• 2167 Rayburn HOB
  
  
  

Purpose of the Hearing 

The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management met on Tuesday September 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony on the contents of the new National Response Framework released September 10, 2007, by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the process for its development. Witnesses testified about what this framework indicates, six years after 9/11 and two years after hurricane Katrina, about our Nation’s preparedness for and ability to effectively respond to all hazards, including natural disasters and terrorist threats.


BACKGROUND

After the poor Federal response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) developed the Federal Response Plan (“FRP”). The FRP served as the Federal Government’s first coordinated plan for responding to disasters, particularly disasters declared by the President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (“Stafford Act”). This plan served as the blueprint for the Federal Government’s widely-acknowledged successful response under FEMA’s leadership to a number of disasters in the mid to late 1990s including the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, Hurricane Fran in 1996, Hurricane Floyd in 1999, and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), which established DHS. FEMA was incorporated into DHS effective March 1, 2003. Under the Homeland Security Act, FEMA was explicitly given continued responsibility for the FRP[1] . Notwithstanding the clear language of the statute, the Secretary of Homeland Security initially removed responsibility from FEMA for drafting the FRP and changed the name of this document to the National Response Plan (NRP).

The initial version of the DHS National Response Plan was criticized as too bureaucratic, overly complicated, and as confusing the Federal chain of command. The defects in this plan became clear after the inadequate response by the Federal government to Hurricane Katrina, and even DHS acknowledged the shortcomings.

In response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (the FEMA reform bill; P.L. 109-295). This legislation made several pertinent amendments to the Homeland Security Act, including a requirement for FEMA to revise the NRP to reflect the changes mandated by Congress and to clarify the Federal chain of command during disasters. The FEMA reform bill required the NRP to reflect the responsibilities of the Administrator of FEMA for managing disasters, to reflect his role as the principal emergency management advisor to the President, and to provide a role for the Federal Coordinating Officer consistent with the Stafford Act[2] . The FEMA reform bill required significant state and local input in the revision to the NRP to ensure that the new document reflected the expertise and professional wisdom of emergency management practitioners[3] .

In response to this legislation, DHS began a process to amend the NRP, including convening a steering committee to provide input. This committee was co-chaired by an official from FEMA and an official from DHS’s National Protection and Programs Directorate, even though Congress explicitly gave responsibility to FEMA for the NRP in statute.

While the FEMA reform bill did not require these changes to be made by a particular date, DHS made a number of pronouncements, including in testimony before this Subcommittee on April 26, 2007, that a revised National Response Plan would be issued by the beginning of hurricane Season on June 1, 2007. The beginning of hurricane season passed without a new National Response Plan. In August 2007, a draft of a new “National Response Framework”, dated July 2007, was obtained by the press, and was subsequently widely circulated. DHS released an embargoed copy of the new National Response Framework to the Subcommittee in preparation for this hearing. This revised version is substantially similar to the July 2007 draft.

According to press accounts, a draft NRP was sent to DHS headquarters for approval, but DHS rejected the draft and the Department began a rewrite without seeking input from state and local officials, counter to the statute[4] . Additional media reports have highlighted sharp criticism of the contents of the July 2007 draft by state and local emergency managers and first responders for lacking meaningful detail, for abandoning processes at the state and local level that worked well prior to 9/11, and for failing to define the roles, responsibilities and relationships among the various levels of government[5].

In addition to revising the NRP, a goal of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was to create a new FEMA, a professional organization that has the expertise, responsibility, authority, and capability to prepare for and manage all aspects of disasters and emergencies. This goal and the provisions of the FEMA reform bill were supported by nearly every major group representing emergency responders. Specifically, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act made the following reforms to FEMA: 

Expertise: The bill required the FEMA Administrator and Regional Administrators to have professional emergency management qualifications, and it established the FEMA Administrator as the principal emergency management advisor to the President.

 

Responsibility: The bill granted FEMA primary responsibility for the National Preparedness System and the four phases of comprehensive emergency management, which includes preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.

Authority: The bill granted the FEMA Administrator the authority to manage all four aspects of comprehensive emergency management. It specifically made the Administrator responsible for managing the federal response to disasters and emergencies.

Capability: The bill placed the necessary tools for managing disasters in FEMA, including a professional workforce, operations centers, and response teams.

The National Response Framework appears to conflict with most of these reforms. Specifically, the Administrator of FEMA is only mentioned in the framework as an advisor to the Secretary, not the President (as required by the Post Katrina Act[6] ), and he has no operational role mentioned in the new document. Further, key elements of the National Preparedness System and core emergency management functions are delegated outside of FEMA by DHS. Preparedness functions outside of FEMA include the development of the 15 national planning scenarios and detailed preparedness planning, placed in the Office of Operations Coordination. Response functions outside of FEMA include key incident management functions, detailed to the National Operations Center, and incident management functions, assigned to a Principal Federal Official.

At the hearing, the Subcommittee will hear from witnesses on the content of the National Response Framework, the process for its development, and what that document indicates about the Nation’s readiness for all hazards. This hearing will also provide an update on the implementation of the reform of FEMA as mandated by the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.

PRIOR OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY

The Subcommittee has not held legislative hearings specifically dedicated to the National Response Framework. In the 110th Congress, however, the Committee has held numerous hearings related to FEMA, including:

• “Post-Katrina Temporary Housing: Dilemmas and Solutions” (March 2007)
• “FEMA’s Emergency Food Supply System” (April 2007)
• “FEMA’s Preparedness and Response to All Hazards” (April 2007)
• “National Levee Safety and Dam Safety Programs” (May 2007)
• “Legislative Fixes for Lingering Problems that Hinder Katrina Recovery” (May 2007)
• “Assuring the National Guard is as Ready at Home as It is Abroad” (May 2007)
  
   
  
  In the 110th Congress, the Committee has taken action on the following related bills:
  
  
  • H.R. 1144, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Federal Match Relief Act); incorporated into H.R. 2206; signed into law on May 25 (PL 110-28).
  • H.R. 2775, To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize funding for emergency management performance grants, and for other purposes
  • H.R. 3224, Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007
  • H.R. 3247, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Recovery Facilitation Act of 2007
  
  
  During the109th Congress, the Committee enacted the following related bills:
   
  
  
  • Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-88)
  • Predisaster Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-139)
  • Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-176)
  • Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 (P.L. 109- 218)
  • Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295)
  • Rural Disaster Assistance Fairness Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-295)
  • Disaster Relief Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-295)
  
  ______________________________

  1  Section 507(b), P.L. 107-296
  2  6 USC 319(c)(1)(B)
  3  6 USC 318(b)
  4  “States Feel Left Out of Disaster Planning,” Washington Post, August 8, 2007 p A1; “DHS Achieves Target Weight for National Response Guidelines” CQ Homeland Security, Aug 1, 2007.
  5  “Emergency Plan Deemed a Disaster-in-Waiting,” CQ Weekly, Sept. 10, 2007, p 2606.
  6  6 USC 313