Security Agencies, coordinated by William J. Krouse.
CRS Report RL31490, Department of Homeland Security: State and Local
Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RL31791, Emergency Management Funding for The Department of
Homeland Security: Information and Issues for FY2004, coordinated by Keith Bea.
CRS Report RS21367, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the
Department of Homeland Security, coordinated by Keith Bea.
CRS Report RS21400, FY2003 Appropriations for First Responders: Fact Sheet, by
Ben Canada and Shawn Reese.
CRS Report RL31680, Homeland Security: Standards for State and Local
Preparedness, by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of Selected Federal
Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RL31670, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security:
Issues for Congressional Oversight, by Keith Bea.

---