Order Code RL33522
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
FEMA Reorganization Legislation in the 109th
Congress
Updated July 12, 2006
Keith Bea
Specialist, American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Henry Hogue
Analyst, American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

FEMA Reorganization Legislation in the 109th Congress
Summary
Members of Congress have introduced legislation in both the House and Senate
to alter federal emergency management organizational structures and responsibilities,
amend authorities that guide federal action, impose emergency management
leadership qualification requirements, and make other changes. The proposals are
based upon investigations conducted on the role of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and other entities in the response to Hurricane Katrina
in the fall of 2005.

Some observers reduce the matter to one basic question: “Should FEMA remain
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or should the agency regain the
independent status it had before the creation of DHS?” The issue, however, is more
complex than just one of organizational placement. Other questions include the
following:
! What should be the reach or limit of the entity’s authority?
! What degree of discretion should Congress extend to the President
and executive branch officials to act in emergency situations?
! What functions or responsibilities should be transferred to the new
entity? Which should be retained by other DHS entities?
! How can interagency coordination be ensured? To what extent
should the White House be involved in emergency management on
a continuing basis as well as during an emergency?
! How might Congress balance recognition of state sovereignty and
primacy in the emergency management field while authorizing
prompt federal response?
! If details such as personnel qualifications, training requirements,
performance metrics, and interagency coordination mechanisms are
set in statute, will federal agencies have the flexibility to adapt
procedures and personnel to dynamic crises?
As of the date of this publication, Members have introduced at least 13 bills to
reorganize FEMA or reorient the agency’s mission. Summary information on the 13
bills, and historical context for debate on the issue, is presented in CRS Report
RL33369, Federal Emergency Management and Homeland Security Organization:
Historical Developments and Legislative Options. Of the bills pending before
Congress, two, H.R. 5316 and H.R. 5351, have been the subject of House committee
action. Other bills that have been introduced in the House include H.R. 3656, H.R.
3659, H.R. 3685, H.R. 3816, H.R. 4009, H.R. 4397, H.R. 4493, and H.R. 4840. On
July 11, 2006, the full Senate approved an amendment (S.Amdt. 4560) to the FY2007
appropriations bill (H.R. 5441) for the Department of Homeland Security. In
addition, other Senate bills include S. 1615 and S. 2302.
This report will be updated when significant congressional action occurs on the
pending legislation.

---

Contents
The Hurricane Katrina Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
House of Representatives Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Senate Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
White House Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overview of Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Comparison of Pending Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Tables
Table 1. House Hearings on Hurricane Katrina, 2nd Session, 109th Congress,
by Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Senate Hearings on Hurricane Katrina, 2nd Session, 109th Congress,
by Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Legislative Proposals Amending Emergency Management Structure
and Authorities, Comparison of Existing Policy, S.Amdt. 4560
(to H.R. 5441), H.R. 5316, and H.R. 5351, 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

FEMA Reorganization Legislation in the
109th Congress
The Hurricane Katrina Investigations
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Members of Congress and others raised
questions about the scope and reach of federal emergency management policies, the
procedures used to administer federal statutory authorities, the qualifications of
personnel, and other issues. Most of the questions focused on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the agency primarily responsible for coordinating
federal and non-federal disaster response activities.
Legislation pending before the 109th Congress would reconfigure the structure
and mission of FEMA, which is currently part of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) but served as an independent agency prior to 2003. Three of the 13
bills pending in the 109th Congress that would realign responsibility for federal
emergency management functions have been acted upon.1 H.R. 5351 and H.R. 5316
have been reported out of House committees. A Senate proposal was approved by
the full Senate on July 11, 2006, as an amendment (S.Amdt. 4560) to the Department
of Homeland Security appropriations legislation for FY2007 (H.R. 5441). Two of
the three bills, H.R. 5351 and the Senate-approved amendment to H.R. 5441, would
amend the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and shift the assignment of emergency
management duties within DHS.2 The other bill, H.R. 5316, would amend the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) and
reestablish FEMA as an independent agency.3 Amendments considered by the Senate
to reestablish FEMA as an independent agency (S.Amdt. 4563/S.Amdt. 4564) during
the debate on H.R. 5441 were not approved.
These and other bills before the 109th Congress reflect investigative activities
undertaken since Hurricane Katrina struck on August 29, 2005. By the spring of
2006, two congressional reports and a White House report had been issued. The
findings, identified issues, and recommendations of the congressional and White
House reports, as well as investigations conducted by the Government Accountability
1 As of the date of publication, several other bills before the 109th Congress also would
modify FEMA, its missions, or its operations. These bills include those that, like H.R. 5316,
would reestablish FEMA as an independent agency ( H.R. 3656, H.R. 3659, H.R. 3685, H.R.
3816, H.R. 4493, S. 1615, and S. 2302). Two other bills (H.R. 4009 and H.R. 4840) would
recombine preparedness and response functions in DHS and impose qualification
requirements on officials, and H.R. 4397 addresses qualification requirements.
2 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is codified at 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.
3 The Stafford Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

---

CRS-2
Office and the Inspector General of DHS, laid the groundwork for the consideration
of alternative organizational arrangements for federal emergency management.
This report provides information on provisions of the Senate-approved
amendment (S.Amdt. 4560) to the FY2007 appropriations bill, H.R. 5316, and H.R.
5351 that address concerns identified after Hurricane Katrina. To provide a context
for information on the legislation, this report first summarizes findings and
recommendations of the congressional and White House studies pertinent to the
pending legislation reported from the House committees.
House of Representatives Report. On September 15, 2005, the House of
Representatives approved H.Res. 437, which established the Select Bipartisan
Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina
(referred to as the Select Committee). The activities of the committee were
summarized in its final report as follows:
The Select Committee held nine hearings over the course of approximately three
months. Select Committee Members and staff simultaneously conducted scores
of interviews and received dozens of briefings from local, state, and federal
officials; non-governmental organizations; private companies and individuals
who provided or offered external support after Katrina; and hurricane victims.
Select Committee Members and staff traveled numerous times to the Gulf Coast.
The Select Committee also requested and received more than 500,000 pages of
documents from a wide array of sources.4
The committee report presented findings but did not include recommendations. It
noted successes, such as National Weather Service forecasts, efforts of search and
rescue operations, and implementation of interstate mutual aid agreements. The
majority of the report’s findings, however, identified shortcomings and failures.
Although none of the findings specifically addressed organizational issues, some of
the findings arguably indicate that failures may have been associated with problems
involving implementation of agency missions, questionable aspects of leadership,
inappropriate interagency coordination mechanisms, or lack of clarity about shared
responsibilities. The committee’s findings that appear particularly relevant to the
pending legislation include the following, with the text presented verbatim from the
report:
It does not appear the President received adequate advice and counsel from a
senior disaster professional.
The Secretary [of DHS] should have convened the Interagency Incident
Management Group on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, or earlier to analyze
Katrina’s potential consequences and anticipate what the federal response would
need to accomplish.
The Secretary [of DHS] should have designated the Principal Federal Official
[PFO] on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had
4 U.S. Congress, House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and
Response to Hurricane Katrina, A Failure of Initiative, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington:
GPO, 2006), p. 11.

---

CRS-3
successfully completed the required training, unlike then-FEMA Director
Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretary’s PFO
decisions.
The Homeland Security Operations Center failed to provide valuable situational
information to the White House and key operational officials during the disaster.
Federal agencies, including DHS, had varying degrees of unfamiliarity with their
roles and responsibilities under the National Response Plan and National
Incident Management System.
Earlier presidential involvement might have resulted in a more effective
response.
Lack of communications and situational awareness paralyzed command and
control.
DOD [Department of Defense]/DHS coordination was not effective during
Hurricane Katrina.
DOD, FEMA, and the state of Louisiana had difficulty coordinating with each
other, which slowed the response.
National Guard and DOD response operations were comprehensive, but
perceived as slow.
The Coast Guard’s response saved many lives, but coordination with other
responders could improve.
DOD has not yet incorporated or implemented lessons learned from joint
exercises in military assistance to civil authorities that would have allowed for
a more effective response to Katrina.
Northern Command [within DOD] does not have adequate insight into state
response capabilities or adequate interface with governors, which contributed to
a lack of mutual understanding and trust during the Katrina response.
DOD lacked an information sharing protocol that would have enhanced joint
situational awareness and communications between all military components.
Search and rescue operations were a tremendous success, but coordination and
integration between the military services, the National Guard, the Coast Guard,
and other rescue organizations was lacking.
Top officials at the Department of Health and Human Services and the National
Disaster Medical System do not share a common understanding of who controls
the National Disaster Medical System under Emergency Support Function-8.
Deployment confusion, uncertainty about mission assignments, and government
red tape delayed medical care.

---

CRS-4
Contributions by charitable organizations assisted many in need, but the
American Red Cross and others faced challenges due to the size of the mission,
inadequate logistics capacity, and a disorganized shelter process.5
In addition to the hearings and interviews conducted by the select committee,
oversight hearings before nine other House committees addressed a variety of
matters related to the federal response. Table 1 summarizes the topics of hearings
held during the second session of the 109th Congress.
Table 1. House Hearings on Hurricane Katrina, 2nd Session,
109th Congress, by Committee
Committee/Number of hearings
Topics
Select Bipartisan Committee to
Forecasts, FEMA role, decisions of
Investigate the Preparation for and
Secretary Chertoff, preparedness and
Response to Hurricane Katrina/9
response, contractors, Alabama
preparedness, victims reports, Mississippi
preparedness, Louisiana preparedness
Appropriations/3
DHS, DOD, Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Department
Armed Services/1
DOD preparations
Energy and Commerce/3
Communications, fraud and waste, public
health
Financial Services/8
Rebuilding, fair housing, housing needs (5
sessions), flood insurance
Government Reform/5
Preparedness, fraud and waste,
contracting, international assistance,
oversight
Homeland Security/4
Fraud and waste, FEMA restructuring,
federalism, command and control
Science/1
Disaster research
Transportation and Infrastructure/4
DHS, need for legislation, risk reduction,
FEMA
Ways and Means/1
Charities
Source: Information compiled from searches of CQ Committee Coverage (markups and hearings) data
at CQ.com, available by subscription at [http://www.cq.com/advancedsearch.do], accessed June 15,
2006. The searches were conducted by Jennifer Manning, Knowledge Services Group, Congressional
Research Service.
5 Ibid., pp. 2-5

---

CRS-5
Senate Report. From September 14, 2005, to April 21, 2006, the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) held 22 hearings
on Hurricane Katrina-related issues.6 In the course of the committee investigation,
staff interviewed 236 persons to obtain detailed information on events, operations,
and procedures.7
The Senate committee report, published months after the House select
committee report, included findings and recommendations. The Senate report
included four “Foundational Recommendations” that, if implemented, would replace
FEMA with a new entity, the National Preparedness and Response Authority
(NPRA). These recommendations include the following, presented verbatim from
the report:
Create a New, Comprehensive Emergency Management Organization with DHS
to Prepare for and Respond to All Disasters and Catastrophes.
From the Federal Level Down, Take a Comprehensive All-Hazards Plus
Approach to Emergency Management.
Establish Regional Strike Teams and Enhance Regional Operations to Provide
Better Coordination between Federal Agencies and the States.
Build a True, Government-Wide Operations Center to Provide Enhanced
Situational Awareness and Manage Interagency Coordination in a Disaster.8
The specific characteristics of NPRA, and other recommendations in the Senate
report related to the pending legislation, may be summarized in the following
manner:
! NPRA is to be a distinct entity within DHS, with its missions and
components protected from internal reorganizations or departmental
reassignments.
! The Director of NPRA would hold the same rank as a Deputy
Secretary (Level II of the Executive Schedule, presidential
appointees to be confirmed by the Senate), report directly to the
Secretary, and serve as the adviser to the President for emergency
management and as a direct conduit of information to the President
during catastrophes.
6 A list of the hearings held, topics, and witnesses is presented in the final report issued by
the committee. U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO,
2006), pp. Appendix 3-2 through 3-8.
7 A list of those interviewed is presented in the Senate report, ibid., pp. Appendix 4-1
through 4-23.
8 Ibid., pp. Recommendations-1 through Recommendations-7.

---

CRS-6
! Three NPRA deputy directors would hold the same rank as most
under secretaries (Level III of the Executive Schedule, presidential
appointees to be confirmed by the Senate).
! Ten regional office directors would be part of the Senior Executive
Service and would serve as Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs).
Enhanced intergovernmental and interagency interactions would be
built with federal strike teams, staffing changes, and coordination
efforts.
! NPRA would be responsible for the four phases of emergency
management — preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation —
as well as infrastructure protection, and would adopt an “all-hazards
plus” approach to include a wide range of capabilities for the
broadest range of hazards.
! A National Operations Center (NOC) would integrate the
operational duties currently vested in at least three different entities.
! Increased levels of commitment to and by state and local
governments are necessary, along with efforts to better integrate
non-governmental organizations into emergency management
procedures and operations.
! The plans and systems for disaster response should be enhanced,
including the capability to respond to catastrophic incidents.
! Coordination between DHS and DOD and Health and Human
Services (HHS) should be improved.
! During the transition to NPRA, DHS should develop strategies to
build career emergency management personnel capabilities.
Just as various House committees conducted hearings on Katrina-related issues,
seven Senate committees in addition to the primary investigative body examined
specific issues related to the disaster. Table 2 provides summary information on
those Senate hearings.

---

CRS-7
Table 2. Senate Hearings on Hurricane Katrina, 2nd Session,
109th Congress, by Committee
Committee/number of hearings
Topics
Homeland Security and
Recovery (2 sessions), FEMA performance,
Governmental Affairs/22
New Orleans, levee failures, Coast guard,
private sector, FEMA operations
professionals, levee responsibility, Mississippi
recovery, Hurricane Pam simulation, urban
search and rescue, pre-storm evacuation, post-
storm evacuation, role of governors, law
enforcement and communications, DOD role,
DHS/FEMA leadership, waste and fraud, role
of Secretary Chertoff, reform
recommendations, housing
Appropriations/3
2006 hurricane season, supplemental
appropriations
Banking, Housing, and Urban
Rebuilding, flood insurance (3 sessions)
Affairs/4
Commerce, Science, and
Hurricane forecasting, communications,
Transportation/3
hurricane prediction
Environment and Public Works/2
Hurricane response
Health, Education, Labor, and
Hurricane response
Pensions/1
Judiciary/1
Readiness
Special Aging/1
Needs of older Americans in disasters
Source: Information compiled from searches of CQ Committee Coverage (markups and hearings) data
at CQ.com, available by subscription at [http://www.cq.com/advancedsearch.do], accessed June 15,
2006. The searches were conducted by Jennifer Manning, Knowledge Services Group, Congressional
Research Service.
White House Report. The post-Katrina report issued by the White House
does not include any recommendations for organizational changes; it does, however,
include recommendations pertinent to organizational options, including some of the
issues addressed in the pending legislative proposals. The recommendations in the
White House report that appear relevant to the pending legislation include the
following. The numbers that accompany the following recommendations are taken
verbatim from the report and correspond to those presented in it.9
4. DHS should develop and implement Homeland Security Regions that are fully
staffed, trained, and equipped to manage and coordinate all preparedness
activities and any emergency that may require a substantial federal response.
9 The White House, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina, Lessons Learned
(Washington: 2006), pp. 87-124.

---

CRS-8
5. Each Regional Director should have significant expertise and experience, core
competency in emergency preparedness and incident management, and
demonstrated leadership ability.
6. The PFO [Principal Federal Official] should have the authority to execute
responsibilities and coordinate federal response assets.
8. Each region must be able to establish and resource rapidly deployable, self-
sustaining incident management teams (IMT) to execute the functions of the JFO
[Joint Field Office] and subordinate area commands that are specified in the NRP
[National Response Plan] and NIMS [National Incident Management System].
9. DHS should establish several strategic-level, standby, rapidly deployable
interagency task forces capable of managing the national response for
catastrophic incidents that span more than one Homeland Security Region.
10. Integrate and synchronize the preparedness functions within the Department
of Homeland Security.
11. DHS should establish a permanent standing planning/operations staff housed
within the National Operations Center.
13. A unified departmental external affairs office should be created within DHS
that combines legislative affairs, intergovernmental affairs, and public affairs as
a critical component of the preparedness and response cycle.
15. Establish a National Operations Center to coordinate the national response
and provide situational awareness and a common operating picture for the entire
federal government.
19. Establish the Disaster Response Group (DRG).
30. DOD should consider assigning additional personnel (to include General
officers) from the National Guard and the reserves of the military services to
USNORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command] to achieve enhanced integration of
Active and reserve component forces for homeland security missions.
38(f). DHS should establish a Chief Logistics Officer to oversee all logistics
operations across multiple support functions.
57(b). HHS in coordination with OMB and DHS should draft proposed
legislation for submission to Congress, to transfer NDMS [National Disaster
Medical System] from DHS to HHS.
63. Assign HHS the responsibility for coordinating the provision of human
services during disasters.
69. Designate HUD as the lead federal agency for the provision of temporary
housing.
76. Develop a Public Communications Coordination capability for crisis
communications at the White House.

---

CRS-9
83. The National Economic Council should form an Impact Assessment
Working Group to provide an overall economic impact assessment of major
disasters, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Treasury,
Commerce, Energy (Energy Information Administration), and Labor as well as
the President’s Council of Economic Advisors.
99. DHS should establish an office with responsibility for integrating non-
governmental and other volunteer resources into federal, state, and local
emergency response plans and mutual aid agreements. Further, DHS should
establish a distinct organizational element to assist faith-based organizations.
110. DHS should consolidate the DHS Training and Exercise Structure.
116. DHS should establish a National Homeland Security University (NHSU)
for senior officials that serves as a capstone to other educational and training
opportunities.
118. The White House should consider establishing a Presidential Board to
review the national security, homeland security, and counterterrorism
professional development programs of federal departments and agencies to
identify opportunities for further integration.
Overview of Findings and Recommendations. The House, Senate, and
White House reports include common elements that appear pertinent to S. 3595, H.R.
5316, and H.R. 5351. All conclude that failures of leadership and initiative
compromised efforts to provide necessary assistance to victims and communities.
Coordination problems and failures to fully integrate response procedures, plans, and
systems among federal agencies were also common findings, with particular attention
given to the role of the Principal Federal Officer (PFO); the Homeland Security
Operations Center; and DHS, DOD, and HHS officials. In addition to these failures,
the reports noted the critical role of regional offices in building relationships with
state and local governments.
One significant difference between the congressional reports and the White
House report concerns examinations of the qualifications of the leadership in FEMA
and DHS, notably the experience and training expected of leaders. Both the House
and Senate reports concluded that problems stemmed, at least in part, from leadership
shortcomings. On the other hand, the White House report focused on failures of
process, systems, and planning, not the experience or qualifications of top officials.
Comparison of Pending Legislation
The House bills that have been acted upon during the 109th Congress adopt
different approaches to the issues identified in the congressional and White House
reports. Some of the more significant differences between the two House bills are
the following:
! Organizational location: H.R. 5316 would establish FEMA as an
independent cabinet level agency with direct access to the President;
H.R. 5351 would keep FEMA in DHS as the Directorate of
Emergency Management (DEM).

---

CRS-10
! Base statutory authority: H.R. 5316 would amend the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq.); H.R. 5351 would amend the Homeland Security Act,
or HSA (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).10
! Preparedness: H.R. 5351 would authorize preparedness activities
(school planning, pandemic influenza, emergency management
preparedness grants) and condition eligibility for homeland security
grants on the maintenance of catastrophic plans; H.R. 5316 does not
include such provisions, but would add a title to the Stafford Act that
would authorize establishment of a new comprehensive emergency
preparedness system to improve federal and non-federal capabilities.
! Presidential access: H.R. 5316 would authorize the FEMA Director
to have continual, direct access to the President at all times; H.R.
5351 would designate the head of the DEM as a “Cabinet Officer”
for the duration of Incidents of National Significance.11
! Medical response: A Chief Medical Officer would be appointed
under H.R. 5351, and emergency medical response functions would
be vested in the DEM; H.R. 5316 does not provide for such a
position or such functions.
! Personnel: H.R. 5316 would authorize the Director of the
independent FEMA to develop a human capital strategy; H.R. 5351
would retain the authority in DHS to develop a workforce strategy.
Also, H.R. 5316 would authorize the establishment of a disaster
workforce cadre, whereas H.R. 5351 would not.
! Fraud and waste: H.R. 5351 would provide new authority and
requirements to prevent fraud and waste; H.R. 5316 would authorize
the FEMA Director to use up to 1% of funds for oversight activities.
Also, H.R. 5351 would require establishment of a system to ensure
that equipment purchased by first responders is effective; H.R. 5316
does not contain a similar provision.
! Regional offices: H.R. 5351 would require the establishment of
regional offices within DEM; H.R. 5316 would not.
10 The statutory authorities amended by the House bill reflect committee jurisdictions; the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee exercises jurisdiction over the Stafford
Act, whereas the House Homeland Security Committee has jurisdiction over the HSA.
11 Incidents of National Significance include, but are not limited to, presidential major
disaster and emergency declarations, as well as events that require the involvement of
multiple federal agencies and situations that require federal involvement, at the Secretary’s
discretion. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Plan, as
amended (Washington: 2005), p. 4.

---

CRS-11
The amendment to H.R. 5441 (S.Amdt. 4560), approved by the full Senate on
July 11, 2006, is somewhat comparable to H.R. 5351. It differs, however, in that it
would establish an Emergency Management Authority (EMA), not a Directorate of
Emergency Management (DEM), within DHS. In addition, differences exist in the
following areas:
! Preparedness: H.R. 5351 would provide for the pre-positioning of
equipment, development of an asset inventory, funding for
emergency management preparedness grants, planning for pandemic
influenza, and catastrophic planning; S.Amdt. 4560 would not.
! Response: S.Amdt.4560 includes provisions regarding disaster
“strike” teams and the establishment of a National Operations
Center; H.R. 5351 does not.
! Organization: S.Amdt. 4560 would establish the EMA as a distinct
entity within DHS and prohibit the Secretary from reorganizing it;
H.R. 5351 would not establish DEM as a distinct entity and would
not control reorganization authority.
! Leadership: H.R. 5351 would create the DEM head at the under
secretary level, to report to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. In
contrast, the head of the EMA under S.Amdt.4560 would be at the
deputy secretary level and would report only to the Secretary.
! Communications: H.R. 5351 would establish a communications
office within DEM; S.Amdt. 4560 would not provide for such an
office within the EMA.
Table 3 of this report presents summary information on existing law and
administrative documents, and compares the provisions of the bills.

---

CRS-12
Table 3. Legislative Proposals Amending Emergency Management Structure and Authorities, Comparison of
Existing Policy, S.Amdt. 4560 (to H.R. 5441), H.R. 5316, and H.R. 5351, 109th Congress
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
SHORT TITLE
United States Emergency Management Authority
Restoring Emergency Services to Protect Our
National Emergency Management Reform and
Act of 2006 [Sec. 601]
National from Disasters Act of 2006 (RESPOND
Enhancement Act of 2006
Act of 2006) [Sec. 1]
ORGANIZATION LOCATION AND STATUS
Overview of existing policy: FEMA and the Directorate of Preparedness are two of 26 entities reporting to DHS leadership. [6 U.S.C., 311-317, DHS 7/13/05
letter to Congress]
Would establish U.S. Emergency Management
Would establish FEMA as an independent
Would combine FEMA and the Directorate of
Authority (EMA) in the Department of Homeland
“cabinet level” agency by transferring the
Preparedness and call it the Directorate of
Security (DHS) as a distinct entity by transferring
functions of FEMA, specified DHS authorities not
Emergency Management (DEM) within DHS. [Sec.
FEMA and the Preparedness Directorate. [Sec.
assigned to FEMA, and the Preparedness
101(a), §§501(a), 502(b)]
602, §502(a), §504, §505]
Directorate. [Sec. 101(a), Sec. 105]

---

CRS-13
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
PRESIDENTIAL ACCESS
Leadership levels/authority to report to the President
Existing policy: Under secretaries (U/S) report to the Secretary/Deputy Secretary. U/S for Federal Emergency Management may report to the President
during Incidents of National Significance (INS) through the Principal Federal Officer (PFO). [Sec. Chertoff 7/13/05 letter to Congress]
EMA Administrator would report directly and only
FEMA Director given secretary cabinet status and
DEM head, established at U/S level, would report
to the DHS Secretary, and serve as the principal
would report directly to the President at all times.
to the Secretary/Deputy Secretary and generally
emergency preparedness and response adviser to
[Sec. 103(a)(1)]
serve as the principal adviser to the President on
the President, Homeland Security Council, and
emergency management. Would serve as a
DHS Secretary and may make recommendations to
“Cabinet Officer” during Incidents of National
Congress after informing Secretary. [Sec. 602,
Significance. [Sec.101(a), §§501(a)(1), 502(a), 503]
§502(c)(3,4)]
FUNCTIONS AND MISSION
Overall mission
Existing policy: FEMA mission includes response and recovery, but not emergency preparedness. [6 U.S.C. 317, DHS 7/13/2005 letter to Congress]
The President is authorized to undertake a range of emergency management functions. [Stafford Disaster Relief Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. and Executive
Orders 12127, 12148, as amended, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978]
EMA mission would include leading the nation in
FEMA mission would be based on the all hazards,
DEM would have primary responsibility for
comprehensive emergency management (CEM)
risk-based, comprehensive emergency
preparing for, mitigating against, responding to,
based on an “all-hazards-plus” strategy through
management (CEM) framework and would
and recovering from terrorism, disasters, and other
administration of the Stafford Act, and undertaking
include responsibility for the Stafford Act. [Sec.
emergencies, with 18 specific tasks and authorities
other activities. [Sec. 602, §502(b), §503]
101(b), Sec. 102(a)(1,2)]
listed, including responsibility for the Stafford Act.
[Sec. 101(a), §502(a)]

---

CRS-14
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Functions, personnel, assets, components, and
The functions of current FEMA and the
Functions of FEMA (the former Emergency
liabilities of FEMA (except National Disaster
Preparedness Directorate, and the functions,
Preparedness and Response Directorate) and the
Medical System) as well as the Preparedness
personnel, and assets associated with six specified
Preparedness Directorate would be transferred to
Directorate and its leaders, as of June 1, 2006,
authorities would be transferred to the
DEM. [Sec. 101(a), §502(b,c)]
would be transferred to EMA. [Sec. 602, §504]
independent agency FEMA. [Sec. 105(a); Sec.
106(e)]
Infrastructure protection
Existing policy: The Preparedness Directorate is responsible for infrastructure protection. [6 U.S.C. 121 et seq., DHS 7/13/2005 letter to Congress]
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection established. [6 U.S.C. 121]
EMA Administrator responsible for security and
No similar provision
Would establish Office for Infrastructure Protection
resiliency of critical infrastructure protection,
in DEM. [Sec. 101(a), §591]
including cyber and communications assets. [Sec.
602, §502(10), §503(a)(1)(E) and §503(a)(12)]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would redesignate Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate as Office of
Intelligence and Analysis. [Sec. 106]
Position of Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity
No similar provision
Office of Cybersecurity and Telecommunications
and Telecommunications would be established in
would be established under authority of the DEM
DHS (specific location unstated). [Sec. 602,
Under Secretary. [Sec. 101(a), §592]
§518(a)]

---

CRS-15
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Specific preparedness functions
Existing policy: Preparedness functions assigned to the DHS Preparedness Directorate. [Original authority given to Office of Domestic Preparedness, 6
U.S.C. 238, reorganized under 6 U.S.C. 452, DHS 1/26/2004 letter to Congress and DHS 7/13/2005 letter to Congress]
No similar provision
Includes notification requirement to state and
Would require establishment of prepositioned
local officials and a Sense of Congress provision
equipment program and asset inventory. [Sec.
on prepositioned equipment. [Sec. 205]
101(a), §581-582 ]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would establish Office of Training and Exercises
in DEM to improve national preparedness
capabilities. [Sec. 101(a), §522]
No similar provision
Would authorize grants for emergency equipment.
No similar provision
[Sec. 207, §630]
Would require DHS Secretary to establish National
Would require establishment of a comprehensive
Would require Secretary to update emergency
Advisory Council on Emergency Preparedness and
emergency preparedness system, including:
management capability standards. [Sec. 101(a),
Response to advise the EMA Administrator. [Sec.
specification of national goals, priorities,
§523] Would establish National Advisory Council
602, §508]
requirements, and standards; authorizes federal
on Emergency Management to periodically review
frameworks, and requires enhancement of federal
federal plans, standards, and capabilities. [Sec.
capabilities. [Title III, §701-709]
101(a), §509]
Would require that the EMA Administrator
No similar provision
Would establish Office of Public and Community
promote public preparedness. [Sec. 602, §512]
Preparedness. [Sec. 101(a), §527]

---

CRS-16
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would authorize grantees to use DHS funds for
preparedness activities by schools. [Sec. 109]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would require national exercise to test Pandemic
Influenza Strategy. [Sec. 111]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would require establishment of a pilot program for
public and private sector planning and response
program. [Sec. 112]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would authorize $360 million for Emergency
Management Performance Grants for FY2007.
[Sec. 113]
Would require Administrator to establish
No similar provision
No similar provision
nationwide standards for typing emergency
resources and assets, including teams and
See also “Federalism,” below.
equipment. [Sec. 602, §520]
Catastrophic planning
Existing policy: No catastrophic planning provisions in HSA or Stafford Act, but Catastrophic Incident Annex (CIA) in National Response Plan (NRP) sets out
guidance for federal action. [NRP CIA]
EMA Administrator, in consultation with other
No similar provision
Would require testing and enhancement of state and
federal officials, must develop a system capable of
local capabilities for response to catastrophic
responding to catastrophic incidents. [Sec. 602,
incidents. [Sec. 101(a), §522(e)]
§503(b)]

---

CRS-17
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
No similar provision
FEMA Director would fund state and local
Would condition federal homeland security
catastrophic planning and capabilities; does not
financial aid for states and urban areas on
condition receipt of aid. [Sec. 201, §616]
maintenance of catastrophic plans and capabilities;
does not provide funding. [Sec. 101(a), §524]
Specific response functions
Existing policy: Response Division exists in FEMA. [Secretary Chertoff’s 2SR reorganization, adopted 10/1/05] President required to establish emergency
support teams in response to major disasters or emergencies. [42 U.S.C. 5144] Response capabilities authorized, including control of Nuclear Incident
Response Team (NIRT), National Response Plan (NRP), and National Incident Management System (NIMS). (6 U.S.C. 312(5,6))
Would require each regional administrator to
Would amend Stafford Act by requiring President
No similar provision
establish multi-agency strike teams and would
to establish emergency disaster response teams
authorize necessary funds. [Sec. 602, §507(e)]
that meet specified criteria. [Sec. 202, §303]
Would establish the National Incident
Would require maintenance of NIMS and NRP,
Would establish NIMS and NRP Integration Center
Management System (NIMS) Integration Center in
enumerates related requirements, and would
(NIC). [Sec. 101(a), §541] Would authorize NIRT
the EMA. [Sec. 602, §509]
establish the Integration Center. [Title III, §704,
operations. [Sec. 101(a), §543]
705, 708] FEMA would be lead agency for
National Response Plan. [Sec. 102(b)]
Would establish a National Search and Rescue
No similar provision
Would authorize the Urban Search and Rescue
Response System in the EMA. [Sec. 602, §514]
System. [Sec. 101(a), §544]
Would establish a National Operations Center in
Would require FEMA Director to establish
No similar provision
DHS. [Sec. 602, §510]
emergency operations center. [Sec. 203]
No similar provision
Would require Director to establish logistics
Would require identification of areas for logistic
system. [Sec. 204]
support centers as part of asset inventory program.
[Sec. 101(a), §582(f)]

---

CRS-18
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
No similar provision
Would require establishment of communications
Would include Sense of Congress provision on
capability. [Sec. 206]
consultation on SAFECOM communications
program (Project 25). [Sec. 110]
No similar provision
Population groups with limited English
No similar provision
proficiency would be identified and assisted. [Sec.
209]
No similar provision.
No similar provision
Would authorize $85 million for each fiscal year
for National Disaster Medical System and require
report on whether the system should remain in
DHS. [Sec. 103]
Chief Medical Officer (CMO) would be required
No similar provision
No similar provision
to establish a program to assess health and safety
of first responders after Incidents of National
Significance. [Sec. 602, §511(d)]
Specific recovery functions
Existing policy: FEMA administers functions through a Recovery Division; HSA charges FEMA with responsibility for recovery and rebuilding communities.
[Secretary Chertoff’s 2SR reorganization, adopted 10/1/05, 6 U.S.C. 317(a)(2)(D)]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would authorize pre-event recovery contract
authority for regional directors. [Sec. 101(a), §585]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would statutorily establish the Gulf Coast
Recovery Office (now established through
presidential directive). [Sec. 102]

---

CRS-19
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Continuity of Operations (COOP) C
Existing policy: Federal departments and agencies are responsible for contingency planning, including continuity of operations, within the executive branch,
in coordination with FEMA. [E.O. 12656, Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 67, and Federal Preparedness Circular (FPC) 65]
No similar provision
Responsibilities of the proposed independent
No similar provision
FEMA would include developing guidance for
and coordinating federal continuity plans and
operations. [Sec. 102(a)(3)]
Communications
Existing policy: DHS Secretary authorized to coordinate communications systems through the Office of State and Local Coordination (now Preparedness
Directorate). [6 U.S.C. 112, DHS letter of 7/13/05 to Congress]
No similar provision(s)
Would require that the independent FEMA
Would establish Office of Communications in
maintain interoperable communications
DEM; enumerates authorities, organization, and
capability. [Sec. 206]
requirements. [Sec. 101(a), §561-568]
Sets forth responsibility of Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility. [Sec. 104, §314]
LEADERSHIP
Appointment authority (PAS means presidentially appointed, with the advice and consent of the Senate.)
Existing policy: U/S for Federal Emergency Management is Level III PAS position. [6 U.S.C. 113; Reorganized under 6 U.S.C. 452; see letter from Sec.
Chertoff to Congress, 4/6/06] U/S for Preparedness is Level III PAS position. [6 U.S.C. 113; Reorganized under 6 U.S.C. 452; see letter from Sec. Chertoff to
Congress, 7/13/05]
Assistant Secretary (A/S) for Grants and Training is a Level IV PAS position in the Directorate of Preparedness. [6 U.S.C. 238; reorganized under 6 U.S.C.
452; letter from Sec. Ridge to Congress, 1/26/04, and letter from Sec. Chertoff to Congress, 7/13/05] U.S. Fire Administration is located in the Directorate of
Preparedness. [6 U.S.C. 313; reorganized under 6 U.S.C. 452, letter from Sec. Chertoff to Congress, 7/13/05] Its administrator is Level IV PAS position under
a separate statute. [15 U.S.C. 2204] Appointments to most other leadership positions made by the Secretary.

---

CRS-20
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
EMA Administrator would be a Level II PAS
Would establish FEMA Director as a Level I PAS
Would establish U/S for Emergency Management,
position. [Sec. 602, §502(c)(1); Sec. 603(a)(1)]
position. [Sec. 103(a)(1)]
as head of DEM, as a PAS position (pay level not
specified). [Sec. 101(a), §501(a)]
Directors for Preparedness and for Response and
Would authorize the FEMA Director to appoint a
Dep. U/S’s for Emergency Preparedness and
Recovery would be Level III PAS positions
Deputy Director in the competitive service. [Sec.
Mitigation, and for Emergency Response and
reporting to the Administrator. [Sec. 602, §506(a);
103(b)(1)]
Recovery would be PAS positions (pay levels not
Sec. 603(a)(2)]
specified). [Sec. 101(a), §501(b,c)]
Would establish A/S for Cybersecurity and
No similar provision
Would establish five A/Ss as PAS positions to head
Telecommunications, with appointment authority
specified offices (pay levels not specified). [Sec.
and pay level unspecified. [Sec. 602, §518(a)]
101(a), §501(d)]
U.S. Fire Administration would be within EMA.
U.S. Fire Administration would be transferred to
U.S. Fire Administration would be under the
[Sec. 602, §504(1)] The Administrator’s rank
FEMA. [Sec. 105(a)(3)(E) and 106(e)]
authority of the U/S for Emergency Management.
would be that of Assistant Secretary in DHS. [Sec.
[Sec.101(a), §§502(b) and 502(c)(5)]
602, §518(b)]
Would establish the Chief Medical Officer (CMO)
No similar provision
Would establish the CMO as a PAS position. A
as a PAS position (pay level unspecified). [Sec.
deputy CMO would be appointed by the Secretary.
602, §511(a)]
(Pay levels are unspecified.) [Sec. 101(a), §§505(a)
and (d)]
Regional administrators would be appointed by
No similar provision
DHS Secretary would appoint regional directors
DHS Secretary and would report to EMA
and deputy directors after consulting with state and
Administrator (pay level unspecified). [Sec. 602,
local officials (pay level unspecified). [Sec. 101(a),
§507(b)(1)]
§504]
No similar provision
Would authorize FEMA Director to appoint a
No similar provision
chief financial officer (CFO) who shall be in the
competitive service or Senior Executive Service.
[Sec. 108(a)]

---

CRS-21
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
No similar provision
Inspector general (IG) office established, with pay
DHS IG would appoint deputy IG for Response and
level and appointment authority unspecified. [Sec.
Recovery (pay level unspecified). [Sec. 205]
104]
Would establish Director of the Office for the
No similar provision
DHS Secretary would appoint three office directors,
Prevention of Terrorism in DHS, with pay level
and one center director (pay levels unspecified).
and appointment authority unspecified. [Sec. 602,
[Sec. 101(a), §501-§541]
§517(b)(1)]
Qualifications
Existing policy: None specified in statute.
Persons filling EMA Administrator and Director
Director and Deputy Director would be selected
Would require that U/S have demonstrated ability
positions would have to hold at least five years of
from individuals who have extensive experience
in and knowledge of emergency management and
executive leadership and management experience,
in emergency preparedness, response, recovery,
homeland security. [Sec. 101(a), § 501(a)(2)]
“significant experience in crisis management” or
and mitigation for all hazards, including major
Deputy U/S for Emergency Preparedness and
related field, and substantial staff and budget
disasters, acts of terrorism and other emergencies.
Mitigation would be required to possess same for
management ability. DHS FEMA and
[Sec. 103]
emergency preparedness and mitigation. [Sec.
Preparedness officials may serve as directors
101(a), § 501(b)(2)]
during interim period. [Sec. 602, §§502(c)(3) and
Deputy U/S for Emergency Response and Recovery
506(b,c)]
would be required to possess same for emergency
response and recovery. [Sec. 101(a), § 501(c)(2)]
Regional administrators would be Senior
No similar provision
Regional directors and dep. directors would be
Executive Service employees qualified to serve as
required to possess ability in and knowledge of
FCO. [Sec. 602, §507(b)(2)]
emergency management, and familiarity with
region’s geography and demography. [Sec. 101(a),
§ 504(b)(3)]

---

CRS-22
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
EMA would include a CMO with demonstrated
No similar provision
CMO, Deputy CMO would be required to possess
ability in and a knowledge of public health and
ability in and knowledge of medicine and public
medicine. [Sec. 602, §511(b)]
health. [Sec. 101(a), §§ 505(b) and 505(e)]
No positions would be established by this bill that
Qualifications are specified under existing statutes
Deputy IG for Response and Recovery would be
would be subject to these statutes.
for the CFO and IG positions that would be
required to possess integrity and ability in
established by this bill. [31 U.S.C. 901(a)(3); 5
accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law,
App. Inspector General Act of 1978, Sec. 3]
management analysis, public administration, or
investigations. [Sec. 205(a), §813(b)]
Delegation and Assignment
Existing policy: As provided for in the Homeland Security Act, “Unless otherwise provided in the delegation or by law, any function delegated under this
chapter may be redelegated to any subordinate.” [6 U.S.C. 455(c)]
DHS Secretary would be prohibited from reducing
Except where otherwise expressly prohibited by
No similar provision
EMA authority or capabilities except as provided
law or provided by the bill, the Director would be
by subsequent statutes. Prohibits diversion of
authorized to delegate to FEMA officers and
EMA assets and missions to other DHS
employees any of the functions transferred to the
components. [Sec. 602, §505(c)]
Director under the bill or subsequently vested in
him. Successive redelegations as necessary or
appropriate could be authorized by the Director.
The Director would retain the responsibility for
the administration of such functions. [Sec.
106(b)]

---

CRS-23
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Rules
Existing policy: “The issuance of regulations by the Secretary shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5 [administrative procedure], except as
specifically provided in this chapter, in laws granting regulatory authorities that are transferred by this chapter, and in laws enacted after November 25,
2002.” [6 U.S.C. 112(e)]
No similar provision
The Director would be authorized to prescribe
No similar provision
rules and regulations as necessary or appropriate,
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Chapters 5
(administrative procedure) and 6 (regulatory
functions), to administer and manage FEMA.
[Sec. 106(d)]
INTERAGENCY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
Federal interagency coordination
Existing policy: Secretary of DHS (and during Incidents of National Significance, the Principal Federal Official, or PFO) and the Federal Coordinating
Officer (FCO) during major disasters and emergencies [42 U.S.C. 5143; National Response Plan, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5]
No similar provision
FEMA would be required to have a liaison office
Authority of FCOs would remain unaffected. [Sec.
to coordinate with DHS during potential or actual
101, §504(g)]
terrorist incident. [Sec. 105(d)]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would establish a National Biosurveillance
Integration System to assure interagency
coordination of biological events. [Sec. 101(a),
§506]

---

CRS-24
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Federalism
Existing policy: FCO coordinates with state official(s) during major disasters or emergencies. [42 U.S.C. 5143] DHS Secretary required to develop and co-
locate regional offices of agencies transferred to DHS. [6 U.S.C. 346] Office for National Capital Region Coordination established in DHS. [6 U.S.C. 462]
EMA Administrator would be required to establish
No similar provisions
Would establish and set forth responsibilities of
10 regional offices, each with a Regional Advisory
regional offices and Regional Advisory Councils on
Council, and may designate the Office for National
Emergency Management. [Sec. 101(a), §504(a-c)]
Capital Region Coordination as a regional office.
Agency representatives would be housed in
[Sec. 602, §503(a)(13), §507(a)]
regional offices. [Sec. 101(a), §504(f)]
Regional administrators would coordinate
Would establish Office of National Capital Region
activities with state and local governments in the
Coordination in DEM. [Sec. 101(a), §508]
geographical area served. [Sec. 602, §507(c)]
Administrator would be required to establish area
offices for the Pacific and Caribbean areas. [Sec.
602, §705(d)]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would establish Office of State, Local, and Tribal
Government Coordination. [Sec. 101(a), §507]
Would authorize $4 million for each fiscal year
Would authorize grants for the administration of
Would authorize grants for the administration of
2007 through 2010 for administering and
EMAC. [Sec. 302]
EMAC. [Sec. 101(a), §546]
improving the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact (EMAC). [Sec. 602, §516]
Would establish the Metropolitan Medical
No similar provision
Would authorize grants to be provided through the
Response System (MMRS) in the EMA. [Sec. 602,
MMRS. [Sec. 101(a), §545]
§515]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Authority of state, local, and tribal governments
would remain unaffected by provisions of the
legislation. [Sec. 101, §504(g)]

---

CRS-25
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Would require EMA Administrator to promote
No similar provision
Would establish Office of Public and Community
public and community preparedness. [Sec. 602,
Preparedness to assist state, local, and tribal
§512]
governments in public preparedness activities. [Sec.
101(a), §527]
Would establish an Office for the Prevention of
No similar provision
Would allow use of grants to hire intelligence
Terrorism in DHS to be headed by a director to
analysts in state, local, and tribal governments.
coordinate with state and local agencies. [Sec. 602,
[Sec. 105]
§517]
No similar provision, but does require that the
No similar provision
Would establish Office of Grants and Planning in
Office of Terrorism work with the Office of Grants
DEM to aid preparedness of state and local
and Training on terrorism prevention grants. [Sec.
governments. [Sec. 101(a), §521]
602, §517(d)(4)]
Relationships with non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Existing policy: Agreement exists for the delivery of mass care by NGOs after Incidents of National Significance (INS) [National Response Plan]
President authorized to use services of disaster relief NGOs. [42 U.S.C. 5152]
National Advisory Council on Emergency
National Emergency Preparedness Task Force
Would establish a Regional Advisory Council
Preparedness and Response would include private
would include non-governmental organizations.
including private sector members. [Sec. 101(a),
sector representatives. [Sec. 602, §508]
[Sec. 301(a), §707]
§504(e)]
No similar provision
No similar provision
Would encourage use of national private sector
networks for emergency response. [Sec. 101(a),
§542]
No similar provisions
No similar provisions
Would establish a small business database for
contracting. [Sec. 101(a), §583]
Would establish public-private sector pilot program
for planning and response. [Sec. 112]

---

CRS-26
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Credentials
Existing policy: No provisions in current policy.
Would require Administrator to establish
No similar provision
No similar provision
credentialing system to identify national
requirements for federal and non-federal
emergency response personnel. [Sec. 602, §519]
PERSONNEL D
Existing policy: Authorizes the establishment of a new human resources management system, referred to as Max-HR, for DHS. [5 U.S.C. Chapter 97] Permits
changes to the staffing, position classification, pay, performance management, adverse actions and appeals, and labor management relations systems.
No similar provision
Officers and employees would be subject to the
No similar provision
appointment, compensation, and other provisions
of Title 5, United States Code (Title 5), to the
same extent and in the same manner as any other
officer or employee, but officers and employees
would not be subject to 5 U.S.C. Chapter 97. [Sec.
106 (a)(1)]
Applicability of Civil Service laws and selection
Existing policy: Current statutory policies do not provide authority for agency Directors to fix compensation.
No similar provision
The Director could appoint and fix the
No similar provision
compensation of officers and employees,
including investigators, attorneys, and
administrative law judges, necessary to carry out
transferred functions. They would be subject to
the appointment, compensation, and other
provisions of Title 5 to the same extent and in the

---

CRS-27
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
same manner as any other officer or employee (as
defined by 5 U.S.C. Chapter 21), but officers and
employees would not be subject to 5 U.S.C.
Chapter 97. [Sec. 106(a)(1)]
Experts and consultants
Existing policy: An agency head may contract for the temporary (up to one year) or intermittent services of experts and consultants without regard to the Title
5 United States Code provisions on appointment or the 5 U.S.C. Chapters 51 and 53 provisions on position classification and pay. [5 U.S.C. §3109]
No similar provision
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. §3109, the Director
No similar provision
could obtain the services of experts and
consultants, who would be compensated as
specified. [Sec. 106(a)(2)]
Effect on personnel
Existing policy: Specified transferred personnel would not be separated or reduced in pay grade or compensation for one year after the date of the transfer,
except as otherwise provided in that chapter of the code. [6 U.S.C. 411(b)(1)] Any individual in an Executive Schedule position appointed to a comparable
position in the new department without a break in service would continue to be compensated at no less than that pay rate. [6 U.S.C. 411(b)(2)]
No similar provision
Specified transferred personnel would not be
No similar provision
separated or reduced in pay grade or
compensation for one year after the date of the
transfer, except as otherwise provided by the bill.
Any individual in an Executive Schedule position
appointed to a comparable position in the new
agency without a break in service would continue
to be compensated at no less than that pay rate,
except as otherwise provided by the bill. [Sec.
106(g)]

---

CRS-28
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Workforce development and training
Existing policy: Executive agency heads must submit a strategic plan for program activities to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress at
least every three years. The plan, which must include specified elements, must cover at least five years forward from the fiscal year in which it is submitted. [5
U.S.C. 306] A Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), among other responsibilities, sets the strategy for developing the workforce, assesses the characteristics
and future needs of the workforce based on the mission and strategic plan of the agency, and aligns human resources policies and programs with the agency’s
mission, strategic goals, and performance outcomes. [5 U.S.C. 1402] Training for DHS employees is governed by 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41.
No similar provision
Would authorize the Director to develop a human
No similar provision
capital strategy to ensure that FEMA has a
workforce of the appropriate size and with the
appropriate skills and training to effectively carry
out its mission and responsibilities, consistent
with the policies and plans developed pursuant to
the strategy. The human capital strategy would
include specified elements. Not later than six
months after the enactment of Chapter 101, on
FEMA personnel, the Director would be required
to submit the human capital strategy to Congress
with periodic updates to follow. [Sec. 121,
§10102]
No similar provision
The A/S for Training and Exercises would be
No similar provision
required to establish a comprehensive program for
the professional development and education of
homeland security personnel at all levels of
government, nongovernmental organizations, and
emergency management personnel in the private
sector. [Sec. 101(a), § 522(c)(8)]
No similar provision
The National Exercise Simulation Center would
No similar provision
provide a learning environment for the homeland
security personnel of all federal departments and
agencies. [Sec. 101(a), § 522(i)(2)]

---

CRS-29
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
No similar provision
Would establish a graduate-level “Homeland
No similar provision
Security Education Program” for senior federal
officials and selected state and local officials, with
specified requirements for the use of existing
resources, for enrollment, and for a service
commitment from participants. [Sec. 101(a), §
526]
No similar provision
Would establish requirements for the Government
No similar provision
Accountability Office (GAO) to report to
Congress on homeland security training. [Sec.
108(a)(b)]
Recruitment
Existing policy: Payment of recruitment bonuses by executive agency heads governed by existing authority. [5 U.S.C. 5753] In addition, several other
provisions at 5 U.S.C. 5753 apply to recruitment bonuses.
No similar provision
Would authorize FEMA Director to pay
No similar provision
recruitment bonuses for difficult-to-fill positions,
with specifications regarding amount and form of
the bonus and requirements for an employee
receiving a bonus. Political appointees not eligible
to receive recruitment bonuses. Authority to pay
bonuses would end five years after enactment of
Chapter 101. [Sec. 121, §10103]

---

CRS-30
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Retention
Existing policy: Payment of retention bonuses by executive agency heads governed by existing authority. [5 U.S.C. 5754] Several additional provisions at 5
U.S.C. 5754 apply to retention bonuses.
No similar provision
Would authorize the Director to pay bonuses to
No similar provision
retain certain hard-to-retain employees under
specified circumstances, with specifications
regarding the amount and form of the bonus and
service agreement requirements for an employee
receiving a bonus. A retention bonus could not be
based on any period of service which is the basis
for a recruitment bonus. The authority to pay
bonuses would end five years after Chapter 101
was enacted. [Sec. 121, §10104]
Disaster workforce
Existing policy: Current statutory policy does not address disaster reserve cadre.
No similar provision
Authorizes the establishment, within FEMA, of a
No similar provision
disaster workforce reserve cadre to meet the
agency’s surge requirements during emergencies.
The Director would review the current disaster
workforce reserve and redevelop it to create a
cadre with specified characteristics. Also includes
provisions facilitating the participation of
annuitants in such a cadre and for cadre member
training expenses. [Sec. 121, §10105]

---

CRS-31
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS
Accountability, waste and fraud prevention and oversight
Existing policy: Penalties established for persons who knowingly misapply Stafford Act assistance proceeds. [42 U.S.C. 5157]
No similar provision(s)
Would permit the Director to authorize use by
Would mandate establishment of a fraud prevention
recipient agencies of up to 1% of mission
training program. [Sec. 101(a), §584] Would amend
assignment funds for oversight activities to
HSA to require DHS to prevent and detect fraud,
prevent fraud and waste. [Sec. 208]
waste, and abuse of funds administered by the
directorate. [Sec. 201, §707] Would provide for an
assessment of, and report concerning, the past and
potential future use of independent private sector
inspectors general. [Sec. 202]
Grantees would be required to report on
expenditure of federal emergency management
funds. [Sec. 203]
Would require increased information sharing
among federal agencies to confirm identity and
eligibility of emergency assistance. [Sec. 204]
Would establish a Deputy Inspector General for
Response and Recovery, under the DHS IG, as a
career position. This official would conduct and
supervise audits and investigations related to
disaster assistance funding. [Sec. 205]
Would amend the HSA to protect the DHS official
seal and insignia. [Sec. 206]

---

CRS-32
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
Reporting and evaluation
Existing policy: Current statutory policy does not contain comparable reporting or evaluation requirements.
No similar provisions
Director would be required to report to Congress
No similar provisions
on recommended legislation. [Sec. 108(b)]
Director would be required to submit annual
reports to Congress on emergency preparedness in
the nation. [Sec. 301(a), §703(b)(8)]
Would establish a “Saver Program” to provide
No similar provision(s)
Would require establishment of System Assessment
evaluations of emergency response equipment and
and Validation for Emergency Responders
systems. [Sec. 602, §513]
Program. [Sec. 101(a), §525]
Would require report on organizational changes
from National Academy of Public Administration.
[Sec. 107]
Would require report from Comptroller General on
homeland security training. [Sec. 108]
Reorganization E
Existing policy: President was granted specified reorganization authority during the year following the effective date of HSA. [6 U.S.C. 542]
DHS Secretary has ongoing broad reorganization authority under the act. [6 U.S.C. 452]
Would exempt EMA from the Secretary’s broad
FEMA Director would exercise authority to
DHS Secretary would have broad reorganization
reorganization authority under 6 U.S.C. 452. [Sec.
reorganize FEMA similar to that of the DHS
authority under 6 U.S.C. 452, but notification of
602, §505(b)]
Secretary under 6 U.S.C. 452. [Sec. 106(c)]
Congress would be required 120 days, rather than
60 days, in advance of any proposed action within
the directorate. [Sec. 101(a), §510]

---

CRS-33
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
TRANSFER AND TRANSITION
Transfer and Allocations of Appropriations and Personnel
Existing policy: Emergency management-related functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities were transferred to the DHS Secretary. [6 U.S.C. 503]
Certain functions were subsequently re-transferred within DHS under the President’s and secy’s reorganization authorities. For specific information, see
specific functional categories above. Requirements for transferring functions and activities, generally, are specified at 31 U.S.C. 1531.
No similar provisions, but see “Overall Mission,”
Transfers from DHS to FEMA would be subject to
No similar provisions, but see “Overall Mission,”
above, for transfers.
31 U.S.C. 1531. The personnel employed in
above, for transfers.
connection with the functions transferred by Sec.
105 would be transferred to FEMA. Additionally,
the assets, liabilities, contracts, property records,
and unexpended balances of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds
employed, used, held, arising from, available to,
or made available in connection with the functions
transferred by Sec. 105 would be transferred to
FEMA. Funds transferred which were
unexpended would be used only for the purposes
for which they were originally authorized and
appropriated. [Sec. 106(e)]
The OMB Director, in consultation with the
FEMA Director, could make such determinations
as necessary for the functions transferred by
Section 105. He also could, as necessary, make
such additional incidental dispositions of
personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, contracts,
property, records, and unexpended balances of
appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and
other funds held, used, arising from, available to,
or to be made available in connection with the
functions. The OMB Director would provide for
the termination of the affairs of all entities

---

CRS-34
S.Amdt. 4560 A
H.R. 5316 B
H.R. 5351 A
terminated by Title I of H.R. 5316 and for such
further measures and dispositions as necessary.
[Sec. 106(f)]
Transition
Existing policy: HSA transition provisions include those requiring the development of an initial reorganization plan, calling for a review of congressional
committee structures, allowing for transitional authorities, terminating executive-level positions not explicitly transferred, requiring continuity of inspector
general oversight, and providing for incidental transfers. [6 U.S.C. 541-557] The transition period is defined as “the 12-month period beginning on the
effective date of [the] Act.” [6 U.S.C. 541(2)]
U/S of Federal Emergency Management and U/S
Transition would be required to be carried out no
No similar provision(s)
of Preparedness may serve as directors until
later than 2/1/07. [Sec. 105(b)]
permanent directors are appointed. [Sec. 602,
FEMA Director may use FEMA personnel and
§506(c)] Legal references to FEMA or its director
funds to implement the transition. [Sec. 105(c)]
would be considered to apply to the EMA and the
The bill would also provide for the continuity of
Administrator. [Sec. 603(c)]
legal documents, proceedings, legal suits and
actions, regulatory actions, and legal references.
[Sec. 107]
PROCUREMENT
Existing policy: The HSA includes procurement provisions pertaining to research and development, personal services, special streamlined acquisition
authority, unsolicited proposals, contracts with corporate expatriates, and emergency procurement flexibility. [6 U.S.C. 393-395, 421-428] The act does not
address limitations on subcontracting, non-competitive contracts, or prohibitions on consideration of political affiliation in the award of agency contracts.
No similar provision(s)
Would instruct the Director to promulgate
Would direct the Secretary, through the U/S for
regulations placing limitations on subcontracting
Emergency Management and in coordination with
agency-contracted work [Sec. 131], and on the
regional directors, to establish and maintain a small
length of certain non-competitive contracts. [Sec.
business database for federal contracting related to
132]
major disasters and emergency assistance activities.
In addition, the bill would prohibit the
[Sec. 101(a), §583]
consideration of political affiliation in the award
of agency contracts. [Sec. 133]

---

CRS-35
Source: This table is based on sources cited. Keith Bea, Barbara L. Schwemle, L. Elaine Halchin, and Henry B. Hogue, Government and Finance Division,
Congressional Research Service, contributed to the development of this table.
A S.Amdt. 4560, the amendment approved by the full Senate during debate on H.R. 5441, and H.R. 5351 (as reported from committee) would amend the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, as amended), 6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.
B H.R. 5316 (as reported from committee) would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended), 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq.
C For further analysis of authorities governing government contingency programs, see CRS Report RL32752, Continuity of Operations (COOP) in the Executive
Branch: Issues in the 109th Congress, by R. Eric Petersen.
D For information on the new human resources management system at DHS, see CRS Report RL32261, DHS’s Max-HR Personnel System: Regulations on
Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared with Current Law and Implementation Plans, by Barbara L. Schwemle; CRS Report RL32255,
Homeland Security: Proposed Regulations for the Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System (Subpart E) Compared with Current
Law, by Jon O. Shimabukuro; and CRS Report RL33052, Homeland Security and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff, by Thomas J. Nicola and Jon
O. Shimabukuro.
E For the reorganization plan under Sec. 1502 (6 U.S.C. 542), see White House Office, “Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan,” Nov. 25, 2002,
Washington, DC, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/reorganization_plan.pdf], accessed on July 3, 2006. Reorganizations under Sec.
872 of the act (6 U.S.C. 452) were specified in letters from the Secretary of Homeland Security to leaders of the appropriate congressional committees on the following
dates: Jan. 26, 2004, July 13, 2005, and Apr. 4, 2006.

---