Comments on: Bottom Up Review: Button Down and Focus http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/07/16/bottom-up-review-button-down-and-focus/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: John Comiskey http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/07/16/bottom-up-review-button-down-and-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-139835 John Comiskey Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:33:34 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=10452#comment-139835 I am not sure that we disagree but its okay if we do -I typically learn a lot more from disagreement. I emphasize vision and acknowledge that the status quo has not changed much and certainly not fast enough. I am not so much concerned with statutory mandates as I am with the best possible outcome given the realties at hand. I share America's impatience with government and probably most other things. How much detail do the congressional staffers want? Let them go to the airports w/o VIP credentials or ride a commuter line or municipal subway or visit a port or ride along interstate 10 in New Mexico or observe the massive intake and processing of homeland security information. Or visit Times Square on a Friday night in summer. There is a lot going on at the homeland security front -to appreciate it one must live it outside the beltway. I look forward to agreeing and disagreeing with you. I am not sure that we disagree but its okay if we do -I typically learn a lot more from disagreement.

I emphasize vision and acknowledge that the status quo has not changed much and certainly not fast enough. I am not so much concerned with statutory mandates as I am with the best possible outcome given the realties at hand. I share America’s impatience with government and probably most other things.

How much detail do the congressional staffers want? Let them go to the airports w/o VIP credentials or ride a commuter line or municipal subway or visit a port or ride along interstate 10 in New Mexico or observe the massive intake and processing of homeland security information. Or visit Times Square on a Friday night in summer. There is a lot going on at the homeland security front -to appreciate it one must live it outside the beltway.

I look forward to agreeing and disagreeing with you.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/07/16/bottom-up-review-button-down-and-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-139833 William R. Cumming Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:42:36 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=10452#comment-139833 Apparently and according to Congressional Quarterly key staff and members very unhappy with the BUR for lacking detail and meeting statutory mandates. Apparently and according to Congressional Quarterly key staff and members very unhappy with the BUR for lacking detail and meeting statutory mandates.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/07/16/bottom-up-review-button-down-and-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-139811 William R. Cumming Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:15:31 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=10452#comment-139811 Well John respectfully disagree. Believe STATUS QUO is reflected in the QHSR and BUR. Posted the exact statutory mandate on my blog at http://vlg338.blogspot.com Hoping you highlight the vision in the two docs from February and July and how those docs generally match up with the STATUTORY Mandate. Actually hoping you are right and I am wrong. Perhaps my blinders. Well John respectfully disagree. Believe STATUS QUO is reflected in the QHSR and BUR. Posted the exact statutory mandate on my blog at http://vlg338.blogspot.com

Hoping you highlight the vision in the two docs from February and July and how those docs generally match up with the STATUTORY Mandate.

Actually hoping you are right and I am wrong. Perhaps my blinders.

]]> By: John Comiskey http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/07/16/bottom-up-review-button-down-and-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-139806 John Comiskey Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:21:54 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=10452#comment-139806 [Homeland Security] "it's our theory for how we're going to cause security for ourselves." Richard Falkenrath, 2002 [1] Page 1 of the QHSR reads: In the years since 9/11, homeland security had become commonly and broadly known as both a term and a Federal Department. Less well understood, however has been its ongoing purpose and function, What is homeland security? Is it more than preventing terrorism? If so, what else does it ask to achieve a safe and secure homeland? What risks are we willing to accept? [and most importantly: Who has the responsibility, authority, capabilities, and resources to do all the things that needs doing? Short answer: WH-CONGRESS ( & SCOTUS) The implementation of transformative government is a slow and arduous process. While the urgency of the matter requires expediency, we must consider all things all of the time. What is needed is leadership and direction and particularly at the WH and DHS. The QHSR & BUR provide great insight and even vision. Now; tell and empower DHS and the whole-of-government to do all that is necessary and then let them do so with all the inherent risks and the prospects of effective governance! [1] Falkenrath. R. (2002) Homeland Security: The White House Plan Explained and Examined at the Brookings Institute, September 4, 2002. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20020904homeland.pdf [Homeland Security] “it’s our theory for how we’re going to cause security for ourselves.”
Richard Falkenrath, 2002 [1]

Page 1 of the QHSR reads:
In the years since 9/11, homeland security had become commonly and broadly known as both a term and a Federal Department. Less well understood, however has been its ongoing purpose and function, What is homeland security? Is it more than preventing terrorism? If so, what else does it ask to achieve a safe and secure homeland? What risks are we willing to accept?

[and most importantly:
Who has the responsibility, authority, capabilities, and resources to do all the things that needs doing?

Short answer: WH-CONGRESS ( & SCOTUS)

The implementation of transformative government is a slow and arduous process. While the urgency of the matter requires expediency, we must consider all things all of the time.

What is needed is leadership and direction and particularly at the WH and DHS.

The QHSR & BUR provide great insight and even vision.
Now; tell and empower DHS and the whole-of-government to do all that is necessary and then let them do so with all the inherent risks and the prospects of effective governance!

[1] Falkenrath. R. (2002) Homeland Security: The White House Plan Explained and Examined at the Brookings Institute, September 4, 2002. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20020904homeland.pdf

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/07/16/bottom-up-review-button-down-and-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-139786 William R. Cumming Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:46:50 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=10452#comment-139786 I probably should have mentioned that I think the OMB guidance for FY 2012 is going to cause weeping and nashing of teeth in many agencies and departments but guessing the need for a wailing wall in DHS will be the greatest. I probably should have mentioned that I think the OMB guidance for FY 2012 is going to cause weeping and nashing of teeth in many agencies and departments but guessing the need for a wailing wall in DHS will be the greatest.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/07/16/bottom-up-review-button-down-and-focus/comment-page-1/#comment-139785 William R. Cumming Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:44:47 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=10452#comment-139785 This may surprise some readers of this blog and readers of my comments but sometimes I feel sorry for Congress. Systematically denied or perhaps they wilfully ignore their rights and opportunities as the third branch of government I think they actually did a good job in mandating the QHSR for DHS. This process in DOD has actually had some impact. I don't think it will have any impact in DHS and here is why. I went back and read Section 2401 of Public Law 110-53, enacted August 3, 2007 to see what it said. That section amended Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and added a new section 707. Now I have trouble reconciling either the February QHSR or the BUR with the statutory mandate. For one thing Congress mandated a separate report from DHS on exactly the Funding and Staffing that would go into the effort to be given Congress 60 days after enactment. Was that done? If so I missed it. Then there extensive discussion and mandates on circulating any product to all concerned and interested federal departments and agencies and getting their comments and cooperation and collaboration in preparing the QHSR. No indication that even circulation throughout the Department was accomplished with the intention of gathering real input. None in final documents I would argue. Was this oversight, laziness or something else. I think what we have now is a major and critical department of the Executive Branch on overdrive without much in the way of really hard thinking or willingness to rethink the first creation of the Department and the first eight years. For example now does the expensive, politically controversial, and resource intensive remapping of the nation's flood plains fit into the efforts of DHS on terrorism prevention or counter terrorism. And the discussion of all hazards is clearly driving the department into pyschosis. We already know that the relatively underfunded and understaffed Coast Guard is working the BP catastrophe and wondering how the rest of DHS is helping. Will OIL SPILLS are one of the many threats of an all hazard preparedness, prevention, response, mitigation, and recovery effort. What you say? Oil Spills have nothing to do with terrorism! Oh yes they do suppose that either tankers or drilling rigs in sensitive areas of coast were seized by terrorists and with either a nudet or conventional explosive damaged or destroyed so as to create a catastrophic incident/event. Or say radiological materials were used to destroy or damage water intakes on sensitive facilities. So I would argue that we are given a chance in the BP catastrophe to see exactly what capability the feds have to respond and in this case with a "cooperative and collaborative" BP and of course wonder what it might be like if the event had been deliberate as opposed to "accidental"! No I think the shelf life of the two documents, first the QHSR and the BUR will be limited. Luckily for DHS Congress is focusing on its reelection so doubt that much oversight would occur. But I would challenge DHS to put out a somewhat detailed press release listing the statutory mandates of the new section 707 and cross referencing in the QHSR and the BUR where DHS believes it satisfied the statutory mandate. Surely there are enough contract dollars to do that. Oh and which contractor prepared these two reports? Hoping none but suspect otherwise. What was the deliverable? Did someone read the statutory mandate? This may surprise some readers of this blog and readers of my comments but sometimes I feel sorry for Congress. Systematically denied or perhaps they wilfully ignore their rights and opportunities as the third branch of government I think they actually did a good job in mandating the QHSR for DHS. This process in DOD has actually had some impact. I don’t think it will have any impact in DHS and here is why.
I went back and read Section 2401 of Public Law 110-53, enacted August 3, 2007 to see what it said. That section amended Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and added a new section 707.
Now I have trouble reconciling either the February QHSR or the BUR with the statutory mandate. For one thing Congress mandated a separate report from DHS on exactly the Funding and Staffing that would go into the effort to be given Congress 60 days after enactment. Was that done? If so I missed it.
Then there extensive discussion and mandates on circulating any product to all concerned and interested federal departments and agencies and getting their comments and cooperation and collaboration in preparing the QHSR. No indication that even circulation throughout the Department was accomplished with the intention of gathering real input. None in final documents I would argue. Was this oversight, laziness or something else.
I think what we have now is a major and critical department of the Executive Branch on overdrive without much in the way of really hard thinking or willingness to rethink the first creation of the Department and the first eight years. For example now does the expensive, politically controversial, and resource intensive remapping of the nation’s flood plains fit into the efforts of DHS on terrorism prevention or counter terrorism.
And the discussion of all hazards is clearly driving the department into pyschosis. We already know that the relatively underfunded and understaffed Coast Guard is working the BP catastrophe and wondering how the rest of DHS is helping. Will OIL SPILLS are one of the many threats of an all hazard preparedness, prevention, response, mitigation, and recovery effort.
What you say? Oil Spills have nothing to do with terrorism! Oh yes they do suppose that either tankers or drilling rigs in sensitive areas of coast were seized by terrorists and with either a nudet or conventional explosive damaged or destroyed so as to create a catastrophic incident/event. Or say radiological materials were used to destroy or damage water intakes on sensitive facilities. So I would argue that we are given a chance in the BP catastrophe to see exactly what capability the feds have to respond and in this case with a “cooperative and collaborative” BP and of course wonder what it might be like if the event had been deliberate as opposed to “accidental”!
No I think the shelf life of the two documents, first the QHSR and the BUR will be limited. Luckily for DHS Congress is focusing on its reelection so doubt that much oversight would occur. But I would challenge DHS to put out a somewhat detailed press release listing the statutory mandates of the new section 707 and cross referencing in the QHSR and the BUR where DHS believes it satisfied the statutory mandate. Surely there are enough contract dollars to do that. Oh and which contractor prepared these two reports? Hoping none but suspect otherwise. What was the deliverable? Did someone read the statutory mandate?

]]>