DHS, DOD, and DOT: Transformation and Turf
By MARK E. ROSEN
Mark E. Rosen
is the Navy League's General Counsel and Senior Director of Communications.
The debate over the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) dominated the 2nd session of the 107th Congress. Most political
analysts described the creation of the new department as the most ambitious
legislative undertaking since the creation of the Department of Defense
shortly after World War II.
The most contentious
legislative issue, many said, was the debate over the administration's
position that the new DHS secretary be given an unusual degree of budgetary
authority as well as a limited exemption from civil-service rules.
Congress and the
president finally reached agreement in mid-November, and the legislation
creating the new DHS was signed into law on 25 November 2002. Departing
Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, who has been nominated to be
the under secretary of DHS, will have his hands full once he is confirmed--probably
in early January. Legislators as well as Executive Branch officials say
that President George W. Bush could not have picked a better person to
tackle the job of building a new federal agency from the ground up.
The Act establishing
the Department of Homeland Security creates, for the first time, a federal
department whose primary mission will be to help prevent, protect against,
and respond to acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. In addition to the massive
organizational challenges, there are numerous other complex issues involved,
including several related to civil liberties and tighter controls on U.S.
Many lawmakers have
asked whether there should be a domestic intelligence agency to monitor
the activities of noncit-izens residing in the United States who could
be threats to U.S. national security; this could be another important
issue facing the 108th Congress. There also are important foreign trade
challenges ahead--in the area of container security, for example. Administration
officials and lawmakers will have to balance the need for much greater
scrutiny of inbound cargoes against the dire economic repercussions that
could result from any major interruptions to the flow of materials to
U.S. retailers and manufacturers.
Perhaps the biggest challenge associated with the establishment of the
new department, however, involves the direct effect on Capitol Hill. Congress
must now determine whether or not to create a new committee with jurisdiction
over DHS and/or a 14th subcommittee on appropriations, or to leave each
of the agencies and offices being transferred to DHS where they now are.
Turf battles seem almost certain to erupt.
Also new to Capitol
Hill during the past year was the Congressional Navy/Marine Corps Caucus,
a bipartisan group established by Representatives Ed Schrock (R-Va.) and
Susan Davis (D-Calif.) that brings together members of Congress who have
a common interest in preserving and promoting the current and future strength
and capabilities of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps.
The Caucus shares
the goal of maintaining a strong, well-equipped, and properly trained
Navy and Marine Corps Team. The Navy League of the United States played
an integral role in supporting the activities of the Caucus.
transformation" will be the likely watchword of the 108th Congress.
The transformation challenge involves shaping the current force to meet
the "low-intensity warfare" threats posed by terrorist organizations
like al Qaeda while at the same time rearming to defeat a large standing
army like that of Iraq. Sea Power 21 is the Navy's answer to the defense
transformation challenge--but it remains to be seen whether the Sea Power
21 vision articulated last year by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern
Clark will become a reality.
The Navy also has
to face the continuing problems posed by the limited funds available for
shipbuilding and the constant tugs on defense spending by other constituent
elements both inside and outside of Congress.
Congress also is
expected to confront a number of other issues generally related to defense
transformation, including: the shape and future roles of the U.S. Army
and U.S. Marine Corps in the new defense environment--which favors special
operations tactics and techniques; the roles and missions of the U.S.
Northern Command as they relate to the homeland-security missions of the
military and nonmilitary forces assigned to DHS; the need for additional
acquisition reform and greater empowerment for program managers to change
platform specifications to capitalize on technological developments--i.e.,
"spiral" development; and the demands voiced by some members
of Congress for broader geographic distribution of defense RDT&E (research,
development, test, and evaluation) funds.
The low level of funding for shipbuilding, the need for a production decision
on the V-22, and the fate of the Joint Strike Fighter vs. "more mature"
aircraft programs--e.g., the F/A-22 and the F/A-18E/F--also are certain
to be prominent among the procurement and RDT&E issues dominating
the defense debate during the 108th Congress. *
Legislative Wrap-up of the 107th Congress, 2nd
By JEREMY M. MILLER
Jeremy M. Miller is the Navy League's Director
of Legislative Affairs.
H.R. 5010 - The Defense Appropriations Act, which allocates $355.4 billion
for fiscal year 2003--which began on 1 October 2002--was approved by Congress
and signed into law by President Bush on 23 October 2002. The Act boosts
defense spending by $34.4 billion over last year's level, reflecting the
increased needs of the nation's armed forces for the war on terrorism
and to make preparations for a possible conflict with Iraq. Specifics
Addition of $30 million for the Navy's littoral
combat ship. This is "new funding" that was not budgeted;
$131 million for procurement of 22 Predator UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles),
an addition of $26 million over the budget request;
$129 million for procurement of three Global Hawk UAVs, and $42 million
to accelerate development of a Navy Global Hawk variant (broad area maritime
$3.2 billion for 46 Navy F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter/attack aircraft,
including an additional $120 million over the budget request (to buy two
$3.5 billion for continued development of the multiservice Joint Strike
$2.3 billion for two Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) Aegis guided-missile
$1.5 billion for one Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine;
$645 million for the continued conversion--to cruise missile attack submarines--of
four Trident ballistic missile submarines;
$90 million over the budget request to incorporate a modern Integrated
Warfare System (IWS) on the CVN 77 nuclear-powered aircraft carrier;
$160 million over the budget request for risk mitigation on the CVN(X)
Next-Generation Aircraft Carrier program; and
$1.3 billion to "buy down" various costs associated with prior-year
shipbuilding programs, an add-on of $635 million over the budget that
includes $311 million for costs associated with the workload swap on the
DDG 51 and LPD 17 (San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship) programs.
The Act also:
Approves the multiyear request for future procurement
of 40 C-130Js for the Air Force and 24 KC-130Js (refueling aircraft) for
the Marine Corps;
Includes language requiring a rigorous operational assessment of the Navy-Marine
Corps Intranet program before entering the next phase of program expansion;
Fully funds an active-duty pay raise of 4.1 percent.
H.R. 4546/S. 2514 The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA). This bill provides $393 billion in budget authority for FY
2003 national defense spending, including:
$7.3 billion for a broad spectrum of programs to
Approximately $4.6 billion above the FY 2002 level in funding for the
current readiness accounts;
$75.8 million for the Navy and Marine Corps Reserves;
$334 million for the four KC-130J refueling aircraft for the Marine Corps;
$267.5 million for modifications to the EA-6B (Prowler electronic attack
$3.4 billion for procurement of 48 F/A-18E/Fs--the conferees also authorized
$446.7 million for modifications to the existing F/A-18 fleet;
$1.7 billion for Navy JSF development;
$1.1 billion for 11 Marine Corps V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and advance
procurement of nine Marine Corps V-22s;
$420.1 million for Navy V-22 research and development;
$284.2 million for procurement of 15 MH-60S helicopters and $88.0 million
for advance procurement of five additional helicopters in FY 2004;
$91.7 million for CVN 77 research and development, $268 million for CVN(X)
research and development, and $472.7 million to accelerate delivery of
the CVN(X)-1 by one year;
$2.4 billion for procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class DDGs;
$13 million to develop and demonstrate the Experimental Littoral Support
$596.5 million for one LPD 17 and $8.0 million for advance procurement
of future LPD 17s;
$664.9 million for Global Hawk procurement and development for the Air
Force and the Navy;
$20 million to assist the U.S. Maritime Administration in scrapping obsolete
ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet (or to sink them as part of
an artificial reef program); and
$54.1 million for the Title XI vessel construction loan-guarantee program
administered by the Maritime Administration.
Other NDAA provisions:
(a) Approve the 4.1 percent military pay raise,
with larger pay increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers
and mid-grade officers;
(b) Create a new payment for all military retirees who were wounded in
combat and received the Purple Heart Medal and for retirees who were severely
disabled in combat-related training incidents; and
(c) Approve the president's request for increases in active-duty end strengths,
and give the secretary of defense authority to add more than 40,000 Soldiers,
Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to meet the increased demands resulting from
the war against terrorism.
H.R. 5559/S. 2808 - FY 2003 Department of Transportation Appropriations
Act (Pending). The bill provides a total of nearly $60 billion in budgetary
resources, an increase of nearly $4 billion over the president's request
and $718 million above the FY 2002 budget. Specifically, the bill:
Provides $5.1 billion for the Transportation Security
Administration for civil aviation security services;
Allocates $207 million for Maritime and Land Security, including $150
million for port security grants and $27 million for trucking safety grants;
Provides a total of $6.1 billion for the Coast Guard, an increase of $566
million over the FY 2002 enacted levels; the overall total includes an
increase of $525 million for the Coast Guard's operating expenses over
last year's level--and $152 million above the budget request--and $725
million for the Coast Guard's capital needs.
Within the Coast Guard's capital appropriation,
$500 million is available for the "Deepwater" program--but there
is a $20 million difference between the Senate and House versions of the
bills that still must be resolved.
Status: This legislation was still pending when
the 107th Congress adjourned sine die on 22 November. Transportation agencies
are operating under a Continuing Resolution until permanent legislation
S. 1214 - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This legislation
directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct port-vulnerability
assessments both on a systematic basis and when the secretary believes
there is a high risk of catastrophic emergency. More specifically, the
Mandates that a National Maritime Transportation
Security Plan and regional Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans
be developed by the Coast Guard that will be adequate to deter a transportation
security incident. Area plans also will address the related issue of contingency
responses to terrorist attacks.
Requires, for the first time ever, that all ports,
facilities, and vessels develop comprehensive security plans and incident-response
plans based on detailed Coast Guard vulnerability assessments and security
recommendations. The plans must be submitted by port authorities, waterfront
facilities, and vessel operators and approved by the Coast Guard. All
ports, waterfront facilities, and vessels are required to operate under
approved security plans.
Sets up local port security committees to better
coordinate the efforts of federal, state, local, and private law-enforcement
agencies and to advise on security plans. Among the federal agencies involved
are the CIA, the FBI, the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and the Coast Guard.
Directs the Department of Transportation to develop regulations to: (a)
develop secure areas in ports as part of their security plans; (b) limit
access to security-sensitive areas through background checks and the issuance
of transportation security identification cards; (c) restrict firearms
and other weapons; and (d) develop evacuation plans. Background checks
will have to be conducted for employees working in security-sensitive
areas. Seafarers also will be required to carry internationally acceptable
Requires the development of a maritime intelligence
system to collect and analyze information about vessels operating in waters
under the jurisdiction of the United States and about the crew, passengers,
and cargoes carried by these vessels. Maritime intelligence personnel
are expected to work with other agencies and to collect and analyze information
not available from other intelligence sources.
Authorizes continuation of the Sea Marshal program
and requires that maritime safety and security teams be formed to safeguard
the public and protect vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities.
The Coast Guard is given more comprehensive authority: (a) to board ships
entering U.S. ports in order to deter hijackings and other terrorist threats;
and (b) to enhance maritime security and safety through development of
the maritime safety and security teams.
Creates a Maritime Security Advisory Committee to
report and make recommendations on national maritime-security matters.
Authorizes approximately $6.0 billion for the Coast
Guard's FY 2003 budget, continuing the trend, since 9/11, of increasing
the Coast Guard's budget to meet the service's greater responsibilities--the
FY 2003 total is up significantly from the FY 2001 appropriations level
of $4.5 billion, and approximately $200 million above the $5.8 billion
appropriation enacted in 2002.
The Bill also incorporates a Coast Guard authorization
bill--the first Coast Guard authorization bill that has passed Congress
since 1998--and, in other provisions specifically related to the Coast
Provides increased authorization levels for the
FY 2003 appropriations, as well as additional personnel.
Increases the service's maximum end strength to 45,500 active-duty military
personnel, up from about 35,500.
Includes numerous personnel incentives, and much-needed personnel management
Authorizes $725 million for capital investments, ensuring that the multiyear
Deepwater program and the overhaul of the National Distress and Response
System (NDRS), or "Maritime 911," are adequately funded in 2003.
Requires that the Coast Guard provide Congress with a comprehensive report
on its existing NDRS system, identifying gaps in coverage throughout the
United States, proposing specific steps to fill such gaps, providing a
list of all marine accidents occurring in areas with gaps, and recommending
interim steps that can immediately be taken to fill those gaps.
Requires the Coast Guard to establish and implement standards for the
safe operation of all search-and-rescue facilities, including standards
for the length of time an individual may serve on watch, and acquisition
of the equipment needed to achieve safety in the interim, as the entire
system is upgraded.
Requires that the service examine and report to Congress its expenditures
by mission area both before and after 11 September 2001, and determine
the level of funding needed to permit the Coast Guard to carry out its
The bill also requires that the Coast Guard provide a strategic plan to
Congress identifying mission targets for 2003, 2004, and 2005 and spelling
out the specific steps necessary to achieve those targets.
H.R. 5005 Homeland Security Act of 2002.
This Act, which authorizes the largest restructuring of the federal government
in more than 55 years, strengthens the executive branch of the federal
government to better meet the threat to the U.S. homeland posed by terrorism.
The establishment of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
Brings all immigration responsibilities under the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
Moves the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from the Treasury Department
to the Department of Justice to better perform its law-enforcement responsibilities.
(ATF revenue collection functions will remain at Treasury.)
Includes provisions that encourage partnerships between government and
the private sector to better protect the civilian infrastructure--e.g.,
telecommunications, transportation nodes, and power grids.
Establishes procedures to encourage private industry to share information
on infrastructure vulnerabilities with the government to help identify
and correct weaknesses.
Strengthens the Coast Guard's position as a distinct organization within
the department while retaining and performing all of its current missions.
Establishes separate funding for Coast Guard research and development
Allows pilots of passenger planes to be trained in the use of firearms
and to be armed with guns while in the cockpits of their planes.
The president signed the landmark legislation into law on 25 November.
Meanwhile, President Bush nominated White House Homeland Security Advisor
Tom Ridge to be the first DHS secretary. Bush also announced that Secretary
of the Navy Gordon R. England will be nominated for the post of under
secretary of DHS, and that Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator
Asa Hutchinson, a former House member from Arkansas, will be nominated
to serve as under secretary for border and transportation security.
Bush submitted his implementation plan for the new department almost immediately
after the DHS Bill was signed. He can, therefore, begin transferring agencies
in about 90 days. All agencies must be transferred within one year after
Bush's submission of the reorganization plan.
It is expected that there will be a great deal of dialogue between the
Congress and the administration over the transfer of agencies, especially
because the large number of transfers and other reorganization actions
involved will significantly affect the various congressional committees
that are ultimately tasked to oversee the DHS budget and operations.*