# Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and Considerations for Congress > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43560 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** May 13, 2015 - **Citation:** R43560 ## Text Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and Considerations for Congress (name redacted), Coordinator Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy May 13, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R43560 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Summary For most disasters across the nation, the affected local, state, or tribal governments have sufficient capabilities to respond to the incident. However, for disasters with consequences that require unique capabilities or that overwhelm the existing capabilities of a respective state or tribal government, Congress has authorized and appropriated a suite of deployable federal assets to support domestic disaster response operations. This report reviews several key concepts about these federal assets, and highlights possible issues Congress may consider when evaluating their authorization and appropriation. In this report, a deployable federal asset generally means sets of specially trained federal employees whose mission is to provide on-scene assistance to communities by supporting their disaster response. Deployable federal assets can be described as the federal government’s “first responders” to a disaster. They typically only provide assistance at the request of states or tribes and in circumstances where the capabilities of non-federal government entities are insufficient. The federal government also scopes its assistance to provide only the assets that are required by the situation. The maximum disaster consequences that the federal government is prepared to address with its full set of response capabilities is largely unknown. Given the diversity of deployable federal assets, there are many legal authorities and executive branch policies that guide their use in response operations. Some of the most notable authorities are the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5121 et seq.), Title XXVIII of the Public Health Service Act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. §101 et seq.), and the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. §1385 et seq.). Some primary federal policies guiding the use of deployable federal assets include the National Response Framework (NRF) and accompanying Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the Defense Support for Civilian Authorities (DSCA). Congress may consider several policy issues as it evaluates the future authorization and appropriations for deployable federal assets, and in its oversight of the assets’ response capabilities. There may be theoretical benefits gained by the provision of deployable federal assets, including the pooling of disaster risk across the nation and greater efficiency in the supply of response capabilities. There may also be theoretical disadvantages, including that the provision of deployable federal assets creates a moral hazard resulting in greater disaster risk for the nation, and that federal investment may crowd out the investment of non-federal entities in similar response capabilities. Congress may also assess the various models for staffing these assets, including the benefits and costs of conditional employments, dedicated staffing versus multiuse staffing, and “federalizing” staff into temporary federal employment for response operations. Congress may evaluate whether the provision of deployable federal assets should grant federal officials greater decision-making authority in the management of response operations. Finally, there are a number of challenges that may inhibit congressional oversight, such as the small sample size of incidents available to evaluate the effectiveness of deployable federal assets and the lack of specificity in many of the authorizations and appropriations for these assets. This report also provides brief summaries of examples of deployable federal assets. These assets are managed, either solely or jointly, by a variety of federal departments and agencies, including components of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Transportation Safety Board; and others. A synopsis of these assets is provided in Table 1. Congressional Research Service Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Concepts .................................................................................................................................. 2 What is a deployable federal asset?........................................................................................... 2 When does the federal government provide support to response operations? .......................... 3 What level of support is the federal government prepared to provide and for how catastrophic a disaster?........................................................................................................... 5 What principal legal authorities permit, and what key executive branch policies guide the use of deployable federal assets? ..................................................................................... 6 Authorities .......................................................................................................................... 6 Policies ................................................................................................................................ 7 Considerations for Congress............................................................................................................ 9 Policy Benefits and Disadvantages of Deployable Federal Assets ........................................... 9 Benefits ............................................................................................................................... 9 Disadvantages ................................................................................................................... 10 Cost-Effectiveness of Various Models for Staffing Federal Assets ......................................... 10 Financing the Deployment of Federal Response Assets ......................................................... 12 Federalism and Operational Control ....................................................................................... 14 Challenges in Monitoring and Evaluating Deployable Federal Assets ................................... 15 Brief Summaries of Sample Federal Assets .................................................................................. 17 Department of Homeland Security Assets ................................................................................ 1 Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) ................................................. 1 Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (FDRCs) ..................................................................................................... 2 National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System Task Forces ..................... 4 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams ............................................. 7 Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) .................................................................................. 8 Department of Health and Human Services ............................................................................ 10 U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps ............................................................ 10 Strategic National Stockpile .............................................................................................. 11 U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 13 Forest Service Firefighting Assets .................................................................................... 13 Department of Defense ........................................................................................................... 16 General Purpose Forces .................................................................................................... 17 Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces .................. 20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Assets .............................................................................. 25 Planning and Response Teams .......................................................................................... 25 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) ........................................................................... 26 Department of Energy ............................................................................................................. 27 Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program .............................. 27 National Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance ..................................................... 29 Jointly Operated Assets ........................................................................................................... 30 National Response System for Oil and Chemical Spills ................................................... 30 National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) ..................................................................... 34 Congressional Research Service Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Figures Figure 1. Location of National US&R Task Force Teams ............................................................... 5 Tables Table 1. Synopsis of Examples of Deployable Federal Assets ...................................................... 18 Table 2. Strategic National Stockpile Appropriations, FY2010-FY2015 ..................................... 13 Table 3. NDMS Administrative Funding, FY2011-FY2015 ......................................................... 36 Contacts Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 37 Congressional Research Service Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Introduction Natural, accidental, or intentional hazards1 produce disasters of varying severity and consequence in the nation every day. Local, state, or tribal governments respond to the significant majority of these disasters without support from the federal government. This is especially true in the initial phase of disaster response—often generalized as the first 72 hours after the originating incident. However, on an as-needed basis, the federal government can provide significant assistance to support the local, state,2 or tribal response operation through deployable federal assets. This report examines a variety of deployable federal assets that can support a disaster response operation. These assets may be able to support the response to certain types of consequences from certain disasters (e.g., radiological exposure from a nuclear incident) or consequences common to all disasters (e.g., command and control support, or communications assistance). This report provides a general analysis of key concepts involving deployable federal assets, including     what it means to be a deployable federal asset; when the assets will be used to support response operations; what the main authorities and policies are that guide the use of assets; and what level of support the federal government is prepared to provide for response operations. This report also examines several issues Congress may wish to consider as it evaluates the future authorization and funding for various deployable federal assets. Issues examined in the report include the potential policy benefits and disadvantages of federal investment in deployable federal assets, the cost-effectiveness of different staffing models for the assets, the methods for financing the deployment of the assets, whether federal assets should have greater operational control in response operations, and the challenges Congress may face in its oversight of the use of the assets. This report concludes by providing summaries of examples of deployable federal assets, including available information on their authorization, funding, and past uses in disasters. Brief information on the selected assets is condensed and presented in Table 1. 1 Using the Department of Homeland Security’s risk lexicon, a natural hazard is a “source of harm or difficulty created by a meteorological, environmental, or geological phenomenon or combination of phenomena” (e.g., an earthquake or hurricane); an accidental hazard is a “source of harm or difficulty created by negligence, error, or unintended failure” (e.g., an oil spill, train derailment, or dam failure); and an intentional hazard is a “source of harm, duress, or difficulty created by a deliberate action or a planned course of action” (e.g., a terrorist attack, cyber-attack, or other criminal incident). See Department of Homeland Security, DHS Risk Lexicon: 2010 Edition, September 2010, at http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-risk-lexicon. 2 As used in this report, “state” generally includes “any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the [U.S.] Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands” as defined by the Sec. 102(4) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5122(4). Congressional Research Service 1 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Key Concepts3 What is a deployable federal asset? A deployable federal asset is not a generally recognized term in the field of domestic emergency management, but rather is a term developed for the purposes of this report to characterize a broad swath of federal resources. The term is used to classify sets of specially trained federal employees whose mission, though not necessarily exclusive mission, is to provide on-scene assistance to communities by supporting their disaster response.4 To aid a community, these deployable federal assets may provide unique capabilities not frequently available at a local, state or tribal level;5 or they may be able to supplement existing capabilities that have been overwhelmed in significant disasters.6 A capability, as defined in federal law, is “the ability to provide the means to accomplish one or more tasks under specific conditions and to specific performance standards. A capability may be achieved with any combination of properly planned, organized, equipped, trained, and exercised personnel that achieves the intended outcome.” 7 In combination with specialized personnel and capabilities, a deployable federal asset may provide federally owned commodities, such as power generation or telecommunications equipment. A deployable federal asset also operates on an “alert” status so that they can deploy to a no-notice incident in a community expeditiously, often within the first 24 hours or less. Colloquially, deployable federal assets can be described as the federal government’s “first responders” to a disaster. However, even within the confines described above, some of the deployable federal assets summarized later in the report do not comply with one of the defining elements. For example, the National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces are not federal employees, though they can be deployed in a federal capacity at the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and receive significant funding to maintain national response capabilities. This report does not discuss, and the term deployable federal asset does not include, other forms of federal assistance that can be used to support a domestic disaster response, including   financial assistance, such as numerous grant and loan programs;8 logistics assistance, such as aiding in the delivery of water, food, and medical commodities;9 and 3 For more background on how the nation responds to disasters and on federal emergency management, see CRS Report R41981, Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disasters and Emergencies, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)and CRS Report R42845, Federal Emergency Management: A Brief Introduction, coordinated by (name redacted) . 4 Response is defined as “actions to save lives, protect property and the environment, stabilize communities, and meet basic human needs following an incident.” See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, Second Edition, May 2013, p. 1, at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7371. 5 Examples discussed later in the report include the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) and the National Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance. 6 Examples discussed later in the report include the Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) and the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams. 7 Section 641(1) of the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006 (Title VI of P.L. 109-295, 6 U.S.C. §741). 8 For a summary of some of these financial assistance programs, see CRS Report RL31734, Federal Disaster Assistance Response and Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). There are also numerous CRS reports available that discuss federal financial assistance programs in greater detail. Tax relief may also be available following disasters. For information on relief provided through the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), see CRS Report R42839, Tax Provisions to Assist with Disaster Recovery, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name red acted). Congressional Research Service 2 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations  technical assistance, such as legal counsel, engineering expertise for infrastructure damage assessments, or scientific expertise on natural hazards.10 The term deployable federal asset also does not include the significant number of federal government personnel that are already permanently “deployed” throughout the nation. These federal personnel may support a local, state, or tribal government through their normally authorized activities, in both normal and disaster situations. For example, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers provide a daily public service to a community, and they strive to continue that service in disasters to support the community. Likewise, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) field personnel, such as Custom and Border Protection agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and Secret Service agents, perform essential homeland security and emergency management duties on a regular basis in communities across the nation. In particular, the U.S. Coast Guard provides significant emergency management and homeland security capabilities through regionally based personnel throughout the nation, in fulfillment of its maritime security and safety missions.11 The field personnel of scientific government agencies can also provide on-scene technical expertise to support disaster response operations, such as personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)12 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). When does the federal government provide support to response operations? When a hazard produces a disaster in a community, the assets and resources needed to address the consequences of the incident are generally provided by local, state, or tribal governments. This complies with general principles of federalism found in emergency management policy, and the often repeated truism that “all disasters are local.” However, due to the magnitude of the disaster, a local, state, or tribal government may (a) be unable to respond to the unique consequences of a disaster (e.g., it lacks a capability to eliminate a certain biological contaminant), or (b) have its capability to respond become overwhelmed by the scale of consequences (e.g., there are too many survivors requiring temporary shelter assistance). In either circumstance, the community may first request assistance through an Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) or similar mutual-aid agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction.13 These mutual-aid agreements allow (...continued) 9 For example, the Logistics Management Directorate of FEMA can provide extensive logistics capabilities in support of national disaster response operations. For more, see the Logistics Management Directorate’s website at http://www.fema.gov/logistics-management-directorate. 10 For example, the National Weather Service provides technical expertise on meteorological natural hazards, to include predictions on the path and magnitude of hurricanes and potential tornado-producing weather systems. Likewise, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Environmental Health, Health Studies Branch, studies the epidemiology of disasters, provides a rapid health needs assessment tool to be used by communities responding to a disaster, and, upon request, provides expertise in disaster epidemiology to local, state, federal, and international public health partners to help them prepare for and respond to natural and man-made hazards. For more, see, respectively, the website for the NWS at http://www.weather.gov/, and the website for the CDC HSB at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/default.htm. 11 For examples of the Coast Guard’s capabilities, see a description of “2014 Performance Highlights” in U.S. Coast Guard, 2016 Budget in Brief, February 2, 2015, at http://www.uscg.mil/budget/docs/2016_Budget_in_Brief.pdf. 12 For a brief description of how the USGS supports disaster response, see U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Emergency Response Resources, Fact Sheet 2011-3079, September 2013, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3079/pdf/fs20113079.pdf. 13 The EMAC is a congressionally ratified compact that provides a legal structure by which states affected by a disaster (continued...) Congressional Research Service 3 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations communities to leverage the resources of the surrounding region before requesting assistance from a higher level of government, such as how neighboring fire departments may be called upon to assist during particularly challenging incidents. In general, to obtain federal assistance to address unmet needs arising from the disaster, an official request must be made through the jurisdictional chain relevant to the community (i.e., from a city to county, county to state, and then state to federal; or from a mayor to county executive, a county executive to a governor, and a governor to the President). Generally, tribal governments may appeal for assistance directly to the federal government, but may also seek the assistance of a relevant state or other local government first. There are many federal laws and regulations that prescribe how a request for assistance may be made, but the most prominent is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5721 et seq.; henceforth the Stafford Act).14 The federal government may also provide assistance without a request in more limited circumstances. For example, a request does not need to be made by a state or tribal government when the primary responsibility for the response rests with the federal government. This most frequently occurs because the incident involves an issue or hazard for which, under the Constitution or a federal law, the President or other federal authority has exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority.15 Likewise, there are situations when the federal government or a federal asset will provide immediate assistance, primarily to prevent the direct loss of life or significant property damage, without the request rising through the “normal” request procedures.16 For instance, the Department of Defense (DOD), through its Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) regulations and policies, authorizes local DOD officials to provide immediate assistance without a formal request rising through the state and lead federal officials. Called the “immediate response authority,” regulations state that In response a request for assistance from a civil authority, under imminently serious conditions and if time does not permit approval from higher authority, DOD officials may provide an immediate response by temporarily employing the resources under their control, subject to any supplemental direction provided by higher headquarters, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States.17 (...continued) may request emergency assistance and aid from other states. The legal model has been replicated by local and tribal government jurisdictions. The EMAC was ratified in P.L. 104-321. For more on EMAC, see http://www.emacweb.org/. 14 For more on how requests are managed through the Stafford Act declaration process, see CRS Report R43784, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by (name redacted) . 15 See, primarily, Sec. 501(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5191(b). Most notably, this situation arises when the area affected by the disaster is on federal property (in national waters, lands, parks, or military installations, etc.) or when the Federal Bureau of Investigation becomes the lead federal law enforcement agency in response to a terrorism incident. 16 See, primarily, Sec. 502(a)(8) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5192(a)(8). This authority allows the federal assistance to be provided “where necessary to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate severe damage, which may be provided in the absence of a specific request.... ” 17 32 C.F.R. §185.4(g). Congressional Research Service 4 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations What level of support is the federal government prepared to provide and for how catastrophic a disaster? For many reasons, the federal government attempts to scale its support for any disaster response operation appropriately. Most obviously, the federal government scales its support so as not to waste federal resources, but also to avoid overwhelming the community with excess assets and inhibiting an efficient response. This scalability of support by the federal government can include denying the requests of local, state, and tribal governments for more commitment of resources. For example, a duly authorized federal official receiving a request may determine that the use of an asset is not required by the conditions in the relevant incident. Under the Stafford Act process, this can mean the denial of a request for a major or emergency disaster declaration, or the provision of certain types of direct federal assistance and not others under a major disaster declaration. The federal government may also provide a different type of asset than the one requested to address an unmet need. In theory, in the most extreme of catastrophic disasters,18 all applicable resources of the federal government could be directed to support response operations under the authority of the Stafford Act.19 The full resources of the DOD could also be used to support a disaster response under what DOD claims is its “inherent emergency power.”20 An exemption in the Antideficiency Act relating to “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” may also allow the use of federal resources, to include deployable assets, without sufficient funding having been previously provided by Congress.21 It is difficult, if not impossible, to project the magnitude of consequences that the full resources of the federal government would be able to respond to sufficiently. Additionally, government plans that provide detailed assessments of a maximum response capacity are likely to be classified, given the sensitivity of that information for national security. That said, some public information is available that illustrates the potential magnitude of consequences the federal government is conceivably planning to address. For example, in a 2011 draft of the National Preparedness Goal, 18 Possible scenarios range from the impact of a meteor or comet, an attack by a foreign or domestic adversary using a weapon(s) of mass destruction, a series of catastrophic earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis, or the eruption of a supervolcano. 19 See Sec. 402(1) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170a(1), which authorizes the President, in any major disaster, to “direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, and advisory services) in support of State and local assistance response and recovery efforts, including precautionary evacuations.” The legal definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act confines the types of hazards that can result in a major disaster declaration, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where a truly catastrophic disaster would not result in one or more major disaster declarations. Even if the provoking hazard is not specifically included in the major disaster definition—such as a terrorist attack or cyber incident—the consequences of the hazard requiring response capabilities are likely to fall into the scope of the definition. See Sec. 102(2) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5122(2) for the definition of a major disaster. Some legislative consideration has been given to establishing a formal process in the Stafford Act to declare a “catastrophic” disaster; for more on that issue see CRS Report R41884, Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) . 20 For more information on the DOD’s inherent emergency power and other authorizations for the use of federal military in disaster response, see CRS Report RS22266, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) . 21 31 U.S.C. §1342. For more information on the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§1341-1342, §§1511-1519) and this “emergency” and other exemptions, see CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, coordinated by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 5 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations FEMA described a “meta-scenario” that was used to define the national—not just federal22— capabilities needed for response and recovery. The meta-scenario was described as a no-notice event impacting a population of seven million within a 25 thousand square mile area. The impacted area includes several states across multiple regions. Severe damage is projected to critical infrastructure including essential transportation infrastructure. Ingress and egress options are severely limited. The projected number of fatalities is 195,000 during the initial hours of the event. It is projected that 265,000 survivors will require emergency medical attention. At least 25 percent of the impacted population will require mass care, emergency sheltering, and housing assistance. 23 This meta-scenario was not mentioned directly in the final version of the National Preparedness Goal, and appears to have been simplified in text to a “no-notice, cascading incident.”24 Other planning and exercise scenarios, especially the National Level Exercise 2011,25 provide further extreme examples of potential capacity requirements.26 Both FEMA and the DOD are currently developing and revising national and regional catastrophic plans that may improve future understanding of the maximum capacity to respond to a disaster or series of disasters.27 What principal legal authorities permit, and what key executive branch policies guide the use of deployable federal assets? As there is a wide array of deployable federal assets throughout many federal departments and agencies, this section of the report does not provide a comprehensive list of every authority or policy that guides the use of the assets for disaster response operations. However, the following section does discuss a broad legal authority for the provision of federal assistance and executive branch policies guiding that assistance. Authorities The specific authority for each example of a deployable federal asset is discussed later in the report. Of general importance to all deployable federal assets is the essential assistance authority provided by the Stafford Act. This authority allows any federal agency, at the approval of the 22 National capabilities mean the capabilities of the whole of community, including available assets from local, state, tribal governments, and the private and nonprofit sectors. 23 See Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Preparedness Goal, National Review Draft, p.6, August 2011. 24 Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal, First Edition, September 2011, p. 4, at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/prepared/npg.pdf. 25 In 2011, emergency managers and stakeholders across the nation participated in the annual “National Level Exercise” (NLE) using the scenario of a catastrophic earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The annual NLE is the centerpiece of FEMA’s National Exercise Program. The National Exercise Program is established to test, evaluate, and improve national capabilities to prepare for disasters. For more on NLE 2011, see Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE): Quick Look Report, June 14, 2011, at https://www.llis.dhs.gov/sites/ default/files/nle11_quick_look_report.pdf. 26 Numerous other documents provide some indications about the maximum response capabilities of the federal government, including documents that were produced under a previous version of the National Response Framework, and the “National Planning Scenarios” developed pursuant to a now-obsolete presidential directive, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8). For example, see the Department of Homeland Security, Catastrophic Incident Supplement to the National Response Framework, For Official Use Only. 27 For more on these planning efforts, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Civil Support: Actions Are Needed to Improve DOD’s Planning for a Complex Catastrophe, GAO-13-763, September 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/ 660/658406.pdf. Congressional Research Service 6 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations President, to provide “assistance essential to meeting immediate threats to life and property resulting from a major disaster.”28 Though federal essential assistance is only available during Stafford Act declared major disasters, the federal government is also allowed to provide considerable assistance during Stafford Act declared emergencies.29 A Stafford Act emergency can be declared in “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”30 These provisions, and others of the Stafford Act, may provide sufficient legal justification for the use of federal resources, including those established under more general authority without specific direction on their use in disasters, to support response operations. CRS also has a number of available reports that analyze federal authorities for disaster assistance, including the authorizing legislation for deployable federal assets.31 Policies The National Response Framework (NRF) is the foremost policy that guides “how the Nation responds to all types of disasters and emergencies ... [and] describes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents that range from the serious but purely local to large-scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters.”32 As a national policy, it is intended to guide not just federal response operations, but also local, state, and tribal government response operations, and the response operations of the private and non-profit sectors. The NRF also establishes 14 different Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) to organize the response capabilities of the nation.33 Mainly through supplementary documents to the NRF, including a 28 Sec. 403 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170b. Sec. 502 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5192. 30 Sec. 102(1) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5122(1). 31 As examples among others, see 29  CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by (name redacted) ;  CRS Report R43990, FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program: Background and Considerations for Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).  CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework, by (name redacted) and (name redacted);  CRS Report RL33579, The Public Health and Medical Response to Disasters: Federal Authority and Funding, by (name redacted);  CRS Report R42659, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); and  CRS Report R42114, Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Overview of Major Issues, Current Laws, and Proposed Legislation, by (name redacted) 32 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework, Second Edition, May 2013, p. 1, at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7371. For extensive support documents and presentations on the NRF, see http://www.fema.gov/nrf/. 33 ESFs group agencies with pertinent authorities, resources, and expertise to accomplish a set of capabilities needed in disaster response, regardless of disaster type. For instance, ESF #9 is “Search and Rescue,” which unifies agencies with the appropriate resources and authorities to conduct search and rescue operations following an incident. Each ESF has a coordinating agency, typically several different primary agencies, and a larger number of support agencies. There were originally 15 ESFs in earlier versions of the NRF, but one, ESF #14—Long-term Community Recovery, was replaced by the National Disaster Recovery Framework. Congressional Research Service 7 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP), ESF annexes, incident annexes, and other support annexes, the NRF sets out specific responsibilities of federal agencies involved in the response operations. At the more detailed level of the Response FIOP, the response requirements and capabilities of the federal government are identified through a generalized concept of operations.34 Varying levels of specific information on how the requirements and capabilities will be fulfilled, often by deployable federal assets, are further discussed in the Annexes to the FIOP. 35 Although the NRF is often closely linked with the Stafford Act, the NRF is always in effect and does not require a formal Stafford Act declaration to be used. Any disaster requiring federal coordination, including those declared under other federal authorities, arguably can be managed through the NRF. A central guideline of the NRF is the National Incident Management System (NIMS).36 Originally conceived of in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5),37 NIMS is now mandated in law for the federal government and strongly encouraged for state and local governments through requirements to grant assistance.38 NIMS is a preparedness and response management model that incorporates the Incident Command System (ICS). ICS is a command and control system and structure originally developed by firefighters as a means of providing cohesive response to multijurisdictional (or multidepartment) incidents. ICS standardizes response operations by using similar terminology, communication systems, and organizational structures to eliminate or reduce confusion during a unified response.39 NIMS uses ICS concepts to establish a response structure that is scalable (capable of growing as more organizations come together to respond to the incident) and that can be used by all jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations to ensure a unified response to complex events. Another significant federal policy is set forth by Defense Support for Civilian Authorities (DSCA) regulations and DOD directives.40 DSCA guides the use of DOD deployable federal assets in accordance with the Constitution and other legal requirements. There are also many 34 Department of Homeland Security, Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan, July 2014, at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/97362. 35 For example, see Annex C: Operational Coordination of the FIOP, which has multiple sub-appendixes on key core capabilities, such as Appendix 4 to Annex C: Fatality Management Services. In this particular appendix, the role of deployable federal assets of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) are identified and explained. See Department of Homeland Security, Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan, Appendix 4 to Annex C, July 2014, at https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/97362. 36 Extensive information about NIMS is available from FEMA on its website at http://www.fema.gov/national-incidentmanagement-system. 37 Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5: Management of Domestic Incidents, February 28, 2003, at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/homeland-security-presidential-directive-5. 38 See, among others, 6 U.S.C. §314(a)(2)(b). The requirement for NIMS adoption and training is embedded in both the Homeland Security Grant Program and Emergency Management Performance Grant program. 39 For example, prior to ICS, a police and fire department responding to the same incident might use different command structures and communicate with different terms. For instance, a “code blue” for one department might mean something else for another. The organization’s structure might also be different, as a “chief” in one department might have a different role and responsibility in another. ICS (and NIMS) is therefore an attempt to eliminate potential confusion caused by these differences. 40 DOD regulatory guidance for DSCA is contained in DOD Directive 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, December 29, 2010 (incorporating change 1, September 21, 2012), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/ 302518p.pdf. The joint doctrinal publication on this topic is Joint Publication 3-28, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, July 31, 2013, at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_28.pdf. Congressional Research Service 8 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations incident-specific planning guidelines, such as the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza,41 which provide critical guidance on the use of deployable federal assets for those incidents. Considerations for Congress There are several policy issues that Congress may consider when evaluating future authorization and funding for various deployable federal assets. Though each deployable federal asset has unique oversight issues, the following sections of this report discuss cross-cutting matters related to oversight of these assets as a whole. Policy Benefits and Disadvantages of Deployable Federal Assets There are several theoretical policy benefits and disadvantages that may result from authorization and appropriation of deployable federal assets by Congress. In the following section, several of these salient benefits and disadvantages, rooted in macroeconomic and social science theory, are discussed briefly. These benefits and disadvantages are largely a result of the federalism structure of the nation, and may also apply to the provision of deployable assets by states. In other words, to a different degree, the authorization and appropriation of deployable assets by state legislatures may result in similar benefits and disadvantages. Benefits The authority and funding for deployable federal assets can be considered a form of risk pooling. It allows the nation, as a whole, to combine or “pool” uncorrelated hazard risk (such as from earthquakes and terrorist attacks), and the response capability requirements associated with those risks (such as mass care and power generation capabilities). Essentially, not every local, state, or tribal government may use the response capabilities provided by a certain deployable asset within a given time frame (a year, or decade), but each may be attempting to manage the risk of needing such an asset from a variety of hazards. For example, consider the federal government’s resourcing of DOD Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response (CBRN) Forces. Every community in the nation faces some low level of risk (though not uniform) that a hazard will produce consequences that these assets have a capability to address. If communities are able to pool their risk through the centralized federal capability, each may be able to ensure they have access to the capability when required without maintaining the asset wholly on its own. Risk pooling also occurs at a local, state, and tribal government level through emergency management mutual-aid agreements. An associated benefit of this risk pooling is that the federal government may be able to provide the response capabilities of deployable federal assets at a lower cost than smaller governments, due to economies of scale.42 For example, the per unit “production” cost of the capabilities provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning and Response Teams may be significantly less at the federal level than at a state or local level. Reductions in the cost of production may occur because the federal government gains efficiencies in the costs of training and equipping the larger number of units the nation requires instead of the one or two units that might be required at the state or local level. 41 Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Council, National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza, November 2005, at http://www.flu.gov/planning-preparedness/federal/pandemic-influenza-strategy-2005.pdf. 42 An economy of scale is “A situation in which the average cost of production decreases as production increases.” See Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002). Congressional Research Service 9 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Disadvantages There are also possible disadvantages with the establishment of deployable federal assets. The mere existence and use of federal response capabilities provided by deployable federal assets may produce a type of moral hazard.43 The moral hazard may occur if and when non-federal actors, including other government entities and private citizens, increase their risk exposure to hazards under the reasonable expectation that the federal government will provide sufficient response capabilities when needed to address disaster consequences. Observers have argued that moral hazard may result from most forms of federal disaster assistance, especially financial assistance.44 In the context of deployable federal assets, for example, the establishment of federal firefighting capabilities may deter other governmental actors and private individuals from mitigating their wildfire risk, or encourage potentially risky development in the wildland-urban interface.45 Another theoretical disadvantage is that federal provision of response capabilities may crowd out46 investment in those same capabilities by other actors, including the private sector. As such, other actors may be less likely, or even unable, to develop their own response capabilities due to federal investments. For example, the federal government’s investment in the capabilities provided by the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) may raise the cost of similar energyrelated response capabilities for non-federal actors. Or, the federal government’s investment in Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) may crowd out the investment of other actors in highly trained and skilled emergency managers, because the federal government is both dominating the supply of a potentially limited resource and driving up its cost to other potential purchasers. The crowding out may be less problematic if it only decreases the investment of nonfederal government entities, but does not reduce the investment from the private sector or individual citizens. If true, local governments may be simply transferring the financial responsibility to the federal government for the investment in a capability, though such commitment is still coming from the national tax base. However, if the government’s spending crowds out private sector investment (e.g., critical infrastructure owners and operators) in response capabilities, it may be more problematic for the nation’s risk profile as the investment may reduce the nation’s aggregate supply of capabilities and increase the taxpayer’s proportional burden for providing those capabilities. For example, if the private sector provides less of a capability because of the crowd-out effect, the nation may have less of the capability in total. To compensate for the loss of private sector investment, either partially or entirely, the resulting government expenditure on the capability may increase, thus increasing taxpayer costs. Cost-Effectiveness of Various Models for Staffing Federal Assets As deployable assets continue to be resourced, Congress may wish to evaluate the costeffectiveness of various models of staffing deployable federal assets. These models are not 43 A moral hazard “refers to the possibility that policies or decisions may create incentives for undesirable behavior. Moral hazards often arise where the monitoring of contracts is difficult or where policies diminish the risks associated with certain kinds of behavior.” See Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002). 44 See, for example, discussion of the potential moral hazard of disaster assistance at Raymond J. Burby, “Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing about Wise Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 604 (March 2006). 45 For more on wildfire protection, see CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) . 46 Crowding out is “the fall in private consumption or investment resulting from a rise in government expenditure.” See Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Craig Calhoun (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002). Congressional Research Service 10 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations mutually exclusive. Even within the selection of samples of deployable federal assets covered in this report, there is considerable diversity in how personnel are employed by the federal government—if they are employed by the government directly at all. Below are a few short examples of how deployable assets are staffed.    Conditional employment: In this model, assets are significantly staffed by federal employees on term-limited, seasonal, or reserve appointments. For example, personnel of Forest Service Firefighting Assets are often seasonal employees, typically only working as temporary agency employees during the length of the fire season. This conditional employment model may accrue savings in salaries and benefits, but may decrease the effectiveness of the capability by reducing the available training time for employees or discouraging highly qualified employees from continuing their service. It may also generate a higher turnover employment ratio in the asset. Dedicated versus multiuse staffing: A dedicated staffing model means that the sole mission and job description of the employee revolves around their participation and responsibilities with the deployable federal asset. A multiuse staffing model means the employee has one or more additional responsibilities, and is only dedicated to the mission of the deployable asset during activations or trainings. As examples, personnel of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA’s) Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams may be multiuse staff, as the team may be comprised of various different DHS/TSA staff elements with other, primary assigned duties, such as Federal Air Marshals. In contrast, Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (FDRCs) are full-time employees dedicated exclusively to their deployable mission. Much of the assessment on cost-effectiveness of the two models has to do with frequency of use for the capabilities of the asset, and the level of specialized training that is required to maintain their operational readiness. An additional disadvantage that should be considered when evaluating the multiuse model is the impact deployments have on the execution of their alternate missions, and whether those missions could continue to be performed if the employees were deployed at greater than expected lengths of time. “Federalization” or “Activation” employment model: This staffing model generally means that a majority or all of the employees of a deployable federal asset are not regularly employed or paid by the federal government. Rather, the employees may be public employees of other government entities (e.g., state or local agencies), or even private citizens with specialized skills (e.g., physicians). The President or other federal government official has the authority to “federalize” or “activate” the asset, and in doing so, may pay the salaries of the employees while deployed, and grant the employee many of the benefits and protections afforded to permanent federal employees. Typically, these assets also receive some level of regular federal funding for training, equipment, and other needs. The National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces and components of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) use variations of this staffing model. Benefits of this model include that it may leverage nonfederal expertise in national response operations from citizens that otherwise would not be interested or incentivized to join the federal government. This model may also be the most cost-effective, as it may limit federal expenditures when the asset is not being used nationally. However, disadvantages of this model include a restricted ability to manage the quality of training and Congressional Research Service 11 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations capabilities of personnel staffing in the asset, and greater challenges integrating the asset into the ICS structure with other assets. Financing the Deployment of Federal Response Assets In general, costs to maintain a deployable federal response asset—such as rostering and training of personnel and maintenance of equipment—are predictable, and are provided through a standing funding mechanism, typically the annual appropriation to the responsible agency. Deployment costs, or those costs related to using the asset to provide direct assistance to a community, may not have regular funding mechanisms. For some types of incidents and deployable assets, Congress has provided, or agencies have developed, various mechanisms to bear the largely unpredictable costs of deployments. For other types of incidents and deployable assets, there is no such established mechanism. In these cases, Congress may provide supplemental appropriations, or responsible agencies must bear deployment costs through other funds available in their annual budgets. Specific mechanisms to fund maintenance and management costs are discussed in the summaries of specific deployable assets later in this report. Selected types of funding mechanisms and challenges in funding deployments are discussed in general below. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is a common source of deployment funding for direct federal assistance authorized by the Stafford Act.47 When an emergency or major disaster is declared under the Stafford Act, FEMA officials, through the delegated authorities of the President, may direct other federal agencies to provide assistance to the affected communities through mission assignments. Mission assignments are formal work orders for specific activities and/or assets under Stafford Act authority. Typically, mission assignments are provided to federal agencies with the promise of reimbursement of costs through the DRF.48 Depending on the details of the disaster declaration, some of these costs may be shared by the state or tribal government, with a minimum of 75% of the cost being covered by the federal government.49 Although the DRF, via mission assignments, is a significant source of funding for many deployable federal assets, not all federal activities during Stafford Act declared incidents may be paid for through the DRF. In practice, FEMA generally avoids paying for the deployment of assets through the DRF when the capability of the asset is a normally authorized activity of the agency, or when the agency has a more specific authority to provide emergency assistance for a particular disaster consequence than is written in the Stafford Act. For example, FEMA, as a matter of policy, has determined that it generally will not provide funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Natural Resources Conservation Service to provide emergency protective measures50 related to the rehabilitation of levees and other flood control works.51 Therefore, in 47 For more on the DRF, see CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by (name redacted) . 48 Mission assignments rely on the President’s authority to direct federal agencies to support disaster response and recovery operations, namely found at Sec. 402, 403, and 502 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §§5170a, 5170b, and 5192). See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Financial Management Support Annex, National Response Framework, May 2013, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32264?id=7387. Specific examples of mission assignments are available through daily mission assignment activity reports published on FEMA’s website at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30824?id=6984. 49 See, primarily, Sec. 403(c)(4) of the Stafford Act, (42 U.S.C. §5170b(c)(4). For more on disaster cost-shares in Stafford Act declarations, see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis, by (name re dacted) . 50 Emergency protective measures is generally defined by FEMA as activities necessary to “eliminate or reduce an immediate threat to life, public health, or safety; or eliminate or reduce an immediate threat of significant damage to (continued...) Congressional Research Service 12 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations such circumstances, federal agencies may require another source of funding to pay for these activities during deployment in Stafford Act declared incidents. There are also many types of incidents where a Stafford Act declaration is not made and certain federal response assets may still be deployed. This most regularly occurs when assets are deployed in a preventive or precautionary role at National Special Security Events (NSSEs), such as presidential inaugurations and major sporting events. Although these events are predictable and, barring an incident, deployment costs may be modest, NSSEs do not trigger assistance through the Stafford Act and do not have any other blanket funding mechanism to cover asset deployment costs.52 Often the responsible agencies cover deployment costs through the administrative budgets for the specific assets. Generally, federal agencies are not allowed to augment their funding from outside sources unless specifically authorized by Congress. These issues are covered by the general area of law called augmentation of appropriations,53 and can inhibit federal agencies from using any source of funding other than direct appropriations from Congress to pay for the cost of deployments. Absent statutory authorization, federal agencies are generally restricted from accepting private funding to pay for the deployment of federal assets or other federal activities (e.g., accepting money from a private company for the use of an asset to restore electrical power to the company’s facilities).54 Federal agencies are also generally restricted from receiving unreimbursed assistance from employees of deployable federal assets, or from receiving the volunteer assistance of the general public to serve in any official federal capacity.55 As an example of how Congress may address these funding challenges, consider the 2009 influenza pandemic. When an incident results in a Stafford Act declaration, reimbursement is often available through the DRF to reimburse agencies for many activities carried out as part of ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services, coordinated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).56 However, a Stafford Act declaration was not made in response to the 2009 influenza pandemic, and there is no precedent for a major disaster declaration in response to an infectious disease incident, whether naturally occurring, or bioterrorism.57 Furthermore, there is no standing federal mechanism to cover the costs of health care that is provided as part of a disaster response. Congress provided supplemental appropriations to fund the response to the (...continued) improved public or private property through cost-effective measures.” See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, 2007, p. 71, at http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-policy-and-guidance. 51 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and other Flood Control Works, RP9524.3, September 23, 2011, p. 2, at https://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pa/9524_3.pdf. 52 For more on NSSEs, see CRS Report R43522, National Special Security Events: Fact Sheet, by (name redacted). 53 For a full discussion of augmentation of appropriations, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume II, GAO-06-382SP, February 2006, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/ 210/202819.pdf. 54 31 U.S.C. §3302. 55 31 U.S.C. §1342. 56 Even when there is a Stafford Act declaration, FEMA does not reimburse for health care costs except for such care required to provide immediate emergency care, evacuation, and stabilization. See FEMA Recovery Policy 9525.4, “Emergency Medical Care and Medical Evacuations,” February 3, 2014, at http://www.fema.gov/9500-series-policypublications. 57 CRS Report RL34724, Would an Influenza Pandemic Qualify as a Major Disaster Under the Stafford Act?, by (name redacted) . Congressional Research Service 13 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations 2009 influenza pandemic,58 and to cover unreimbursed healthcare costs associated with the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.59 Congress has also established two dedicated trust funds—managed by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency respectively—to finance the costs of a federal response to a discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Each agency is responsible for disbursing monies from these trust funds to other federal departments and agencies, states, and local entities that may be involved in a federal response. The federal government may recover its response costs from the liable party (or parties) and may use these funds to replenish the respective trust fund, with the exception of the costs of responding to pollutant or contaminant incidents for which liability is not established. These funding mechanisms are discussed further in the “National Response System for Oil and Chemical Spills” section of this report. Federalism and Operational Control As previously discussed, the federal government generally provides disaster assistance, including deployable federal assets, at the request of a state or tribal government. In addition, the federal government almost always operates in a support role in the affected communities. While federal assets, especially federal troops, generally remain in the control of the federal officials, the set of unmet needs they are tasked with addressing is largely dictated by the incident commanders at the local or state level. In other words, federal resources are provided at the discretion of the affected entities, in deference to federalism principles, with a lesser degree of executive decision-making on their use being made by federal officials. This can create situations where the federal government is providing considerable support with limited authority to direct the overall management of the incident. For example, this could result in disagreements over tactical decisions such as where to prioritize search and rescue operations, the best way to triage and manage mass care requirements of survivors, and what critical services should or can be restored before other services. Congress may wish to consider whether the provision of federal assistance should grant the federal government more decision-making power if disagreements arise in the incident management. On the positive side of the argument, greater federal authority may more easily allow the application of lessons learned from other disasters to the current incident if the state or local incident command has less experience to draw on. It may also increase regional coordination of a response by allowing federal officials to influence decisions across a unified command structure. Further, federal assets may be able to place greater priority on addressing the consequences of a disaster that have national implications versus more localized implications.60 On the negative side, any changes to federal authority that allow the federal government to have greater operational control over state and local response management may dissuade such entities from requesting assistance in the first place. Further, local knowledge 58 See the Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-32). For discussion of the supplement funding required and the overall H1N1 incident, see CRS Report R40554, The 2009 Influenza Pandemic: An Overview, by (name red acted) and (name redacted) . 59 For discussion, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Hurricane Katrina: Allocation and Use of $2 Billion for Medicaid and Other Health Care Needs, GAO-07-67, February 28, 2007, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-67. 60 For example, federal assets may be more likely to restore nodes of critical infrastructure systems needed to avoid or remediate cascading impacts outside the immediately affected area (e.g., pipelines transporting natural gas through the affected region that do not provide service to the immediate area, or a local dam that provides regional power generation) instead of focusing on the restoration of critical infrastructure providing end service of the community (e.g., power transmission lines to residential or commercial areas, or reducing flooding in local transportation hubs). Congressional Research Service 14 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations and expertise on the unmet needs of the affected population may be sidelined or underappreciated by federal officials, to the detriment of the survivors. Also, the possibility that the federal government could “overrule” a local command decision may lead to breakdowns in the NIMS structure that would have negative impacts on all response operations. Challenges in Monitoring and Evaluating Deployable Federal Assets In Congress’s oversight of federal operations, Congress may face numerous challenges when attempting to monitor and evaluate the benefits of deployable federal assets in supporting response operations. These challenges include the following.    The use of deployable federal assets is a relatively rare occurrence, though some are used much more frequently than others.61 Also, reporting by the federal government on the use of its assets, even in raw numbers, is limited,62 making it difficult to assess the percentage of incidents that result in the provision of one or more deployable federal assets.63 Analyzing the benefits of deployable federal assets based on a roughly comparable counterfactual scenario64 may be difficult because of the uniqueness of each disaster and the particular capabilities of each local government.65 The authorizations and appropriations for many deployable federal assets have a low degree of specification. For example, many assets draw their authority from broadly worded provisions in statute,66 and others are appropriated by Congress 61 Some assets, such as Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (FDRCs) are used far more frequently than others, such as the Department of Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces. 62 As an example statistic on usage, National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) assets have been used more than 300 times since 1984. However, it is unclear what incidents provoked these deployments, what kinds of NDMS assets were deployed, for how long, and where the assets deployed. As another example, it is clear that for every emergency or major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act, a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC) will deploy. However, it is unclear how many times, and for what circumstances, a Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC) will deploy. 63 Further, in order to calculate a percentage of incidents resulting in the assistance of a deployable federal asset, one must be able to determine the number of incidents that non-federal government entities respond to and manage without such support. For example, one might argue that all multi-car accidents should be counted as incidents, or that every five alarm fire is an incident, etc. Depending on where the consequence threshold is set for what constitutes an incident, the percentage of incidents that involve federal assets will change significantly. 64 In other words, evaluating the benefit of a federal asset by comparing the results of incidents where federal assistance was provided versus incidents where assistance was not provided. 65 For example, consider the following hypothetical scenarios. Incident A, where federal assets were deployed, involves a tornado that destroyed public infrastructure including schools and hospitals in a community but had limited impact on residential areas. Incident B involves another tornado of relatively equal magnitude that hit a residential area resulting in greater casualties and housing needs but less damage to public infrastructure. The Incident A community has significant pre-existing capabilities for mass care of survivors, but limited capabilities for essential infrastructure restoration; and in Incident B, the community had the reverse strengths and capabilities. Evaluating the effectiveness of using deployable federal assets in Incident A by comparing the results of not using the assets in Incident B would involve controlling for the divergence in both the consequences of the “comparable” tornados and the pre-existing community capabilities. 66 For example, most of the deployable federal asset assistance provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is broadly authorized by the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act, P.L. 84-99 (33 U.S.C. §701n), which may (continued...) Congressional Research Service 15 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations in large, unspecific accounts.67 Without a higher degree of specification in authorization or appropriation, the existence and use of the deployable asset may not generate significant oversight attention. This may also lead to limited reporting by the executive branch on the activities of the asset through the annual budgeting and appropriation process, to include a lack of detailed information in documents like agency budget justifications. Thus, in general, the limited use of deployable federal assets and the unique circumstances of each disaster result in a small sample size that Congress and others can use to evaluate the benefits of the capabilities provided by the asset. This sample size may be expanded, however, when it includes numerous national, regional, and local discussions-based and operations-based response exercises.68 Given the above challenges, the recommendations of after-action reports (AARs) and the implementation of subsequent after-action report improvement plans (AAR-IPs), for both real incidents and exercises, may help inform Congress in its oversight of the use of deployable federal assets. AARs and AAR-IPs are generally developed by both the respective state and federal governments after significant real-world incidents and full-scale exercises, and frequently by the affected local governments as well. However, these evaluations often tend to be produced by the responding or exercising agency—either directly or by contract to a third party—and therefore may lack independent objectivity. Further, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified that opportunities exist to enhance the oversight, primarily provided by DHS and FEMA, of how capability gaps identified in selected exercises, real-world incidents, and other assessments are resolved.69 In other words, though problems are regularly identified in AARs and AAR-IPs, how and if those problems have been resolved is not always tracked. However, through after action reviews, Congress may discover general thematic issues that limit the effectiveness of deployable federal assets, or be able to highlight shortcomings with the capabilities of a particular asset. For example, following Hurricane Sandy, both FEMA and the White House produced AARs that highlighted federal challenges requiring improvement, including some on the use of deployable federal assets.70 Of note, Congress’s ability to use AARs (...continued) obscure the full scope and importance of the assets to domestic emergency management. 67 For example, Incident Management Assistance Teams are explicitly authorized in law (42 U.S.C. §5144), but receive funding through the Disaster Relief Fund account at FEMA. No specific information regarding their budgetary cost was included in any of the agency’s FY2015 budget justification documents. 68 As defined by the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), discussion-based exercises include “seminars, workshops, tabletop exercises (TTXs), and games. These types of exercises can be used to familiarize players with, or develop new, plans, policies, agreements, and procedures. Discussion-based exercises focus on strategic, policy-oriented issues.” Operations-based exercises “include drills, functional exercises (FEs), and fullscale exercises (FSEs). These exercises can be used to validate plans, policies, agreements, and procedures; clarify roles and responsibilities; and identify resource gaps. Operations-based exercises are characterized by actual reaction to an exercise scenario, such as initiating communications or mobilizing personnel and resources.” See the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), April 2013, pp. 2-4 and 2-5, at https://www.llis.dhs.gov/HSEEP/Documents/homeland-security-exercise-and-evaluation-program-hseep. 69 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Interagency Assessments and Accountability for Closing Capability Gaps, GAO-15-20, November 2014, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-1520. 70 For example, in a FEMA-specific AAR for Hurricane Sandy, it was noted that the deployment of so many FEMA employees to the response had a negative impact on the ability of many FEMA components to continue their normal functions (and could have had a worse impact if another incident arose). Thus, FEMA noted it needed to incorporate the impact of deploying federal personnel has on its continuity of operation plans. Likewise, an interagency AAR led (continued...) Congressional Research Service 16 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations and AAR-IPs in its oversight may be hindered—but not stopped—by the security classification of some documents, given their sensitivity to national security.71 Brief Summaries of Sample Federal Assets This section of the report provides brief summaries of examples of deployable federal assets that can support disaster response operations. This section of the report is not comprehensive, and does not provide an exhaustive list of every federal asset that may be used to address a multitude of unique needs that can arise when responding to the plethora of hazards facing the nation. For instance, this section does not contain summaries of an array of specialized, law enforcement response assets provided by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security to respond to the consequences of intentional hazards, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG).72 Also, cyber-related response teams, such as DHS’s United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) are not summarized below.73 Table 1 reviews the basic information provided in each summary of sample deployable federal assets. Each summary begins with the contact information of the relevant CRS expert available to answer further questions from Congress on the asset. Additional CRS expertise is available to address questions on other assets not summarized in the report.74 (...continued) by the White House made a number of recommendations on how the federal response to future disasters could be improved based on lessons learned during Hurricane Sandy. Respectively, see Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hurricane Sandy FEMA After-Action Report, July 1, 2013, p. 34, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/ assets/documents/33772; and Executive Office of the President, Federal Interagency Sandy After-Action Review Team, The Federal Response to Hurricane Sandy After-Action Report, For Official Use Only, June 1, 2013. 71 This is especially true for documents related to intentional hazards (e.g., terrorist attacks). 72 For more information on the Critical Incident Response Group, see the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/ cirg. 73 Given the nature of a cyber-related hazard and disaster, the US-CERT and other federal assets may not, but potentially could, physically “deploy” but instead support response operations remotely. For more information on the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, see DHS’s website at http://www.us-cert.gov/. 74 Requests can be directed to the coordinator of this report for any unlisted asset, at [redacted]@crs.loc.gov or 7-..... Congressional Research Service 17 Table 1. Synopsis of Examples of Deployable Federal Assets Managing Department(s)/ Agency(s) Primary Authority Brief Description of Duties Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) DHS/FEMA 42 U.S.C. §5144 Provide on-scene incident command capabilities and identify and satisfy initial requirements for federal assistance. Serve in core responsibilities in ICS structure for federal assistance to local disasters and for federally led incidents. Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) DHS/FEMA 42 U.S.C. §5143 Coordinate all federal assistance to affected state(s)/tribe(s) in Stafford Act declared emergencies or disasters. Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Teams DHS/FEMA 6 U.S.C. §722 Provide specialized assistance locating and rescuing victims after buildings or other structures collapse, or in response to natural hazards such as landsides or earthquakes. Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams DHS/TSA 6 U.S.C. §1112 Deploys transportation security assets (e.g. security inspectors, air marshals, and canine teams) to specific locations and events as needed. Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) DHS/NPPD 6 U.S.C. §121(d)(6) Anticipate and assess damage to the area’s critical infrastructure assets, including assessing the potential for cascading effects due to interdependencies among those assets. They also can help prioritize re-entry and recovery efforts related to critical infrastructure. U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps HHS/ASH 42 U.S.C. §§202-233 Provide medical and public health workforce surge capacity in response to mass casualty incidents and other public health emergencies. Strategic National Stockpile HHS/CDC 42 U.S.C. §247d-6b Provide medicine and medical supplies when a public health emergency has overwhelmed local supplies. Also contains unique supplies to respond to certain chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents. Forest Service Firefighting Assets USDA/FS 16 U.S.C. §551 Response assistance can be delivered in many forms, including firefighting support, fire suppression and assistance planning, command and control support, emergency road clearing, logistics facility support, radio/communications system support, and cache support for mass care shelters. General Purpose Forces DOD Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code Units of the Armed Forces possess capabilities that can be used during disaster response missions, such as transportation, medical, communications, engineering, and logistics units. Example of Asset CRS-18 Example of Asset Managing Department(s)/ Agency(s) Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Forces Primary Authority Brief Description of Duties DOD/National Guard Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, generally, plus 50 U.S.C. §2314, and other provisions of law. Provide specialized response capabilities to major domestic CBRN incidents. Planning and Response Teams (PRTs) DOD/USACE 33 U.S.C. §701n Perform Army Corps emergency response functions, which include: provision of ice, water, emergency power, debris removal, temporary housing, temporary roofing, and structural safety assessments. 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) DOD/USACE 33 U.S.C. §701n Provide technical expertise and operational assistance in all aspects of power and electrical systems generation and distribution in support of contingency and emergency response operations to assist with power emergencies especially for life-saving and life-sustaining facilities like hospitals, shelters, water and sewer facilities, and police and fire stations. Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program DOE/NNSA 50 U.S.C. §2404 Provide rapid response in the event of a radiological or nuclear incident, whether predetonation or postdetonation, as well as technical support for other first responders. National Transportation Safety Board Disaster Assistance NTSB 49 U.S.C. §1136 and §1139 Provide assistance to families of passengers involved in major aviation and passenger rail disasters. National Response System assets (for oil spills and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants) EPA, DHS/USCG 33 U.S.C §1321(j); 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. Coordinate federal actions and deployment of federal assets to respond to discharges of oil into U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines, and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serves as the lead federal agency in the inland zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard serves as the lead federal agency in the coastal zone. The lead federal agency also coordinates participation of state and local governments, and non-governmental entities, including the party (or parties) liable for the incident. National Disaster Medical System assets HHS, DOD, and VA 42. U.S.C. §300hh-11 Provide on-scene and local medical care, patient evacuation, and definitive medical care in response to mass casualty incidents. Source: CRS. CRS-19 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Department of Homeland Security Assets Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) (name redacted), Analyst in Homeland Security and Emergency Management Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....) Purpose and Responsibilities Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs) are a relatively new federal asset managed by FEMA, though they evolved from a previous deployable federal asset called Emergency Response Teams (ERTs). The IMATs’ primary mission is to provide on-scene incident command capabilities and to work with the affected community to identify and satisfy initial requirements for federal assistance. In practice, IMATs form the core command structure guiding and managing federal assistance to the response operation. In doing so, an IMAT is able to assist the state and local management of a response operation. FEMA also trains IMATs in the management of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) incidents.75 In addition to major disasters and emergencies declared under the Stafford Act, IMATs may deploy in advance of an incident (e.g., before landfall of a hurricane), for special events (e.g., a Super Bowl or national political convention), and for national level exercises. The structure and concept of operations for IMATS are currently being revised by FEMA, and thus are subject to change in the future. The new revisions to the design of IMATs have been made, in part, because of lessons learned from the large-scale deployment during Hurricane Sandy.76 As currently envisioned by FEMA, there will be 3 national IMATs and 13 regional IMATs. Each national IMAT will have an Incident Command System (ICS) structure filled by 33 term-appointed FEMA employees77 and will be led by a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES, who could possibly be a current or former Federal Coordinating Officer, described below). FEMA is also seeking one team member each from nine different departments/agencies.78 Each of the regional IMATs will be staffed by 12 term-appointed FEMA employees. All personnel will have specialized training and experience in the key areas of an ICS structure, to include operations, planning, and logistics. IMATs are being designed to deploy within 2 hours and arrive at an incident within 12 hours to support the response operation. The revised IMAT structure has 75 Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund Fiscal Year 2015 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8. The full DHS Congressional budget justification is available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS-Congressional-Budget-Justification-FY2015.pdf. 76 Executive Office of the President, Federal Interagency Sandy After-Action Review Team, The Federal Response to Hurricane Sandy After-Action Report, For Official Use Only, June 1, 2013. 77 These employees are called “CORE” employees, which stands for Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees. According to FEMA, these employees “are hired to work for a specific, limited period, between two to four years. These positions may be renewed if there is ongoing disaster work and funding is available.... ” and “are generally eligible for the same benefits as [full-time] employees, but do not gain competitive status nor career tenure during their term.” See FEMA’s website on employment options, at http://www.fema.gov/career-paths-fema. 78 In their capacity as Emergency Support Function (ESF) coordinators under the NRF, FEMA is seeking representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ESF #3—Public Works and Engineering), the Department of Health and Human Services (ESF #8—Public Health and Medical Services), the Environmental Protection Agency (ESF #10—Oil and Hazardous Materials), and the Department of Energy (ESF #12—Energy). In addition, FEMA is seeking the expertise of representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Office of Infrastructure Protection in DHS, the National Weather Service, the American Red Cross, and a Department of Defense Planning Officer. It is unclear whether and how these additional departments and agencies have committed employees to the national IMATs. Congressional Research Service 1 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations been implemented for several of the teams, including two national teams and approximately six regional teams, and is projected to be fully implemented by FY2016. Authorization and Appropriations National and regional IMATs are designed to fulfill the roles of specifically authorized assets called, in statute, an “Emergency Response Team”79 and “regional office strike team,” respectively.80 Both of these named assets were authorized by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA, Title VI of P.L. 109-295), which added the underlying authorizing language for the concept of IMATs to both the Stafford Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Maintenance and operational funding for the salaries of IMAT staff derive from appropriations made to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), also administered by FEMA. The DRF is the primary source of funds for Stafford Act response and recovery operations.81 Current, specific budget figures from the DRF appropriation for the IMATs are not publically available, though they have been available in prior years.82 However, when the new IMAT structure is fully implemented in FY2016, FEMA estimates that the recurring annual costs of maintaining the IMATs will be about $31.6 million, with an additional, cumulative $19 million in spending as one-time capital costs in their development.83 Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations During Hurricane Sandy, FEMA deployed all three national IMATs and nine of the regional IMATs to support incident management in the large geographic area of affected states and communities. However, the IMATs used during Hurricane Sandy were constructed and staffed differently than is currently being designed by FEMA. Since Hurricane Sandy, FEMA has deployed some of the newly constructed IMATs, especially regional IMATs, to incidents across the nation. For example, a national IMAT was deployed to assist in the response to the Washington State, Snohomish County mudslide in March 2014. Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators (FDRCs) (name redacted),Analyst in Homeland Security and Emergency Management Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....) Purpose and Responsibilities A Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) is responsible for the overall coordination and management of all federal resources and assistance being provided to support a disaster response 79 See Sec. 303 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5144; as added by Sec. 633 of PKEMRA, 120 Stat. 1421. See Sec. 507 of the HSA of 2002, 6 U.S.C. §317(f); as added by Sec. 611 of PKEMRA, 120 Stat. 1402. 81 For more on the DRF, see CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by (name redacted) . 82 For example, the Administration requested a total of $13.8 million and 102 positions (95 full time equivalents) for IMATs in FY2011. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2011 Congressional Justification, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Operations, Management and Administration, 2010, p. 26. 83 Telephone consultation and email correspondence with the Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, April 17, 2014. 80 Congressional Research Service 2 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations operation. In a fashion, the FCO is the “leader” of the federal government’s response and is tasked with efficiently facilitating the delivery of assistance from a wide array of federal departments and agencies, including other deployable federal assets. If there are defense assets involved in the response, DOD may use a Defense Coordinating Element (DCE) led by a Defense Coordinating Official (DCO) to support the FCO’s coordination of all federal assets. A formal cadre of FCOs was first established in 1999. Prior to that, FCOs, or officials acting in a similar capacity to the FCO, were assigned to disasters on an ad hoc basis. There are now approximately 40 FCOs, each of whom is a full time employee of FEMA.84 The role of the FCO has considerable history relative to the more recently established position of the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC), which was first established by policy in the National Disaster Recovery Framework.85 The FDRC may serve as a deputy under the FCO when in the response phase of a disaster, but serves a similar coordinating purpose as the FCO relating to the provision of federal disaster recovery assistance in the long-term recovery process. There are approximately 10 FDRCs, each of whom is a full time employee of FEMA. Authorization and Appropriations FCOs are directly authorized by the Stafford Act.86 By statute, the President must appoint an FCO for every Stafford Act emergency and major disaster declaration.87 This requirement does not apply to FDRCs, who are deployed more selectively based on long-term disaster recovery needs of the community. FCOs have also been delegated many of the authorities of the President in the Stafford Act, namely those relating to the coordination of federal resources. Any state or tribe receiving a Stafford Act declaration is also encouraged, but not required, to appoint a Coordinating Officer to fulfill similar roles and duties as the FCO, but at the state/tribal level. For multi-state/tribal incidents producing more than one Stafford Act declaration, the President may appoint a single FCO and deputy FCOs for affected states/tribes, or appoint one FCO to each state/tribe.88 The cost of maintaining and deploying FCOs and FDRCs is funded by appropriations to the DRF. For FY2016, FEMA is requesting funding sufficient for 55 full-time equivalent FCOs/FDRCs through the DRF. As with IMATs, current, specific budget figures for the FCOs/FDRCs have not been publically reported by FEMA in recent congressional justification documents. However, FEMA estimates that the cost of maintaining and deploying 55 FCOs/FDRCs is approximately $12.9 million in a fiscal year.89 The FCOs and FDRCs are also supported by an Office of the Federal Disaster Coordinating Officer (OFDC) in FEMA, which is responsible for hiring, training, equipping, managing and evaluating the FCOs/FDRCs. FEMA estimates that the OFDC will cost $5.9 million in FY2016.90 84 FCOs and FDRCs are hired as Schedule A, Excepted Service appointments. For a description of this authority, see 5 C.F.R. §213.3101. 85 Department of Homeland Security, National Disaster Recovery Framework, September 2011, at http://www.fema.gov/national-disaster-recovery-framework. 86 See Sec. 302 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5143. The role is further described in 44 C.F.R. §206.42. 87 FCOs may also be used in non-Stafford Act declared incidents to assist communities and coordinate other federal assistance, but in such situations they would not be vested with the authorities of the Stafford Act. 88 See Sec. 302(c) and (d) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5143. 89 Telephone consultation and email correspondence with the Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, April 17, 2014. 90 Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund Fiscal Year 2016 (continued...) Congressional Research Service 3 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations As an FCO is assigned to every Stafford Act declaration, they regularly support disaster response operations across the nation. In addition, when an IMAT is deployed to support a response operation, the FCO will serve as the lead of that team (or the leader of the IMAT will serve in the capacity of the FCO). However, FCOs may not deploy when an incident first occurs, rather they may only arrive on-scene, at least in official capacity, after a declaration is made. However, significant incidents often precipitate Stafford Act disaster declarations by a few hours or a day, and therefore the FCO cadre is prepared to respond and deploy to a disaster promptly. National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System Task Forces (name redacted), Analyst inHomeland Security and Emergency Management Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov,-....) 7 Purpose and Responsibilities National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Responses System Task Forces are designated and administered by FEMA to provide specialized assistance locating survivors after buildings or other structures collapse, or in response to hazards such as landsides, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks. Maritime search and rescue capabilities are generally provided by the U.S. Coast Guard. Although the national US&R Task Forces are formally state or local government entities, they are a deployable federal asset that receives funding, training, and accreditation from the federal government to provide a national capability. In general, when deployed, national US&R Task Forces work to: stabilize damaged structures; identify risks of additional collapses; locate, extricate, and provide medical care for survivors; and meet other needs at disaster sites. Task Forces deploy as necessary and on request to support the response to disasters, and may be prepositioned for certain incidents (such as hurricanes). National US&R Task Forces may integrate and work in conjunction with other federal and local search and rescue teams/operations. National US&R Task Forces are designed to be ready for deployment in 4 to 6 hours, and on-scene in a significant portion of the continental United States in 16 hours. There are currently 28 national US&R Task Forces throughout the United States (see Figure 1). Each Task Force can deploy as either a Type I configuration (with 70 personnel, with an additional 10 support personnel) or Type III configuration (with 28 personnel, with up to 4 support personnel). However, to ensure that a full Type I team can deploy on short notice, each Task Force is encouraged to maintain a full roster of 210 personnel (a three-deep roster for a 70person Type I team configuration). Each Task Force has unit members with expertise and training in a variety of skillsets, including engineering, emergency medicine, canine handling, firefighting, hazardous material handling, communications, logistics, and other areas. There are also three national Incident Support Teams (ISTs) that are comprised of highly qualified specialists readily available for rapid assembly and deployment to a disaster area. ISTs provide advice, management and logistics assistance, and coordination of US&R Task Forces, to the on-scene incident command. The Task Forces also include specially trained canine units. When activated by FEMA, (...continued) Congressional Budget Justification, p. 17. The full DHS Congressional budget justification for FY2016 is available at http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. Congressional Research Service 4 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Task Force members are appointed as temporary excepted federal volunteers, which is a designation intended to provide them with liability protection and worker’s compensation.91 Figure 1. Location of National US&R Task Force Teams Source: CRS adaptation of FEMA figures on the locations of Task Forces in the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System. Note: There are no National US&R Task Forces outside the contiguous United States. Authorization The federal role in urban search and rescue efforts has developed slowly over time. Its roots may be traced to congressional enactment of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95124) to stimulate research and planning related to preparation for, and response to, the devastation of earthquakes. Following establishment of the FEMA in 1979, Congress amended the 1977 statute to require FEMA to serve as lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).92 As a consequence of the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, Congress and FEMA revisited the scope of the NEHRP. FEMA established the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System that same year. Also, in the aftermath of that earthquake, Congress passed the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 1990.93 These amendments to the 1977 statute expanded the federal response authority to include the following charge: 91 44 C.F.R. §208.11. 94 Stat. 2257. 93 104 Stat. 3231-3243. 92 Congressional Research Service 5 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations develop, and coordinate the execution of, federal interagency plans to respond to an earthquake, with specific plans for each high-risk area which ensure the availability of adequate emergency medical resources, search and rescue personnel and equipment, and emergency broadcast capability.94 In 2006, Congress formally authorized the establishment of the Urban Search and Rescue Response System in FEMA.95 Under this authority the FEMA Administrator, and delegates, coordinate the activities of US&R Task Forces when called into federal service. Appropriations Task Forces are funded both by the federal government and their respective sponsoring agency (either a state or local government entity, most commonly a city fire department). In order to participate, each of the Task Forces is required to have both a Preparedness and a Response Cooperative Agreement with DHS/FEMA that govern the responsibilities and reimbursement of expenses for the Task Force. In general, the federal government and sponsoring agencies of national Task Forces share the cost of maintaining the capability, though the exact terms of compensation are subject to the Preparedness Cooperative Agreement negotiated by FEMA and the sponsoring agency.96 FEMA also provides funding for costs incurred when Task Forces are deployed to respond to disasters, as negotiated in the Response Cooperative Agreement.97 Federal funding for the deployment of the Task Forces in response to Stafford Act declared major disasters or emergencies is provided through the DRF. The federal funding to maintain the National US&R Response System and the Task Forces is generally directly designated in appropriation bills for the Salaries and Expenses account in FEMA. Congress appropriated approximately $41.3 million in FY2012,98 and $35.2 million each in FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 for the National US&R Response System and Task Forces.99 For FY2016, FEMA has requested approximately $27.5 million.100 However, deployment costs for Task Force teams are not accounted for in these amounts, as these costs are generally provided through the Disaster Relief Fund when applicable for a Stafford Act declaration. Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations National US&R Task Forces have deployed after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the terrorist attacks of 2001, Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti Earthquake, and Hurricane Sandy, among many other notable disasters. National US&R Task Forces responded to an estimated 53 incidents between 1992 and 2010, accounting for over 316 individual Task Force deployments in both Type I and III configurations during the time period.101 94 104 Stat. 3234, 42 U.S.C. §7704(b)(2)(A)(iv). Section 634, P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1421, 6 U.S.C. §722. 96 44 C.F.R. §208, Subpart B on Preparedness Cooperative Agreements outlines the allowable expenses covered by FEMA for maintaining the Task Force. 97 44 C.F.R. §208, Subpart C on Response Cooperative Agreements outlines the allowable expenses covered by FEMA for various stages of deployment. 98 P.L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 959. 99 See P.L. 113-6, 127 Stat. 357 for FY2013; P.L. 113-76, 128 Stat. 60 for FY2014; and P.L. 114-4, 129 Stat .53 for FY2015. 100 Department of Homeland Security, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Salaries and Expenses, Budget Request and Supporting Information, p. 37, at http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. 101 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Review of the National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response (continued...) 95 Congressional Research Service 6 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams (name redacted) , Specialist in Aviation Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-. ... ) Purpose and Responsibilities Responding to the 2005 terrorist train bombings in Madrid, Spain, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) developed the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) team program. The VIPR program is intended to enhance security across all modes of transportation by providing TSA assets and capabilities to augment federal, state, and local law enforcement and security agencies in protecting national assets, critical infrastructure, and facilities in the transportation domain. VIPR teams may include various combinations of DHS assets including surface transportation security inspectors, explosives detection canine teams, Federal Air Marshals, and TSA screeners and behavior detection officers. The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) may provide these teams with nuclear and radiological detection equipment. In FY2015, TSA realigned the VIPR program with Surface Transportation Security Inspectors. VIPR deployments are coordinated through TSA’s joint coordination center, located at TSA headquarters in Arlington, VA. The VIPR program uses threat and vulnerability assessments of transportation infrastructure developed by TSA’s Office of Transportation Sector Network Management as guidance to inform VIPR field operations regarding the prioritization and scheduling of deployments. Authorization and Appropriation Initially, VIPR teams were deployed under TSA’s broad general authority promulgated in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71) to protect against threats to all modes of transportation. Subsequently, the VIPR teams were specifically authorized under the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53). Section 1303 of the act allowed TSA to develop and deploy VIPR teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States at times and for durations determined by TSA.102 Under the legislation, TSA must consult with local security and law enforcement officials in jurisdictions where the VIPR teams deploy to agree upon operational protocols and collaborate on mission information as appropriate. Additionally, TSA must consult with all transportation entities affected by the deployment, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airports, bus and motor carrier operators, maritime vessel owners and operators, public transportation agencies, and transportation facility owners and operators. According to DHS, Congress appropriated $89.7 million in FY2013, and $77.2 million in FY2014, for 37 VIPR teams. DHS requested $60.6 million for the VIPR program in FY2015, with plans to reduce the number of VIPR teams to 33 through the consolidation of previous teams.103 Under the realignment plan, TSA proposed to transfer 257 full-time equivalent positions (...continued) System, For Official Use Only, March 2012. 102 6 U.S.C. §1112. 103 DHS is also proposing to consolidate funding for the VIPR program under TSA’s Surface Transportation Security appropriation, whereas it had previously been funded from three different sources, the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS), Aviation Security, and Surface Transportation appropriations. See, Department of Homeland Security, FY2015 Congressional Budget Justification, Transportation Security Administration, Surface Transportation Security, Budget Request and Supporting Information, pp. 23-25, at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budget-justificationfy-2015. Congressional Research Service 7 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations from Aviation Security and the Federal Air Marshals Service to Surface Transportation Security in a move to consolidate Surface Inspectors and multi-modal VIPR teams under one program. The FY2015 appropriation (see P.L. 114-4) for surface transportation security inspectors was set at $3 million less than the request and TSA was directed to further reduce the number of VIPR teams to 31. Examples of Past Use in Disaster Response Operations VIPR teams are often deployed to specific high-profile events that may be targeted by terrorist groups and to key transportation facilities based on threat assessments and through random targeting in order to provide an element of unpredictability to potentially disrupt terrorist activities. VIPR teams thus are intended to operate primarily as a deterrent rather than a critical incident response resource. DHS estimates that the teams conducted over 15,260 actual operations in FY2013, though almost entirely as a deterrent—not as a response to real incidents.104 In the context of disaster response operations, the VIPR teams may provide DHS with a coordinated, targeted surge capability to respond to escalating threats or specific incidents, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks, by deploying law enforcement and security screening assets to transportation facilities. Historically, VIPR teams have concentrated on surface modes, particularly transit systems and intercity rail. TSA estimated that more than 10,000 of the FY2013 operations were in surface modes of transportation, of which about 9,000 were in mass transit. Following the November 2013 shooting incident at LAX, however, TSA modified its VIPR deployment strategy to split deployments roughly evenly between surface and aviation modes. Subsequently, the realignment of VIPR teams in FY2015 has resulted in a formal split between aviation operations and other modes, with the VIPR program formally aligned with surface transportation security. Moving forward, this would suggest that VIPR teams would continue to support non-aviation modes, while FAMS, in coordination with airport law enforcement authorities, would provide critical incident response for aviation. Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy ([redacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-.... ) Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) are field operatives that interact with state Homeland Security Advisors, state and local law enforcement officials, the owner/operators of critical infrastructure assets, and other critical infrastructure stakeholders in their district of responsibility. PSAs are part of the Office of Infrastructure Protection, in the National Protection and Programs Directorate, of DHS. As of 2015, there were 94 advisors in the field, with at least one advisor for each state and one in Puerto Rico, and 7 additional advisors at DHS headquarters.105 In addition to establishing relationships with these stakeholders, PSAs help to inventory and evaluate critical infrastructure assets and provide DHS with situational awareness as it relates to critical infrastructure. 104 Ibid. Department of Homeland Security, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security, Budget Request and Supporting Information, p. 24, at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budget-justification-fy-2016. 105 Congressional Research Service 8 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Purpose and Responsibilities PSAs have three primary responsibilities—to help enhance the security of critical infrastructure assets (primarily by coordinating stakeholder requests for DHS training, grants, and vulnerability assessments), to provide advice and expertise in response to an emergency or disaster, and to facilitate information sharing between state and local stakeholders and DHS. The PSA role in disaster response operations is to act as the Infrastructure Liaison between the state/local emergency operations center(s) and FEMA’s Joint Field Office. In this role, PSAs can help anticipate and assess damage to the area’s critical infrastructure assets, including assessing the potential for cascading effects due to interdependencies among those assets. They also can help prioritize re-entry and recovery efforts related to critical infrastructure. Authorization and Appropriations The Protective Security Advisors program is broadly authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) which gave DHS the authority, among others, to “recommend measures necessary to protect the key resources and critical infrastructures of the United States in coordination with State and local government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and other entities.” In addition, Presidential Policy Directive 21—Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, which updated and replaced the earlier Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, assigns the Secretary of Homeland Security the responsibility of coordinating the national effort to promote the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure.106 According to DHS, the anticipated cost of the PSA program, to include the salaries and expenses of the PSAs themselves, is $33.3 million in FY2015.107 Examples of Past or Potential Use in Disaster Response Operations Examples of how PSAs have been used to support disaster response operations include assisting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize private sector requests for generators to allow critical assets to be brought back on line more quickly, and working with Custom and Border Protection officials to organize helicopter flights to assess damage to power transmission lines. During Hurricane Sandy, 34 PSAs deployed to federal, state, and local emergency operations centers in the Northeast region to assist in the communication with critical infrastructure owners and operators, as well as to help prioritize and coordinate the restoration of critical infrastructure.108 In general, PSAs may apply their expertise to reduce or prevent damages to critical infrastructure, thereby enabling the rapid restoration of critical systems during response operations. 106 Executive Office of the President, Presidential Policy Directive 21—Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, February 12, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil. 107 Email correspondence with NPPD budget staff, May 1, 2015. Annual budget justification documents from DHS do not provide the salaries and benefits costs specifically for the PSAs, but instead provide those costs for the all “regional field operations.” Thus, the line item programmatic costs for PSAs presented in budget documents do not include an isolated cost of salaries and expenses for the PSAs. See Department of Homeland Security, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security, Budget Request and Supporting Information, pp. 21-25, at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/congressional-budgetjustification-fy-2016. 108 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for 2014, Part 2, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 20, 2013, 82-379 (Washington: GPO, 2013), p. 661. Congressional Research Service 9 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps109 (name redacted), Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology [(redacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....) Purpose and Responsibilities The U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps is a branch of the U.S. uniformed services, but is not one of the armed services.110 The Corps is based in HHS under the authority of the U.S. Surgeon General (SG), who is, in turn, under the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH). USPHS commissioned officers are physicians, nurses, pharmacists, engineers, and other public health professionals who serve in federal agencies, or as detailees to state or international agencies, to support a variety of public health activities. Officers may, for example, conduct biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health or the Environmental Protection Agency. They may provide healthcare services at Indian Health Service facilities, or at DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Founded more than 200 years ago, the Corps now employs more than 6,500 health professionals. In addition to their routine postings, Corps officers may also participate in short- or long-term deployments in support of a variety of public health activities. These activities may include domestic or international disease outbreak response, public health campaigns such as the global vaccination effort to eradicate polio, and domestic and international disaster response.111 A portion of USPHS commissioned officers are predesignated to participate in incident response teams under the USPHS Office of Force Readiness and Deployment.112 These teams provide rapid deployment, incident support, applied public health, mental health, and additional capabilities. Authorization and Appropriations Authority for the Corps is found in Title II of the Public Health Service Act.113 As uniformed services officers of the United States, Corps officers are subject to more stringent requirements than are civil service employees. For example, they are considered to be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, unless on leave. They can be reassigned and relocated as needed, and are subject to involuntary deployment. They may be required to meet certain fitness standards, and to accept medical treatments and immunizations to assure their continued fitness. Although they are sometimes deployed to provide public health support for combat operations, they can also be armed by order of the President to serve in war or an emergency.114 Militarization occurred most 109 Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is drawn from HHS, USPHS Commissioned Corps, at http://www.usphs.gov/default.aspx. 110 5 U.S.C. §2101. 111 Such deployments are not generally limited to USPHS commissioned officers, although some may be. HHS employees in civil service positions also typically participate in such deployments. 112 USPHS Office of Force Readiness and Deployment, at http://ccrf.hhs.gov/ccrf/. 113 Public Health Service Act Secs. 201-224, 42 U.S.C. §§202-233. 114 Public Health Service Act Sec. 216, 42 U.S.C. §217. Congressional Research Service 10 Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Disaster Response Operations recently during World War II.115 USPHS commissioned officers are entitled to many military and veterans benefits. Salaries and benefits for commissioned officers are paid by employing agencies. Additional costs for deployments, such as travel expens [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43560. Public record. Not legal advice.