[Senate Report 116-318]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 621
116th Congress} { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-318
======================================================================
NATIONAL RESPONSE FRAMEWORK IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2020
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 4153
TO REQUIRE THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
TO EVALUATE THE NATIONAL RESPONSE FRAMEWORK BASED ON
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 14, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RAND PAUL, Kentucky THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
RICK SCOTT, Florida KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director
Joseph C. Folio III, Chief Counsel
Shani M. Rosenstock, Professional Staff Member
Margaret E. Frankel, Research Assistant
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel
Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Deputy Director of Homeland Security
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 621
116th Congress} { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-318
======================================================================
NATIONAL RESPONSE FRAMEWORK IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 2020
_______
December 14, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 4153]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 4153) to require
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to evaluate the
National Response Framework based on lessons learned from the
COVID-19 pandemic, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the
nature of a substitute), and recommends that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
Page
I. Purpose and Summary.............................................1
II. Background and the Need for Legislation.........................2
III. Legislative History.............................................3
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................3
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................4
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................5
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........5
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 4153, the National Response Framework Improvement Act of
2020, requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
to provide continuous summaries on any gaps and inefficiencies
of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS or the
Department) National Response Framework (NRF) based on any
lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, as
part of the COVID-19 after-action review, FEMA must evaluate
the NRF and include updates and recommendations based on the
findings. FEMA is required to provide appropriate congressional
committees a copy of, and a briefing on, each summary.
This bill also requires DHS to conduct biennial evaluations
of the NRF, to assess any gaps and inefficiencies.
Specifically, the evaluations must also assess processes for
interagency information-sharing and training programs. A
notification will be provided to appropriate congressional
committees after each evaluation.
II. Background and the Need for Legislation
Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress
passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which among other
things, required the consolidation of emergency response plans
and the development of a single, unified Federal Response Plan
(FRP) to establish Federal agency guidelines for
emergencies.\1\ In recognition of the need for a detailed
nationwide approach to emergency response efforts, on February
28, 2003, President George W. Bush issued the Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5).\2\ The purpose of HSPD-5 was
to ``enhance the ability of the United States to manage
domestic incidents by establishing a single, comprehensive
national incident management system.''\3\ DHS issued a
successor to the FRP, called the National Response Plan (NRP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296 (2002).
\2\Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, U.S. Dep't of
Homeland Sec. (Feb. 28, 2003), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
publications/Homeland%20Security%20Presidential%20Directive%205.pdf.
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first time the NRP was used for a major catastrophic
incident was immediately following the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina in August 2005.\4\ The implementation of the NRP and
the plan itself drew significant criticism during the response
to Hurricane Katrina. For example, some officials said the NRP
was overly bureaucratic, too technical, and difficult to
understand.\5\ Additionally, the name ``National Response
Plan'' proved to be misleading because the NRP was not a step-
by-step design or process but rather a report or framework.\6\
The identified challenges with the NRP led Congress to enact
the Post-Katrina Management Reform Act in 2006,\7\ which
resulted in DHS issuing an enhanced successor plan to the NRP
entitled the National Response Framework(NRF).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Bruce Lindsay, Cong. Research Serv., RL34758, The National
Response Framework: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress 3 (2008),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34758.pdf.
\5\Id. at 6.
\6\Id.
\7\Id. at 3.
\8\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRF is intended as a comprehensive doctrine for a
unified response from all levels of government to all types of
hazards.\9\ The document defines the roles and responsibilities
across the Federal, state, and local government for all phases
of emergency management.\10\ In contrast to the NRP, the NRF
uses flexible language that allows Federal agencies to use
their discretion for how to respond to specific emergencies or
hazards.\11\ The NRF includes 15 Emergency Support Functions
(ESF) Annexes that are more detailed frameworks for specific
types of hazards.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Id.
\10\Id.
\11\Id.
\12\Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some officials have raised concerns about the
implementation and effectiveness of the NRF. For example,
during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, officials claimed they were
unaware of responsibilities for the response; signifying the
NRF still does not clearly articulate roles and
responsibilities during hazards or emergencies.\13\
Additionally, a report issued by the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of Inspector General found that FEMA did not
adhere to certain principles outlined in the NRF during the
response to Hurricane Ike.\14\ A report issued by the
Congressional Research Service documented additional issues
that should be addressed to improve the effectiveness of the
NRF, including: 1) clarifying the roles of the Federal
Coordinating Officer (FCO) and the Principle Federal Officer
(PFO); 2) improving the ability to effectively integrate
nonfederal stakeholders such as, nonprofits and the private
sector, in the response; 3) establishing a process for
informing NRF users of modifications or changes to the
framework; and 4) focusing on more frequently occurring
emergency incidents.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\The National Response Framework: Overview and Possible Issues
for Congress, EveryCRSReport.com, https://www.everycrsreport.com/
reports/RL34758.html#: cents:text=
The%20primary%20purpose%20of%20the,(P.L.%20107%2D296) (last updated
Jan. 21, 2011).
\14\FEMA's Response to Hurricane Ike, DHS Office of the Inspector
Gen. (June 11, 2009), https://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/
OIG_09_78_June09.pdf.
\15\See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 4153, the National Response Framework Improvement Act of
2020, addresses potential shortcomings of the NRF amid the
COVID-19 pandemic. The NRF has a long history in the emergency
response space and has been adjusted for various national
emergencies. Specifically, S. 4153 will improve emergency
management protocols and help ensure best practices are used
during future emergency responses based upon shortcomings
identified from COVID-19 response and biennial evaluations of
the NRF.
III. Legislative History
Chairman Ron Johnson introduced S. 4153 on July 2, 2020.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
The Committee considered S. 4153 at a business meeting on
July 22, 2020. Chairman Johnson offered a substitute amendment
that required FEMA to provide rolling summaries on any gaps or
inefficiencies in the NRF based on the response to the COVID-19
pandemic. Additionally, the substitute amendment requires FEMA
to conduct biennial evaluations to assess any potential general
gaps or inefficiencies in the NRF.
The substitute amendment and the bill, as amended, were
approved by voice vote en bloc and the bill was reported
favorably. Senators Johnson, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Romney,
Scott, Enzi, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, Harris, and Rosen
were present for the votes.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported
Section 1. Short title
This section provides the bill's short title, the
``National Response Framework Improvement Act of 2020''.
Section 2. Rolling Summaries of the National Response Framework
Subsection (a) directs the FEMA Administrator to provide at
least one summary to the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee and House Committee on Homeland
Security that details any gaps or inefficiencies within the NRF
based on the response to COVID-19 within 180 days following
this bill's enactment. Additional summaries of any gaps or
inefficiencies identified can also be provided subsequently.
Subsection (b) requires that FEMA's after-action review
process of the COVID-19 pandemic include an evaluation of the
NRF to determine gaps and inefficiencies, and must include
necessary updates to the NRF that are to be determined by the
FEMA Administrator in coordination with emergency support
functions based on identified inefficiencies.
Section 3. Required briefings
This section requires the FEMA Administrator to brief the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and
House Committee on Homeland Security on each of the rolling
summaries made pursuant to section 2(a) within one year after
the summary is provided.
Section 4. Biennial evaluations
Subsection (a) amends Section 509(b) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 by requiring that the NRF be evaluated
every two years to identify potential gaps and inefficiencies.
The evaluations will also assess interagency information
sharing processes across emergency support functions during
incidents in which emergency support functions are activated
under the NRF. The evaluation conducted will also include
recommendations on ways to improve information sharing
processes and will be provided to heads of emergency support
function agencies. Additionally, the FEMA Administrator must
determine what modifications are necessary to improve
information sharing processes, which will result in updates
made to the NRF. The evaluation must also assess training
programs for emergency support functions and provide
recommendations to the emergency support function agencies for
ways to improve training programs. Lastly, Section 509(b) is
amended to include congressional notification of the completion
of the evaluation in which the Administrator acting through the
National Integration Center will provide notice to appropriate
congressional committees.
Subsection (b) clarifies that the COVID-19 pandemic
response after-action evaluation (as established in section
2(b)(3)) can fulfill the biennial evaluation requirement if the
after-action review evaluation is completed within two years
following the bill's enactment.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
CBO failed to provide the Committee with a cost estimate in
time for the final reporting deadline of the 116th Congress.
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
* * * * * * *
TITLE V: NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 509. NATIONAL INTEGRATION CENTER.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) improving the use of Federal, State,
local, and tribal resources and ensuring the
effective use of emergency response providers
at emergency scenes; [and]
(C) revising the Catastrophic Incident Annex,
finalizing and releasing the Catastrophic
Incident Supplement to the National Response
Plan, and ensuring that both effectively
address response requirements in the event of a
catastrophic incident[.]; and
(D) not less frequently than once
every 2 years--
(i) evaluating potential gaps and
inefficiencies in the National Response
Framework, including by evaluating the
processes for collecting and sharing
information across the emergency
support function coordinators, primary
agencies, and support agencies during
an incident for which the emergency
support functions are activated under
the National Response Framework;
(ii) providing recommendations to the
heads of the emergency support function
coordinators, primary agencies, and
support agencies for how to improve
processes described in clause (i);
(iii) updating the National Response
Framework to account for new
information collection and sharing
processes that result from the
evaluation and recommendations under
clauses (i) and (ii), including by
modifying any previously incorporated
processes if the Administrator
determines such modifications are
necessary to ensure efficient
communication and information sharing;
(iv) conducting an assessment of the
training programs for emergency support
function coordinators, primary
agencies, and support agencies; and
(v) providing recommendations to the
heads of the emergency support function
coordinators, primary agencies, and
support agencies of emergency support
functions for how to improve the
training programs described in clause
(iv).
(3) Congressional notification.--Not later than 30
days after the date on which the Administrator, acting
through the National Integration Center, completes an
evaluation required under paragraph 2(D), the
Administrator shall provide written notice to the
appropriate congressional committees.
* * * * * * *
[all]