Homeland Security Watch

DHS has decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court regarding its ongoing legal dispute with federal government unions over collective bargaining rights at DHS, according to FCW:

Larry Orluskie, a DHS spokesman, said the decision came from the Justice Department’s Office of the Solicitor General late Sept. 25. The decision allows the agency to move forward to “pursue labor relations flexibilities rather than spending additional time in litigation,” Orluskie said.

“If we go to the Supreme Court, we’d go on and on and on,” he said. “What we’re going to do is engage with our other partners, with the components, OPM, sit down with the unions and consider all available options.”

MaxHR had been tied down in courts because of problems with ensuring collective bargaining rights for employees. The original court decision, in August 2005, blocked labor-relations portions of MaxHR and was eventually reaffirmed by an appeals court in June.

Unions applauded the decision and agreed with DHS on the need to move past the court battles.

“DHS has made the right decision — for itself, for its employees and for our nation,” said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. The union led the fight against MaxHR in court. “It is now time for DHS to put this adversarial proceeding behind it and to join with NTEU in focusing solely on the agency’s critical mission of protecting the American people.”

I’m glad that DHS is finally dropping this case. The negative mood that this created on human capital issues at DHS over the last three years vastly overwhelmed any performance-related benefits that this plan might have generated. There need to be strong incentives - both carrots and sticks - for high performance at DHS, but it’s been clear for the last two years that this plan was not the right way to pursue this objective.

The House and Senate have agreed to postpone the deadlines for the implementation of the requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, in language included in the FY 2007 DHS appropriations bill. AP notes:

plan to tighten U.S. borders by requiring passports or tamper-resistant identification cards from everyone entering the country has been delayed.

House and Senate lawmakers agreed to push back the program by 17 months, saying they want to make sure new ID cards being developed by the Bush administration will better secure borders against terrorists without slowing legitimate travelers from Canada and Mexico. The new ID’s will be required for Americans and all others entering the U.S.

That pushes the WHTI land border deadline back to the middle of 2009, which should give DHS and the State Department sufficient time to develop a workable solution for meeting the WHTI mandates. However, simply kicking the ball down the road doesn’t magically resolve the lingering disputes between DHS and State over technology, nor does it ensure that the business model for implementing WHTI without disrupting or deterring cross-border travel is sound. And this delay has its downsides: it leaves open critical gaps in the nation’s border security that were identified by the 9/11 Commission’s monograph on terrorist travel and which the WHTI elements of the Intelligence Reform Act were intended to address.

The Congressional Research Service released a new report this month on aviation security pre-screening:

RL33645: Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air Passenger Prescreening, September 6, 2006

The full Homeland Security Watch collection of CRS reports is available here.

TSA has issued draft standards for the Registered Traveler program, a set of zipped files which you can download at this link. The standards are currently open for public comment until October 4, 2006.

The House Committee on Appropriations issued a press release tonight that contains the top-line details about the final agreement between the House and Senate conferees on FY 2007 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. When additional information emerges, I’ll provide a detailed analysis, building off of this chart that I published on the blog back in July.

The Migration Policy Institute has released the report of a new task force report (which was co-chaired by former Sen. Spencer Abraham and former Rep. Lee Hamilton) on “Immigration and America’s Future.” The executive summary of the report is available on MPI’s website. The report contains recommendations on border security, counter-terrorism and employer enforcement within its broader scope. I don’t see any bold new ideas in this part of the executive summary, but the report provides a relieving dose of nonpartisan analysis on these contentious issues.

From the New York Times editorial page today, a resolute critique of the current legislative endgame on chemical security:

Congress still has done nothing to protect Americans from a terrorist attack on chemical plants. Republican leaders want to give the impression that that has changed. But voters should not fall for the spin. If the leadership goes through with the strategy it seems to have adopted last week to secure these highly vulnerable targets, national security will be the loser.

The federal government is spending extraordinary amounts of money and time protecting air travel from terrorist attacks. But Congress has not yet passed a law to secure the nation’s chemical plants, even though an attack on just one plant could kill or injure as many as 100,000 people. The sticking point has been the chemical industry, a heavy contributor to political campaigns, which does not want to pay the cost of reasonable safety measures.

The Senate and the House spent many months carefully developing bipartisan chemical plant security bills. Both measures were far too weak, but they would have finally imposed real safety requirements on the chemical industry. The Republican leadership in Congress blocked both bills from moving forward. Instead, whatever gets done about chemical plant security will apparently be decided behind closed doors, and inserted as a rider to a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

It is outrageous that something as important as chemical plant security is being decided in a back-room deal. It is regrettable that Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the chairwoman of the committee that produced the Senate bill, does not carry enough influence with her own party’s leadership to get a strong chemical plant security bill passed. The deal itself, the likely details of which have emerged in recent days, is a near-complete cave-in to industry, and yet more proof that when it comes to a choice between homeland security and the desires of corporate America, the Republican leadership always goes with big business.

I disagree with the point that the Senate HSGAC and House HSC were too weak - I thought that they were within the target zone - but other than, that is fair critique of what we’ve seen emerge over the last two weeks.

Meanwhile, Reuters provides additional details on the Republican-led deal on this issue in a story tonight, noting that there has been moderate pushback on some of the worst provisions of the industry language (e.g. giving DHS the authority to shutdown plants) - but is still quite weak, essentially codifying the dangerous laissez faire attitude that has prevailed since 9/11 on chemical plant security.

The Department of Homeland Security announced its FY 2006 allocations for the port, transit, and intercity bus homeland security grant programs, as detailed in this document. Looking at the allocations, it’s possible to detect a handful of trends:

• Ports with extensive petrochemical assets, primarily along the Gulf Coast, made out very well in the allocations. The eight ports in Texas and Louisiana received funding totaling $57.7 million - approx. 1/3rd of the total allocation.
• New York’s funding increased sharply, from $6.6 million in FY 2005 to $25.7 million in FY 2006 - not surprising given the fallout from the general grant allocations in June.
• Ports in California made out poorly in the allocations. LA/Long Beach’s funding was halved from $24 million to $12 million, and other major ports - Oakland, San Diego - received little or no funding (a fact not lost on the Contra Costa Times).
• Chicago, somewhat surprisingly, received a large allocation of $11.5 million, after have received less than $2 million in all previous rounds of port security grants combined.

A likely general explanation for these decisions, I would expect, is that certain ports (e.g. LA / Long Beach) have already made extensive investments in security, and DHS is spreading funds to a second tier of ports who have not received funding in previous rounds and are insufficiently protected by comparison and have higher “need” scores.

DHS Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson and TSA Administrator Kip Hawley announced changes to the aviation screening rules imposed after the August 10th plot:

• Small bottles (less than 3 oz.) of toiletries, cosmetics, toothpaste, etc. will now be allowed through the passenger checkpoint, screened separately in a clear Ziploc bag.
• Drinks purchased inside the passenger checkpoint will now be allowed on planes.

The full details are available on TSA’s website.

The National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators released a report yesterday that estimated the five-year cost associated with implementing the REAL ID Act at $11 billion over five years. This estimate is broken down as follows:

• Re-enrollment of all drivers license & ID holders to meet guidelines: $8.48 billion
• New processes for verifying applicants: $1.42 billion
• Drivers license and ID design requirements: $1.11 billion
• Support costs: $0.04 billion

This analysis goes a couple of levels deeper in the report, providing a fairly rigorous assessment of the costs of REAL ID. And the report offers nine top-level recommendations:

1. Extend the compliance deadline;
2. Provide the funds necessary for states to comply with Real ID;
3. Provide the federal electronic verification systems necessary to comply with the law;
4. Require states to employ electronic verification systems only as they become available;
5. Implement a 10 year re-enrollment schedule;
6. Adopt uniform naming conventions to facilitate electronic verification between files;
7. Allow reciprocity for persons already vetted by the federal government
8. Establish card security criteria based on performance—not technology; and
9. Grant the Secretary of Homeland Security the flexibility to recognize innovation at the state level.

I’ve written in the past that REAL ID is a bad idea, arguing that:

If Real ID is a “de facto” national ID system, then it’s one of the worst possible forms of one: it’s not likely to deliver the potential security benefits of an integrated system; it doesn’t save money via national-level economies of scale; it has no clear funding stream; and oversight on privacy issues will be difficult in a 50-state stakeholder environment.

This report supports my contention about the lack of national-level economies of scale in the REAL ID model compared with a national ID card.

The Washington Post has a story today that discusses plans within DHS to reallocate screening and explosive detection funds away from the “puffer” machines and toward technology that can better detect liquid explosives:

The proposal calls for a shift of $20 million from the puffers to fund improvements in X-ray technology. After the upgrades, the X-ray machines would be able to take multiple images of the contents of carry-on bags, giving screeners an extra chance to detect suspicious items, including bottles or containers that might hold explosives, officials and experts said.

Machines used in U.S. airports today generally examine bags from only one angle. Government audits have shown that it is sometimes difficult for screeners to detect banned items or weapons, depending on where they are placed in a carry-on.

Security officials are seeking new technology to counter the threat of liquid explosives, a month after British authorities said they uncovered a plot to blow up transatlantic flights. The upgraded machines would not identify explosive compounds but would help screeners pick up shapes of items that could contain liquid explosives, officials said.

“What gives me the capability to find explosives now?” Kip Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration, asked in an interview. “The answer is X-rays. We’re looking at where we can get the biggest bang for the buck.”

The article also indicates that the puffer machines are not living up to expectations, and have had high maintenance costs and failure rates in the aviation environment - thus the rationale for the potential shift of funds.

In a story in CQ (subscription only), Rep. Peter King, the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, makes its very clear that he does not support the language that the chemical industry is pushing to include in the FY 2007 DHS appropriations bill:

King said Thursday he does not endorse compromise language that has been circulating for more than a week under his name, and chastised those who claim he did.

“Anyone saying I agreed to this is either a liar, ignorant, or both,” King told CQ Homeland Security. “My experience is that people who spread these lies are usually people who’ve lost big time.”

The language, to be added to the Homeland Security spending bill (HR 5441), would allow the Department of Homeland Security to create interim regulations for chemical security sites.

King said he never backed the language, which was being characterized with his moniker, along with Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has taken over the negotiations for King, sources said.

“I never signed onto any compromise,” King said Thursday. “The industry was trying to get out front and box people in.”

This last sentence by King says it all about the chemical industry’s narrow-minded viewpoint on this issue. I hope that members of Congress such as Peter King, Susan Collins, and Judd Gregg continue to fight against the inclusion of such weak language in the appropriations bill.

Below is a list of homeland security policy events in the DC area next week (as well as the occasional listing outside of DC). Please note that many events require prior invitations and/or RSVPs.

9/25-9/26: Border Trade Alliance 2006 International Conference. Austin, TX.
9/25-9/26: University of Rhode Island conference on “National Security, Natural Disasters, Logistics & Transportation: Assessing the Risks & the Responses.” Kingston, RI.
9/25-9/26: ANSI Homeland Security Standards Panel Plenary Meeting to Address Emergency Preparedness. New York University, NYC.
9/25-9/27: IT Security World Conference & Expo. Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, CA.
9/25-9/28: ASIS International 2006. San Diego, CA.
9/25: National Press Club luncheon with Sen. Arlen Specter. 529 14th St NW, 12:30pm.
9/25: House-Senate Conference Committee meeting for Homeland Security Appropriations. U.S. Capitol H-140, 5pm.
9/25: Center for American Progress film screening of “Crossing Arizona.” Landmark E Street Cinema, 555 11th St NW, 6:30pm.
9/26: House Homeland Security Committee hearing with Sec. Chertoff on “DHS: Major Initiatives for 2007.” Cannon 311, 10am.
9/26: Opening ceremony for DC’s new Unified Communications Center. 2720 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, 12:30pm.
9/26: House Government Reform Committee hearing on “Current Nuclear Proliferation Challenges” with Hans Blix et al. Rayburn 2154, 2pm.
9/27: House Financial Services Committee hearing on “Protecting Americans from Catastrophic Terrorism Risk.” Rayburn 2128, 10am.
9/27: Heritage Foundation and Center for National Policy event on “Honoring Excellence in Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Education and Research.” 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, 11am.
9/27: George Mason U. Critical Infrastructure Protection Program event on “National Preparedness Month and the Future of Critical Infrastructure” with DHS Under Sec. George Foresman. National Press Club, 529 14th St NW, 11am.
9/27: House Small Business Committee hearing on “Advancing Security and Commerce at Our Nation’s Ports: The Goals are not Mutually Exclusive.” Rayburn 2360, 2pm.
9/27: Senate HELP Committee hearing on “Crisis in the ER: How Can We Improve Emergency Medical Care?” Dirksen 430, 2:30pm.
9/28-9/29: Descartes Conference on Mathematical Models in Counterterrorism. Rayburn 2168.
9/28: Senate HSGAC hearing on “Securing the National Capital Region (NCR): An Examination of the NCR’s Strategic Plan.” Dirksen 342, 10am.
9/28: House Homeland Security Committee hearing on “Transit Security Training Procedures.” Cannon 311, 10am.

(Please e-mail me if you have suggestions about additions to this list for this week, or future weeks).

The Office of Management & Budget released a document recently that lists high-risk IT investments in the federal government, a list which includes many DHS programs:

• Customs and Border Protection SBInet (Secure Border Intitiative)
• eMerge2
• FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) National Emergency Management Information System (eNEMIS)
• O&A Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN)
• PREP Information Systems Security Line of Business (ISS LoB)
• PREP National Asset Data Base (NADB)
• PREP NS/EP Priority Telecommunications Service (PTS)
• Science & Technology Directorate Disaster Management E-Gov
• Science & Technology Directorate SAFECOM
• Office of Screening Coordination and Operations US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology)
• Transportation Security Administration Alien Flight Student Program
• Transportation Security Administration Hazmat Threat Assessment Program
• Transportation Security Administration Registered Traveler (RT)
• Transportation Security Administration Secure Flight/Crew Vetting
• Transportation Security Administration Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing (TWIC)
• United States Coast Guard Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS)

For more context, see this GCN story.

The Congressional Research Service recently published an updated version of a report that looks at pending Congressional issues related to the Coast Guard:

RS21125: Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations -Background and Issues for Congress, Updated September 12, 2006

The full Homeland Security Watch collection of CRS reports is available here.

The GAO issued a report today entitled “Federal Efforts to Respond to Nuclear and Radiological Threats and to Protect Emergency Response Capabilities Could Be Strengthened,” which takes a look at a couple of issues related to the nation’s abilities to respond to a catastrophic radiological or nuclear attack.

The report makes two key points: first, that DOE’s two key emergency response facilities, at Andrews and Nellis AFB, have inadequate physical security; and second, that DOE should conduct additional aerial surveys of major cities to establish a baseline for background radiation and potentially locate existing unknown radiation sources - as was the case when New York City conducted an aerial survey in 2005 and found an old industrial site that was previously unknown to be contaminated with radium.

According to a press release by Sec. Chertoff, Asst. Secretary for Strategic Plans Randy Beardsworth, one of the last folks left from the original senior-level team at DHS, has decided to resign from his job:

Randy Beardsworth has announced his resignation as Assistant Secretary for Strategic Plans for the Department of Homeland Security, effective September 29, 2006. Randy played an integral part in standing-up this department and melding of 22 agencies into a cohesive unit.

Randy’s service to the department dates back to December of 2002, when he joined the Transition Office after a career with the Coast Guard. His experience and expertise were vital to the design and development of the new Department of Homeland Security. Randy also filled the critical role of Acting Under Secretary for the former Border and Transportation Security Directorate during its final days as a component within the department.

The Department of Defense Inspector General has released a report responding to the numerous allegations regarding the Able Danger program and its relation to the 9/11 attacks. Among the findings:

• The program did not identify Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11, stating that witness recollections to this effect were not accurate.
• DOD officials did not explicitly prohibit the sharing of Able Danger information with the FBI.
• Several terabytes of data related to the program were destroyed.
• The revocation of Lt. Tony Shaffer’s security clearance was appropriate given the full scope of circumstances beyond those publicly known.

Here’s an AP story on the report. And here’s the reaction on the Able Danger Blog.

The Heritage Foundation published a piece today, co-authored by Heritage’s Jim Carafano and Jamie Metzl from the Partnership for a Secure America, on Congress’s inaction in making the homeland security grant system risk-based. The article provides a good history of this debate, and offers two recommendations for Congress:

Require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, just as the Department of Defense is required to conduct its Quadrennial Defense Review, and

Reform homeland security grants by eliminat­ing the minimum-grant formula to allow for pure risk-based funding.

And two recommendations for DHS:

Continue to update the formula for homeland security grant allocation to reflect risk, threat, and vulnerability, and

Create regional offices to coordinate disaster preparedness and response, as mandated by HSPD-8 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Overall, a solid piece on this important issue.

A story by Eric Lipton in Thursday’s New York Times provides a good summary of the current showdown in Congress over the inclusion of chemical security language in the FY 2007 DHS appropriations bill. The article links to letters sent to Sen. Judd Gregg by a group of Republican Senators and a group of Democratic Senators that offer opposing positions on this debate.

The article succintly describes the chemical industry’s proposal for legislative language:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have been authorized to establish regulations requiring security measures, but the regulations would have applied only to a sliver of facilities that manufacture, use or store toxic chemicals and that are deemed to have the “highest levels of security risk.” Mr. Chertoff would not have had the power to shut down plants not in compliance.

The proposal would also have left decisions about security plans entirely up to these high-risk plants.

There can be a principled disagreement in this debate over whether DHS should be allowed to mandate inherently safer technologies (ISTs) - I’m against a strong mandate, but think they should be an option as a last resort if other security measures are inadequate. And there can be a principled disagreement over whether states should have the right to have stronger regulations - something that I support consistent with our nation’s tradition of federalism.

But for the chemical industry to put forward a proposal that gives DHS such weak authority, including zero authority to shut down a plant after an extreme security violation, is ludicrous. It confirms all of my suspicions over the last six months regarding the chemical industry’s lack of seriousness - and to be quite frank, their lack of patriotism - in this debate. I hope that serious-minded Senators - including homeland security committee chairs Collins and King - stick to their guns, and demand legislation that can deliver needed security dividends, instead of this sham proposal.

Two stories in GovExec yesterday focus on the state of negotiations between the House and Senate over FY 2007 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. The first story concerns a fight over the inclusion of drug reimportation language in the bill, a battle that pits the pharmaceutical industry against the AARP. The second story discusses negotiations over the inclusion of $1.8 billion in additional funding for border security in the bill, funding that had earlier been included in the Defense appropriations bill (as I detailed in this post in early August) but has now been shifted to DHS appropriations. The story highlights disputes over whether this money should be allocated solely toward border fencing and vehicle barriers, or instead partially allocated to other accounts related to border security, interior enforcement, and Coast Guard operations.

Newsday has a strong editorial today urging its local member of Congress, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, to stick to his earlier support for the House’s chemical security legislation:

One of the most egregious pieces of unfinished business from 9/11 is the continuing vulnerability of chemical plants to terrorist attack. The plants have done a certain amount on their own, but when Congress tries to mandate tighter security, the industry shamefully heads it off.

Now the issue is at our door on Long Island, because the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee is Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford). This summer, King committed himself to his own committee’s strong bill. But he’s now swatting down accusations that he’s quietly backing away from it and seeking language that would help the chemical industry but stave off tighter plant security. King must put the safety of Americans over any industry’s desires.

I agree, and I hope Chairman King will continue to realize that a common-sense analysis of the vulnerabilities in the chemical sector and the potential consequences of an attack require the passage of strong legislation - like the legislation that passed the Committee - as soon as possible.

According to stories in Wednesday’s New York Times and Washington Post, The Boeing Company has won the DHS contract for the Secure Border Initiative (SBI). From the latter story:

Aerospace and defense giant Boeing Co. has won a multibillion-dollar contract to revamp how the United States guards about 6,000 miles of border in an attempt to curb illegal immigration, congressional sources said yesterday.

Boeing’s proposal relied heavily on a network of 1,800 towers — most of which would need to be erected along the borders with Mexico and Canada. Each tower would be equipped with a variety of sensors, including cameras and heat and motion detectors.

The company’s efforts would be the basis of the government’s latest attempt to control U.S. borders after a series of failures. The contract, part of the Secure Border Initiative and known as SBInet, will again test the ability of technology to solve a problem that lawmakers have called a critical national security concern. This time, the private sector is being given an unusually large say in how to do it.

Boeing sold its plan to the Department of Homeland Security as less risky and less expensive than competing proposals that would have relied heavily on drones for routine surveillance work. Boeing plans only limited use of small unmanned aerial vehicles that could be launched from the backs of Border Patrol trucks when needed to help pursue suspects.

For more on Boeing’s bid, see this Bloomberg story from August and Boeing’s initial press release on SBI from May.

Update (9/20): More analysis on the decision (which appears will be officially announced on Thursday) from the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Update (9/21): The official announcement was made today by DHS. You can read the transcript of the press briefing at this link.

Defense News has a story today that describes an anti-terror exercise that is taking place this week in Denmark:

The Danish government launched its first anti-terror exercise on behalf of the European Union on Sept. 18, a multiple-event scenario that brings together 300 experts on weapons of mass destruction and civil emergency responders from seven EU countries — Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia and Sweden.

Codenamed EU DANEX, the five-day exercise is structured around this scenario: An extremist group plans to take advantage of the chaos produced by a severe storm over Denmark and southern Sweden to set off explosive devices in both countries. The simulated bombs are targeted against the region’s critical infrastructure to create mass panic.

Participants in the exercise will have to deal with attacks on an ammonia storage facility, the release of a chemical warfare agent in a command center, and the explosion in an urban area of a so-called dirty bomb containing radioactive material. Additional explosive devices will cause fire and leaks at a natural gas hub.

You can find more information on the exercise at its website. Notably, they’ve also created a blog as part of the exercise in order to provide information about its progress.

The commission looking into the rendition of Maher Arar issued its final report yesterday, an 800+ page tome that strongly criticizes Canada’s lead law enforcement and intelligence agencies for their actions in this case. The report does look into the details of US actions on this case. The full report is available here, and the Washington Post has a solid overview of the report in this story, and Glenn Greenwald has a cogent analysis of the case in this blog post.

A new bill on border fencing, H.R. 6061, emerged last week from the ashes of comprehensive immigration and border security legislation, and was passed by the House by a 283-138 vote. The Senate plans to take up the legislation this week, according to the Associated Press:

The Senate will consider a bill calling for erecting 700 miles of fencing on the U.S-Mexican border, a proposal that has been approved twice by the House.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., used a legislative maneuver to get the bill to the floor as early as Wednesday, when the Senate could decide whether to move forward on the legislation….

Democrats are likely to try to block the bill. They may try to attach the comprehensive immigration bill the Senate passed in May as an amendment and push debate into next week. A delay could be a problem as Congress tries to wrestle with legislation addressing treatment of terrorism suspects.

I agree with the idea of increased fencing along the US-Mexico border to this extent (or even more). But I think these preventive investments need to be made in conjunction with deterrent investments, such as better worksite enforcement and some sort of temporary worker program. It doesn’t make sense to focus only on prevention or only on deterrence at the US-Mexico border. By making both types of investments, the Border Patrol will be better able to do its job at a high level of effectiveness.

433 days after the position was first created (eleven days short of the length of the Iran hostage crisis), DHS has nominated someone to be the first Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Telecommunications. From a statement by Sec. Chertoff:

I am pleased to announce that Gregory Garcia has been appointed as Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Telecommunications at the Department of Homeland Security. Greg brings the right mix of experience in government and the private sector to continue to strengthen our robust partnerships that are essential to this field. He has the expertise to focus resources and activities within the cyber and telecommunications communities in a manner that is consistent with our risk-based approach to homeland security.

Greg joins the department from the Information Technology Association of America, where he was Vice President for Information Security Policy and Programs. In that capacity, Greg led the public debate on cyber security policy and national cyber readiness. He has worked closely with the department over the past few years in his role on the IT Sector Coordinating Council and working with industry to found the National Cyber Security Partnership. Greg helped to draft and enact the Cyber Security Research and Development Act of 2002 during his tenure with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. Greg has also worked to strengthen encryption control regulations while with the Americans for Computer Privacy and he was active on international trade and IT policy at the Americans Electronics Association. He is a graduate of San Jose University with a Bachelor of Science degree.

You can find initial reaction to the pick in this story at ZDNet.

From today’s New York Times, a story surveying the problems in which Project BioShield is currently mired:

The last of the anthrax-laced letters was still making its way through the mail in late 2001 when top Bush administration officials reached an obvious conclusion: the nation desperately needed to expand its medical stockpile to prepare for another biological attack.

The result was Project BioShield, a $5.6 billion effort to exploit the country’s top medical and scientific brains and fill an emergency medical cabinet with new drugs and vaccines for a host of threats. “We will rally the great promise of American science and innovation to confront the greatest danger of our time,” President Bush said in starting the program.

But the project, critics say, has largely failed to deliver.

So far, only a small fraction of the anticipated remedies are available. Drug companies have waited months, if not years, for government agencies to decide which treatments they want and in what quantities. Unable to attract large pharmaceutical corporations to join the endeavor, the government is instead relying on small start-up companies that often have no proven track record.

The article builds off the excellent piece in Time Magazine back in January on BioShield and goes into great detail on the nasty fight between VaxGen and Emergent BioSolutions (formerly BioPort) over anthrax vaccine contracts.