Homeland Security: Navy Operations — Background and Issues for Congress

Homeland Security: Navy Operations — Background and Issues for Congress

Order Code RS21230
Updated November 22, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security: Navy Operations —
Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O’Rourke
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
The Department of Defense (DOD), which includes the Navy, has been designated
the lead federal agency for homeland defense (HLD), while the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), which includes the Coast Guard, has been designated the
lead federal agency for homeland security (HLS). Several Navy activities contribute to
HLS and HLD. The Navy’s HLS and HLD operations raise several potential oversight
issues for Congress, including Navy coordination with the Coast Guard in HLS and
HLD operations. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Background
Key Terms And Definitions.1 In discussing the Navy’s homeland security
operations, key terms include homeland security (HLS), homeland defense (HLD), civil
support (CS), maritime domain awareness (MDA), the global war on terrorism (GWOT),
and anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP). These terms are discussed briefly below.
The maritime elements of HLS and HLD are abbreviated MHLS and MHLD, respectively.
Navy officials, following the National Strategy for Homeland Security, define
homeland security as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the
United States, to reduce vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage and
recover from attacks that do occur.” Following the Defense Planning Guidance for
FY2004-FY2009, Navy officials define homeland defense as “the protection of U.S.
territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and critical infrastructure against external
threats and aggression,” and civil support as “Department of Defense (DOD) support to
U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies and for designated law enforcement and
other activities.” Under these definitions, there is some overlap between HLS and HLD,
particularly with regard to protecting against terrorist attacks within the United States, and
1 Quotes from Navy officials included in this section are taken from Navy briefings and briefing
papers on Navy HLD and HLS operations provided to CRS in January 2005.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
some overlap between HLS and CS, particularly with regard to responding to effects of
terrorist attacks within the United States.
Navy officials define maritime domain awareness as “the effective understanding
of anything associated with the maritime domain that could impact the security, safety, or
economy of the United States.” MDA, Navy officials state, “globally links coordinating
commands, helps to define the initial battlespace, and is a national-level mission requiring
cooperative efforts by many different departments, agencies, and civilian organizations.”
Examples of potential maritime threats to be detected by MDA, Navy officials state,
include terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy, arms trafficking,
narcotics smuggling, other criminal activities, and mass migrations. The Coast Guard has
identified the achievement of MDA as a key goal, and has identified specific programs in
its budget as supporting MDA.2
Navy officials state that MHLD is part of the larger global war on terrorism. Anti-
terrorism/force-protection refers to measures taken to protect U.S. military forces and
facilities (e.g., Navy personnel, ships, and bases) against attack, including terrorist attacks.
Some Navy AT/FP efforts can qualify as MHLS or MHLD activities.
Navy MHLS and MHLD Activities. Table 1 on the next page shows how
selected Navy activities can contribute to, or qualify as, MHLS, MHLD, GWOT, or
AT/FP efforts. (Some of the activities listed separately in the table can be viewed as
alternate ways of describing essentially the same kinds of operations.) As can be seen in
the table, in light of the overlapping definitions discussed above, a number of Navy
activities can qualify under more than one of these terms, depending on the exact scenario
in question.
Navy and Coast Guard Roles in MHLS and MHLD. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), which includes the Coast Guard, has been designated the lead
federal agency for HLS,3 while DOD, which includes the Navy, has been designated the
lead federal agency for HLD.4 Given the partial overlap in definitions between MHLS and
MHLD, situations involving potential terrorist attacks in the maritime domain close to the
United States could pose a question as to whether DHS or DOD should take the lead in
responding. Navy officials state that in such situations, until a Presidential decision is
made to assign a lead agency, or in time-critical situations, on-scene Coast Guard and
Navy commanders are empowered to act in accordance with established authorities,
procedures, guidance, and policies. If time permits, the President, in consultation with
appropriate cabinet officials, will decide whether the situation is an HLS or HLD event,
thus determining whether DHS or DOD is the lead agency.
2 See CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
3 For more on Coast Guard HLS operations, see CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security:
Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
4 For more on DOD’s role in HLS, see CRS Report RL31615, Homeland Security: The
Department of Defense’s Role, by Steve Bowman.

CRS-3
Table 1. Selected Navy HLS, HLD, GWOT and AT/FP Activities
... can contribute to, or qualify as
This potential or actual U.S. Navy activity...
HLS
HLD
GWOT
AT/FP
Participate in building and maintaining maritime
X
X
X
domain awareness
Intercept terrorists or weapons of mass destruction,
X
X
X
or potentially threatening ships or aircraft that are in
or approaching U.S. territorial waters
Protect U.S. Navy bases and facilities in United
X
X
X
States, and U.S. Navy ships at ports or shipyards in
the United States or U.S. territorial waters
Protect U.S. homeland from attack by ballistic
X
X
missiles, cruise missiles, conventional attack, and
asymmetric/terrorist attack
Protect U.S. Navy computer networks
X
X
Assist U.S. civil authorities in responding to or
X
X
recovering from a terrorist attack
Assist Coast Guard in protecting U.S. ports and
X
coastal areas
Participate in Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)5
X
X
or Theater Security Initiative
Maintain forward-deployed naval presence overseas
X
X
Protect U.S. Navy bases and facilities in foreign
X
X
countries, and forward-deployed U.S. Navy ships,
from terrorist or asymmetric attack
Measures to protect individual Navy sailors
X
Source: Information sheet provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, Feb. 1, 2005. The Navy
states that the columns marked for these activities are highly scenario-dependent.
HLS Events. Existing concepts of operations for the commanders of the Navy’s
Atlantic and Pacific fleets describe Navy support and resources potentially available for
use by the Coast Guard, as the lead federal agency, for MHLS events. Navy forces are
requested and provided to the Coast Guard through a request for assistance (RFA) that
requires the approval of the Secretary of Defense. The existing concepts of operations
documents define action areas and a scalable response that DOD could provide support
to the Coast Guard’s three Maritime Security (MARSEC) levels. A draft Secretary of
Defense memorandum provides both the authority and procedure for DOD to respond to
5 For more on the PSI, see CRS Report RS21881, Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), by
Sharon Squassoni.

CRS-4
time-critical situations by rapidly transferring DOD assets to the Coast Guard to respond
to HLS missions. It also provides guidance for the Navy’s 2nd and 3rd Fleets (which
operate in the Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific, respectively) for conducting MHLD
missions. As of January 2005, a draft reciprocal memorandum of agreement (MOA) was
being prepared in parallel to the draft Secretary of Defense memorandum to provide a
more formal standing agreement for rapidly transferring DOD assets in time-critical
situations. The Secretary of Defense memorandum and the reciprocal MOA are intended
to expedite the RFA process.
HLD Events. A memorandum of agreement (MOA) between DOD and DHS
regarding the inclusion of the Coast Guard in support of MHLD established a DOD joint
command and control structure for MHLD that includes Coast Guard forces. It also
identifies and documents roles, missions, and functions for the Coast Guard in support of
MHLD operations.
Navy Command Structure for HLD. The Commander of U.S. Fleet Forces
Command (CFFC), located in Norfolk, VA, who is also the Commander of the U.S.
Atlantic Fleet, is assigned as the supporting naval component command and the Joint
Force Maritime Component Commander (JFMCC) to the Commander of the U.S.
Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) for planning and conducting MHLD operations
in the USNORTHCOM area of responsibility.6
Navy Authorities and Concept of Operations for HLD. A series of Execute
Orders (EXORDs) issued under Operation Noble Eagle (the overarching name for HLD
operations) provides DOD, including the Navy, with authorities, responsibilities, rules of
engagement, and guidance for HLD operations. The EXORDs provide an overarching
HLD concept of operations for DOD that implements a five-tiered, graduated-response
posture enabling a scalable response to maritime and aerospace threats to the U.S.
homeland. The documents identify the Navy’s primary contribution to HLS, HLD, and
GWOT as deterring the threat forward (i.e., overseas) with combat-capable forward-
deployed forces. CFFC is a central participant in developing a concept of operations for
MHLD and support to MHLS in USNORTHCOM’s area of responsibility. As of January
2005, this concept of operations was in final development.
Navy Assets for MHLD and MHLS Operations. U.S.-based Navy ships and
aircraft that are between their regularly scheduled overseas deployments, as well as Navy
coastal warfare units and explosive ordnance disposal units, are available as needed for
MHLS and MHLD operations. On any given day, some Navy ships and aircraft might be
engaged in such operations. In the event of an MHLS or MHLD event, additional U.S.-
based ships and aircraft could be surged into operation.
Navy Support to Coast Guard MHLS Operations. Current Navy assistance
to the Coast Guard for MHLS operations includes, among other things, the transfer to the
Coast Guard of five of the Navy’s 13 Cyclone (PC-1) class fast patrol boats. Four of these
170-foot craft were transferred on September 30, 2004; the fifth was to be transferred on
6 For more on USNORTHCOM, see CRS Report RS21322, Homeland Security: Establishment
and Implementation of Northern Command, by Christopher Bolkcom and Steve Bowman.

CRS-5
September 30, 2005. The Navy is to pay the maintenance costs of these craft during
FY2006-FY2008.
Navy Funding for MHLS and MHLD Operations. Table 2 below shows, for
the FY2006-FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), projected direct Navy funding
for HLD and for Navy AT/FP efforts that may indirectly support HLD.
Table 2. Navy Funding For HLD and AT/FP Supporting HLD
(millions of dollars, rounded to the nearest million)
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FYDP
Recurring, direct Navy funding to support HLD
Coast Guard support
63
63
64
53
54
56
353
Maritime intelligence
9
9
9
9
10
10
56

FEMA/EM
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
SUBTOTAL
73
73
74
63
65
67
415
Navy funding for AT/FP efforts that may indirectly support HLD
Ashore efforts
1,159
1,248
1,217
1,318
1,275
1,278
7,495
Afloat efforts
1,013
861
1,206
1,153
1,216
1,271
6,720
NCIS/AT
84
86
84
87
92
95
528
SUBTOTAL
2,256
2,195
2,507
2,558
2,583
2,644
14,743
Source: Information sheet provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, January 25, 2005.
In the table above, the line for Coast Guard support includes maintenance support in
FY2006-FY2008 for PC-1 class patrol boats operated by the Coast Guard (a total of $30
million) and support in FY2006-FY2011 for common Navy-Coast Guard weapons and
C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) systems. Maritime
intelligence is support for joint Navy-Coast Guard maritime intelligence and interdiction
efforts. FEMA/EM is direct support for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
related assistance to civil authorities for emergency management.
Ashore and afloat, AT/FP efforts include training and deployment of AT/FP
personnel; Navy contributions to programs relating to weapons of mass destruction;
enhanced shipboard, port, and facilities defenses; and physical security equipment,
weapons, and ammunition. NCIS/AT is funding for Naval Criminal Investigative Service
anti-terrorism support to fleet deployments, threat databases and warning systems,
protective operations, and vulnerability assessments.
Table 2 does not reflect funding for Navy ships, aircraft, and personnel that are
tasked on an ad hoc basis for HLD missions. When ships and aircraft are assigned for
specific HLD missions, their operational costs are reimbursed subject to case-by-case
adjudication by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

CRS-6
Potential Oversight Issues for Congress
Coordination with and Support for Coast Guard. Are policies, concepts of
operations, procedures, and tactics for coordinating Navy and Coast Guard HLS and HLD
operations complete and sufficient? Are the two services conducting sufficient joint
exercises? Are their systems sufficiently interoperable? Is the Navy providing the right
numbers and kinds of ships to assist the Coast Guard in performing HLS operations?
Navy LCS and Coast Guard Deepwater Programs. DOD officials have
suggested that the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) could be appropriate for HLD
operations.7 The Coast Guard is procuring new cutters under its Deepwater acquisition
program that could also suitable for HLD operations.8 Have the Navy and Coast Guard
adequately coordinated their requirements for LCSs and Deepwater cutters?9
Impact on Navy Force-Structure Requirements. Will Navy HLS and HLD
operations add to requirements for the total size of the Navy, and if so, by how much?10
MDA and Maritime Analog To NORAD. Navy and DOD officials since 2003
have spoken about creating a maritime analog to the North American Air Defense
Command (NORAD).11 What would such an entity encompass, and is this idea
compatible with Coast Guard’s concept for MDA?
Security at U.S. Navy Installations. Has the Navy taken adequate steps to
improve security at naval installations in the United States? Is the Navy conducting
sufficient testing of these measures? What new technologies or systems are under
development that may improve future Navy capabilities in this area?
Cyberwar Attacks on Naval Computers. Potential questions here are
analogous to those listed above for security at U.S. Navy installations.12
7 John T. Bennett, “Defense officials Say Littoral Combat Ships Could Defend U.S. Shores,”
Inside the Navy, October 21, 2004. For more on the LCS program, see CRS Report RS21305,
Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS): Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke,
and CRS Report RL32109, Navy DD(X), CG(X), and LCS Ship Acquisition Programs: Oversight
Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
8 For more on the Deepwater program, see CRS Report RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
9 For additional discussion, see Statement of Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in National Defense,
Congressional Research Service, Before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard, Hearing on the Coast Guard’s
Revised Deepwater Implementation Plan, June 21, 2005, pp. 9-10.
10 For more on potential Navy force-structure plans, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force
Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
11 See, for example, Christopher J Castelli, “DOD Develops Homeland Defense Strategy,
Advocates ‘Maritime NORAD,’” Inside the Navy, Aug. 2, 2004, p. 1.
12 For more on this issue, see 147 CRS Report RL32114, Computer Attack and Cyberterrorism:
Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress, by Clay Wilson.
crsphpgw