Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues

Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues

Order Code RL31490
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Department of Homeland Security:
State and Local Preparedness Issues
Updated May 5, 2003
Ben Canada
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Department of Homeland Security:
State and Local Preparedness Issues
Summary
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) made the new Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for providing assistance to state and local
governments to ensure adequate preparedness for all disasters, including terrorist
attacks. Several federal entities administering preparedness programs have been
transferred to the new department. Those transferred to the Emergency Preparedness
and Response directorate (EPR) include:
! Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in its entirety;
! National Domestic Preparedness Office and Domestic Emergency Support
Teams, (FBI, within the Department of Justice);
! Office of Emergency Preparedness (HHS), including the National Disaster
Medical System and Metropolitan Medical Response System; and,
! National Strategic Stockpile (HHS).
The Justice Department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) will be
transferred to the Border and Transportation Security directorate. ODP provides
training, equipment grants, and technical assistance to states and localities. Its
assistance activities focus exclusively on preparedness for terrorist attacks —
particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction.
At least two bills have been introduced in the 108th Congress that would
restructure DHS entities administering preparedness programs. S. 45 would appoint
DHS liaisons in each state. S. 796 would relocate ODP into DHS Office of State and
Local Government Coordination. As the 108th Congress oversees the implementation
of the Homeland Security Act and the creation of the new department, it may address
several issues pertaining to state and local preparedness, such as:
Coordination and Integration of Preparedness Programs. Most federal agencies
with preparedness functions are now within DHS, distributed between two
directorates. Some observers are concerned that this separation of functions will
inhibit the department’s ability to develop a comprehensive approach to providing
assistance. The department’s Office of State and Local Government Coordination,
however, may have the necessary authority to develop a department-wide approach.
All-Hazards Approach. Some observers are concerned that integrating FEMA into
the new department could impact state and local preparedness for natural disasters.
The Act instructs FEMA to maintain its all-hazards focus, but some observers
contend that, with the threat of terrorism, this approach may no longer apply.
Focus of Terrorism Preparedness Programs. The Act makes ODP responsible for
all terrorism-oriented assistance programs. Congress may be asked to reconsider the
way in which the department will integrate assistance programs from different
agencies. Administration officials have stated that first responder training should not
be done in a law enforcement context, which concerns some policymakers and
emergency managers.

Contents
Overview of Department Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Issues Affecting State and Local Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Administrative Coordination of Preparedness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Debate Over the All-Hazards Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Debate Over Content of Terrorism Preparedness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Proposed Organization of Domestic Preparedness
Programs in Selected DHS Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Department of Homeland Security:
State and Local Preparedness Issues
Overview of Department Functions
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) created a new Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) with a number of responsibilities relating to state and
local preparedness for potential terrorist attacks. In general, the DHS Secretary is
responsible for administering grant programs for state and local first responders,
including firefighters, emergency medical personnel, law enforcement, and related
personnel.1 This report discusses selected state and local preparedness issues that
pertain to the responsibilities of two of the new department’s directorates: Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EPR) and Border and Transportation Security (BTS).2
The Act places many federal agencies and offices with functions related to state
and local preparedness in the new department’s Emergency Preparedness and
Response directorate (EPR). The directorate will integrate these agencies and their
programs, including:
! Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — Administers a wide
range of “all-hazards” assistance programs for states and localities, including
planning, training, equipment, and field exercise programs;3
! National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO) — Intended to act as an
information clearinghouse to assist state and local responders with planning,
training, equipment, and exercise needs necessary to respond to WMD
incidents. This office is distinct from the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP);4
! Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) — Assembles an interagency
team of experts, led by the FBI, that can provide an on-scene commander with
assessment and advice concerning a situation involving a WMD;
1P.L. 107-296, sec. 102(c).
2Issues relating to the Border and Transportation Security directorate are discussed in CRS
Report RL31549, Department of Homeland Security: Proposals to Consolidate Border and
Transportation Security Agencies, coordinated by Bill Krouse.
3The Federal Emergency Management Agency web site is: [http://www.fema.gov].
4At the time of this writing, the NDPO has no staff assigned to it and its web site
[http://www.ndpo.gov] is no longer available.

CRS-2
! Office of Emergency Preparedness and the National Disaster Medical System
(NDMS) — Assists state and local governments with planning for public
health emergencies, including bioterrorism, and coordinates federal medical
services during disaster response.5
! Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) — Seeks to coordinate the
efforts of local law enforcement, fire, hazardous materials, EMS, hospital,
public health and other personnel to improve response capabilities in the event
of a WMD incident;6
! National Strategic Stockpile — The stockpile (formerly called the National
Pharmaceutical Stockpile) has been developed for immediate deployment to
any U.S. location in the event of a terrorist attack involving a biological toxin
or chemical agent.7 and,
! Integrated Hazard Information System (IHIS) — This system, previously
administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
compiles data obtained from numerous satellites and sensors, some of which
are used to detect ballistic missiles, and others which monitor weather
conditions.
The Justice Department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) will be
transferred to the Border and Transportation Security directorate. Currently, ODP
offers planning assistance, equipment grants, and training for responding to weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) incidents. All assistance is offered in a law enforcement
context.8 The Homeland Security Act instructs ODP to coordinate preparedness
efforts among federal, state, and local governments, and to supervise all federal
terrorism preparedness grant programs.9
The Act also created an Office of State and Local Government Coordination,
which is charged with coordinating departmental activities relating to states and
localities. Specifically, the office will assess state and local needs, provide states and
localities with information and technical support, and develop a process for receiving
input from state and local officials on national homeland security strategies.10
The Act did not authorize any new assistance programs. And, with the
exception of transferring the terrorism-related functions of FEMA’s Office of
5The Office of Emergency Preparedness web site is: [http://ndms.dhhs.gov/].
6The Metropolitan Medical Response System web site is: [http://www.mmrs.hhs.gov/].
7For information on the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, see: [http://www.cdc.gov/
nceh/nps/default.htm].
8The Office of Domestic Preparedness web site is: [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/].
9P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c).
10P.L. 107-296, sec.801.

CRS-3
National Preparedness to ODP, the act did not modify any existing assistance
programs.11
Legislation in the 107th Congress. Legislative debate over the new
department’s role in state and local preparedness focused to a large extent on the
organization and responsibilities of the agencies transferred into the department,
notably the organization and responsibilities of FEMA and the ODP, which arguably
offer the most preparedness assistance to states and localities. In its initial DHS
proposal, the Bush Administration would have transferred to the Emergency
Preparedness and Response directorate (EPR) nearly all federal agencies and offices
with functions relating to state and local preparedness.12 The Administration
specifically requested the transfer and consolidation of FEMA and ODP in the new
directorate, as part of its effort to consolidate first responder assistance programs.13
(Table 1 in the Appendix summarizes the proposed organization of programs in
selected DHS bills.)
After the Administration unveiled its proposal, DHS proposals in the House and
Senate initially paralleled the Administration proposal.14 H.R. 5005, as introduced
in the House, would have consolidated a number of agencies with preparedness
functions into the Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate. S. 2452, as
agreed to by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs in July 2002, would
have fulfilled the Administration’s goal and relocated nearly all those functions in the
EPR directorate.15 Subsequent bills in the Senate, including S.Amdt. 4738 to H.R.
5005 (Gramm/Miller Amdt.) followed the same pattern.
Congress, however, ultimately separated the functions of the ODP from the
other agencies with preparedness functions. The House-passed version of H.R. 5005,
as well as the Senate-passed version (S.Amdt. 4901), transferred ODP to the Border
and Transportation Security directorate.16 This transfer was arguably the most
debated issue related to state and local preparedness, in that critics asserted that it
separated ODP from its functional home in the Emergency Preparedness and
11P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c).
12Examples of federal agencies offering preparedness assistance to states and localities, but
not proposed for transfer to the DHS, include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
which offers training to law enforcement officers, and the U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Disease (AMRIID), which offers response training to public health
officials.
13H.R. 5005 (as introduced on behalf of the Administration), sec. 502. Also see Office of
Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, (Washington: June 2002), p. 16.
Available at:[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/book.pdf], visited June 28, 2002.
14Some congressional DHS proposals, however, pre-dated the Administration’s proposal.
15S. 2452 (as agreed to by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, July 2002), sec.
134(c).
16The House-passed version of H.R. 5005 also transferred to the Border and Transportation
Security directorate the National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO) and Domestic
Emergency Support Team (DEST). The enacted bill, however, transfers the functions of
these two units to the Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate. See Table 1.

CRS-4
Response directorate (EPR). This issue may also frame future debate over the
implementation of the new department.
Legislation in the 108th Congress. At the time of this writing, a limited
number of introduced bills would affect the structure of assistance programs
throughout the DHS.17
S. 45. This bill would establish within each state a homeland security liaison
officer whose duties would include information sharing, technical support,
intergovernmental and inter-disciplinary coordination, needs assessments, training,
and efficiency studies. S. 45 would also create a Federal Interagency Committee on
First Responders and State, Local, and Cross-Jurisdictional Issues. This committee
would, among other activities, focus on issues of intergovernmental coordination,
first responder needs, and streamlining of federal programs. In addition, the bill
would establish an advisory council to support the interagency committee. The
advisory council would have a number of duties, including identifying technological
advances threats to first responders.
S. 796. This bill would transfer ODP from the BTS Directorate into the Office
for State and Local Government Coordination in the Office of the Secretary. The bill
is intended to give ODP a more prominent location in the new department and
establish a central location for first responder assistance programs.18
Issues Affecting State and Local Preparedness
This report discusses selected policy issues that may surface as the 108th
Congress monitors the implementation of the new department and evaluates efforts
to improve state and local preparedness for terrorism. These issues arose as the 107th
Congress debated the structure and responsibilities of the new department, and are
likely to remain pertinent. Specifically, this report examines the following issues:
1) How will preparedness programs in the new department be administratively
coordinated and integrated?;
2) Will preparedness programs take an “all-hazards” approach or focus
exclusively on terrorism preparedness?; and,
3) What is the appropriate focus of the department’s programs focusing solely
on terrorism preparedness programs?
The report does not, however, discuss certain issues, such as the impact of
integrating selected offices from the Department of Health and Human Services
17 This report does not address bills that propose new first responder assistance programs,
which are discussed in CRS Report RL31475, First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues and
Options, by Ben Canada.
18U.S. Congress, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Investing in Homeland Security,
Challenges on the Front Line, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., April 9, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003), pp. 1-4. See opening statement of Sen. Collins.

CRS-5
(HHS) into the new DHS,19 and the degree of authority the DHS will need to
effectively evaluate state and local assistance programs.
Administrative Coordination of Preparedness Programs
The Administration proposal stated that the DHS “would give state and local
officials one primary contact instead of many, and would give these officials one
contact when it comes to matters related to training, equipment, planning, exercises
and other critical homeland security needs.”20 At present, grants and training
programs for first responders are offered by agencies within the Departments of
Defense, Health and Human Services, and Justice, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).21 Some of the programs focusing on first responder
preparedness, such as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program within the Office for
Domestic Preparedness, have been previously transferred from one department to
another.
The multiplicity of agencies offering assistance, and the subsequent shifting of
agency responsibilities, have led to some frustration and confusion among state and
local officials attempting to secure federal funds. In addition, state and local officials
reportedly assert that the application process is burdensome and inconsistent.22 Many
observers have suggested that improving administrative coordination of programs,
and offering state and local officials a single point-of-contact, should be primary
goals of the new department.
Analysis. As discussed above, the Homeland Security Act consolidated into
the new department most federal agencies and offices with functions related to state
and local preparedness. Most of these functions will be administered by the
department’s Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate (EPR), but the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) will be placed in the Border Transportation
and Security directorate (BTS). Arguably, the Act enhanced the duties of the ODP,
making it responsible for the department’s domestic preparedness assistance
programs.23
19The Homeland Security Act transfers from HHS to DHS the Office of Emergency
Preparedness, the National Disaster Medical System, and the Metropolitan Medical
Response System.
20Office of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, p. 16.
21For descriptions of current programs, see CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism Preparedness:
Selected Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada.
22This perception is documented in several studies. See: Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic
Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (Gilmore
Commission), Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress (Washington:
December 15, 2001), p. 10; National League of Cities, Domestic Terrorism: Resources for
Local Governments (Washington: 2000), p. 20; U.S. General Accounting Office, Combating
Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations, GAO Report GAO-01-822
(Washington: Sept. 20, 2001), pp. 96-98.
23P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c).

CRS-6
Federal, state, and local coordination duties have also been assigned to other
directorates. The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate, for
example, will be responsible for creating policies on information sharing.24 The
Office of Science and Technology, will establish performance standards for law
enforcement technologies.25 And, the Homeland Security Institute will also conduct
standardization activities.26
Some observers maintain that dividing coordination functions among multiple
directorates and offices (even within one department) may not achieve the
Administration’s stated goal of creating a single point of contact for state and local
officials. They see at least two possible problems. First, coordination might not be
improved. Differences in traditional practices and regulations issued by the
directorates could prevent the development of a consistent, department-wide
approach to providing assistance. Some have noted that in past reorganizations, such
as the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Energy, agencies with similar
functions have been placed under one department, but have not necessarily
coordinated activities.27 Second, they point out that state and local officials might
still have to contact different agencies within DHS depending on their area of need.
This seemingly conflicts with the Administration’s goal to develop a “one stop shop”
for state and local assistance.
Congress has arguably addressed these potential problems through the
establishment of an Office for State and Local Government Coordination (OSLGC)
within DHS, which will oversee all departmental activities pertaining to state and
local government. The Homeland Security Act requires the office to:
(1) coordinate the activities of the Department relating to State and local
government; (2) assess, and advocate for, the resources needed by State and local
government to implement the national strategy for combating terrorism; (3)
provide State and local government with regular information, research, and
technical support to assist local efforts at securing the homeland; and (4) develop
a process for receiving meaningful input from State and local government to
assist the development of the national strategy for combating terrorism and other
homeland security activities.28
This coordination office will essentially seek to “coordinate the coordinators.”
Questions remain, however, about the office’s relationship with other directorates in
the new department, and the extent of the office’s authority and duties. Some of the
duties listed for the OSLGC arguably overlap with the listed duties of the Office for
24P.L. 107-296, sec. 201(d)(8).
25P.L. 107-296, sec. 232(b)(3).
26P.L. 107-296, sec. 312(c)(4).
27Sydney J. Freedberg, Corine Hegland, and Margaret Kriz, “Three Departments Offer
Important Lessons on Reorganization,” National Journal, June 15, 2002, pp. 1770-1772.
28P.L. 107-296, sec. 801. Added by H.Amdt. 587 to H.R. 5005 (Rush), agreed to July 25,
2002; Also see S. 2452 (as agreed to by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, July
2002), sec. 137(b).

CRS-7
Domestic Preparedness, such as coordinating preparedness efforts at the federal,
state, and local level, and monitoring terrorism and preparedness grant programs.29
The OSLGC’s duties may also overlap with the duties of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response directorate (EPR), which is responsible for ensuring the
effectiveness of emergency response providers.30
Policy Approaches.
Enhance the Authority of the Office for State and Local Government
Coordination (OSLGC). If the DHS is to have a single, coordinated approach to
assisting states and localities, the OSLGC may need authority to review, and possibly
create, procedures and regulations used by the directorates of Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EPR), Border and Transportation Security (BTS), and
others. If the office has too little authority, it may be ineffective and an
uncoordinated approach to providing assistance could result. If it has too much
authority, however, the office might interfere with the ability of agencies within DHS
to conduct their mission.
One proposal that could enhance the OSLGC’s authority, according to critics
of the current arrangement, was a section in S. 2452 that would have appointed a
DHS liaison to each state to coordinate federal assistance, assess state and local
needs, and provide training and information (see Table 1 in Appendix). The Senate
bill would have created a Chief Homeland Security Liaison and required the position
to report annually on state and local needs, federal program effectiveness, and
recommendations for changes in federal statutes. Furthermore, it would have created
a Federal Interagency Committee on First Responders and instructed it to ensure
coordination among federal agencies involved with state and local preparedness.31
These proposals have been reintroduced in the 108th Congress in S. 45.
Another approach would be to relocate ODP to the OSLGC, as proposed in S.
796. Such a move would arguably give ODP a relatively more prominent location
in the new department and establish a central location for first responder assistance
programs.32 This approach may not cause administrative problems for the BTS
Directorate, which has no other entities with functions related to domestic
preparedness. On the other hand, this approach might not facilitate coordination with
the related programs in the EPR Directorate.
29P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c). The Act also states that the terrorism-related activities carried
out by the Office of National Preparedness (ONP) within FEMA will be transferred to the
ODP. In May 2001, President Bush instructed FEMA to establish the ONP to coordinate
all federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management
and to coordinate with state and local governments to ensure they receive adequate planning,
training, and equipment. See sec. 430(c)(8).
30P.L. 107-296, sec. 502(1).
31S. 2452 (as agreed to by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, July 2002), sec.
137(c), (d), and (e).
32 U.S. Congress, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Investing in Homeland Security,
Challenges on the Front Line, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., April 9, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003), pp. 1-4. See opening statement of Sen. Collins.

CRS-8
Place Coordination Activities in the EPR Directorate. Another alternative
would be to transfer all coordination and assistance activities within the department’s
EPR directorate, including grant programs, standard setting, and intelligence sharing,
among others. This, arguably, would be an effective method of creating a “one-stop
shop” for state and local officials. This approach, however, could present
administrative difficulties. For example, a state official seeking technical assistance
might contact the EPR directorate, but the federal officials with the desired expertise
could reside in another DHS directorate or another federal agency. Depending on
departmental regulations and practices, the state official might never gain access to
the DHS’s most knowledgeable personnel, or access could be delayed. Assigning all
coordination and assistance duties to a single directorate could make it
administratively difficult for the DHS to make all its expertise and other resources
available to state and local officials. Placing all coordination and assistance activities
within the EPR directorate could also detract resources from the directorate’s natural
disaster preparedness and response mission.
Debate Over the All-Hazards Approach
The Homeland Security Act directs the DHS Secretary to ensure that federal,
state, and local responders are prepared to respond to all disasters, including terrorist
attacks. FEMA, which will serve as the cornerstone of the new department’s
Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate (EPR), has traditionally advocated
this “all-hazards” approach to emergency management. In general, the all-hazards
approach involves developing comprehensive capabilities for responding to a range
of disasters, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks, rather than developing
separate and distinct capabilities to respond to one type of disaster.33
FEMA is perhaps best known for assistance after disasters, but the agency is
also responsible for helping states and localities prepare for natural disasters,
including floods, hurricanes, and wildfires. Two entities within the agency, the U.S.
Fire Administration and the Emergency Management Institute, offer a wide range of
courses to first responders and other state and local officials. FEMA also administers
several grant programs that assist states and localities with emergency planning and
hazard mitigation.34
Analysis. Some analysts and policy makers fear that incorporating FEMA into
the new DHS will detract from the FEMA’s mission to assist states and localities to
prepare for natural disasters, and also adversely affect its response and recovery
missions. For example, James Lee Witt, former Director of FEMA, has said:
In the atmosphere of the past year (including the period prior to September 11th)
the devotion to terrorism planning has already affected the FEMA mission. All
33U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Guide for All-Hazard Emergency
Operations Planning, SLG-101, Sept. 1996, p. iii.
34For more information on FEMA’s natural disaster activities, see CRS Report RL31670,
Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security: Issues for Congressional
Oversight, by Keith Bea; and CRS Report RS20071, The United States Fire Administration:
An Overview, by Len Kruger; also see FEMA training web site: [http://training.fema.gov/].

CRS-9
the momentum for pre-disaster mitigation work with communities has been lost.
Folding FEMA into a homeland or national security agency will seriously
compromise the nation’s previously effective response to natural hazards.35
The Brookings Institution analysis of the DHS proposal echoed this concern,
suggesting that if FEMA were incorporated into the DHS, much of the progress the
agency has made over the past decade could be reversed.36
On the other hand, the Administration has emphasized that integration into the
DHS will not interfere with FEMA’s natural disaster preparedness activities. It
suggested that FEMA’s progress in this area could lead to improvements in terrorism
preparedness:
[The DHS] would continue FEMA’s efforts to reduce the loss of life and
property and to protect our nation’s institutions from all types of hazards through
a comprehensive, risk-based, all-hazards emergency management program of
preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. And it will continue to change
the emergency management culture from one that reacts to terrorism and other
disasters, to one that proactively helps communities and citizens avoid becoming
victims....
The Department would continue FEMA’s practice of focusing on risk
mitigation in advance of emergencies by promoting the concept of disaster-
resistant communities. It would continue current federal support for local
government efforts that promote structures and communities that have a reduced
chance of being impacted by disasters.37
Policy Approaches.
Maintain the All-Hazards Approach. The Homeland Security Act instructs
the DHS Secretary to maintain FEMA’s current activities in natural disaster
preparedness and pre-disaster mitigation. Section 507 of the Act seemingly affirms
the all-hazards approach, instructing FEMA to maintain a “... comprehensive, risk-
based emergency management program.”38 This approach may allow DHS to
improve terrorism preparedness, through efforts by ODP, while preserving FEMA’s
resources and expertise in natural disaster preparedness and disaster response.
This approach may address the concerns of some policy makers concerned about
FEMA’s inclusion in the new department. Some House committees expressed such
concerns in their markups of H.R. 5005. The House Judiciary Committee, for
example, recommended maintaining FEMA’s independence, observing that its “...
35James Lee Witt and Associates, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA
(Washington: 2002), unpublished.
36Brookings Institution, Assessing the Department of Homeland Security (Washington: July,
2002), p. vi. Available at: [http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/projects/homeland/
assess.htm], visited July 22, 2002.
37see U.S. President (Bush), Department of Homeland Security, p. 11.
38P.L. 107-296, sec. 507(a)(2). Added by H.Amdt. 575 (Young) to H.R. 5005, agreed to July
25, 2002.

CRS-10
main mission as a consequence management agency is to respond to natural
disasters.” The committee, however, did recommend transferring FEMA’s Office of
National Preparedness, which assists states and localities with preparing for weapons
of mass destruction, to the DHS.39 The House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, which had responsibility for overseeing FEMA’s operations, also
recommended leaving the agency independent, but instructed it to work with DHS
to distinguish each agency’s duties.40
Give DHS Officials Discretion. Alternatively, the DHS Secretary could be
given discretion to determine the department’s balance between terrorism
preparedness and natural disaster preparedness activities. Some observers argue that
the current threat from terrorists warrants the end of the all-hazards approach to
emergency management in favor of emphasis on terrorism preparedness. This
approach, however, could meet with criticism from observers who argue that, despite
the threat of terrorism, an all-hazards approach is necessary to help states and
localities prepare for natural disasters.41
Debate Over Content of Terrorism Preparedness Programs
The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) helps states and localities prepare
for terrorist attacks by providing training, equipment grants, technical assistance and
other forms of assistance. The Homeland Security Act separated ODP from FEMA
and the other agencies in the Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate
(EPR) by locating ODP in the Border and Transportation Security directorate (BTS).
The Act further instructs the office to coordinate state and local preparedness efforts
and supervise federal terrorism preparedness programs. It also assigns to ODP the
terrorism-related functions of FEMA’s Office of National Preparedness.42 This
effectively splits responsibility for preparedness assistance programs between the
directorates of Border and Transportation Security (BTS) and Emergency
Preparedness and Response (BTS).43
Analysis. As outlined in the federal Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept
of Operations Plan (CONPLAN), terrorism response may be divided into
consequence management, which involves life-saving and property-saving efforts
39U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, “Summary of H.R. 5005 Markup,”
107th Cong., 2nd sess. , July 12, 2002. Available at: [http://www.house.gov/judiciary/
homeland071502.PDF], visited July 22, 2002.
40U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “Explanation of
Manager’s Amendment to H.R. 5005,” 107th Cong., 2nd sess., July 11, 2002. Available at:
[http://www.house.gov/transportation/homelandsecurity/amendmentexplanation.html],
visited July 19, 2002.
41For example, see Witt and Associates, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA; and
Brookings Institution, Assessing the Department of Homeland Security, p. vi.
42P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c).
43Issues relating to the Border and Transportation Security directorate are discussed in CRS
Report RL31549, Department of Homeland Security: Consolidation of Border and
Transportation Security Agencies, coordinated by Bill Krouse.

CRS-11
and recovery activities, and crisis management, which involves criminal
investigations and the pursuit of terrorists.44 The array of domestic preparedness
programs in place before the DHS reorganization can be grouped into these two
categories. Assistance provided by FEMA, including training courses, has
traditionally focused on only consequence management activities, no matter the type
of disaster. Training and other assistance offered by the ODP, however, treats
terrorist attacks as criminal acts, and thus takes place in a crisis management and law
enforcement context.
Advocates of the crisis management approach contend that a terrorist attack is
not only a disaster scene but also a crime scene, and thus training should be adapted
to suit law enforcement needs. This could involve teaching all first responders
certain law enforcement techniques that would not be needed in a natural disaster
context, such as crime scene preservation, evidence recognition, and perimeter
security. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its work on FY2003
appropriations bills, expressed such sentiments:
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.45
Some observers also argue that law enforcement training is necessary to teach first
responders to recognize signs of “secondary devices”—explosives used for the
explicit purpose of harming first responders and civilian onlookers. Some observers
believe that there is a rising trend in the use of secondary devices.46
The Administration, however, has argued that first responders should not be
trained in law enforcement techniques, arguing that the distinction between crisis
management and consequence management, which is the basis for such training, is
an “artificial distinction.”47 Administration officials have said that they are not in
favor of including law enforcement techniques in DHS training programs. FEMA
Director Joe Allbaugh stated that, “[w]hile FEMA will coordinate grants and
assistance to first responders, it will not assume any law enforcement functions, nor
will FEMA provide law enforcement training—training on investigation techniques,
44The CONPLAN is available at the FBI web site: [http://www.fbi.gov/publications/
conplan/conplan.pdf], visited July 1, 2002.
45U.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.
46Paul. M. Maniscalco and Hank T. Christen, Understanding Terrorism and Managing the
Consequences (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 228.
47Office of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, p. 12.

CRS-12
evidence collection techniques, rights of suspects and detainees, or the like.”48
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has also stated that during a response to
a terrorist attack, state and local first responders would likely concentrate on saving
lives and not on criminal investigations.49
Despite the Bush Administration’s objectives, some policymakers have
emphasized that the distinction between crisis management and consequence
management should be maintained, and that ODP is the appropriate agency to
administer crisis management programs. Assigning ODP to the Border and
Transportation Security directorate reflects the concern of key policymakers that
ODP would lose its focus and expertise on crisis management and law enforcement
training if transferred to the Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate, the
cornerstone of which is FEMA.50
Policy Approaches.
Develop Separate and Distinct Assistance Programs. Congress has
effectively endorsed this approach in the Homeland Security Act, which separates
assistance programs between two directorates. The EPR directorate, with FEMA as
its cornerstone, will assist states and localities in overall emergency preparedness
using the all-hazards approach. The BTS directorate, through the ODP, will focus
exclusively on preparing states and localities for terrorist attacks.
This approach is arguably consistent with the Administration’s stated goal of
consolidating all terrorism preparedness programs into one department. It also
addresses the concerns of some observers who have argued that FEMA does not have
the necessary expertise to train first responders in crisis management and law
enforcement techniques.51 The separation of assistance programs between two
directorates, however, may result in a lack of coordination among program officials
in certain areas. Also, this approach may not address the concerns of state and local
officials about the fragmentation in federal training opportunities.
Full Integration of Assistance Programs. Offering training in a law
enforcement context and developing a single, department-wide approach to providing
assistance could both be viewed as desirable goals. Thus, another approach could be
to incorporate the functions of FEMA and ODP in a single directorate. The Bush
Administration, as well as several Members of Congress, proposed giving the
48Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, letter to Hon.
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., March 13, 2002, p. 2.
49Tom Ridge, Director, White House Office of Homeland Security, briefing before the
National Sheriff’s Association, Federal News Service, March 1, 2002.
50See generally, Jason Peckenpaugh, “Homeland Security Bill Would Reorganize Federal
First Responder Programs,” Government Executive, Nov. 14, 2002.
51See letter from Hon. James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. to Hon. C.W. Bill Young, May 20, 2002;
International Association of Fire Fighters, letter to Hon. Robert C. Byrd and Hon. Ted
Stevens, March 28, 2002; International Brotherhood of Police Officers, letter to Hon. Lamar
Smith, March 8, 2002.

CRS-13
Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate (EPR) lead responsibility for
assisting state and local responders.52 Congress could instruct the EPR directorate
to include appropriate law enforcement techniques in its terrorism-oriented training,
as currently practiced by ODP. Some observers believe that the inclusion of law
enforcement techniques in training programs does not conflict with the consequence
management functions of first responders. One observer stated, “... It is possible to
carry out the emergency responders’ mission without creating more problems for the
crime scene. This is best accomplished through training and awareness of potential
crime scenes, and acting to minimize damage to the area and its contents.”53
This approach, however, could delay the availability of training and other
assistance for first responders because the new EPR directorate might require some
time to integrate the ODP and FEMA programs, including training curricula. This
approach might also meet resistance from some policy makers and state and local
officials who have supported ODP’s continued separation from FEMA.54
Establish a Commission. Another possible alternative would be instruct a
commission to evaluate the practice of separating crisis and consequence
management activities in response to terrorism. A commission could specifically
study the costs and benefits of including law enforcement techniques in terrorism-
oriented training for first responders. Considering that implementing the DHS
reorganization will require several months, if not years, there may be sufficient time
for a commission to thoroughly study such issues. It could include representatives
from all first responder communities at all levels of government and make
recommendations for the DHS assistance programs and training curricula.
Conclusion
As the 108th Congress oversees the implementation of the Homeland Security
Act and the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, it will likely
address a wide array of issues pertaining to state and local preparedness. Many of the
issues that arose as the 107th Congress debated the department’s formation may be
revisited, including the effective coordination of programs, the all-hazards approach,
and the appropriate focus of terrorism preparedness assistance.
Related CRS Products
CRS Report RL31475, First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues and Options, by Ben
Canada.
CRS Report RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
52See S. 2452, sec. 134. Also see Office of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland
Security, p. 11.
53Maniscalco and Christen, Understanding Terrorism, pp. 254-255.
54See International Brotherhood of Police Officers, letter to Hon. Lamar Smith, March 8,
2002.

CRS-14
CRS Report RL31549, Department of Homeland Security: Proposals to Consolidate
Border and Transportation Security Agencies, coordinated by Bill Krouse
CRS Report RS21377, Federal Emergency Warning Systems: An Overview, by
Shawn Reese.
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.
CRS Report RS21348, Risk Assessment in the President's National Strategy for
Homeland Security, by Rob Buschmann.
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

CRS-15
Appendix
Table 1. Proposed Organization of Domestic Preparedness Programs in Selected DHS Bills
H.R. 5005
H.R. 5005
S. Amdt. 4471 to H.R.5005
P.L. 107-296
(as introduced on behalf on
(as passed by House,
(Lieberman Amdt., as
(as enacted,
Issue
the Administration, 6/24/02)
7/26/02)
agreed, 7/25/02)
11/25/2002)
Domestic
•
Federal Emergency
•
Federal Emergency
•
Federal Emergency
•
Federal Emergency
Preparedness
Management Agency
Management Agency
Management Agency
Management
functions
•
Office for Domestic
•
Office of Emergency
•
National Domestic
Agency (except
transferred to
Preparedness (DOJ)
Preparedness (HHS),
Preparedness Office (FBI)
functions of the
the Emergency
•
National Domestic
including the National
•
Office of Domestic
Office of National
Preparedness
Preparedness Office (FBI)
Disaster Medical System
Preparedness (DOJ)
Preparedness
and Response
•
Office of Emergency
and Metropolitan
•
Office of National
relating to terrorism)
Directorate
Preparedness (HHS),
Medical Response
Preparedness (HHS),
•
National Domestic
(EPR) of the
including the National
System
including the Noble
Preparedness Office
DHS
Disaster Medical System
•
Strategic National
Training Center, the
(FBI)
and Metropolitan Medical
Stockpile (HHS)
Metropolitan Medical
•
Domestic
Response System
[sec. 502]
Response System, National
Emergency Support
•
Strategic National
Disaster Medical System,
Teams (DOJ)
Stockpile (HHS)
Disaster Medical
•
Office of National
[sec. 502]
Assistance Teams, and
Preparedness (HHS),
Disaster Mortuary
including the
Operational Response
Metropolitan
Teams, special events
Medical Response
response, and citizen
System, National
preparedness programs.
Disaster Medical
•
Strategic National
System
Stockpile (HHS)
•
Strategic National
•
Select Agency Registration
Stockpile (HHS)
Program (HHS and
•
Integrated Hazard
USDA)
Information System
[sec. 134(c)]
(FIRESAT)
(transferred from
NOAA)
[sec. 503]

CRS-16
H.R. 5005
H.R. 5005
S. Amdt. 4471 to H.R.5005
P.L. 107-296
(as introduced on behalf on
(as passed by House,
(Lieberman Amdt., as
(as enacted,
Issue
the Administration, 6/24/02)
7/26/02)
agreed, 7/25/02)
11/25/2002)
Domestic
No similar provision.
•
Office for Domestic
No similar provision.
• Office for Domestic
Preparedness
Preparedness (DOJ)
Preparedness (DOJ)
functions
•
National Domestic
[sec. 403]
transferred to
Preparedness Office
the Border and
(FBI)
Those elements of the
Transportation
•
Domestic Emergency
Office of National
Security
Support Teams (DOJ)
Preparedness (within
Directorate
[sec. 402]
FEMA) relating to
(BTS) of the
terrorism will be
DHS
consolidated into the
Office for Domestic
Preparedness.
[sec. 430(c)(8)]

CRS-17
H.R. 5005
H.R. 5005
S. Amdt. 4471 to H.R.5005
P.L. 107-296
(as introduced on behalf on
(as passed by House,
(Lieberman Amdt., as
(as enacted,
Issue
the Administration, 6/24/02)
7/26/02)
agreed, 7/25/02)
11/25/2002)
Responsibilities
No similar provision.
• coordinating DHS activities
• coordinating DHS activities
• coordinating DHS
of the Office for
relating to state and local
relating to state and local
activities relating to
State and Local
government
government
state and local
Government
• assessing, and advocating
• assessing, and advocating for,
government
Coordination
for, the resources needed by
the resources needed by states
• assessing, and
states and localities under
and localities under the
advocating for, the
the national strategy
national strategy
resources needed by
• providing states and
• providing states and localities
states and localities
localities with information,
with information, research and
under the national
research and technical
technical support
strategy
support
• developing a process for
• providing states and
• developing a process for
receiving input on the national
localities with
receiving input on the
strategy.
information, research
national strategy.
[sec. 137(a) and(b)]
and technical support
[sec. 777]
• developing a process for
Authorizes a Chief Homeland
receiving input on the
Security Liaison Officer; duties
national strategy.
include annually reporting on
[sec. 801]
state and local priorities and
needs, assessing federal
assistance programs; identifying
duplicative federal activities.
Each state shall have a
homeland security liaison
officer, responsible for
coordinating DHS activities
with first responders and relief
organizations, providing
assistance.
[sec. 137(c)]