Homeland Security
Browse content by issue:
The Department of Homeland Security has stripped acquisition decision authority from the Coast Guard in the wake of the service’s disastrous management of the Deepwater program. The Coast Guard joins the Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office in having decision authority stripped from it. The Air Force lost decision authority over all space programs in March 2005 and is unlikely to regain it any time soon. The NRO was stripped of decision authority over the BASIC satellite program early this year. The NRO is granted decision authority program by program and that authority is regularly reviewed.
According to an Oct. 28 Coast Guard press statement, “the rescission of acquisition decision authority does not imply removal of Coast Guard management of major acquisition projects.” But it really does mean the Coast Guard has lost the fundamental legal and policy authority to allow a program to move from one acquisition milestone to another since that is what constitutes the milestone decision authority is.
As the release notes, Coast Guard “major projects are reviewed and approved by DHS at each prescribed decision milestone. Prior to DHS approval to proceed toward the next milestone, the Coast Guard must demonstrate the project is properly progressing by satisfying milestone and acquisition plan criteria.”
Appropriations for the Deepwater Program totaled over $4 billion as of fiscal year 2008. Deepwater is intended to replace or modernize 15 major classes of Coast Guard assets, five each of vessels and aircraft, and five other projects, including command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. A joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman serving as lead system integrator was awarded the Deepwater contract in 2002.
The new arrangement should help DHS get the Coast Guard back on track, according to Robbin Laird, a defense consultant who has worked with the Coast Guard.
“With the coming of the new administration funding of appropriate homeland security functions is crucial. With this transfer of authority, DHS will be in a position to shape the future of the USCG and its approach to the future. The Deepwater C4ISR remains central to the new missions of the USCG and have been performed well; uncertainity about ship acquisitions have created the problem,” Laird said.
One new approach might be for the DSH to to “work with the Navy to acquire common littoral ships for the littoral missions. What remains important is to keep the commonality of systems to work with civilian, commercial, law enforcement and military authorities in the US and worldwide in the C4ISR domain. Hopefully, DHS will continue to re-enforce commonality in this area with other US agencies and global agencies. What began as a reform under Admiral Currier has now become the DHS ownership of USCG modernization.”
One important issue that DHS and the Coast Guard need to address is what will happen to the roughly 1,000 Coast Guard acquisition personnel. In particular, Laird noted that the question of “who will they really report to” needs to be answered.
The Government Accountability Office recommended stripping the Coast Guard of this authority in June. And language requiring the action, “due to the Coast Guard’s failure to adequately oversee the Deepwater program,” was included in the recently passed consolidated appropriations bill and its accompanying report.
The Coast Guard statement tries to put the best face on the service’s progress, noting the the GAO report says they have “begun to follow the disciplined, project management framework of its Major Systems Acquisition Manual (MSAM), which requires documentation and high-level executive approval of decisions at key points in a program’s life cycle.” But it you read the next few sentences, you get a clear picture of just why decision authority was stripped from the service. “But the consequences of not following this approach in the past are now evident, as Deepwater assets have been delivered without a determination of whether their planned capabilities would meet mission needs. The MSAM process currently allows limited initial production to proceed before the majority of design activities have been completed. In addition, a disconnect between MSAM requirements and current practice exists because DHS had earlier delegated to the Coast Guard all Deepwater acquisition decisions, resulting in little departmental oversight.”
The American Civil Liberties Union demanded information from the government about reports that an active military unit has been deployed inside the U.S. to help with "civil unrest" and "crowd control" – matters traditionally handled by civilian authorities. This deployment jeopardizes the longstanding separation between civilian and military government, and the public has a right to know where and why the unit has been deployed.
It’s amazing what you can find if you turn over a few rocks in the anti-terrorism legislation Congress approved during the election season.
Take, for example, the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006, named for the longtime Armed Services Committee chairman from Virginia.
Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”
The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.
But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States.
That law has long allowed the president to mobilize troops only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”
But the amended law takes the cuffs off.
Specifically, the new language adds “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” to the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local authority — particularly “if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”
Since the administration broadened what constitutes “conspiracy” in its definition of enemy combatants — anyone who “has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States,” in the language of the Military Commissions Act (PL 109-366) — critics say it’s a formula for executive branch mischief.
Yet despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill.
One of the few to complain, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., warned that the measure virtually invites the White House to declare federal martial law.
It “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law,” he said in remarks submitted to the Congressional Record on Sept. 29.
“The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor,” he said.
Moreover, he said, it breaks a long, fundamental tradition of federal restraint.
“Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”
And he criticized the way it was rammed through Congress.
It “was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study,” he fumed. “Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.”
No matter: Safely tucked into the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the last day of September.
Silence
The language doesn’t just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to take over the Judiciary Committee come January. It also runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are Republicans.
The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.
No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill — Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and his Democratic opposite, Nancy Pelosi of California.
“This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors,” said the Aug. 6 letter signed by every member of the National Governors Association, “and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors . . .to the federal government.”
“We urge you,” they said, “to drop provisions that would usurp governors’ authority over the National Guard during emergencies from the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act.”
Again, no response from the leadership, said David Quam, the National Governors Association’s director of federal relations.
On Aug. 31, the governors sent another letter to the congressional party leaders, as well as to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had met quietly with an NGA delegation back in February.
The bill “could encroach on our constitutional authority to protect the citizens of our states,” they protested, complaining again about how the provision had been dumped on a midnight express.
“Any issue that affects the mission of the Guard in the states must be addressed in consultation and coordination with governors,” they demanded.
“The role of the Guard in the states and to the nation as a whole is too important to have major policy decisions made without full debate and input from governors throughout the policy process.”
More silence.
“We did not know until the bill was printed where we stood,” Quam said.
That’s partly the governors’ own fault, said a Republican Senate aide.
“My understanding is that they sent form letters to offices,” she said. “If they really want a piece of legislation considered they should have called offices and pushed the matter. No office can handle the amount of form letters that come in each day.”
Quam disputed that.
“The letter was only the beginning of the conversation,” he said. “The NGA and the governors’ offices reached out across the Hill.”
If U.S. Northern Command needs troops to respond to a national emergency, commanders now have 4,000 Soldiers on alert to answer the call.
Northern Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., which was created after the Sept. 11 attacks to coordinate the military response to everything from the aftermath of hurricanes to nuclear fallout, has relied primarily on part-time National Guard troops.
That changed last week with the Army announcing full combat brigade will be on alert for the next year, ready to roll out nationwide.
Despite conspiracy theories that this could be a first step toward martial law in the U.S., there won't be tanks on Main Street or active-duty troops putting down demonstrations. That is barred by federal law banning the military from being used on U.S. soil for domestic law enforcement.
Instead, the Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., have been training to back up civilian authorities in providing medical care and dealing with chemical, biologic, high explosive or nuclear attack.
"My hope is you never have to use them," said Maj. Gen. Daniel E. Long of Fort Monroe, Va., who commands Northern Command's task force for civil support.
They'll be assigned to Northern Command for the next year as a fire brigade and will be replaced by another Army brigade in 2009.
"We haven't had a force for more than a two-week period that has been dedicated," said Lt. Col. Rob Cunniff, who works in the future operations planning division of the command's Colorado Springs headquarters.
Even without its own brigade, Northern Command hasn't been on the sidelines in disasters. From wildfires in California to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, commanders at Peterson have delivered military help.
But with the new unit, commanders know they have forces that are properly trained for the challenges of disaster relief.
"They are clearly better prepared," Cunniff said.
The brigade's commander, Col. Roger Cloutier, said his Soldiers, recently returned from Ramadi, Iraq, are excited about being assigned to help in America.
"As I talked to people they realize what a huge commitment the government is making to keep Americans safe and free," Cloutier said.
Cloutier said his Soldiers are learning how to clear roads blocked by debris and how to uses the Jaws of Life to free trapped victims.
Other tasks the Soldiers have practiced include getting relief supplies to victims and setting up medical care facilities.
The new mission also means using different gear. Cloutier said the brigade's heavily armored tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles won't be useful in a disaster. When Northern Command calls, the brigade's troops will roll out in trucks and Humvees that are better suited to non-combat tasks.
Cloutier said he's also drilling his troops on the rules they face when operating on American soil. His Soldiers won't act as cops, and other wartime Army tasks like intelligence gathering also are forbidden in America.
And while the Army is used to being in the lead, on domestic missions, they'll be followers.
"We're in a support role to a lead federal agency," Cloutier said. "Every mission we do would be at the request of local and state officials."
Long said he's happy the Army will be there when the nation needs them most.
"It's a noble mission," he said.
© Copyright 2008 The Gazette, Colorado Springs,Colo.. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
August 22, 2008
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Military leaders have suspended some activities at biological research laboratories to review safety rules for some of the world's deadliest germs and toxins, including how they are shipped through FedEx and other civilian carriers.
Defense officials said the action is part of a larger review ordered when a researcher at an Army lab committed suicide last month after being told he would be charged in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people.
Navy and Air Force officials told The Associated Press on Thursday that they are temporarily halting shipments of dangerous biological agents to and from their medical and research labs.
They also said that during the review, they won't allow any employees to handle such materials inside their labs unless the employee is enrolled in a special program to do so - or monitored by someone who is enrolled.
The Army also said for the first time Thursday that it had halted it shipments from Aug. 8-14 for a similar review of procedures - and then tightened some.
The Army has six, Navy five and Air Force two labs where biomedical research is done to support counterterrorism efforts, research protection for the armed forces and keep track of infectious diseases across the globe. Employees work with a range of dangerous materials such as anthrax and germs that cause Avian flu and encephalitis.
All such Navy material "is accounted for and none has been compromised. A thorough inventory will be a part of this stand down," said Cmdr. Jeff A. Davis, a Navy spokesman, using the military term for a suspension of activities.
The Air Force, which said its labs handle bacterial, viral, fungal and toxin agent samples, said its samples were all accounted for as well.
Davis said Navy Secretary Donald Winter had ordered the suspension of activities and review "out of an abundance of caution" to make sure the handling of sensitive biological material is safe at its labs - two in the United States and one each in Peru, Egypt and Indonesia.
Air Force spokesman Maj. Richard Johnson said the same was true for his service, adding that neither of the Air Force labs had made any shipments of dangerous biological materials since 2002, and one had accepted only two shipments since then.
The review also will be trying to determine whether employees who need to be are enrolled in the so-called Personnel Reliability Program - a system that requires personal screening, drug screening, evaluation of medical and work records and then provides for follow-up through evaluations by supervisors, fellow workers and others.
The Army announced early this month that it created a team of medical and other military experts to review security measures at its biodefense labs, including Fort Detrick, Md., where scientist Bruce Ivins worked when he became the suspect in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks.
To date, the Army has offered no explanation for how its biosecurity system, which is set up to identify mentally troubled workers, failed to flag Ivins for years.
Officials said Thursday that the review continues and that some changes already have been made at Fort Detrick and nationwide, including an updating of rules for commercial shipments of biological materials by ground.
Companies previously had to have personnel certified by the government for handling hazardous materials and now also will have to provide two drivers for the deliveries - both with classified security clearances, said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman.
The service also is working on tightening safety procedures for commercial air shipments of biological materials.
FedEx spokeswoman Sandra Munoz said she was unaware of any changes in procedures. Shipping of dangerous materials is common, is carried out by a number of companies and is done by universities, research centers and others in the civilian and military world.
Accidents happen and there have been cases in which shipments have gone missing, been damaged or lost. In one case reported to the government, plague bacteria that was supposed to be delivered to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in 2003 somehow ended up in Belgium and was incinerated safely.
"The issue of properly safeguarding biological agents and toxins has become a concern following recent developments in the 2001 anthrax case," Davis said. "While Navy standards already meet or exceed those of civilian laboratories that handle the same materials, the Navy is taking proactive steps to critically self-assess its programs."
© Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
