GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

October 18, 2000

The Honorable David Obey

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Peter DeFazio

The Honorable Pete Stark

House of Representatives

Subject: Military Activities: Display of Equipment at the Former Philadelphia Naval

Base in July 2000

At the request of Representatives Curt Weldon and Robert Brady, the Department of

Defense (DOD) agreed to display military items for members of Congress at the

former Philadelphia Naval Base1 prior to the Republican National Convention in July

2000. At your request, we determined (1) the basis for DOD’s decision to approve the

request, including pertinent laws or regulations and any restrictions on the conduct of

the display; (2) DOD’s compliance with any restrictions imposed on the display; and

(3) the estimated incremental cost of the display.2

To obtain information on DOD’s decision to provide the display and restrictions on

the display, we interviewed officials and reviewed documents in the Office of the

Secretary of Defense, DOD’s Office of the General Counsel, and the offices of the

Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Legislative Affairs and for Public Affairs. To

obtain information on the extent that the display met DOD’s restrictions and

estimated incremental costs, we interviewed officials, including several personnel

present at the display, and obtained documents at organizations that participated in

the display. These organizations included the office of the Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Legislative Affairs; the headquarters offices of the four military services;

the U.S. Coast Guard; the U.S. Atlantic Fleet; Willow Grove Naval Air Station and

Joint Reserve Base; the Ship Systems Engineering Station at the former Philadelphia

Naval Base; and offices of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, Fort Indiantown

 

1 In 1995, DOD closed the base—except for designated areas retained by the Navy—and later transferred the

property to Philadelphia.

2Incremental costs exceed normal operating expenses. Therefore, the figures in this letter do not include

personnel costs except for special active duty pay for reservists.
Page 2 GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

Gap, Pennsylvania. We also toured the site of the display. We did not independently

verify the accuracy or completeness of cost data provided by the services. We

performed our work during August and September 2000 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

We are aware of no legal prohibition against the display of military equipment at the

former Philadelphia Naval Base. DOD policy guidance for the current election year

prohibits the armed forces’ involvement in political events and instructs commanders

to decline support to any event that could identify or associate the military with any

partisan candidate or cause. Because the display provided an opportunity to educate

Members of Congress, stemmed from a bipartisan request, and was physically

separate from and not affiliated with the convention itself, the Secretary of Defense

believed the display would not violate policy guidance. To minimize the potential for

the display to be associated with partisan events, DOD limited it to 3 days and

imposed certain restrictions, including that the display and service personnel would

not be used for or in conjunction with any partisan or convention-related activities.

The display opened on July 29, 2000, and closed before the convention began on the

evening of July 31, 2000.

According to several servicemembers and a DOD official present at the display, the

display was used solely to educate Members of Congress on military capabilities and

readiness and did not violate any of DOD’s restrictions. These individuals stated that

no servicemember participated in any partisan or convention-related activities, nor

did anyone ask servicemembers to engage in any such activities. We found no

evidence to the contrary.

According to participating units, the incremental cost of the display was about

$609,203, including $368,218 for the Army, $102,420 for the Air Force, $82,451 for the

Navy, $25,188 for the Marine Corps, $23,726 for the National Guard, and $7,200 for the

Coast Guard. It was funded largely through operation and maintenance accounts and

included travel-related expenses for personnel attending the display and

transportation of equipment either through contract transportation or by the services

directly.

BACKGROUND

In letters dated June 27, 2000, and July 7, 2000, Representatives Weldon and Brady

requested that DOD display military equipment for about 90 Members of Congress

scheduled to stay at a former naval base in Philadelphia during the week of the

Republican National Convention. The representatives requested that the items be

displayed from July 28 to August 3, 2000, and stressed that the equipment would not

be used for any partisan activities. On the weekend before and during the week of

the convention, members of Congress and their families stayed in housing located on

city property within the base and attended various events held near the housing area.
Page 3 GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

The Secretary agreed to the request with certain restrictions and designated the Navy

to coordinate the participation of the other military services. Each service, the Coast

Guard, and the Pennsylvania Army National Guard displayed various items, including

a tank, helicopters, munitions, and small boats. (Encl. I is a list of the items

displayed.) The display was located on federal and city property adjacent to the

congressional housing area—about 1 mile from the site of the Republican National

Convention. The services and the Coast Guard operated the display from July 28

through July 31, 2000. The National Guard remained until August 4, 2000, primarily to

be available in case of an incident during the convention.

About 266 active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel participated in the display,

although not all were present for all 3 days. Each organization provided senior

officers to oversee the service displays, military and civilian personnel to explain the

purpose and capabilities of the equipment and to answer questions, and public and

legislative affairs officers to handle press and legislative contacts. DOD also sent a

legislative affairs officer to ensure that the display did not violate any of DOD’s

restrictions.

DOD’S DECISION TO DISPLAY EQUIPMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

DOD examined the legal and policy implications of providing a military display in

Philadelphia around the time of the Republican National Convention. While DOD

ultimately agreed to the request, it restricted the use of the display and activities of

personnel participating in the display.

Legal and Policy Considerations

According to DOD officials, the Secretary requested legal advice from the

Department’s General Counsel regarding the display of equipment in Philadelphia.

General Counsel officials said that they were aware of no law that would authorize or

prohibit the provision of military equipment requested by the two representatives.

We are aware of no legal prohibition against the display and find DOD’s action to be

legally sufficient.3

In the absence of a specific statute, an agency has general authority to engage in

activities in support of its missions. Since an agency has a legitimate interest in

communicating with the public and Congress regarding its functions, policies, and

activities, it has authority to engage in informational, educational, or promotional

activities.4

 The Philadelphia military display falls within this category of allowable

 

3There are antilobbying restrictions contained in a criminal statute in 18 U.S.C. 1913 and section 8012 of the

DOD Appropriations Act for FY 2000 (P.L. 106-65). Neither applies, as the criminal statute and section 8012

apply to indirect or “grass-roots” lobbying, not direct appeals to Congress by an agency. (See 60 Comp. Gen.

423 (1981)). Similarly, the restriction on the use of funds for publicity and propaganda appearing at section 8001

of the DOD Appropriations Act for FY 2000 is inapplicable as it does not prohibit DOD’s legitimate informational

activities (Comp. Gen. Decision B-223098, Oct. 10, 1986).

4 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 2nd ed., Vol. I (GAO/OGC-91-5) pp. 4-185.
Page 4 GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

activities. As an allowable activity, the services have the authority to expend

appropriated funds to provide such a display.

Generally, DOD considers military displays to be part of its community relations

efforts and has various guidelines that govern the activities military commanders may

engage in. For example, DOD Directive 5410.18 provides that any military support

and participation must not directly or indirectly endorse or appear to endorse any

political organization. Also, in December 1999, DOD’s public affairs office issued

policy guidance to assist commanders and public affairs officers in handling requests

for support during the 2000 election year. Among other things, this guidance notes

that DOD does not engage in activities that could be interpreted as associated with

any partisan political causes, issues, or candidates. It prohibits the armed forces’

involvement in political events except to provide a joint armed forces color guard for

opening ceremonies at the national conventions of parties that the Federal Election

Commission formally recognizes. Commanders are instructed to decline requests for

support to any event that could identify or associate the military with any partisan

candidate or cause.

DOD officials stated that in light of this policy, the Secretary and others debated

various factors such as the purpose of the display, the source of the request, and the

potential for the display to be identified with a partisan candidate or cause. Because

the display provided an opportunity to educate many Members of Congress at one

place, the request was bipartisan, and the display would be physically separate from

and not affiliated with the convention, the Secretary determined that the display

would not violate DOD’s policy guidance. DOD officials noted that they approve

numerous requests each year to display equipment for the general purpose of

educating others, including Members of Congress, about U.S. military capabilities.

They also noted that the Secretary made it clear that DOD would provide a display

around the time of the Democratic National Convention if it received a similar

bipartisan request.

Restrictions on the Display

To minimize the potential for the display to be associated with partisan events, DOD

limited the display to 3 days— it opened on July 29, 2000, and closed before the

convention began on the evening of July 31, 2000. DOD also imposed certain

restrictions on its use and the activities of participating servicemembers.

Specifically, in a July 27, 2000, letter to Representatives Weldon and Brady, the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs stipulated that

• display equipment would not be used for or in conjunction with any partisan or

convention-related activities, including media events, fund-raising, press

conferences, speeches, photo opportunities, and the like;

• the display would be open to any member of Congress on a nonpartisan basis; and
Page 5 GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

• any military personnel participating in the display must not be asked to engage in

any activities that could be construed as political in nature or in support of the

convention.

DOD also urged that the display be open to the general public for a portion of the time if

feasible so that the public could view and learn about U.S. military capabilities. Finally,

DOD issued written guidance that directed military personnel involved in the display to

avoid any form of political activity. The naval officer in charge of the display conducted

daily briefings to personnel participating in the display to remind them of the restrictions on

the display and their activities.

COMPLIANCE WITH DOD’S RESTRICTIONS

According to several servicemembers and a DOD legislative affairs official present at

the display of military equipment and items in Philadelphia, the display met DOD’s

restrictions. These individuals confirmed that the display was not used for political

purposes such as media events, fund-raising, press conferences, speeches, or photo

opportunities. They also stated that, to their knowledge, no servicemembers engaged

in any partisan or convention-related activity, nor did anyone ask them to engage in

any such activity. As a courtesy, servicemembers were authorized to eat at a nearby

food tent that was available to congressional members and guests participating in

activities in the city-owned area of the base. Servicemembers told us that no political

activities occurred in their presence and that they did not attend any political events.

For example, they did not attend a block party held on two streets within the

congressional housing area or any fund-raising activities. We found no evidence to

refute this information.

As required, the display was open to Members of Congress from both parties and

their family members and guests. For security reasons, it was not open to the

general public. Service personnel noted that they did not keep an official count of

congressional members or other attendees. However, Navy officials estimated that

about 35 Members of Congress and about 400 others viewed the display, including

congressional family members and staff, about 125 firefighters that participated in

events at the base, local officials, and eight members of the Russian Duma.

ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COST OF THE DISPLAY

According to participating units, the incremental cost of the display was about

$609,203, including $368,218 for the Army, $102,420 for the Air Force, $82,451 for the

Navy, $25,188 for the Marine Corps, $23,726 for the National Guard, and $7,200 for the

Coast Guard. It was funded largely through operation and maintenance accounts and

included travel-related expenses for personnel attending the display and

transportation of equipment either through contract transportation or by the services

directly. According to service personnel, the display did not adversely affect their

ability to fund other operations or activities. They noted that the display was

beneficial because it provided an opportunity to educate Members of Congress about

military capabilities. Also, servicemembers had an opportunity to review military
Page 6 GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

ethics and become familiar with equipment used by the other services. Other than

gaining additional flying and transportation experience and the opportunity to review

equipment specifications and capabilities, they noted no other particular operational

or training benefit.

AGENCY COMMENTS

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our findings. In

oral comments, the U.S. Coast Guard also concurred.

----

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, Transportation,

the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the

Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to

other interested parties upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202)

512-3958. Major contributors to this letter were Richard McGeary, Stephanie May,

and Sharon Pickup.

Carol R. Schuster, Director

Defense Capabilities and

 Management

Enclosure
ENCLOSURE I ENCLOSURE I

ITEMS DISPLAYED AT FORMER PHILADELPHIA NAVAL BASE IN JULY 2000

Page 7 GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

Organization Item displayed

Army Information posters on modernization plans

Future combat uniforms and equipment

Unmanned aerial and ground vehicles

Night vision systems

Munitions

Sensor system

Portable cockpit of Comanche helicopter

Theater High Altitude Air Defense System

AH-64 Apache helicopter

HUMRAAM Air Defense System

Future combat systems

--Digitization

--Telemaintenance

Hybrid electric vehicle

C4ISR technologies

SCUD Missile System

Team Redstone

PEO tactical missile

Cinema van

Air Force Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Information posters on modernization plans

 Aerospace superiority

 Global attack

 Precision engagement

 Global mobility

 Information superiority

 Balanced approach

 Munitions

Marine Corps V-22 Osprey aircraft

Light Armored Vehicle

Warfighting laboratory

Chemical Biological Incident Response Force

Navy SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopter

Mobile sensor platform

Vehicle radar sensor surveillance control van

Intercoastal boat 

Naval Mobile Construction Battalion equipment

continued
ENCLOSURE I ENCLOSURE I

ITEMS DISPLAYED AT FORMER PHILADELPHIA NAVAL BASE IN JULY 2000

Page 8 GAO-01-77R Display of Military Equipment in Philadelphia

Organization Item displayed

Pennsylvania National Guard M1A1 tank

AH-1 Cobra helicopter

CH-47 helicopter

Mine-clearing line charge with M113 carrier

HMMWV

Mobile kitchen trailer

HEMMT wrecker

Water purification unit

Command post carrier

Small emplacement excavator

WMD Civilian Support Team

U.S. Coast Guard Port security boat (25-foot)

Deep-water display

Deployable pursuit boat (38-foot)

(702096)