Homeland Security: Standards for State and Local Preparedness

Publication Date: October 2003

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Government

Type:

Abstract:

Some Members of Congress, as well Administration officials and other observers, believe that state and local governments should be held to established standards for terrorism preparedness. They argue that standards could improve the capability of first responders to deal with terrorist attacks, particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Preparedness standards can be categorized by such attributes as scope, development process, and user community. They can include broad performance goals, as well as more specific operational procedures and equipment specifications. Traditionally, nongovernmental organizations develop preparedness standards, sometimes with the participation of federal agencies. Since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, however, a number of federal agencies have initiated efforts to develop preparedness standards, among which are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, now in DHS), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The 107th Congress addressed the issue of preparedness standards, particularly in its debate on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Initial versions of the DHS bill (H.R. 5005 and S. 2452) took broad approaches, authorizing the new department to coordinate and develop standards for first responders. The Administration appeared to support such an approach in its National Strategy for Homeland Security. Ultimately, however, the enacted version (P.L. 107-296) took a narrower approach, instructing the department to develop standards for a limited number of functions, mostly related to response equipment and technology.

In the 108th Congress, a number of bills addressing first responder programs have included provisions relating to preparedness standards. In September 2003, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 1245, which, among other things, would require the DHS Secretary to develop National Performance Standards for state and local homeland security efforts. Other bills addressing preparedness standards i nclude H.R. 105, H.R. 1449, H.R. 3158, H.R. 3227, and S . 321/H.R. 545.

There are a number of policy approaches Congress could take, should it desire to address preparedness standards. Encouraging the development and implementation of standards could give states and localities discretion in adapting standards to their unique preparedness needs, but may not lead to nationwide adoption. Federal assistance could be conditioned on meeting set standards, but this could limit recipients' flexibility with federal funds. Mandatory regulations is another approach that arguably could insure adherence to set standards, but would likely raise a number of federalism issues. On the other hand, Congress might not take any action on this issue. Many observers believe that defining a baseline level of preparedness is a daunting challenge with questionable benefits. Also, some observers contend that current nongovernmental and federal efforts to develop preparedness standards are sufficient to meet public safety needs.