The federal civil defense program had a statutory basis in Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress. Its repeal in 1994 under President Clinton might have covered up the fact that since the 1970's and President Nixon civil defense was not a real factor in the strategic equation of nuclear weapons. MAD, however is still the US strategic doctrine. The US Congress after the 1970's gave almost no oversight to the CD program and in fact accelerated its grant program as unrestricted revenue sharing.
Theoretically, the President's did not want to deal with CD after JFK and in a series of PD's and NSDD's used that system to largely fig leaf a decrepit effort. It should be said however that honorable people ran the program and did worry and lose sleep over the survival of a substantial portion of the US population should an attack occur. Two policy adoptions would have facilitated CD. First, renunciation of the MAD doctrine and simultaneous renunciation of first use of nuclear weapons. Even President Obama seems held captive to the DoD and DoE nuclear priesthood even as costs of the cleanup of the bomb complex realistically are probably close to $1 trillion.
Even weaker than the statute itself as amended as of the date of NSDD-66 (U) the language adopts the all-hazards mantra that now even rules in DHS.
So here is the text annotated by me for readers!
Editors note- While copied from the original several
editorial highlights have been added to enhance emphasis.
It should also be noted that this was the last Presidential Directive/ National Security Directive issued to provide guidance on Civil Defense prior to portions of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended being incorporated in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Essentially it mandates all-hazards preparedness and was reflected in a formal statutory amendment of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 by Public Law 103-160 in 1993]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON 20284
March 16, 1992
NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTIVE 66
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
MANAGER, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SUBJECT: CIVIL DEFENSE (U)
POLICY
The United States will have a civil defense capability as an element of our overall national
security posture. The objective of the civil defense program is to develop the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies in order to protect the population and vital infrastructure. Civil defense can contribute to deterrence by denying an enemy any confidence that he could prevent a concerted national response to attack. (U)
The civil defense program will support all-hazard integrated emergency management at State and local levels. In so doing, the civil defense program will: (U)
1) Recognize and respect the primary responsibility of State and local governments to provide for the safety and well being of their citizens in emergencies other than national security emergencies.
2) Provide a focal point within the Federal government to work with State and local governments on integrated multi-hazard response planning and operations to deal with the consequences of catastrophic emergencies. (U)
3) Continue to implement a policy of dual use of civil defense resources through the development and use of capabilities at Federal, State and local levels to perform emergency functions to respond to emergencies of all kinds including attack. (U)
4) Focus on the development, jointly with State and local governments, of the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies, thus ensuring that the use of civil defense funds is consistent with, contributes to, and does not detract from attack preparedness. (U)
5) Provide for the development of a civil defense infrastructure capable of expansion in a national security emergency involving the threat of all forms of attack on the United States which provide advanced warning. (U)
6) Utilize to the maximum extent the existing capabilities, facilities and resources of all appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Government, in accordance with Executive Order 12656 and, with their consent, those of the States and political subdivisions thereof, and of private sector organizations and agencies. (U)
Disaster-specific programs such as hurricane or flood relief programs which may be incorporated into the civil defense program and which are currently funded within domestic discretionary accounts will continue to be budgeted in this manner. In addition, any equipment or programs not needed for the consequence management of national security emergencies will be funded within the domestic discretionary accounts.
IMPLEMENTATION
The program under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the support of heads of the Federal Departments and agencies, and under the general policy guidance of the National Security Council, will include: (U)
1) Population protection capabilities, with the Federal Government providing guidance and assistance to enable State and local governments to effectively support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
2) State and local government crisis management capabilities to effectively
support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
3) Information to promote a clear understanding by the public of the civil defense program, all threats which may affect their localities and actions they should take to minimize their effects. (U)
4) Information to assist U.S. business and industry in taking measures to protect their work forces and physical assets in all catastrophic emergencies and encouragement of the private sector to make maximum use of private sector capabilities. (U)
5) Voluntary participation by citizens and institutions in community civil defense activities and emphasis on citizen protective actions. (U)
6) Plans for sustaining survivors, for restoration of critical life support capabilities, and to establish a basis for recovery. (U)
7) Definition of and an assessment of the base capability necessary to respond to emergencies that do not provide warning, and the development of those base capabilities which are common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack. (U)
8) Plans for a civil defense surge from the base capability to the total required capability in a national security crisis involving the threat of attack. These plans should assume advanced warning, adequate time to conduct the surge, and the required base capability form which to surge. Total required capability is that operational capability necessary to protect the population and vital infrastructure through preparedness measures common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack emergencies. (U)
The Department of Defense will support civil authorities in civil defense, to include facilitating the use of the National Guard in each state for response in both peacetime disasters and national security emergencies. Subject to the direction of the President and the Secretary of Defense, readiness of the armed forces for military contingencies will have precedence and civil authorities should not rely exclusively on military support. Federal military resources will be employed in civil defense missions only if State and Federal civil resources are not sufficient. Nothing in this directive alters or otherwise affects the chain of command for the armed forces established by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (U)
Nothing in this directive provides for any new Federal responsibilities which are now the responsibility of State and local governments. (U)
RECISSION
National Security Decision Directive 259, dated February 4, 1987, is rescinded. (U)
/signed/ George H.W. Bush
Showing posts with label Civil Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Defense. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
First Anniversary of Death of Jerry Strope
Death Notice for Walmer “Jerry” Strope of Mount Holly Virginia
“Jerry” passed quietly on August 15, 2010 in Richmond Virginia at MCV Hospital. A long time resident of Glebe Harbor, Westmoreland County, VA, Jerry was actively engaged in research and writing on radiological issues throughout the last decades of his life. A full scholarship graduate of the leading naval architecture and engineering college in the US, the WEBB INSTITUTE in New York City, Jerry received his degree at the outbreak of WWII and was immediately employed by the Department of the Navy as a civilian naval Architect and engineer, Jerry during WWII held various responsible positions in the Department of the Navy and eventually became the head of Radiological Defense research for the US Navy. After leaving the Department of the Navy, Jerry was further employed by the Department of Defense as head of research for the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, and independent agency housed in the Department of Defense, Jerry led efforts to conduct research and defenses for the civilian population of the United States for those organizations. Thus, Jerry’s efforts led to the adoption not only of many specific civil defense policies but his research as an individual and as an administrator led to many breakthroughs in the knowledge of mankind on radiological and health physics impacts on humans and specific approaches to limiting the impacts should a nuclear strategic exchange have occurred. Is specific knowledge, innovations in research, research design and administration helped to protect the national security of the United States throughout the Cold War.
Jerry was also a respected technical advisor to many Congressional Committees throughout his life and the Committee On the President Danger headed and established by the Honorable Paul Nitze, and remained influential throughout his life for his technical knowledge. After leaving the federal government in the late 1960’s he became a principal in the Center For Planning and Research, Inc. of Palo Alto California and Fairfax Virginia. That organization acted as the Federally Funded Research and Development Center for the federal civil defense program which existed from 1950 to 1994 pursuant to Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress.
Throughout the decades of the 1980’s, and 90’s Jerry wrote a newsletter and was President of the American Strategic Defense Association which was an influential voice in both nuclear strategic policy and defense and constantly made its readers aware of emerging threats.
The impact of “Jerry” Walmer Strope on the radiological defense and National Security of the United States cannot be overemphasized. He was close personal friends with the giants of the development of the atomic age, including Jerome Wigner and Edward Teller.
“Jerry” passed quietly on August 15, 2010 in Richmond Virginia at MCV Hospital. A long time resident of Glebe Harbor, Westmoreland County, VA, Jerry was actively engaged in research and writing on radiological issues throughout the last decades of his life. A full scholarship graduate of the leading naval architecture and engineering college in the US, the WEBB INSTITUTE in New York City, Jerry received his degree at the outbreak of WWII and was immediately employed by the Department of the Navy as a civilian naval Architect and engineer, Jerry during WWII held various responsible positions in the Department of the Navy and eventually became the head of Radiological Defense research for the US Navy. After leaving the Department of the Navy, Jerry was further employed by the Department of Defense as head of research for the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, and independent agency housed in the Department of Defense, Jerry led efforts to conduct research and defenses for the civilian population of the United States for those organizations. Thus, Jerry’s efforts led to the adoption not only of many specific civil defense policies but his research as an individual and as an administrator led to many breakthroughs in the knowledge of mankind on radiological and health physics impacts on humans and specific approaches to limiting the impacts should a nuclear strategic exchange have occurred. Is specific knowledge, innovations in research, research design and administration helped to protect the national security of the United States throughout the Cold War.
Jerry was also a respected technical advisor to many Congressional Committees throughout his life and the Committee On the President Danger headed and established by the Honorable Paul Nitze, and remained influential throughout his life for his technical knowledge. After leaving the federal government in the late 1960’s he became a principal in the Center For Planning and Research, Inc. of Palo Alto California and Fairfax Virginia. That organization acted as the Federally Funded Research and Development Center for the federal civil defense program which existed from 1950 to 1994 pursuant to Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress.
Throughout the decades of the 1980’s, and 90’s Jerry wrote a newsletter and was President of the American Strategic Defense Association which was an influential voice in both nuclear strategic policy and defense and constantly made its readers aware of emerging threats.
The impact of “Jerry” Walmer Strope on the radiological defense and National Security of the United States cannot be overemphasized. He was close personal friends with the giants of the development of the atomic age, including Jerome Wigner and Edward Teller.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
THE CIVIL DEFENSE LEGACY
TECHNICAL BULLETIN
March 2007
This version contains full text of NSDD 66
THE CIVIL DEFENSE LEGACY
[Portions of this article were originally published in the February 2004 issue of the Journal of Civil Defense, Vol. 37 No.2, pp3-6. The Journal is published by the American Civil Defense Association (TACDA), P.O. Box 1057, 118 Court Street, Starke, Florida 32091, Toll-free at 800-425-5397 or direct at 904-964-5397, www.tacda.org]
BACKGROUND:
With completion of the first four years of the existence of the Department of Homeland Security created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. 107-296 (November 25, 2002) it becomes timely to assess whether the legacy of the civil defense programs, functions, and activities authorized by the enactment of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 (pub.L. 81-920) and largely terminated with repeal of that statute by Pub.L. 103-337 in 1994 continue to impact homeland security and homeland defense thinking. (DHS has been in existence since March of 2003.)
It must be remembered that the perceived greatest threat during the life of the civil defense program was strategic nuclear attack by nation states as opposed to WMD threats or employment by non-state terrorists. It is argued in this review, however, that some of the programs, functions, and activities funded or stimulated by the civil defense effort from 1950-1994 and its research have value in the new
milieu of homeland security and homeland defense. And most certainly by the passage of the next 25 years it is certainly conceivable that more than twenty-five nations will have both ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapon capability. Perhaps just as the writings of the Greeks and Romans were saved by Irish monks clinging to the rocks off the coast of Ireland, the research and analysis of the 44 year long civil defense program will have application to future events. An extensive collection of civil defense research and contract scholarship exists in FEMA at the moment but is threatened with dispersal or destruction.
DISCUSSION:
First, from the standpoint of personnel and organization, no current leadership either in DHS or the soon to be reconstituted Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) served in an appointive or civil service capacity in those programs, functions, or activities authorized and appropriated pursuant to Public Law 81-920. * Why? The Civil Defense programs, functions, and activities were housed in the Department of the Army as a civil agency from 1961-1972 when the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency became an independent civil agency in the Pentagon and reported to the Deputy Secretary of Defense instead of the Secretary of the Army.
* The numbering of Public Laws by both the Congress and law number is adopted for this paper although not technically used until the 1960's.
Rather than strengthening the civil defense program, this agency transfer relieved the Secretary of the Army from the advocacy role. In this pre-Goldwater-Nichols Act (1986) period this left program advocacy to a relatively junior executive level appointee, John W. Davis (former Governor of North Dakota). The civil defense program was about to be sorely impacted by the trident of outside events: (1) revision of strategic attack doctrine, specifically MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction); (2) fallout from the Watergate Scandal and Congressional interest prompted by the National Governor's Association in developing so-called "one-stop shopping" for state and local governments obtaining federal disaster aid; (3) and finally newly developed knowledge of the potential of the so-called "Nuclear Winter" effect should the full SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operations Plan) ever be executed by the United States or Soviet Union.
The civil defense program whatever its technical merits was the one continuous link between the military and civil population from its enactment. Now it would leave to the civilian side of government to nurture and protect this linkage. The importance of the civil agencies growing role in crisis management and response and recovery in large-scale catastrophes was about to be tested in Tropical Storm Agnes, at that time the largest civil disaster for which the Federal government took responsibility since the 1927 Mississippi floods written about by John Barry in his book "Rising Tide" although as is obvious the event was riverine event and definitely not a tidal surge event. Tropical storm Agnes was to lead to improved federal disaster legislation when the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (pub.L. 93-288) was enacted in late May 1974. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 had become law at the end of 1973 and was a major component in the design of the DRA of 1974. A long term impact of the DRA of 1974 was the first authorization for NGO's performing community service to be recipients of federal disaster relief. Throughout its history the civil defense program had been largely staffed by veterans at the federal, state, and local level. Now with the end of the draft and post-Vietnam reductions in the size of the military fewer and fewer former military personnel were to become employees of civil agencies.
As of 1972, DCPA had approximately 1400 personnel and that was down from peak strength of almost 1800 in the late 1960's after the Kennedy build up. Over 200 employees were involved in an elaborate search and rescue program largely terminated in the 1970's and then revived by FEMA during the administration of George H.W. Bush. That program was again almost bureaucratically terminated six weeks before the attack on the Murrah Building at Oklahoma City in 1995. Fortunately it has so-far survived to prosper. In 1974, lack of support from the Gerald Ford administration resulted in an almost total collapse of the civil effort to defend civil defense programs, functions, and authorities in the budget wars. This resulted in RIFs (Reduction-in-Force) for DCPA in 1974 and 1977. By the time FEMA was established and augmented by civil defense assets by OMB determination order and E.O. 12148 (July 15, 1979), less than 1000 FTE's (Full Time Equivalents) were transferred from DCPA to FEMA (note this was still the largest transfer of personnel into FEMA.) Annual appropriations by that time had diminished to just over $100M from slightly over $200M. The FEMA library was terminated and documents were either lost or transferred to CRS.
As far as legal authority, several titles of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 were allowed to lapse as had one title at the end of the Korean War in 1953. Of some historical significance is that the lapsed titles would be incorporated into so-called standby legislation, the so-called "Defense Resources Act" including the cross reference to the Defense Production Act of 1950, a key statute attempting to assist in expediting defense production that still is in effect while at the same time minimizing impacts on the civilian economy. The lapsed titles of the DPA were also included in that draft statute. (This unclassified standby document was briefed to several Congressional committees during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. It should be noted that while some critics believe the DPA authority allows the federal government to reorganize the economy no such authority exists, but it does allow the federal government to go to the head of the line during a production shortfall or disruption.
Primarily through egotism and ignorance in the White House during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, the transferred civil defense personnel, even though they dominated the higher ranks of civil servants in FEMA (largely because of the RIFs that had eliminated younger and more junior personnel) were regarded as a budgetary problem because OMB had promised staff savings as a result of the reorganization to Congress, and the defense budget examiners in OMB, particularly those managing the 050 accounts believed that the transfer to word FEMA meant that no defense funds should be used for civil defense. At the time of transfer and until the FY 81 appropriations cycle when civil defense became part of the HUD, VA, Independent Agency Appropriation, the civil defense budget was included in the annual armed services appropriations. Perhaps of some interest is that oversight in Congress of the civil defense budget remained in the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate until the Act was repealed by Pub.L. 103-337 in 1994.
Because of their classification (all since declassified) certain Presidential Directives were not widely distributed and the civil defense build-up under President Reagan was largely to implement President Carter directives. **
** CARTER PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES RELATING TO the Civil Defense Program
PD-41 U.S. Civil Defense Policy (U)
PD-58 Continuity of Government (U)
1982
For text as declassified see "National Security Directives of the Reagan & Bush Administrations- The Declassified History of U.S. Political & Military Policy 1981- 1991" Christopher Simpson (Westview Press, 1995). Also Carter, Reagan, Bush Presidential libraries have online versions of all declassified Presidential and National Security Directives. In the opinion of the editor, NSDD-47 issued in 1982, even though amended in 1985 by NSDD-188 remains a seminal document in the
history of emergency preparedness, mobilization, response and recovery.
Under the major reorganization of FEMA that took place early in the administration of President Reagan a State and Local Programs and Support Directorate was created in the fall of 1981 that lasted until fall of 1993. In that Directorate all civil defense funding of state and local activities was centralized. To the extent that policy arose under the program, the various Presidential Directives attempted to vitiate the civil defense agenda and were largely designed by DOD (Department of Defense) or the NSC (National Security Council) that had retained policy oversight of civil defense in E.O. 12148.
*** The full text of NSDD 66 is an Appendix to this Technical Bulletin.
Editor's Note:
Another controversy the impacted the civil defense program was the so-called "Dual-Use" issue. Although Congress had largely consented to dual-use of civil defense program assets in both natural and attack events, the Ford, and Carter administrations made no adjustment in policy. Then in 1981, Congress amended the Federal Civil Defense Act allowing dual-use as long as it did not detract from attack preparedness. Once again the administration read the word (nuclear) into an adjective modifying attack and little actual adjustment was made in program guidance. To be fair to the Executive Branch, there was little actual response and recovery authority in the civil defense statute and it remained to the end largely a preparedness statute. Juxtaposed to this legislative conundrum, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 had little in the way of preparedness authority in it except with respect to communication systems. The dual-use debate warped into an all-hazards debate by the earlier 1990's and interesting Congress did address that issue by mandating "all-hazards" as the civil defense approach in 1993 in Pub.L. 103-160. *** Of course one year later the FCDA was repealed except for portions incorporated in to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 5121 et. Seq.) Oddly the debate absorbed much intellectual capital in the Department of Homeland Security after its formation since from an objective standpoint it was to focus on the threat of "terrorism" and its prevention and response and recovery to its consequences. Of course, as was almost inevitable,
Hurricane Katrina reinforced the notion of "all-hazards."
****Extract from House of Representatives Report 102nd Congress 1st Session
H-Rept.102-60 May 13, 1991
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON H.R. 2100
Page 408
APPENDIX
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSIST ANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
MANAGER, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SUBJECT: CIVIL DEFENSE (U)
POLICY
The United States will have a civil defense capability as an element of our overall national security posture. The objective of the civil defense program is to develop the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies in order to protect the population and vital infrastructure. Civil defense can contribute to deterrence by denying an enemy any confidence that he could prevent a concerted national response to attack. (U)
The civil defense program will support all-hazard integrated emergency management at State and local levels. In so doing, the civil defense program will: (U)
IMPLEMENTATION
The program under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the support of heads of the Federal Departments and agencies, and under the general policy guidance of the National Security Council, will include: (U)
affects the chain of command for the armed forces established by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (U)
Nothing in this directive provides for any new Federal responsibilities which are now the responsibility of State and local governments. (U)
RESCISSION
National Security Decision Directive 259, dated February 4, 1987, is rescinded. (U)
/signed/ George H.W. Bush
March 2007
This version contains full text of NSDD 66
THE CIVIL DEFENSE LEGACY
[Portions of this article were originally published in the February 2004 issue of the Journal of Civil Defense, Vol. 37 No.2, pp3-6. The Journal is published by the American Civil Defense Association (TACDA), P.O. Box 1057, 118 Court Street, Starke, Florida 32091, Toll-free at 800-425-5397 or direct at 904-964-5397, www.tacda.org]
BACKGROUND:
With completion of the first four years of the existence of the Department of Homeland Security created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. 107-296 (November 25, 2002) it becomes timely to assess whether the legacy of the civil defense programs, functions, and activities authorized by the enactment of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 (pub.L. 81-920) and largely terminated with repeal of that statute by Pub.L. 103-337 in 1994 continue to impact homeland security and homeland defense thinking. (DHS has been in existence since March of 2003.)
It must be remembered that the perceived greatest threat during the life of the civil defense program was strategic nuclear attack by nation states as opposed to WMD threats or employment by non-state terrorists. It is argued in this review, however, that some of the programs, functions, and activities funded or stimulated by the civil defense effort from 1950-1994 and its research have value in the new
milieu of homeland security and homeland defense. And most certainly by the passage of the next 25 years it is certainly conceivable that more than twenty-five nations will have both ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapon capability. Perhaps just as the writings of the Greeks and Romans were saved by Irish monks clinging to the rocks off the coast of Ireland, the research and analysis of the 44 year long civil defense program will have application to future events. An extensive collection of civil defense research and contract scholarship exists in FEMA at the moment but is threatened with dispersal or destruction.
DISCUSSION:
First, from the standpoint of personnel and organization, no current leadership either in DHS or the soon to be reconstituted Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) served in an appointive or civil service capacity in those programs, functions, or activities authorized and appropriated pursuant to Public Law 81-920. * Why? The Civil Defense programs, functions, and activities were housed in the Department of the Army as a civil agency from 1961-1972 when the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency became an independent civil agency in the Pentagon and reported to the Deputy Secretary of Defense instead of the Secretary of the Army.
* The numbering of Public Laws by both the Congress and law number is adopted for this paper although not technically used until the 1960's.
Rather than strengthening the civil defense program, this agency transfer relieved the Secretary of the Army from the advocacy role. In this pre-Goldwater-Nichols Act (1986) period this left program advocacy to a relatively junior executive level appointee, John W. Davis (former Governor of North Dakota). The civil defense program was about to be sorely impacted by the trident of outside events: (1) revision of strategic attack doctrine, specifically MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction); (2) fallout from the Watergate Scandal and Congressional interest prompted by the National Governor's Association in developing so-called "one-stop shopping" for state and local governments obtaining federal disaster aid; (3) and finally newly developed knowledge of the potential of the so-called "Nuclear Winter" effect should the full SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operations Plan) ever be executed by the United States or Soviet Union.
The civil defense program whatever its technical merits was the one continuous link between the military and civil population from its enactment. Now it would leave to the civilian side of government to nurture and protect this linkage. The importance of the civil agencies growing role in crisis management and response and recovery in large-scale catastrophes was about to be tested in Tropical Storm Agnes, at that time the largest civil disaster for which the Federal government took responsibility since the 1927 Mississippi floods written about by John Barry in his book "Rising Tide" although as is obvious the event was riverine event and definitely not a tidal surge event. Tropical storm Agnes was to lead to improved federal disaster legislation when the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (pub.L. 93-288) was enacted in late May 1974. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 had become law at the end of 1973 and was a major component in the design of the DRA of 1974. A long term impact of the DRA of 1974 was the first authorization for NGO's performing community service to be recipients of federal disaster relief. Throughout its history the civil defense program had been largely staffed by veterans at the federal, state, and local level. Now with the end of the draft and post-Vietnam reductions in the size of the military fewer and fewer former military personnel were to become employees of civil agencies.
As of 1972, DCPA had approximately 1400 personnel and that was down from peak strength of almost 1800 in the late 1960's after the Kennedy build up. Over 200 employees were involved in an elaborate search and rescue program largely terminated in the 1970's and then revived by FEMA during the administration of George H.W. Bush. That program was again almost bureaucratically terminated six weeks before the attack on the Murrah Building at Oklahoma City in 1995. Fortunately it has so-far survived to prosper. In 1974, lack of support from the Gerald Ford administration resulted in an almost total collapse of the civil effort to defend civil defense programs, functions, and authorities in the budget wars. This resulted in RIFs (Reduction-in-Force) for DCPA in 1974 and 1977. By the time FEMA was established and augmented by civil defense assets by OMB determination order and E.O. 12148 (July 15, 1979), less than 1000 FTE's (Full Time Equivalents) were transferred from DCPA to FEMA (note this was still the largest transfer of personnel into FEMA.) Annual appropriations by that time had diminished to just over $100M from slightly over $200M. The FEMA library was terminated and documents were either lost or transferred to CRS.
As far as legal authority, several titles of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 were allowed to lapse as had one title at the end of the Korean War in 1953. Of some historical significance is that the lapsed titles would be incorporated into so-called standby legislation, the so-called "Defense Resources Act" including the cross reference to the Defense Production Act of 1950, a key statute attempting to assist in expediting defense production that still is in effect while at the same time minimizing impacts on the civilian economy. The lapsed titles of the DPA were also included in that draft statute. (This unclassified standby document was briefed to several Congressional committees during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. It should be noted that while some critics believe the DPA authority allows the federal government to reorganize the economy no such authority exists, but it does allow the federal government to go to the head of the line during a production shortfall or disruption.
Primarily through egotism and ignorance in the White House during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, the transferred civil defense personnel, even though they dominated the higher ranks of civil servants in FEMA (largely because of the RIFs that had eliminated younger and more junior personnel) were regarded as a budgetary problem because OMB had promised staff savings as a result of the reorganization to Congress, and the defense budget examiners in OMB, particularly those managing the 050 accounts believed that the transfer to word FEMA meant that no defense funds should be used for civil defense. At the time of transfer and until the FY 81 appropriations cycle when civil defense became part of the HUD, VA, Independent Agency Appropriation, the civil defense budget was included in the annual armed services appropriations. Perhaps of some interest is that oversight in Congress of the civil defense budget remained in the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate until the Act was repealed by Pub.L. 103-337 in 1994.
Because of their classification (all since declassified) certain Presidential Directives were not widely distributed and the civil defense build-up under President Reagan was largely to implement President Carter directives. **
** CARTER PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES RELATING TO the Civil Defense Program
PD-41 U.S. Civil Defense Policy (U)
PD-58 Continuity of Government (U)
REAGAN AND BUSH (41) NATIONAL SECURITY
DIRECTIVES Impacting the Civil Defense Program
DIRECTIVES Impacting the Civil Defense Program
1982
- NSDD 26 Civil Defense Policy (U)
- NSDD 47 Emergency Mobilization Preparedness (U)
- NSDD 188 Reorganization of "Emergency Preparedness" Functions (U)
- NSDD 259 Civil Defense (U)
- NSDD 66 Civil Defense (U)****
For text as declassified see "National Security Directives of the Reagan & Bush Administrations- The Declassified History of U.S. Political & Military Policy 1981- 1991" Christopher Simpson (Westview Press, 1995). Also Carter, Reagan, Bush Presidential libraries have online versions of all declassified Presidential and National Security Directives. In the opinion of the editor, NSDD-47 issued in 1982, even though amended in 1985 by NSDD-188 remains a seminal document in the
history of emergency preparedness, mobilization, response and recovery.
Under the major reorganization of FEMA that took place early in the administration of President Reagan a State and Local Programs and Support Directorate was created in the fall of 1981 that lasted until fall of 1993. In that Directorate all civil defense funding of state and local activities was centralized. To the extent that policy arose under the program, the various Presidential Directives attempted to vitiate the civil defense agenda and were largely designed by DOD (Department of Defense) or the NSC (National Security Council) that had retained policy oversight of civil defense in E.O. 12148.
*** The full text of NSDD 66 is an Appendix to this Technical Bulletin.
Editor's Note:
Another controversy the impacted the civil defense program was the so-called "Dual-Use" issue. Although Congress had largely consented to dual-use of civil defense program assets in both natural and attack events, the Ford, and Carter administrations made no adjustment in policy. Then in 1981, Congress amended the Federal Civil Defense Act allowing dual-use as long as it did not detract from attack preparedness. Once again the administration read the word (nuclear) into an adjective modifying attack and little actual adjustment was made in program guidance. To be fair to the Executive Branch, there was little actual response and recovery authority in the civil defense statute and it remained to the end largely a preparedness statute. Juxtaposed to this legislative conundrum, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 had little in the way of preparedness authority in it except with respect to communication systems. The dual-use debate warped into an all-hazards debate by the earlier 1990's and interesting Congress did address that issue by mandating "all-hazards" as the civil defense approach in 1993 in Pub.L. 103-160. *** Of course one year later the FCDA was repealed except for portions incorporated in to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 5121 et. Seq.) Oddly the debate absorbed much intellectual capital in the Department of Homeland Security after its formation since from an objective standpoint it was to focus on the threat of "terrorism" and its prevention and response and recovery to its consequences. Of course, as was almost inevitable,
Hurricane Katrina reinforced the notion of "all-hazards."
****Extract from House of Representatives Report 102nd Congress 1st Session
H-Rept.102-60 May 13, 1991
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON H.R. 2100
Page 408
"The controversy over the civil defense program stems from the fact that the program has focused on the cause of the disaster [strategic nuclear attack], not on its consequences. Yet, whether a catastrophe is caused by a foreign military attack, terrorism, a technological accident, or nature, the way to deal with the problem is fundamentally the same. A citizen can get the same dose of radiation from a Soviet warhead, a primitive terrorist bomb, a nuclear power plant melt-down, an overturned DOE transport truck or an earthquake hitting a nuclear power plant. The concept of "dual use" of civil defense resources was an effort to bridge the gap between military threats and natural disasters. The committee believes that FEMA should, within its limited funds, maximize its readiness to deal with the types of disasters most likely to occur.
The committee requests that FEMA develop and submit to the committee an outline of the basic emergency resources needed on the Federal level to deal with the types of disasters most likely to occur. This baseline will permit the committee to better assess the sufficiency of the civil defense program."
APPENDIX
[Editors note- While copied from the original several editorial highlights have been added to enhance emphasis. It should also be noted that this was the last Presidential Directive or National Security Directive issued to provide guidance on Civil Defense prior to portions of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended being incorporated in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Essentially it mandates all-hazards preparedness and was reflected in a formal statutory amendment of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 by Public Law 103-160 in 1993]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1992
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1992
20284
NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTIVE 66MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSIST ANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
MANAGER, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SUBJECT: CIVIL DEFENSE (U)
POLICY
The United States will have a civil defense capability as an element of our overall national security posture. The objective of the civil defense program is to develop the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies in order to protect the population and vital infrastructure. Civil defense can contribute to deterrence by denying an enemy any confidence that he could prevent a concerted national response to attack. (U)
The civil defense program will support all-hazard integrated emergency management at State and local levels. In so doing, the civil defense program will: (U)
- Recognize and respect the primary responsibility of State and local governments to provide for the safety and well being of their citizens in emergencies other than national security emergencies.
- Provide a focal point within the Federal government to work with State and local governments on integrated multi-hazard response planning and operations to deal with the consequences of catastrophic emergencies. (U)
- Continue to implement a policy of dual use of civil defense resources through the development and use of capabilities at Federal, State and local levels to perform emergency functions to respond to emergencies of all kinds including attack. (U)
- Focus on the development,jointly with State and local governments, of the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies, thus ensuring that the use of civil defense funds is consistent with, contributes to, and does not detract from attack preparedness. (U)
- Provide for the development of a civil defense infrastructure capable of expansion in a national security emergency involving the threat of all forms of attack on the United States which provide
advanced warning. (U) - Utilize to the maximum extent the existing capabilities, facilities and resources of all appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Government, in accordance with Executive Order 122656 and, with their consent, those of the States and political subdivisions thereof, and of private sector organizations and agencies. (U)
IMPLEMENTATION
The program under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the support of heads of the Federal Departments and agencies, and under the general policy guidance of the National Security Council, will include: (U)
- Population protection capabilities, with the Federal Government providing guidance and assistance to enable State and local governments to effectively support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
- State and local government crisis management capabilities to effectively support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
- Information to promote a clear understanding by the public of the civil defense program, all threats which may affect their localities and actions they should take to minimize their effects. (U)
- Information to assist U.S. business and industry in taking measures to protect their work forces and physical assets in all catastrophic emergencies and encouragement of the private sector to make maximum use of private sector capabilities. (U)
- Voluntary participation by citizens and institutions in community civil defense activities and emphasis on citizen protective actions. (U)
- Plans for sustaining survivors, for restoration of critical life support capabilities, and to establish a basis for recovery. (U)
- Definition of and an assessment of the base capability necessary to respond to emergencies that do not provide warning, and the development of those base capabilities which are common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack. (U)
- Plans for a civil defense surge from the base capability to the total required capability in a national security crisis involving the threat of attack. These plans should assume advanced warning, adequate time to conduct the surge, and the required base capability form which to surge. Total required capability is that operational capability necessary to protect the population and vital infrastructure through preparedness measures common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack emergencies. (U)
affects the chain of command for the armed forces established by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (U)
Nothing in this directive provides for any new Federal responsibilities which are now the responsibility of State and local governments. (U)
RESCISSION
National Security Decision Directive 259, dated February 4, 1987, is rescinded. (U)
/signed/ George H.W. Bush
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
NSDD-66
[Editors note- While copied from the original several editorial highlights have been added to enhance emphasis. It should also be noted that this was the LAST Presidential Directive/ National Security Directive issued to provide guidance on Civil Defense prior to limited portions of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress, being incorporated into the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as a new Title VI. Essentially it mandates all-hazards preparedness and was reflected in a formal statutory amendment of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 by Public Law 103-160 in 1993]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1992
NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTIVE 66
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
MANAGER, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SUBJECT: CIVIL DEFENSE (U)
POLICY
The United States will have a civil defense capability as an element of our overall national
security posture. The objective of the civil defense program is to develop the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies in order to protect the population and vital infrastructure. Civil defense can contribute to deterrence by denying an enemy any confidence that he could prevent a concerted national response to attack. (U)
The civil defense program will support all-hazard integrated emergency management at State and local levels. In so doing, the civil defense program will: (U)
1) Recognize and respect the primary responsibility of State and local governments to provide for the safety and well being of their citizens in emergencies other than national security emergencies. (U)
2) Provide a focal point within the Federal government to work with State and local governments on integrated multi-hazard response planning and operations to deal with the consequences of catastrophic emergencies. (U)
3) Continue to implement a policy of dual use of civil defense resources through the development and use of capabilities at Federal, State and local levels to perform emergency functions to respond to emergencies of all kinds including attack. (U)
4) Focus on the development, jointly with State and local governments, of the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies, thus ensuring that the use of civil defense funds is consistent with, contributes to, and does not detract from attack preparedness. (U)
5) Provide for the development of a civil defense infrastructure capable of expansion in a national security emergency involving the threat of all forms of attack on the United States which provide advanced warning. (U)
6) Utilize to the maximum extent the existing capabilities, facilities and resources of all appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Government, in accordance with Executive Order 12656 and, with their consent, those of the States and political subdivisions thereof, and of private sector organizations and agencies. (U)
Disaster-specific programs such as hurricane or flood relief programs which may be incorporated into the civil defense program and which are currently funded within domestic discretionary accounts will continue to be budgeted in this manner. In addition, any equipment or programs not needed for the consequence management of national security emergencies will be funded within the domestic discretionary accounts.
IMPLEMENTATION
The program under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the support of heads of the Federal Departments and agencies, and under the general policy guidance of the National Security Council, will include: (U)
1) Population protection capabilities, with the Federal Government providing guidance and assistance to enable State and local governments to effectively support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
2) State and local government crisis management capabilities to effectively
support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
3) Information to promote a clear understanding by the public of the civil defense program, all threats which may affect their localities and actions they should take to minimize their effects. (U)
4) Information to assist U.S. business and industry in taking measures to protect their work forces and physical assets in all catastrophic emergencies and encouragement of the private sector to make maximum use of private sector capabilities. (U)
5) Voluntary participation by citizens and institutions in community civil defense activities and emphasis on citizen protective actions. (U)
6) Plans for sustaining survivors, for restoration of critical life support capabilities, and to establish a basis for recovery. (U)
7) Definition of and an assessment of the base capability necessary to respond to emergencies that do not provide warning, and the development of those base capabilities which are common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack. (U)
8) Plans for a civil defense surge from the base capability to the total required capability in a national security crisis involving the threat of attack. These plans should assume advanced warning, adequate time to conduct the surge, and the required base capability form which to surge. Total required capability is that operational capability necessary to protect the population and vital infrastructure through preparedness measures common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack emergencies. (U)
The Department of Defense will support civil authorities in civil defense, to include facilitating the use of the National Guard in each state for response in both peacetime disasters and national security emergencies. Subject to the direction of the President and the Secretary of Defense, readiness of the armed forces for military contingencies will have precedence and civil authorities should not rely exclusively on military support. Federal military resources will be employed in civil defense missions only if State and Federal civil resources are not sufficient. Nothing in this directive alters or otherwise affects the chain of command for the armed forces established by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (U)
Nothing in this directive provides for any new Federal responsibilities which are now the responsibility of State and local governments. (U)
RECISSION
National Security Decision Directive 259, dated February 4, 1987, is rescinded. (U)
/signed/ George H.W. Bush
[Apparently some consideration was given to classification of this NSDD which is why each paragraph has a classification reference. FEMA argued that its state and local partners in Civil Defense would gain more understanding by the document remaining unclassified, as well as Congressional staffs and so it was. The issuance of this NSDD led Congress to mandate a report on civil defense capabilities never really addressed by FEMA. Instead it sent forth a report currently unavailable to this blogger that supported a rationale for better disaster response which oddly foreshadowed the failures of the federal response to Hurricane Andrew in August 1992. That report entitled Disaster Preparedness did however lead to the federal civil defense act becoming a statutory all-hazards statute in enactment of Public Law 103-160. Just about one year later that effort was made moot by the enactment of Public Law 103-337 largely repealing the FCDA of 1950] Thus, it is not true that NO legislative history exists of the wrap up in 1994 of the federal civil defense effort that began in 1950.
In a hurried meeting with a Presidential appointee I was given an opportunity to review the text of NSDD-66. I took the position that it was in fact and law weaker than the statute itself and should not be issued. Of course it was issued and its impact was to help end federal civil defense efforts.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1992
NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTIVE 66
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
MANAGER, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SUBJECT: CIVIL DEFENSE (U)
POLICY
The United States will have a civil defense capability as an element of our overall national
security posture. The objective of the civil defense program is to develop the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies in order to protect the population and vital infrastructure. Civil defense can contribute to deterrence by denying an enemy any confidence that he could prevent a concerted national response to attack. (U)
The civil defense program will support all-hazard integrated emergency management at State and local levels. In so doing, the civil defense program will: (U)
1) Recognize and respect the primary responsibility of State and local governments to provide for the safety and well being of their citizens in emergencies other than national security emergencies. (U)
2) Provide a focal point within the Federal government to work with State and local governments on integrated multi-hazard response planning and operations to deal with the consequences of catastrophic emergencies. (U)
3) Continue to implement a policy of dual use of civil defense resources through the development and use of capabilities at Federal, State and local levels to perform emergency functions to respond to emergencies of all kinds including attack. (U)
4) Focus on the development, jointly with State and local governments, of the required capabilities common to all catastrophic emergencies and those unique to attack emergencies, thus ensuring that the use of civil defense funds is consistent with, contributes to, and does not detract from attack preparedness. (U)
5) Provide for the development of a civil defense infrastructure capable of expansion in a national security emergency involving the threat of all forms of attack on the United States which provide advanced warning. (U)
6) Utilize to the maximum extent the existing capabilities, facilities and resources of all appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Government, in accordance with Executive Order 12656 and, with their consent, those of the States and political subdivisions thereof, and of private sector organizations and agencies. (U)
Disaster-specific programs such as hurricane or flood relief programs which may be incorporated into the civil defense program and which are currently funded within domestic discretionary accounts will continue to be budgeted in this manner. In addition, any equipment or programs not needed for the consequence management of national security emergencies will be funded within the domestic discretionary accounts.
IMPLEMENTATION
The program under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the support of heads of the Federal Departments and agencies, and under the general policy guidance of the National Security Council, will include: (U)
1) Population protection capabilities, with the Federal Government providing guidance and assistance to enable State and local governments to effectively support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
2) State and local government crisis management capabilities to effectively
support the population in all catastrophic emergencies. (U)
3) Information to promote a clear understanding by the public of the civil defense program, all threats which may affect their localities and actions they should take to minimize their effects. (U)
4) Information to assist U.S. business and industry in taking measures to protect their work forces and physical assets in all catastrophic emergencies and encouragement of the private sector to make maximum use of private sector capabilities. (U)
5) Voluntary participation by citizens and institutions in community civil defense activities and emphasis on citizen protective actions. (U)
6) Plans for sustaining survivors, for restoration of critical life support capabilities, and to establish a basis for recovery. (U)
7) Definition of and an assessment of the base capability necessary to respond to emergencies that do not provide warning, and the development of those base capabilities which are common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack. (U)
8) Plans for a civil defense surge from the base capability to the total required capability in a national security crisis involving the threat of attack. These plans should assume advanced warning, adequate time to conduct the surge, and the required base capability form which to surge. Total required capability is that operational capability necessary to protect the population and vital infrastructure through preparedness measures common to all catastrophic emergencies and unique to attack emergencies. (U)
The Department of Defense will support civil authorities in civil defense, to include facilitating the use of the National Guard in each state for response in both peacetime disasters and national security emergencies. Subject to the direction of the President and the Secretary of Defense, readiness of the armed forces for military contingencies will have precedence and civil authorities should not rely exclusively on military support. Federal military resources will be employed in civil defense missions only if State and Federal civil resources are not sufficient. Nothing in this directive alters or otherwise affects the chain of command for the armed forces established by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (U)
Nothing in this directive provides for any new Federal responsibilities which are now the responsibility of State and local governments. (U)
RECISSION
National Security Decision Directive 259, dated February 4, 1987, is rescinded. (U)
/signed/ George H.W. Bush
[Apparently some consideration was given to classification of this NSDD which is why each paragraph has a classification reference. FEMA argued that its state and local partners in Civil Defense would gain more understanding by the document remaining unclassified, as well as Congressional staffs and so it was. The issuance of this NSDD led Congress to mandate a report on civil defense capabilities never really addressed by FEMA. Instead it sent forth a report currently unavailable to this blogger that supported a rationale for better disaster response which oddly foreshadowed the failures of the federal response to Hurricane Andrew in August 1992. That report entitled Disaster Preparedness did however lead to the federal civil defense act becoming a statutory all-hazards statute in enactment of Public Law 103-160. Just about one year later that effort was made moot by the enactment of Public Law 103-337 largely repealing the FCDA of 1950] Thus, it is not true that NO legislative history exists of the wrap up in 1994 of the federal civil defense effort that began in 1950.
In a hurried meeting with a Presidential appointee I was given an opportunity to review the text of NSDD-66. I took the position that it was in fact and law weaker than the statute itself and should not be issued. Of course it was issued and its impact was to help end federal civil defense efforts.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Civil Defense Legacy
[This article was published in the February 2004 issue of the Journal
Of Civil Defense, Volume 37, Issue #2, pp. 3-6. The Journal is published by the American Civil Defense Association (TACDA), P.O. Box 1057, 118 Court Street, Starke Florida 32091, Toll-free (800) 425-5397 or Direct (904) 964-5397, Online at www.tacda.org
It is also available as a reprint at www.All-Hands.net]
THE CIVIL DEFENSE LEGACY
By William R. Cumming
[The Vacation Lane Group]
With completion of the first fifteen months since the signing of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (November 25, 2002) it becomes timely to assess whether the legacy of the civil defense programs, functions, and activities stimulated by the enactment of the Federal Civil Defense Act, Public Law 81-920, in the early 1950’s has continued to impact current homeland security thinking. It is also important to understand the legacy in order to be able to capture what is and is not useful in the long-term struggle against terrorism and prevention and threats of employment of weapons of mass destruction. It must be remembered that the perceived greatest threat during the life of the FCDA was strategic nuclear attack as opposed to WMD threats or employment by terrorists. It is argued, however, that some of the programs, functions, and activities of the civil defense structure and its research have value in the new milieu. It might even make for greater clarity of both administration and public perceptions if the current organizational title of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as it exists in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) namely the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate be renamed the Civil Defense Directorate.
First, from the standpoint of personnel and organization, no current leadership either in DHS or elsewhere exists that served in an appointive or civil service capacity in those programs, functions, or activities authorized and appropriated pursuant to Public Law 81-920. Why? The Civil Defense programs, functions and activities were housed in the Department of the Army until 1972 when the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency became an independent civil agency within the Pentagon reporting to the Secretary of Defense as opposed to the Secretary of the Army. Rather than strengthening the advocacy of civil defense, this represented the abandonment by the Secretary of the Army (pre-Goldwater-Nichols 1986) of the civil defense advocacy role. Left to advocacy by a relatively junior executive level appointee, John Davis (former governor of North Dakota), the civil defense programs, functions and activities were about to be impacted by the fallout from Watergate. As will be discussed, one of the most important civil-military links was now left to the civilian side of government to nurture and protect. Perhaps this breach could even be analyzed in having fallout for current military operations in Iraq. A subject for discussion elsewhere.
As of 1972, DCPA had approximately 1400 personnel down from its peak strength of about 1700 in the late 1960’s. In 1974, lack of support from the Ford administration resulted in a significant collapse in the effort to defend civil defense in the budget wars. The result a significant RIF (Reduction in Force) for DCPA in 1974 and 1977.
Significantly, several titles of the Civil Defense Act were allowed to lapse. Including the title cross-referencing the Defense Production Act of 1950. Later these lapsed titles would be incorporated into standby emergency legislation along with lapsed titles of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as a standby legislative package called the “Defense Resources Act.” Although briefed to Congressional staff in the early 1980’s, this package was never formally submitted to Congress although it was played in major REX-ALPHA and BRAVO exercises from 1981-88. These were major Pentagon mobilization exercises designed to test civil-military interface and for other purposes.
By the time FEMA was augmented by civil defense assets (July 15, 1979) in Executive Order 12148, civil defense personnel transferred by OMB determination order numbered less than 1000 (still the largest transfer of personnel into the new agency). Funding which had never exceeded $250M had diminished to just over $100M.
Primarily through egotism and ignorance in the White House, the transferred civil defense personnel, even though they dominated the higher civil service positions in FEMA, were regarded as a budgetary problem because of the prejudice of the defense budget examiners in OMB, particularly those managing the 050 accounts and this prejudice was also reflected in the President’s reorganization project team that worked the FEMA reorganization (Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978). Additionally, in the fall of 1981, with the formation of the State and Local Programs Directorate (which lasted until November 1993) the civil defense program was largely considered as a preparedness grant program that could be used to assist state and local governments. To the extent that policy drivers existed in the FCDA as amended, various Presidential Decision Directives or National Security Directives were issued in an attempt to vitiate the civil defense agenda. The amendment of Public Law 81-920 in 1981 had authorized so-called “dual use” of civil defense assets for both nuclear attack planning and natural disaster preparedness. It also specifically authorized program assets to be utilized in enhancing offsite safety in privately operated nuclear power stations. The Armed Services Committees of the Congress had given DCPA administrative discretion to adopt “dual use” as early as 1975 but the administration had chosen not to pursue this concept aggressively. Even now, “dual use” transformed into a debate over whether DHS should be “all-hazards” absorbs much intellectual capital in DHS. In 1993, one year before repeal of Public Law 81-920, the statute was amended to mandate “all-hazards” the transformed term from “Dual use”.
No standby Executive Orders (PEAD’s) or other emergency actions except the standby legislation mentioned above were predicated on Public Law 81-920 after FEMA began operations. Various National Security Directives were issued by President’s Carter, Regan, and Bush (41) in an effort to correlate civil defense with strategic doctrine, but these essentially were watered down versions of the civil defense statute as it existed prior to the loss of the earlier titles. Since only OMB and congressionally funded programs, functions, and activities (not unfunded actions by the National Security Council and its staff), had significance the potential of the civil defense programs, functions, and activities diminished.
Perhaps, the fact that the civil defense budget was made part of the VA-HUD appropriations bill in 1980 and no longer part of the DOD appropriation was additional reason for DOD to have diminished interest in civil defense. Also, up until repeal of the act, at least one Associate Director of FEMA was confirmed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. After repeal, no Associate Director had their nomination reviewed by Senate Armed Services. Additionally, repeal led to lapse of any direct oversight by the Armed Services Committees of oversight of FEMA.
It also ended the annual rite of a senior DOD official testifying on behalf of civil defense authorizations in the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. Also, a Congressionally mandated report asking that the Executive Branch thoroughly analyze and provide any needed modifications to the civil defense program resulted in a March 1992 report entitled “Disaster Preparedness” that led to the statutory enactment of all-hazard use of the FCDA in public law 103-160 and the repeal a year later in public law 103-337. It should be noted that some would argue that the FCDA was not repealed since significant portions were retained as a new Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Emergency Assistance and Disaster Relief Act. The Clinton Administration used the change in oversight to redirect the primary energies of FEMA to natural disasters. This redirection seems to have not prevented the end of FEMA’s role as an independent agency post 9/11 by its incorporation into the Department of Homeland Security by Public Law 107-296 November 25, 2002.
Of Civil Defense, Volume 37, Issue #2, pp. 3-6. The Journal is published by the American Civil Defense Association (TACDA), P.O. Box 1057, 118 Court Street, Starke Florida 32091, Toll-free (800) 425-5397 or Direct (904) 964-5397, Online at www.tacda.org
It is also available as a reprint at www.All-Hands.net]
THE CIVIL DEFENSE LEGACY
By William R. Cumming
[The Vacation Lane Group]
With completion of the first fifteen months since the signing of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (November 25, 2002) it becomes timely to assess whether the legacy of the civil defense programs, functions, and activities stimulated by the enactment of the Federal Civil Defense Act, Public Law 81-920, in the early 1950’s has continued to impact current homeland security thinking. It is also important to understand the legacy in order to be able to capture what is and is not useful in the long-term struggle against terrorism and prevention and threats of employment of weapons of mass destruction. It must be remembered that the perceived greatest threat during the life of the FCDA was strategic nuclear attack as opposed to WMD threats or employment by terrorists. It is argued, however, that some of the programs, functions, and activities of the civil defense structure and its research have value in the new milieu. It might even make for greater clarity of both administration and public perceptions if the current organizational title of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as it exists in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) namely the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate be renamed the Civil Defense Directorate.
First, from the standpoint of personnel and organization, no current leadership either in DHS or elsewhere exists that served in an appointive or civil service capacity in those programs, functions, or activities authorized and appropriated pursuant to Public Law 81-920. Why? The Civil Defense programs, functions and activities were housed in the Department of the Army until 1972 when the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency became an independent civil agency within the Pentagon reporting to the Secretary of Defense as opposed to the Secretary of the Army. Rather than strengthening the advocacy of civil defense, this represented the abandonment by the Secretary of the Army (pre-Goldwater-Nichols 1986) of the civil defense advocacy role. Left to advocacy by a relatively junior executive level appointee, John Davis (former governor of North Dakota), the civil defense programs, functions and activities were about to be impacted by the fallout from Watergate. As will be discussed, one of the most important civil-military links was now left to the civilian side of government to nurture and protect. Perhaps this breach could even be analyzed in having fallout for current military operations in Iraq. A subject for discussion elsewhere.
As of 1972, DCPA had approximately 1400 personnel down from its peak strength of about 1700 in the late 1960’s. In 1974, lack of support from the Ford administration resulted in a significant collapse in the effort to defend civil defense in the budget wars. The result a significant RIF (Reduction in Force) for DCPA in 1974 and 1977.
Significantly, several titles of the Civil Defense Act were allowed to lapse. Including the title cross-referencing the Defense Production Act of 1950. Later these lapsed titles would be incorporated into standby emergency legislation along with lapsed titles of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as a standby legislative package called the “Defense Resources Act.” Although briefed to Congressional staff in the early 1980’s, this package was never formally submitted to Congress although it was played in major REX-ALPHA and BRAVO exercises from 1981-88. These were major Pentagon mobilization exercises designed to test civil-military interface and for other purposes.
By the time FEMA was augmented by civil defense assets (July 15, 1979) in Executive Order 12148, civil defense personnel transferred by OMB determination order numbered less than 1000 (still the largest transfer of personnel into the new agency). Funding which had never exceeded $250M had diminished to just over $100M.
Primarily through egotism and ignorance in the White House, the transferred civil defense personnel, even though they dominated the higher civil service positions in FEMA, were regarded as a budgetary problem because of the prejudice of the defense budget examiners in OMB, particularly those managing the 050 accounts and this prejudice was also reflected in the President’s reorganization project team that worked the FEMA reorganization (Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978). Additionally, in the fall of 1981, with the formation of the State and Local Programs Directorate (which lasted until November 1993) the civil defense program was largely considered as a preparedness grant program that could be used to assist state and local governments. To the extent that policy drivers existed in the FCDA as amended, various Presidential Decision Directives or National Security Directives were issued in an attempt to vitiate the civil defense agenda. The amendment of Public Law 81-920 in 1981 had authorized so-called “dual use” of civil defense assets for both nuclear attack planning and natural disaster preparedness. It also specifically authorized program assets to be utilized in enhancing offsite safety in privately operated nuclear power stations. The Armed Services Committees of the Congress had given DCPA administrative discretion to adopt “dual use” as early as 1975 but the administration had chosen not to pursue this concept aggressively. Even now, “dual use” transformed into a debate over whether DHS should be “all-hazards” absorbs much intellectual capital in DHS. In 1993, one year before repeal of Public Law 81-920, the statute was amended to mandate “all-hazards” the transformed term from “Dual use”.
No standby Executive Orders (PEAD’s) or other emergency actions except the standby legislation mentioned above were predicated on Public Law 81-920 after FEMA began operations. Various National Security Directives were issued by President’s Carter, Regan, and Bush (41) in an effort to correlate civil defense with strategic doctrine, but these essentially were watered down versions of the civil defense statute as it existed prior to the loss of the earlier titles. Since only OMB and congressionally funded programs, functions, and activities (not unfunded actions by the National Security Council and its staff), had significance the potential of the civil defense programs, functions, and activities diminished.
Perhaps, the fact that the civil defense budget was made part of the VA-HUD appropriations bill in 1980 and no longer part of the DOD appropriation was additional reason for DOD to have diminished interest in civil defense. Also, up until repeal of the act, at least one Associate Director of FEMA was confirmed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. After repeal, no Associate Director had their nomination reviewed by Senate Armed Services. Additionally, repeal led to lapse of any direct oversight by the Armed Services Committees of oversight of FEMA.
It also ended the annual rite of a senior DOD official testifying on behalf of civil defense authorizations in the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. Also, a Congressionally mandated report asking that the Executive Branch thoroughly analyze and provide any needed modifications to the civil defense program resulted in a March 1992 report entitled “Disaster Preparedness” that led to the statutory enactment of all-hazard use of the FCDA in public law 103-160 and the repeal a year later in public law 103-337. It should be noted that some would argue that the FCDA was not repealed since significant portions were retained as a new Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Emergency Assistance and Disaster Relief Act. The Clinton Administration used the change in oversight to redirect the primary energies of FEMA to natural disasters. This redirection seems to have not prevented the end of FEMA’s role as an independent agency post 9/11 by its incorporation into the Department of Homeland Security by Public Law 107-296 November 25, 2002.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)