CoG: National Security Presidential Directive #51

May of 2007, President Bush signs an Executive Order that made significant changes to the official Continuity Of Government policy.

Continuity Central reported:

"The Directive slipped out relatively unnoticed by the mainstream media, yet it has important and positive implications for the future resiliency of public sector operations in the United States. The concepts of a National Continuity Coordinator and a centrally directed National Continuity Implementation Plan are to be welcomed in principle and are something which other countries should look seriously at emulating."

"Earlier in the year the World Economic Forum called for such a position to be set up in every government in its ‘Global Risks 2007’ report. This championed the appointment of ‘Country Risk Officers’ who would provide a focal point in government for mitigating global risks across departments, learning from private-sector approaches and escaping a ‘silo-based’ approach."

"Two years ago, the Business Continuity Institute also called for the creation of such a position within the UK government. In a statement published in March 2005, the BCI said: “Encouraging good business continuity management is an area where government could contribute – not only giving direct leadership on the huge risks such as terrorism, but also helping to coordinate and communicate low-cost commonsense best practice. The Business Continuity Institute calls for the appointment of a government minister to promote the establishment of a business continuity management culture in the UK."

What you'll see in this Presidential directive goes far beyond disaster preparations. Most people have never heard of CoG. It comes as a big surprise when they first hear about it, and shock later sets in once they've had a chance to see the details.

For your consideration, I present here the basics.

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

Also known as:
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Click here to read supporting documents

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of

the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and

responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall

continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of

the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between

and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing

on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and

assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an

official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate

support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its

agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

Signed by:

GEORGE W. BUSH

Good post. JO, while I only read through this once, rather fast at that, does there seem to be a 'bottleneck' at the position of Dir. of Homeland Security? I remember reading about a time when a certain president's wife almost took control of the day-to-day workload, and maybe even some decision making. I am reminded of this by some of the wording here. And too, the fact that the President might not be 'on hand', yet there is a set pattern/template that gives virtually complete authority to an unelected person.

Maybe I took the flavor of that wrong, and please correct me if I did, but such a move would be alarming.

After dealing with the Federal Government for 30 years, I see this as the typical effluent of a waste of taxpayer dollars. Namely having a multitude of government employees, civilian consultants, lawyers, & politicians burn up a lot of time & money to come up with a document that spells out to the "inth degree" exacty what everyone is responsible for so no one oversteps their authority or has any "out" for authority not taken. It serves a good example of CYA & mandated removal of any self-motivational behavior of subordinates or agencies. I always love how these & all government directives take for granted that the persons addressed have absolutely no common sense or motivation. A very good example of an agency that took it upon themselves to do what was right in a situation regardless of what the regulations said was the US Coast Guard Aviators & Crew During Katrina. They broke every rule in the book to save a great number of people & perform their missions as they interpreted it. Afterwards local commanders were suprised that they recieved accolades due to national opinion & didn't recieve the reprimands spelled out in the regulations.

What can i say? It's always a good idea to know what they plan on doing to us.

Justin,

As usual, you have put together a very informative post on a topic of major intrest. This posting gives readers a good look inside US cotingency plans to handle an emergency.

That said, I don't see too much new info here. Preserving the contunity of the US Government during an emergency is nothing new! The basic objectives of this are something that the government has had in planning for over 60 years. This is a signigent update of the plans, but then again I think we can all agree that the "Primary" outside threat to the US has changed as well. We've gone from the days of standing nuclear aleart for World War 3 to the days of terrorists trying to fly airplanes into buildings and blow up subways.

It all seems to boil down to the idea of a new plan for a new threat! Nothing to get excited about.

Tim

Thanks Justin! As usual, very informative post.

Looking through the document, I don't see anything earth-shattering or diabolical - did I miss something? CoG has always been a hot topic in DC. So much so, that they built a special facility (Now mothballed) beneath some swanky resot in WV for exactly this purpose.

To me this appears to be nothing more than an update to existing protocols given new cabinet level departments that never existed before and accounting for them.

Again, did I miss some portion of the directive that spells out the danger to the "Free" citizens of the U.S.? Thanks.

I am a little bit concerned by some of the language I see in this Bush update, but that's only because I'm ready for the worst to happen. More than anyty9ng else, I watned to post this information just to set the record straight. Most of the time, when I see people posting about CoG on this and otehr sites, I end up reading speculations that aren't grounded in the facts of the matter.

i am legitimately concerned that a sitting U.S. President could engineer a crisis that would allow them to take advantage of the CoG policy. It's one of the things I dealt with in my book. It will also factor in to the sequel.

As we look at what Bush43 has done, and as we find out more about what he has done, we are left with just one question to answer. What will the next President do? I think it's time that we all became just a little bit familiar with Continuity of Government so that we'll know what we're talking about when we see the next leader of our #ry doing something that we disagree with.

Having said all that, I sincerely hope that we'll never need to implement this policy. From where I sit, it appears to be open to some very broad interpretations. there's room for civil servants to do some questionable things (line of succession). now that I know this material is posted on ATS, I hope that others will link to it and use it in their own discussions.

This directive raises a major red flag in my head in that it sets a new precedence while dismissing the constitution in the event of a national emergency.

We have been through two world wars without such a perversion of democracy, so what's up with this unless they're planning something that may risk a national revolt? Cautiousness? I think not. This regime is about power and control at the expense of the many. Those who desire to see the US turn into totalitarian nation are drooling in glee over this bridge built right to their doorsteps. Now it takes but a single event and the US becomes jackboot homeland. This thread should get top billing, something major comes this way.

Justin, you might take a gander as this recent write up over at the KOS:
Bush declares control of all 3 gov branches if any crisis?




[edit on 21-5-2007 by Regenmacher]

I share your concern in this regard, but I need to bring more to the table before I speak effectively. As a child of the Cold War, I come from a generation that expects the Constitution to be suspended in times of social collapse. As we braced ourselves for nuclear war, we accepted that the Federal governmentwould have to take a great many steps to put itself back together again.

That bias is no longer reasonable. Even so, I have to be aware of it. I can't allow it to interfere with my investigation of this topic. My sense of the thing is that we could very well witness a President use what you see in this thread to justify staying in power. Several scenarious present themselves. If I want to be a different sort of conspiracy theorist, I need to take my time wit htis and pull at the threads calmly and with deliberation.

Apples to oranges: A nuclear attack is a lot different that what can be construed as a national emergency in this new directive, and why fire a nuke or blow up a building if the US is doing a great job at setting itself up for an implosion with its legions of mindless self-absorbed consumers/voters.



A prime reason for new draconian measures is because an economic collapse is forecasted before the end of this decade and thus a social revolution will soon follow. It's a cyclic occurence that many are all well aware of and was planned from at least the 90's.



Since it will eventually be seen as a planned collapse and all fiat based systems eventually capitulate due to the advent of growing levels of greed and corruption, then the government will be seen as having no basis of merit or having reason to hold any form of power for practicing such known treachery upon its citizens. Thus the next wave is coming, so how many see it?

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Regenmacher]

I don't think that very many people see this coming. Even I am reluctant. That's why I wanted to have this discussion. As you point out, the opportunity exists, and all we're waiting for is the wrong catalyst. If there is anything I'd love love love to be wrong about, it would be this.

New directive was on Coast to Coast tonight. Jerome Corsi discussed how citizens are largely unaware and he was amazed that congress has kept silent about this and getting the cold shoulder to his inquiries as if they are planning something big.



Once again a major story slips under the sheeple radar screen, but I bet they know who won American Idol.



[edit on 24-5-2007 by Regenmacher]

I'm glad to see that C2C was talking about this. Hopefully, some ATS members will e-mail them the link for this thread. As Corsi made clear, we really need to be having this conversation now before anything unforseen happens. Just remember that you saw it here before you heard it on C2C.

As we approach Memorial Day, I'd like to bring THIS to your attention. Those of you who don't think that this CoG stuff amounts to anything should remember that the Fed is capable of...other things that can have a direct bearing on who does what to whom.

The story is finally getting some legs, albeit from non main stream sources. I heard Savage talking about it yesterday and now Marjorie Cohn the president of the National Lawyers Guild wrote about it.



Here's another article from Kurt Nimmo, who is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico



I predict the biggest legs will come when there's a national emergency and the majority will be shocked and surprised at the transformation of a democratic republic into a military junta.


Still waiting on the outrage, que the cricket sound...



[edit on 1-6-2007 by Regenmacher]

It's not unusual for alternative news watchers like the community here on ATS to get ahold of a story long before it reaches critical mass in the mainstream. I like to think that when I see these things, I'm seeing what everyone else is seeing. Then I remember that I'm going out of my way to look for stuff like this.

You've got all the primary data here in this thread. I encourage anyone who cares to keep adding new material and opinions to this discussion. Send the link to this thread to anyone whom you like. All of us who contribute to this duscussion could be what it takes for somebody to learn about this topic.

I've actually gotten some off-site mail regarding this thread. The observations and links that you guys add to this thread prove that its a community effort, which actually improves ATS street cred.

As you may know, I sample a wide range of radio programming every day to stay in the loop when it comes to certain things. As I type this, I'm listening to a left-wing radio program, and it seems that the host is talking about this CoG issue, and the fact that "nobody" is looking at it. I'm glad to know that we are atleast a month ahead here at ATS.

This is kind of fuzzy and open to interpratation! On one way of viewing it, this does in effect open the door for a dictatorship. However, in the usual sense of the word, a cordinator isn't total in charge, but takes a leadship role. However, it remains to be seen what they will do with this change. Our suspicion may be very well deserved.

Tim

As I study this further, I have developed a few new-er concerns. The definition of a disaster or crisis that would allow the invocation of this national emergency authority seem to me to be a little vague. An ATS member, Icarus Rising, has recently started a thread to talk about a new effort to update Executive Order 12333. Have a look at his thread, and see for yourself. I'm looking in to it now, and I may have something to present here. Only time will tell.

For those who don't know, E.O. 12333 was signed by President Reagan in 1981, directing the intelligence agencies to play nice with each other. From this, the media developed the term "intelligence sharing."

I'd like to thank Icarus for catching this one.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Justin Oldham]

AWESOME read. great info here...Now I know why I joined this weird site..lol.........Keep up the hard work, people are reading this stuff. Lots of them.