Ceremonial unveiling of new homeland security drone at General Atomics.
Published in Counterpunch,
May 1, 2013
The Pentagon, military, intelligence agencies and military
contractors are longtime proponents of UAVs for intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Following President Bush’s declaration of a
“global war on terrorism,” the White House became directly involved in
expanding drone deployment in foreign wars – especially in directing drone
strikes.
The most unabashed advocates of drone proliferation, however, are
in Congress. They claim drones can solve many of America’s most pressing
problems – from eliminating terrorists to keeping the homeland safe from
unwanted immigrants. However, there has been little congressional oversight of
drone deployments, both at home and abroad.
Since the post-9/11 congressional interest in drone issues –
budgets, role in national airspace, overseas sales, border deployment and UAVs
by law enforcement agencies – drone boosterism in Congress has prevailed of any
incipient oversight or governance role. Drones made an appearance in the Senate
in the first foray to implement immigration reform, when on January 28, 2013 a
bipartisan group of senators argued their proposal legislation would “increase
the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance equipment….”
Drone promotion by U.S. representatives and senators in Congress
pops up in what at first may seem the unlikeliest of places. Annually, House
members join with UAS manufacturers to fill the foyer and front rooms of the
Rayburn House Office Building with displays of the latest drones – an industry
show introduced in glowing speeches by highly influential House leaders,
notably Buck McKeon, the Southern California Republican who chairs the House
Armed Service Committee and co-chairs the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus
(CUSC).
Advances in communications, aviation and surveillance technology
have all accelerated the coming of UAVs to the home front. Yet drones
aren’t solely about technological advances. Money flows and political influence
also factor in.
Congressional
Caucus on Unmanned Systems
At the forefront of the money/politics nexus is the Congressional
Caucus on Unmanned Systems (CCUS). Four years ago, the CCUS (then known as the
House Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Caucus) was formed by a small group of
congressional representatives – mainly Republicans and mostly hailing from
districts with drone industries or bases.
By late 2012, the House caucus had 60 members and had changed its
name to encompass all unmanned systems – whether aerial, marine or
ground-based. This bipartisan caucus, together with its allies in the drone
industry, has been promoting UAV use at home and abroad through drone fairs on
Capitol Hill, new legislation and drone-favored budgets.
CCUS aims to “educate members of Congress and the public on the
strategic, tactical, and scientific value of unmanned systems; actively support
further development and acquisition of more systems, and to more effectively
engage the civilian aviation community on unmanned system use and safety.”
In late 2012, the caucus comprised a collection of border hawks,
immigration hardliners and leading congressional voices for the military
contracting industry. The two caucus co-chairs, Howard “Buck” McKeon,
R-California, and Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, are well positioned to accelerate
drone proliferation. McKeon, whose southern California district includes major
drone production facilities, notably General Atomics, is the caucus founder and
chair of the House Armed Services Committee. Cuellar, who represents the Texas
border district of Laredo, is the ranking member (and former chairman) of the
House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
Other
caucus members include Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), who heads the House
Immigration Reform Caucus; Candice Miller (R-Minn.), who heads the Homeland
Security subcommittee that reviews the air and marine operations of DHS; Joe
Wilson (R-SC); Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.); Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.); Loretta
Sanchez (D-Calif.); and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). Eight caucus members
were also members of the powerful House Appropriations Committee in the 112th Congress.
The caucus and its leading members (along with drone proponents in
the Senate) have played key roles in drone proliferation at home and abroad
through channeling earmarks to Predator manufacturer General Atomics, prodding
the Department of Homeland Security to establish a major drone program, adding
amendments to authorization bills for the Federal Aviation Administration and
Department of Defense to ensure the more rapid integration of UAVs into the
national airspace, and increasing annual DOD and DHS budgets for drone R&D
and procurements. To accelerate drone acquisitions and deployment at
home, Congress has an illustrative track record of legislative measures (see
accompanying box).
Congressional
support for the development and procurement of Predators dates back to 1996,
and is reflected in the defense and intelligence authorization acts. An Air
Force-sponsored study of the Predator’s rise charted the increases mandated by
the House Armed Service and the House Intelligence committees over the Predator
budget requests made by the Air Force in its budgets requests. Between 1996 and
2006 (ending date of study), “Congress has recommended an increase, over and
above USAF requests, in the Predator budget for nearly 10 years in a row.
This has resulted in a sum total increase of over a half a billion dollars over
the years.”
Association
of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
CCUS cosponsors the annual drone fete with the Association of
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), an industry group that brings
together the leading drone manufacturers and universities with UAV research
projects. AUVSI represents the interests in the expansion of unmanned systems
expressed by many of the estimated 100 U.S. companies and academic institutions
involved in developing and deploying the some 300 of the currently existing UAV
models.
The drone association has a $7.5-million annual operating budget,
including $2 million a year for conferences and trade shows to encourage
government agencies and companies to use unmanned aircraft.
AUVSI also has its own congressional advocacy committee that
is closely linked to the caucus. The keynote speaker at the drone association’s
annual conference in early 2012 was Representative McKeon. The congressman was
also the featured speaker at AUVSI’s AIR Day 2011, in recognition, says AUVSI’s
president, that Congressman McKeon “has been one of the biggest supporters of
the unmanned systems community.”
The
close relationship between the congressional drone caucus and AUVSI was
reflected in a similar relationship between CBP/OAM and AUVSI. Tom Faller, the
CBP official who directed the UAV program at OAM, joined the AUVSI 23-member
board-of-directors in August 2011, a month before the association hosted a
technology fair in foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. OAM
participated in the fair. Faller resigned from the unpaid position on
Nov. 23, 2011 after the Los Angeles Times queried DHS about
Faller’s unpaid position in the industry association. Faller is currently
subject of a DHS internal ethics-violation investigation.
Contracts,
contributions, earmarks and favors
Once a relatively insignificant part of the military-industrial
complex, the UAV development and manufacturing sector is currently expanding
faster than any other component of military contracting. Drone orders from
various federal departments and agencies are rolling in to AUVSI corporate
members, including such leading military contractors as General Atomics,
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. (Unlike most major military contractors,
General Atomics is not a corporation but a privately held firm, whose two major
figures are Linden and Neal Blue, both of whom have high security clearances)
U.S. government drone purchases – not counting contracts for an
array of related UAV services and “payloads” – rose from $588 million to
$1.3 billion over the past five years. The FY2013 DOD budget includes $5.8
billion for UAVs, which does not include drone spending by the intelligence
community, DHS or other federal entities. The Pentagon says that its
“high-priority” commitment to expenditures for drone defense and warfare has
resulted in “strong funding for unmanned aerial vehicles that enhance
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.”
While the relationship between increasing drone contracts and the
increasing campaign contributions received by drone caucus members can only be
speculated, caucus members are favored recipients of contributions by AUVSI
members. In the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, political action committees associated
with companies that produce drones donated more than $2.4 million to
members of the congressional drone caucus.
The leading recipient was McKeon, with Representative Silvestre
Reyes, the influential Democrat from El Paso (who lost his seat in the 2012
election), coming in a close second. General Atomics counted among
McKeon’s top five contributors in the last election. (See Figure 1) Frank W.
Pace, the director of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, contributed to two
candidates – Buck McKeon and Jerry Lewis – during the 2012 electoral campaign.
(See Figure 2)
Who were the top recipients of the General Atomics campaign
contributions in the 2012 cycle? Four of the top five recipients were not
surprising – Buck McKeon, Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter and Brian Bilbray – given
their record of support for UAVs and all manner of military contracts and their
position among the most influential drone caucus members. (See Figure 3)
The relationship that has been consolidating between General
Atomics and the U.S. Air Force since the early 1990s has been mediated and
facilitated in Congress by influential congressional representatives, led by
southern Californian Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, a member of the House
Appropriations Defense Committee and vice-chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Lewis, a favored recipient of General Atomics campaign
contributions, used his appropriations influence to ensure that the Air Force
gained full control of the UAV program by 1998. Lewis, a prominent member of
the “Drone Caucus,” has received at least $10,000 every two years in campaign
contributions from General Atomics’ political action committee – $80,000 since
1998, according to OpenSecrets.org. During the 2012 campaign cycle, General
Atomics was the congressman’s top campaign donor.
The top ranking recipient of General Atomics campaign
contributions isn’t a CUSC member. Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-Calif.)
contributions from General Atomics easily placed her at the top of the list.
Feinstein, who chairs the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, was also
favored in the campaign contributions by Linden Blue, the president of General
Atomics. (See Figure 4)
Senator Feinstein has been a highly consistent supporter of the
intelligence community and military budgets. Her failure to oppose the
clandestine drone strikes ordered by the White House and CIA have sparked
widespread criticism by those who argue the strikes are unconstitutional,
illegal under international law and counterproductive as a counterterrorism
tactic.
In 2012, General Atomics was Feinstein’s third largest campaign
contributor, while other leading contributors were the military contractors
General Dynamics (from which General Atomics emerged), BAE Systems and Northrup
Grumman. Feinstein’s connections to General Atomics extend beyond being top
recipient of their campaign contributions. Rachel Miller, a former (2003-2007)
legislative assistant for Feinstein, has served as a paid lobbyist for General
Atomics, both working directly for the firm (in 2011) and as a General Atomics
lobbyist employed by Capitol Solutions (2009 – present), one of the leading
lobbying firms contracted by General Atomics.
And did
you know that Linden Blue plans to marry Retired Rear Adm. Ronne Froman?
Few others knew about the engagement of this high-society San Diego couple
until Senator Feinstein announced the planned marriage at a mid-November 2012
meeting of the downtown San Diego business community – news that quickly
appeared the Society pages of the San Diego Union-Tribune. There
has been no explanation offered why Feinstein broke this high-society news, but
the announcement certainly did point to the senator’s likely personal
connections to Blue and Froman (who was hired by General Atomics as senior
vice-president in December 2007 and has since left the firm).
Campaign contributions and personal connections create goodwill
and facilitate contracts. General Atomics also counts on the results produced
by a steady stream of lobbying dollars – which have risen dramatically since
2003, and been averaging $2.5 million annually since 2005. In 2012, General
Atomics spent $2,470,000 lobbying Congress.
Congressional
earmarks were critical to the rise of the Predator, both its earlier unarmed
version as well as the later “Hunter-Killer.” The late senator Daniel K.
Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee,
told the New York Times that if the House ban on commercial
earmarks that was introduced in 2010 had been in effect earlier, ”we would not
have the Predator today.”
Tens of
millions of dollars in congressional earmarks in the 1990s went to General
Atomics and other military contractors for the early development of what became
the Predator program, reported the New York Times. Inouye was a source
of a number of these multimillion earmarks for General Atomics, whose large
campaign contributions to the influential Hawaii senator from 1998 to 2012
($5000 in this last campaign) could be regarded as thank-you notes since Inouye
faced insignificant political opposition.
Figure
1
Buck
McKeon, Campaign Contributions (2012 cycle)
Top Contributors
Lockheed Martin $65,750
General Dynamics
$60,000
Northrup Grumman
$50,500
General Atomics
$38,800
Boeing
$31,750
___________________________________________
