Order Code RL31615
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security:
The Department of Defense’s Role
October 18, 2002
Steve Bowman
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Homeland Security: The Department of Defense’s Role
Summary
For over a century the U.S. military has focused on expeditionary warfare
overseas. Its participation in domestic operations has been sporadic and generally in
response to natural disasters. With the heightened concern about large-scale
terrorism, have come efforts to involve DOD more closely with federal, state and
local agencies in their homeland security activities. DOD resources are unique in
the government, both in their size and capabilities, and can be applied to both deter
and respond to terrorist acts. While the DOD leadership is ready and willing to play
a supporting role in these efforts, it wishes to maintain overseas military operations
as the Department’s primary focus, and avoid an inadvertent drain of fiscal, materiel,
and personnel resources to the homeland security mission.
In response to the increased focus on homeland security, on October 1, 2002,
DOD activated a new combatant command, Northern Command or NORCOM.. At
the same time, Congress and the Administration are working to create a new
statutory Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Exactly how DOD and a new
DHS will establish and maintain coordination and cooperation remains to be seen.
Legislation currently under consideration (H.R. 5005 and S. 2452) to create the new
DHS is silent on this question, and details on the new NORCOM are scarse.
The intelligence collection and analysis capabilities within the Department of
Defense are a substantial portion of the United States’ national intelligence assets.
They include the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the
intelligence and security branches of the individual armed services. Consequently,
the means and extent of cooperation/coordination between DOD and the new DHS
will be of great importance to the success of DHS’s efforts to provide comprehensive
intelligence analysis.
The Department of Defense, with its active duty and reserve forces, and the
potential of federalizing National Guard units, has the largest and most diversified
personnel assets in the Federal Government. As was demonstrated in the months
after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, they can be used in a variety of security
roles
The Department of Defense remains the greatest federal repository of resources
for responding to a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) incident.
It is anticipated that civilian authorities will eventually develop better capabilities to
deal with CBRN incidents, however for the foreseeable future there will be continued
reliance upon DOD assets.
DOD research & development related to homeland security is in chemical-
biological defense. The FY2003 budget request identified approximately $602
million as DOD funding for homeland security biodefense: bioweapons defense and
countermeasures – $120 million; agent detection, identification, and monitoring –
$300 million; and other unspecified biodefense research – $182 million.
Congressional appropriations supported this request in full.
Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Deterrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Personnel Augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Northern Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Response to Terrorist Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Northern Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Incident Response . . . . . . 5
U.S. Army Soldier and Biological-Chemical Command . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams . . 6
U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
U.S. Marine Corps Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force . . . . 7
U.S. Special Operations Command
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Technology Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Homeland Security: The Department of
Defense’s Role
Background
For over a century the U.S. military has focused on expeditionary warfare
overseas. Its participation in domestic operations has been sporadic and generally in
response to natural disasters. With the heightened concern about large-scale
terrorism, have come efforts to involve DOD more closely with federal, state and
local agencies in their homeland security activities. DOD resources are unique in
the government, both in their size and capabilities, and can be applied to both deter
and respond to terrorist acts. While the DOD leadership is ready and willing to play
a supporting role in these efforts, it wishes to maintain overseas military operations
as the Department’s primary focus, and avoid an inadvertent drain of fiscal, materiel,
and personnel resources to the homeland security mission. In addition, long-
standing reservations about the use of military forces domestically, and the
consequent statutory limitations on their use, remain strong considerations. Secretary
Rumsfeld stated before the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, there are
three types of situations when DOD resources are called upon to assist civilian
authorities: 1) extraordinary circumstances that require traditional military missions,
such as combat air patrols; 2) emergency circumstances of catastrophic nature
resulting from terrorist attack or natural disaster; and 3) provision of security
assistance at National Security Special Events, such as the Olympics. 1
In response to the increased focus on homeland security, DOD has a new
combatant command, Northern Command or NORCOM,. At the same time,
Congress and the Administration are working to create a new statutory Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). Exactly how DOD and the new DHS will establish
and maintain coordination and cooperation remains to be seen. Legislation currently
under consideration (H.R. 5005 and S. 2452) to create the new DHS is silent on this
question, and details on the new NORCOM remain scarse.
The DOD has also created the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Security, currently Peter Verga, who is charged with developing policies
and procedures to improve DOD’s domestic terrorism response capabilities. This
office will also serve as Secretary of Defense’s liaison with the staffs of a new
Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Council, and the White
House’s Office of Homeland Security.
1 For a detailed discussion, see also CRS Report RL-30938, Terrorism and the Military’s
Role in Domestic Crisis Management: Background and Issues for Congress.
CRS-2
In general, DOD’s contributions to homeland security can be divided into three
general areas: deterrence, response, and technology research & development. Under
these categories are a variety of activities and capabilities that can contribute directly
or indirectly to improved homeland security.
Deterrence
Intelligence
The intelligence collection and analysis capabilities within the Department of
Defense are a substantial portion of the United States’ national intelligence assets.
They include the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the
intelligence and security branches of the individual armed services. These assets
provide communication intercepts, satellite reconnaissance, and human intelligence
worldwide. Consequently, the means and extent of cooperation/coordination
between DOD and the new DHS will be of great importance to the success of DHS’s
efforts to provide comprehensive intelligence analysis.
Neither DHS legislative proposal (H.R. 5005, S. 2452) addresses DOD’s
intelligence assets specifically. H.R. 5005 (Sec. 203), in establishing the DHS
Under-Secretary for Information and Infrastructure Protection, grants the new
department
“...access to all reports, assessments, and analytical information relating to
threats or terrorism in the United States, and to all information concerning
infrastrucure vulnerabilities...”
The FY2002 Department of Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 107-107, Sec. 924)
directs the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence to submit a
report assessing alternative for the establishment of a “national collaborative
information capability”. H.R. 5005 directs that DHS shall have full access to
information from any such joint DOD /DCI entity established in the future.
For its part, S. 2452, Sec. 301, in mandating the development of a national
strategy for combating terrorism, directs the new DHS and a new statutorily-based
National Office for Combating Terrorism within the Executive Office of the
President to address:
“...policies and procedures to maximize the collection, translation, analysis,
exploitation, and dissemination of information relating to combating terrorism
and homeland security response throughout the Federal Government and with
state and local authorities.”
Neither legislative proposal grants any administrative or tasking authority over
DOD intelligence assets, and both specifically state that no provision of the
legislation shall be construed as affecting the intelligence authorities of the Secretary
of Defense under the National Security Act of 1947. H.R. 5005 does, however,
create a DHS Intelligence Center, and directs the Secretary of Defense to enter into
cooperative agreements with the new DHS to detail to this center “an appropriate
CRS-3
number of individuals” from the National Security Agency, National Imagery and
Mapping Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Reflecting an increasing interest in the organization of DOD’s intelligence
elements, the House version of FY2003 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4546)
creates an Undersecretary for Intelligence. The responsibilities and authorities of this
new office are left to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. It is likely that, if
enacted, this office will serve as the conduit for information/intelligence sharing with
DHS and oversee personnel detailing agreements.
One area of concern involving intelligence which a new Secretary of Homeland
Security will have to resolve is how to fulfill its information-sharing responsibilities
to state and local law enforcement and first responders without compromising
classified national security information or sources. Providing meaningful and
actionable warnings to state and local officials has proven a challenge for the current
Office of Homeland Security. Lack of specificity and recommended action has been
the primary criticism.
Personnel Augmentation
The Department of Defense, with its active duty and reserve forces, and the
option of federalizing National Guard units, has the largest and most diversified
personnel assets in the Federal Government. As was demonstrated in the months
after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, they can be used in a variety of security
roles. The National Guard augmented the border patrol, customs agencies, and
airport security personnel, flew air patrols, and provided site security in Washington,
DC and New York City. A major concern when armed forces personnel are deployed
in these roles under federal command is their remaining within the provisions of the
Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits their conducting law enforcement
activities such as arrests or search and seizures.2 Other subjects of controversy have
been whether these detailed military personnel should be armed and whether they
have had sufficient training in civilian law enforcement procedures.
Currently, it appears that the National Guard will continue to play the major role
in homeland security personnel augmentation when needed. Some National Guard
officials have expressed concern about increased homeland security responsibilities
detracting from its current primary mission of supporting active duty forces in
overseas military operations (e.g. peacekeeping in Bosnia). Today’s U.S. armed
forces organization and war-fighting doctrine rely significantly upon the participation
of National Guard and reserve personnel, and it has been questioned whether these
requirements could still be met if the homeland security mission predominates.3 It
2 There are some statutory exceptions to the prohibition, including anti-drug operations,
incidents involving nuclear weapons, and suppressing civil insurrection or unlawful
conspiracy. For a detailed discussion of the Posse Comitatus Act, see CRS Report 95-964,
The Posse Comitatus Act & Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian
Law.
3 “Officials: Homeland Defense Mission Will Mean Changes for the Guard”, Inside
(continued...)
CRS-4
also must be remembered that National Guard and reserve personnel are primarily
part-time “citizen soldiers”, and that significantly increased operational activations
may well have a negative effect on personnel retention. Reflecting this concern,
some National Guard officials have called for an increase in full-time active duty
personnel. The National Guard stands at about 57% of its full-time personnel
requirement, and the Army has developed a plan to bring that level up to 71% before
2011.4
Northern Command
In March 2002, the Department of Defense undertook, at the direction of the
President, the organization of a new unified command5, Northern Command, to be
responsible for:
.
..providing unity of command over military efforts related to homeland security
within...the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and the
surrounding water to approximately 500 nautical miles”6
With regard to deterrence, the primary contribution of NORCOM will be its
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Since the September
2001 airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, NORAD, whose
Cold War mission focused on protection from Soviet missile and bomber attacks, has
shifted significant attention to domestic airway security. It has recently improved its
coordination/communication capability with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
domestic air traffic control system in order to able to respond to a potential repetition
of the September 11, 2001 attacks. NORCOM may also contribute to homeland
security deterrence efforts in its command of any National Guard units that are
federalized for that mission. NORCOM will share with the Pacific Command
responsibility for U.S. Navy homeland security operations in U.S. coastal waters.
It does not appear, however, that NORCOM will have authority over the U.S. Coast
Guard, which is expected to be transferred to the new Department of Homeland
Security.
Response to Terrorist Incidents
Northern Command
Little information regarding the new command has been released. Though
activated on October 1, 2002, it is not expected to be fully operational until October
3 (...continued)
Defense, November 19, 2001.
4 “Senate Budget Resolution Calls for More Full-time Guard Troops,” Inside Defense, April
1, 2002.
5 Other unified commands include: European Command, Pacific Command, Atlantic
Command, Southern Command (Latin America & the Caribbean Sea), and Joint Forces
Command
6 Memorandum, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 8, 2002.
CRS-5
2003.7 Its headquarters is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO, and
its commander is Air Force General Edward Eberhart. As noted, NORCOM will
subsume the existing North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD),
which the United States operates jointly with Canada. It is not yet clear what, if any,
role the Canadian military will play within NORCOM, aside from its continuing
participation in NORAD.
The new Northern Command does not have a large number of active duty
personnel or units permanently assigned to it, but rather has units “earmarked” for
potential assignment as events warrant. National Guard units, if federalized for
homeland security operations, will come under NORCOM command.
Formerly, the Joint Forces Command’s Joint Force Headquarters-Homeland
Security coordinated the land and maritime defense of the continental United States,
and all military assistance to civilian authorities. Subordinate to this headquarters is
the Joint Task Force-Civil Support (CST-CS) which provides command and control
for DOD units deployed in response to any incident involving chemical, biological,
nuclear, radiological, or high-yield conventional explosives. Generally, these units
are deployed only upon the request of state or local officials to the President. The
JTF-CS, and the units deployed under its command, remain under the direction of the
lead federal civilian agency at the incident site.8 These Joint Forces Command
headquarters units are transferring to the new NORCOM. It is also expected that
NORCOM will expand upon the efforts of the JTF-CS to establish and maintain
close coordination with state and local authorities..
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Incident
Response
The Department of Defense remains the greatest federal repository of resources
for responding to a chemical, biological, radiological, or Nuclear (CBRN) incident.
It is anticipated that civilian authorities will eventually develop better capabilities to
deal with CBRN incidents, however for the foreseeable future there will be continued
reliance upon DOD assets.
U.S. Army Soldier and Biological-Chemical Command. In 1996,
Congress directed the Department of Defense to organize a joint service Chemical
and Biological Rapid Response Team (CB-RRT) to support civilian authorities (P.L.
104-201, Sec. 1414). This team was established in 1997 under the U.S. Army
Soldier and Biological-Chemical Command. CB-RRT’s mission is to deploy and
coordinate DOD’s technical assistance in support of the federal lead agency (FBI or
FEMA) in both crisis and consequence management of an incident involving
chemical or biological agents. The CB-RRT may also deploy for designated National
Security Special Events (e.g. the Olympics, presidential inaugurations, etc.).
7 “Command Merger Likely to Leave Behind Staff for U.S. NORTHCOM”, Inside Defense,
August 29, 2002.
8 For crisis response, the lead federal agency is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for
consequence management it is the Federal Emergency Management Agency..
CRS-6
Headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, the CB-RTT would coordinate the
CB incident response activities of the following DOD assets:
! U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit
! U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center
! U.S. Army Medical Command Special Medical Augmentation
Response Teams and Regional Medical Commands
! U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases
! U.S. Navy Environmental Health Center
! U.S. Marine Corps Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force
! National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams
! U.S. Army 52nd Ordnance Group (explosive ordnance disposal)
Brief descriptions of the units most likely to be deployed to a chemical or biological
incident are provided below.
National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.
The National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-
CST) are full-time active duty personnel whose mission is to assess a suspected
CBRN incident, advise civilian authorities, and expedite the arrival of additional
military personnel. Each team consists of 22 personnel and is equipped with CBRN
detection, analysis, and protective equipment. Congress has authorized 32 WMD-
CSTs, and the FY2003 Defense Authorization Act, as passed by House (H.R. 4546,
Sec. 1026), would authorize an additional 23 teams to ensure that each state and
territory would have a team. The Senate did not have such provision in its version
of the legislation, which is currently in House-Senate conference.
Of the 35 teams authorized, 27 have received certification of the requisite
training and equipment. The remainder are still being staffed and equipped. The
certified teams are located in : Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, California, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota,
New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia.
U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit. Established in 1944, the Technical
Escort Unit is the longest-standing chemical and biological weapons unit in DOD.
Its mission is to conduct rapid deployment to provide chemical and biological advice,
verification, detection, mitigation, decontamination, escort, and remediation of
chemical and biological devices or hazards worldwide. In accomplishing this
mission, it has provided support to, among others, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the United Nations. The Technical Escort unit has also
deployed in the United States as part of security operations at national political
conventions, NATO conferences, presidential inaugurations and State of the Union
addresses, and the Olympics. Headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, it has
CRS-7
subordinate units stationed at Dugway Proving Ground, UT, Fort Belvoir, VA, and
Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR.9
U.S. Marine Corps Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force.
The Marines’ Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) was
established in 1996, and is currently headquartered outside Washington, DC.
CBIRF’s primary mission is to provide chemical-biological force protection and
defensive training for the Marine Corps, however since its inception it has placed
significant emphasis upon preparation to assist state and local authorities in the event
of a domestic chemical-biological incident, participating in over 120 “table-top” and
field exercises with first-responders around the country. The capabilities which
CBIRF can bring to bear include: CBW agent detection and identification,
decontamination, emergency medical treatment and triage, search and rescue, and
casualty evacuation assistance.
U.S. Special Operations Command
Both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy have dedicated counterterrorist units
whose primary focus is overseas operations. They could be called upon to
advise/assist civilian law enforcement officials, although the FBI’S Hostage Rescue
Team would normally be the first federal counterterrorist responders in domestic
situations. Official open source information on the organization and mission of these
DOD units is not available. Generally, even official acknowledgment of their
existence is not forthcoming. From unofficial sources, a few details can be provided.
The Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, also known as
Delta Force, is based at Ft. Bragg, NC and the Naval Special Warfare Development
Group (formerly SEAL Team 6) is based at Dam Neck, VA. Both units number
several hundred personnel, and undergo very rigorous and constant training in
marksmanship, close combat, urban combat, SCUBA diving, and high-altitude
parachuting, among other skills. Cross-training with other national counterterrorist
units such as the British Special Air Services and the German Grenzschutz Polizei
(GSG-9) is frequent. Both units have reportedly participated in every significant
U.S. military operation over the last two decades.
Technology Research and Development
The Department of Defense’s primary research & development activities related
to homeland security are in chemical and biological defense. In the FY2003 budget
request, the Bush Administration identified approximately $602 million as DOD
funding for homeland security biodefense: bioweapons defense and countermeasures
– $120 million; agent detection, identification, and monitoring – $300 million; and
other unspecified biodefense research – $182 million.10 This represents
approximately 64% of DOD’s total chemical and biological defense R&D budget of
9 For further information, see [http://teu.sbccom.army.mil/factsheet].
10 Securing the Homeland-Strengthening the Nation, The White House. 2002.
CRS-8
$932 million.11 These budget statistics do not necessarily mean that resources are
being diverted from military chemical-biological R&D programs, but rather reflect
the extent to which many of these programs can have civilian applications also. For
FY2003, Congress appropriated the full Administration request for these programs.
Congress also provided an additional $25 million for a Chem-Bio Defense Initiative
Fund, directing that the Secretary of Defense to allocate these funds “in a manner
which yields the greatest gain in our chem-bio defensive posture” among the
following specified programs
! The National Center for Biodefense
! Chem-bio Threat Mitigation technologies
! Global Pathogen Science Portal
! Advanced Sensors for Chem-bio Agents
! Rapid Sensitive Biowarfare Protection
! Diagnostic Tool for Biowarfare
! Ultra-High Field Instrumentation
! Urban Security Initiative
! Chemical Imaging Biothreat Detection
! Biological Agent Sensor/Detection System
! Chem-bio Air Filtration System
! Food Safety and Security Sensors
! Bioinformatics
! Phylogenetic- and PCR-based Detector System
! Field Portable Nucleic Acid Bioterrorism Detection
! LISA-Inspector Transportable Chem-bio Detection System
! Distributed Chemical Agent Sensing and Transmission
! Wide-Area Standoff Chem-bio Agent Detection System
! Air Purification for Protection System
! Rapid Antibody-based Countermeasures
! Oral Anthrax Antibiotic
! Plant Vaccine Development
! Rapid Response Sensor Networking for Multiple Applications
! Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF).
Though both legislative proposals to create a new Department of Homeland
Security address the importance of research and development, and establish offices
to coordinate government and private sector research related to homeland security,
(H.R. 5005, Sec 301; S. 2452, Sec. 103-104) neither directly addresses the R&D
efforts under the Department of Defense. The House version of the Department of
Homeland Security legislation (H.R. 5005) would transfer to the new department two
DOD programs: the Biological Defense Homeland Security Support Program and the
Biological Counter-Terrorism Research Program. In fact, these are programs that
were first included in the Administration’s FY2003 budget request. As they do not
yet exist, their transfer to the new DHS should have little impact on DOD’s research
and development efforts.
11 Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program: Annual Report to
Congress. April 2002.
CRS-9
DOD’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program maintains coordination with
over 80 other government agencies through the Technical Support Working Group
(TSWG) under the leadership of both the Department of Defense and the Department
of State. Within the TSWG, a CBRN subgroup co-chaired by the FBI and the CIA
seeks to identify and prioritize requirements for combating CBRN terrorism, focusing
on detection, protective measures, decontamination, mitigation, and disposal.