PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 31, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
First Responder Access to Innovative Technologies Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement a uniform process for reviewing applications that contain explanations to use grants provided under the Urban Area Security Initiative or the State Homeland Security Grant Program to purchase equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed any applicable national voluntary consensus standards developed under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
FEMA must consider:
current or past use of proposed equipment or systems by federal agencies or the Armed Forces;
the absence of a national voluntary consensus standard for such equipment or systems;
the existence of an international consensus standard for such equipment or systems and whether such equipment or systems meets such standard;
the nature of the capability gap identified by the applicant and how such equipment or systems will address such gap; and
the degree to which such equipment or systems will serve the needs of the applicant better than equipment or systems that meet or exceed existing consensus standards.
FEMA shall implement a uniform process for reviewing applications to use such grants to purchase equipment or systems not included on the Authorized Equipment List maintained by FEMA.
The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall submit to specified congressional committees a report assessing the implementation of such review process, including information on the number of requests to purchase equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed any applicable consensus standard, the capability gaps identified by applicants, the number of such requests granted and denied, and the processing time for the review of such requests.
People & committees
Rep. Payne, Donald M., Jr. [D-NJ-10] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H792)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H792)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 687.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H792-793)
Mr. Donovan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.687 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.687 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.687 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.687 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.