Order Viagra - Trusted Online Pharmacy

People in the intelligence community deal in some of the most sensitive and cynical information about our government and its operations against our adversaries. It's no wonder spies are not generally known for their senses of humor. That said, it's a quality that really ought to be more highly prized. If the recent remarks of James Clapper, President Obama's nominee to become the fourth director of national intelligence, are any indication, we might have a winner. In last week's Washington Post series on burgeoning intelligence community contracting, Clapper was quoted as having said to a reporter that the only entity in the universe with visibility into all special access programs is God. During his confirmation hearing, he was quoted as having observed in response to a question about the series, "One man’s duplication is another man’s competitive analysis." Funny stuff, really. At least as far as I am concerned. Characterizing the proliferation of overlapping jurisdictions and the growth in outsourcing of analysis and technical capabilities as competitive analysis is either euphemistic or optimistic. Either way its worth asking how we would know what this incredible investment of national wealth and talent is worth to our national security. On one hand, we are regularly reassured that al Qa'ida and its affiliates have failed to launch a successful attack against the United States homeland since the 9/11 attacks. This argument asks us to accept facts not in evidence (at least publicly), as it depends on the presumption that our intelligence community operatives are routinely interdicting our adversaries before they can cause us harm. Over the past two years, however, a new threat has emerged in the form of homegrown, lone wolf Muslim radicals. In each of the last three attacks -- Ft. Hood, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, and the amateurish Times Square vehicle-borne improvised explosive device -- the perpetrators gained training or encouragement from overseas operatives. That none of them succeeded on a scale comparable to previous attacks is not for lack of trying. If we were to judge solely by the President's reactions to these attacks, we should wonder what if anything we are getting for our increased investments in the intelligence community. The President himself has characterized these attacks as evidence of failure. I understand the media interest in the intelligence community, but what really impresses me is how our fellow countrymen are responding since 9/11. People are far more aware of threats to our security and seem far more willing to become involved when they see something's not right. In the absence of specific, direct investments in building the capacity of citizens to contribute to homeland defense and security and actively enlisting them in efforts to identify and assess threats, it seems safe to say that these actions on the part of the public have occurred in spite of, not because of, all the money we spent expanding intelligence community capabilities. If we were to judge by results alone, the better investment is clearly an informed and engaged public. But that's not currently on the table and no one is offering it despite evidence that the Washington Post series' gravest potential impact is the further erosion of public trust and confidence in government administration and oversight of covert intelligence spending. If General Clapper becomes the next director of national intelligence, which seems pretty certain at this point, we have little reason to believe that anything significant will change in our intelligence posture. This strikes me as a lost opportunity. The comparative advantages of engaging the public in the homeland security mission are much clearer than those associated with the competitive analysis of intelligence.

.

Similar posts: Ordering viagra overnight delivery. Ordering viagra no rx. Viagra online cheap. Viagra muzik trans. αγοράσετε viagra. Viagra pedido en línea.
Trackbacks from: Acquistare online viagra. Acquistare online viagra. Acquistare online viagra. Female viagra canada. Why is viagra so expensive. Ricardo viagra.

My February issue of the always informative Homeland Security Today Ordering viagra no prescription, arrived in the mail Wednesday.  It features the 2010 State and Local Managers' Guide to Grants. [A digital version is available at this link ]

Michael Paddock wrote most of the grant-related articles in the magazine, providing an overview of what the headline writers called "The Homeland Security Funding Landscape." In one of those articles, Unisex viagra, Michael summarizes 23 homeland security grant programs.  The programs account for almost 5 billion dollars of homeland security spending.

Do you know what the grant programs are.

To test your knowledge of how the 5 billion dollars can be spent, Homeland Security Watch happily presents the home/office edition of Match the Description to the Grant, has anyone bought viagra on craigslist.

Below is a brief description of the 23 grant programs, followed by the program names.  The test is based on the homeland security grant program descriptions provided by Homeland Security Today.

(I'll put the answers in the Comments section immediately following this post.)

As you look through the list, please consider having compassion for the people who have to work every day with the mountains of paper, electrons, and other data each program requires, ordering viagra no prescription. Buy viagra from china, And compassion also for the millions of taxpayers footing the bill.

----------------------------------------------------------

Remember: match the grant program description with its name.

Score yourself as follows:

23 - 18 correct: you may be a grants manager,  someone who is a card carrying member of the homeland security industrial complex, Viagra cheep, or Michael Paddock

17 - 10 correct: you may work for state, local, tribal, or territorial government

10 - 5 correct: you may work for a non-DHS federal agency

Less than 5 correct: you may be an elected official or an academic

GRANT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1)           _______         Provides funding for allowable planning and equipment acquisition to increase the preparedness capabilities of jurisdictions responsible for the safety and security of communities surrounding high-priority pre-designated critical infrastructure and key resource assets, cheap viagra without prescription.

2)           _______         Provides funds to owners and operators of transit systems to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public. Ordering viagra no prescription, 3)           _______         Provides supplemental state homeland security grant program funding to directly eligible tribes to help strengthen the nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks.

4)           _______         Support the integration of local emergency management, Buy viagra online without prescription, health and medical systems into a coordinated and sustained local response capability to a mass casualty incident.

5)           _______         Support for target hardening activities to nonprofit organizations that are deemed at high risk of a potential terrorist attack.

6)           _______         Provides funds to freight railroad carriers and owners and offerors of railroad cars to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure from acts of terrorism, major disasters and other emergencies, free trail of viagra.

7)           _______         Provides funds to build capabilities at the state, local, Is viagra legal in thailand, tribal and territorial levels and to implement the goals and objectives included in state homeland security strategies.

8)           _______         Enhanced cooperation and coordination among local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to secure the United States borders along routes of international borders, ordering viagra no prescription.

9)           _______         Coordinate community involvement in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation, Kansas KS Kans., response and recovery.

10)           _______         Provides funding to prevent terrorism by reducing fraud and improving the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents that states and Territories issue. Viagra in turkey, 11)           _______         Provides funding to states, territories and local and tribal governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency communications.

12)           _______         Upgrade state and local public health jurisdictions' preparedness in response to bioterrorism, outbreaks of infectious disease and other public health threats and emergencies, pink viagra reviews. Ordering viagra no prescription, 13)           _______         Improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure and interoperable EOCs.

14)           _______         Provides funds to states, territories, Viagra diseño caja, federally recognized Indian tribal governments and communities for hazard mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster.

15)           _______         Provides funds to Amtrak to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism, major disasters and other emergencies.

16)           _______         Enhance catastrophic incident preparedness in selected high-risk, futuro del mercado de la viagra, high consequence urban areas and their surrounding regions.

17)           _______         Provides resources to assist state and local governments to sustain and enhance all-hazards emergency management capabilities.

18)           _______         Improve surge capacity and enhanced community and hospital preparedness for public health emergencies, ordering viagra no prescription. Georgia GA Ga., 19)           _______         Provides grant funding to port areas for the protection of critical port infrastructure from terrorism.

20)           _______         The primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions.

21)           _______         Intended to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response and recovery.

22)           _______         Helps fire departments and non-affiliated EMS organizations meet their firefighting and emergency response needs.

23)           _______         Assist operators of fixed route intercity and charter bus services serving the nation's highest risk metropolitan areas and obtaining the resources required to support security measures.

2010 GRANT PROGRAMS

a.           Intercity Passenger Rail

b.           Assistance To Firefighters Grant Program

c.           Transit Security Grant Program

d.           Operation Stonegarden

e.           Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program

f.           Driver's License Security Grant Program

g.           Buffer Zone Protection Program

h.           State Homeland Security Program

i.           Hospital Emergency Preparedness Program

j.           Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program

k.           Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement

l.           Port Security Grant Program

m.           Freight Rail Security Grant Program

n.           Intercity Bus Security Grant Program

o.           Citizen Corps Program

p.           Emergency Management Performance Grant

q.           Urban Areas Security Initiative: Nonprofit Security Grant Program

r.           Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program

s.           Emergency Operations Center Grant Program

t.           Metropolitan Medical Response System Program

u.           Urban Areas Security Initiative

v.           Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program

w.           Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants.

Similar posts: Viagra no prescription. Viagra online. Where to buy viagra. Free trial viagra in canada. Viagra germany India. Where to buy viagra in southampton in person.
Trackbacks from: Ordering viagra no prescription. Ordering viagra no prescription. Ordering viagra no prescription. Fast shipping viagra. Viagra online without prescription. Viagra best deals.

The title of this post is a bit big.  But nowhere near as huge as the idea behind it.

Comprar viagra, The basic concept is to build new underground electric power transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and telecommunication, cable TV, and Internet communication lines on rights-of-way already established by America's 40,000 mile Interstate Highway System. The Interstate Highway System reaches nearly every part of the nation, and states own the rights-of-way along these roads. It makes sense to leverage this asset.

The idea -- called the National System of Resilient Infrastructure (or NSRI) -- was developed by Ted G. Lewis, at the Naval Postgraduate School.  Here are the details of this $1,000,000,000,000 idea:

----------------------------------------

Proposed

Electric power, Viagra official web, energy for transportation, and telecommunications capacity are three major economic drivers for the future economy of the USA.  But these sectors are in trouble, for a variety of reasons, including NIMBY (not in my back yard), lack of investment, and lack of vision.

To overcome these barriers, stimulate the economy, and develop a resilient infrastructure for the 21^st century, the author proposes a "moon shot" scale effort to build a national system of resilient natural gas, electricity, where to buy viagra in salt lake city, and telecommunications infrastructure along the 40,000 miles of Interstate Highway.

This 20-year, $1 trillion project would be implemented by a public-private partnership structured much like a GSE (government-sponsored enterprise), and mainly funded by the private sector, comprar viagra. Besides creating millions of jobs, enhancing our ability to transition to clean cars, trucks, and buses, the national system would be immediately self-sustained by usage fees, and therefore profitable. It would not cost the government any money, How much do individual viagra pills go for, and would have an immense impact on the economy.

Infrastructure Equals Prosperity

The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, commonly called the Interstate Highway System (or simply the Interstate) is the largest highway system and largest public works project in the world. Comprar viagra, More importantly, it propelled the United States into a new era of prosperity. Today, virtually all goods and services are distributed via the Interstate, which is still expanding.

In the 1990s the 25-year old Internet was commercialized, stimulating economic growth so much that it produced a bubble in 2000. Yet, the federal government's $200 million investment has already returned 100-fold on investment, south african phamacies with viagra johannesburg, after less than 20 years of growth. The future of the global economy increasingly depends on the Internet.

It is clear that relatively modest investments in infrastructure reap exponentially large returns due to economic growth, job creation, and innovation, comprar viagra. Since ancient Rome, no nation on earth has achieved or maintained greatness, security, and prosperity, without plentiful energy, robust communications, and transportation capacity. Pfizer viagra online, The economy of the 21^st century will run on electrical power and Internet packets. Without these, the USA will slip into fourth or fifth place among nations.

The Challenge

The United States faces an "infrastructure challenge" and an equally big opportunity, today. Comprar viagra, The challenge is to rejuvenate our failing basic infrastructures: water, power, telecommunications, and energy.

Progress in green energy generation is stalled because of inadequate transmission capacity. Telecommunications capacity must be greatly increased to accommodate global 3D virtual reality, multi-party conferencing, and high-performance research and development in medical, environmental, and technical industries, prices of viagra. Think of the possibilities of telemedicine piped directly into your home, or corporate meetings conducted with 100,000 participants from around the globe.

Advances in material science, bioengineering, medicine, green energy, revolutionary telecommunications, and green transportation will present great opportunity over the next 20 years to those nations prepared to capitalize on them.

These are the economic drivers of the future, but they require advanced infrastructure, comprar viagra. How can i get a viagra without a rx, We know how to turn sunlight into electrons, but lack the distribution channel to transport electrons produced in New Mexico to markets in New York. We know how to telecommute via our computers, but lack the bandwidth for two-way, 3D telecommunication between grandmother and granddaughter across the continent. We know how to automate transportation systems to reduce auto accidents and congestion, but our highways are "dumb."  In the next 20 years, cars will run on electricity and natural gas, but we lack the infrastructure to refuel them while achieving energy independence.

Venture capital is pent up, waiting for government to stimulate a "green economy, acquistare a buon mercato viagra," but we do not currently have the market distribution infrastructure to make it possible.

We need a National System of Resilient Infrastructure (NSRI) to take advantage of opportunities that will create jobs and keep America economically strong Comprar viagra, .

The Solution

The National System of Resilient Infrastructure plan (NSRI) is designed to address two roadblocks in the way of the next stage of economic growth: NIMBY, and the enormous cost of rebuilding the power and telecommunications infrastructure of the 21^st century.

NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) is currently blocking many projects because people do not want power lines in their backyards. In addition, infrastructure is enormously expensive and unattractive as an investment because it does not give companies a competitive advantage. For example, the current 1 trillion dollar electrical power grid is fragile due to a lack of transmission capacity. It is also based on 1940's technology, comprar viagra. But who can afford to invest 1 trillion dollars to rebuild it. Email me about cheap viagra, NSRI proposes to avoid NIMBY by placing critical infrastructure underground. NIMBY can be avoided by building underground electric power transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and telecommunication/CATV/Internet communication lines on rights-of-way already established by the Interstate Highway System. States already own these rights-of-way, and the Interstate Highway System reaches nearly every part of the nation. Comprar viagra, It therefore makes sense to leverage this asset even more so.

Energy, Power, and Communications infrastructure also requires storage nodes (for surge resilience), "service stations" (for distribution), and several network operation centers, canada buy viagra online. The NSRI will be resilient because of its storage, security, and distributed architecture [decentralized assets].

Robust and redundant, able to transmit commodities such as Internet packets, electrons from solar farms, natural gas for future cars, trucks, and buses, Viagra mezclada con comidas, and bountiful electrical power for future cyber businesses, the NSRI will be a quantum step forward for the nation and the economy.

NSRI is America's 21^st century "moon shot."

How to Pay for It

The NSRI network would be constructed much like the Interstate Highway network, over a 20-30-year period at an estimated cost of $50 billion per year.

The author estimates it would cost $25 million/mile to build the necessary tunnels, pipes, wires, etc, comprar viagra. The Interstate is 40,000 miles long, hence a total estimated cost of $1 trillion over 20 years.

This may seem high, but it represents 3.6% of the combined revenues of the natural gas, electrical power, telecommunications, viagra en pilar, gasoline, and broadcast industries, see Table I.

The Interstate Highway System is "pay-as-you-go", with 90% of the funding coming from the Federal government, and the remaining 10% from the States. In its first year of construction, 1958, total costs were $37.6 billion. Comprar viagra, By 1991, the cost was $128 billion. Pfizer free trial offers for viagra, But these billions contributed nothing to the national debt because they were paid for by a 40 cent per gallon tax on gasoline. Title II of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 created the Highway Trust Fund to collect and dispense funding for the Interstate System.

Similarly, the NSRI would be financed through a Trust Fund established by Congress to create and operate NSRI. The NSRI financing plan needs to be worked out in detail, but two attractive options are: Option I: GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise), and Option II: excise taxation, similar to the model used by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956.

Ultimately, the NSRI must be self-sustaining, through revenues generated by its use, comprar viagra. A toll fee would be charged for use of the pipelines, communication lines, storage facilities, location get viagra in albruqerque, and service stations. These fees can be based on current regulated fees charged by telephone, utility, and pipeline companies - a familiar fee structure for these industries.

Option I: GSE: Ginny Mae, Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs, i. e., Viagra original, government-backed enterprises listed on stock exchanges, and therefore, investor supported. Comprar viagra, The idea here is to raise the major portion of funding from investment banks, retirement funds, and personal investors through an IPO [initial public offering]. Like a GSE, the NSRI Trust Fund would be backed by the Federal government, and at some point reach a self-sustainable level through usage fees. This model, however, would probably require temporary taxation to raise the full $50 billion needed to initiate NSRI.

Option II: Excise Taxes: The Interstate Highway System was funded by a $0.40/gallon tax on gasoline (part Federal and part State). This tax can be rolled back as expenses are replaced with usage fees. Consider this: a 3.6% excise tax on revenues shown in Table I would raise $50 billion per year, comprar viagra. Alternatively, an additional $0.40/gallon excise tax would raise $56 billion per year.

Both options are no-cost options for the Federal Government. Both options follow the Interstate Highway model whereby States own the infrastructure. Unlike the Interstate Highway model, however, the NSRI can easily achieve sustainability through an industry-accepted fee structure.

----------------------------------------

Dr. Lewis can be reached at tlewis[at]nps.edu.

Similar posts: Viagra prices. Pharmacy viagra. Cheap viagra. Acquistare a buon mercato propecia. Buy viagra online with overnight delivery. Viagra canada store to bay.
Trackbacks from: Comprar viagra. Comprar viagra. Comprar viagra. Buy viagra in riverside without prescription. Viagra label. Viagra tax ato.

The 159 page DHS Budget in Brief φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra, is a page turning read -- for many reasons.

One of those reasons is to give you an opportunity to go through the document and capture (with only a bit more rigor than randomness) sentences and phrases that peaks one’s interest to know more.  Or at least it peaked my interest.

I assume authenticity and dedication on the part of those who provided language for the budget in brief.   I understand the Culture of Legislation requires the kind of writing used in the document.  But one can still admire and learn from east coast mountains, even if they long ago eroded into a terrain feature.

Here is Page 1 --

The Vision: Preserving our freedoms, buy viagra in canada, protecting America …we secure our homeland.

[Great vision.  Where do we go to see what freedoms we envision preserving. Or is this one of those things that everyone knows, even without saying?  Could it be “our freedoms” go without saying?  That doesn't seem right.]

The Mission: “... lead the unified national effort to secure America, φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra. Discount viagra fast delivery, We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors and promote the free-flow of commerce.”

[That’s the mission. Is it unreasonable to see in a budget document how that leadership will happen?  Is it mostly by writing rules governing how money will be spent?  What is the theory of "leading a unified national effort" embedded in the budget?]

Page 2 was blank.

I assume it was not left blank intentionally otherwise  THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK would have been written on the blank page.

I believe we have René Magritte to thank for this apparent contradiction, free real viagra. φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra, But I digress.

Page 3

The number 56,335,737, Bestill viagra 2010, 000 appeared on Page 3.

My brain is too small to grasp what that number could possibly mean.  So I went to Page 4.

Page 4

Page 4 was also blank.

I still could not tell if it was intentional or an oversight.

Snippets from Page 5 through 11.

[If many of the following italicized phrases --taken from the budget -- seem out of context, they slightly are.  The context is available by going to the actual document.]

The FY 2011 budget continues efforts to use our resources as efficiently and effectively as possible, φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra. We must exercise strong fiscal discipline, viagra prices in pakistan, making sure that we are investing our resources in what works, cutting down on redundancy, eliminating ineffective programs and making improvements across the board.

[One cannot go wrong with the promise to use resources as efficiently and effectively as possible.  The “as possible” part is an especially graceful touch.]

To institutionalize a culture of efficiency across the Department, Genric viagra, Secretary Napolitano launched the Department-wide Efficiency Review Initiative in March 2009.

[First came the Culture of Preparedness.  Now the Culture of Efficiency.  The Culture of Resiliency may be on its way.  Culture of Legislation does not stand a chance.]

---------------------------------------------------

Here’s the theme for what comes next in this Page 5 through 11 review:
DHS secures the United States against all threats through five main missions, each of which is strengthened by this budget:

I took the “five main missions” (the document itself suggests 6 -- see Maturing and Strengthening The Homeland Security Enterprise, below), and selectively highlighted programs under each one, along with a phrase or two about some dimension of the program, kjøp viagra. It’s often a phrase that “speaks for itself."  Again, a more complete speaking (at least in the context of the Budget In Brief) is in the document.

Taken together, Viagra for teens, these small sections of the budget give a reminding glimpse of what a massive work this homeland security business is.

---------------------------------------------------

1. Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security -- “Guarding against terrorism ...remains our top priority” [Any questions?]

• Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT): -- 500 advanced imaging technology machines at airport checkpoints


• Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) -- to operate additional AITs at airport checkpoints


• Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) -- additional FAMS to increase international flight coverage


• Portable Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) -- 800 portable ETD machines


• Canine Teams  --  an additional 275 proprietary explosives detection canine teams....


• Behavior Detection Officers -- enhance TSA’s Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques program [Is the acronym really SPOT?  Who comes up with this?]


• Address vulnerabilities in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture -- enhance the nation’s ability to detect and prevent a radiological or nuclear attack.


• Radiological/Nuclear Detection Systems -- procurement and deployment of radiological and nuclear detection systems and equipment


• Law Enforcement Detachment Teams  -- LEDETs aboard U.S Naval and partner nation assets accounted for over 50 percent of total maritime cocaine removals.


• 2012 Presidential Campaign  -  φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra, including training for candidate/nominee protective detail personnel. [I like this one the best.  Pundits are pundicating about the 2010 election, and the DHS is way past that, getting ready for the next presidential campaign.]


• Secret Service Information Technology - provide a multi-year, chinese version of viagra, mission-integrated program to engineer a modernized, agile and strengthened IT infrastructure to support all aspects of the Secret Service’s mission. [Bingo, Inexpensive viagra, anyone?]

2. Securing and Managing Our Borders: “We will continue to strengthen security efforts on the Southwest border to combat and disrupt cartel violence and provide critical security upgrades--through infrastructure and technology--along the Northern border.” [South is south, and north is north....]

• Journeyman Pay Increase - raising the journeyman grade level for frontline Customs and Border Protection Officers Border patrol agents and Agricultural Specialists from GS-11 level to the GS-12 level.


• CBP Officers funding -- The decline in the number of passengers and conveyances entering the United States in FY 2009 resulted in an almost 8 percent decrease in revenues from inspection user fees. CBP therefore has fewer resources to maintain critical staffing levels for CBP officers. [A bad economy is bad for homeland security]


• Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs) -- teams work to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations posing significant threats to border security, viagra stories, including terrorist groups, gang members, and criminal aliens.


• Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Enforcement - An increase of $5M is also requested for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-led National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center). [I wonder how many coordination centers there are in the homeland security enterprise.]


• Intelligence Analysts -- fund 103 Intelligence Analysts for Customs and Border Protection (CBP)


• Coast Guard Asset Recapitalization -- continue recapitalization of aging Coast Guard surface and air assets.

3, φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra. Where can i buy viagra in nyc, Enforcing and Administering our Immigration Laws  “...[target] criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety and employees who knowingly violate the law.

• E-Verify -- enhance E-Verify’s monitoring and compliance activities through analytical capabilities that will support more robust fraud detection and improved analytic processes


• Secure Communities -- the identification, apprehension and removal of all Level 1 criminal aliens in state and local jails through criminal alien biometric identification capabilities


• Immigrant Integration support -- national and community- based organizations preparing immigrants for citizenship, promote and raise awareness of citizenship rights and responsibilities, and enhance English language learning and other tools for legal permanent residents.

4. Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace  “DHS .., purchase viagra in seville, spain. coordinates the response to cyber incidents....” [Any questions?]

• National Cyber Security Division (NCSD -- support the development of capabilities


• National Cyber Security Center -- enhance cyber security coordination capabilities across the Federal government

5. Ensuring Resilience to Disasters  “DHS will continue its increased efforts to build a ready and resilient nation....”

• Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) -- provides a significant portion of the total federal response to victims in declared major disasters and emergencies.


• FEMA Facilities -- address critical FEMA real estate needs.


• Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants -- support the development and enhancement of hazard mitigation plans, as well as the implementation of pre-disaster mitigation projects.


• Flood Map Modernization -- analyze and produce flood hazard data and map products and communicate flood hazard risk


• Rescue 21 -- The Rescue 21 system replaces the U.S. Coast Guard’s legacy National Distress and Response System and improves communications and command and control capabilities in the coastal zone.

φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra, 6. Free sampe viagra, [Maybe] Maturing and Strengthening The Homeland Security Enterprise

• St. Elizabeth’s Headquarters Consolidation:  consolidate executive leadership, operations coordination and policy and program management functions in a secure setting at St. Elizabeth’s. [There's a wonderful story -- for another day -- about how St, canada viagra scam. Elizabeth's got the apostrophe.]


• Lease Consolidation – Mission Support;  align the Department’s real estate portfolio in the National Capital Region (NCR) to enhance mission performance and increase management efficiency.


• Data Center Migration-- system and application migration of legacy data centers to two enterprise-wide DHS Data Centers


• Acquisition Workforce - mitigate the risks associated with skill gaps of the acquisition workforce


• Science and Technology -- S&T Safe Container (SAFECON) and Time Recorded Ubiquitous Sensor Technology (TRUST) programs.


• Grants - A total of $4B is requested for grant programs to support our nation’s first responders.

---------------------------------------------------

Page 12 was blank.

I stopped reading.

But there's lots more to come in the 2011 budget dance.

Similar posts: Buy diazepam c.o.d.. Cheap viagra online. Comprar viagra baratos. Buy brand viagra without prescription. Viagra feature. Where can i buy viagra in stores?.
Trackbacks from: φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra. φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra. φτηνές φαρμακείο viagra. Get cheap free trial viagra. What stores to buy viagra. Te chino parecido al viagra.

Cheapest viagra, As noted in my earlier post,  the Department of Homeland Security would receive $56.3 billion, a two percent increase over its FY2010 enacted budget, under the President's Budget released today.  Of this, $43.6 billion is discretionary, a 3% increase over FY2010.

So who are the winners and losers under the budget.

WINNERS

• The Analysis and Operations (Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning) would get a 4% increase to $347,930, New Jersey NJ N.J.,000.


• The Office of the Inspector General would get a %14 increase to $129,806, Initial invention of viagra, 000.


• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would get a 2% increase to $5,835,187,000.


• Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would get a 7% increase to $8, viagra sale,164,780, Herbal viagra gnc, 000.


• The U.S. Secret Service would get a 6% increase to $1,811,617, generic viagra articles,000.


• The Office of Health Affairs would get a 53% increase to $212,734, Need something like viagra, 000.


• FEMA would get a 5% increase to $6,527,406,000.


• The Science & Technology Directorate would get a 1% increase to 1, viagra in pakistan,018,264, Viagra non prescription trusted online pharmacy, 000.

NOT-SO-WINNERS

• Customs and Border Protection would get a -2% decrease to $11,180,018,000.


• The National Protection & Programs Directorate would get a -3% decrease to $2, viagra for sale in atlanta,361,715, Where to Find viagra in thailand, 000.


• FEMA: Grant Programs would get a -4% decrease to $4,000,590,000.


• US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would get a -2% decrease to $2, buy generic viagra in america,812,357, Buy viagra in madrid, 000.


• >Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) would get a -2% decrease to $278,375,000.


• Domestic Nuclear Detection Office would get a 20% decrease to $305,820, cheap viagra no prescription,000.

A few items of note that surely will gain the attention of Congress:

• Secure Freight Initiative/Container Security Initiative downsizing.  CBP is requesting that the SFI Program be reduced by $16.6 million and that three of its five existing SFI ports (Honduras, Southampton, Nature alternate for viagra, and Korea) revert to Container Security Initiative program, for which CBP requested a reduction of $50.7 million.  What does this mean?  A focus of remote targeting and examinations, as opposed to 100% scanning of all cargo.  With the Safe Ports Act up for reauthorization this year and focus on DHS implementation of  the port-related provisions in the 9/11 Act,  it is worth watching how Congress reacts to these reductions.

• The Secure Border Initiative - $574 million, viagra price in pakistan, down 20% or $158 million, from FY2010.  How does this affect border security efforts and how will Congress respond?

• Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines -  $214.7 million increase to procure and install AIT machines at airport checkpoints to detect dangerous materials, including non-metallic materials.  Expect this effort to be well-publicized and lots of review in light of the December 25th attempted bombing.

.

Similar posts: Ordering viagra overnight delivery. Ordering viagra no rx. Viagra online cheap. Viagra muzik trans. αγοράσετε viagra. Viagra pedido en línea.
Trackbacks from: Cheapest viagra. Cheapest viagra. Cheapest viagra. Buy viagra canada. Discounted viagra. Where to buy real viagra.

Kjøpe viagra online, Today is budget day for President Obama.  Expect a Fiscal Year 2011 budget of $3.834 trillion, of which $1.415 trillion is in discretionary funding.   The budget includes a three-year freeze on a number of discretionary program. The budget, viagra professional, Free trial female viagra, if implemented, puts our 2011 projected deficit at $1.267 trillion or 8.3 percent of GDP, india generic viagra. Cheap viagra fast shipping, Homeland Security, which has been rumored before Christmas Day to be facing a freeze and possible cuts to programs, get a free trial of viagra, Super viagra, will receive a bump up of 2 percent to $46.3 billion.  It is safe to say that the December 25th underwear bomber incident influenced the agency's budget, with early information released by the White House highlighting $734 million to support the deployment of up to 1, power chinese viagra wipes, What doing viagra?, 000 new Advanced Imaging Technology screening machines at airport checkpoints and new explosive detection equipment for baggage screening.  There will also be an increase in the number of international flights covered by Federal Air Marshals to "defend against attempted attacks on aviation."

Interestingly, in the quick overview released at 6am this morning by the White House, indian viagra, Buying real viagra blog, there was not a single mention of border security.   Numbers for Customs & Border Protection and related border/immigration programs are worth watching when the budget is released later today, especially as it might give some insight into where immigration reform may fall in terms of priorities for the President this year, india's viagra. Viagra ordine on-line, Also of note, the budget includes $33 billion for a 2010 supplemental request and $159.3 billion for 2011 to support overseas contingency operations, get viagra, Viagra cheap, including those in operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  DoD family support programs will grow 3 percent to $8.8 billion and State Department funding (excluding war costs) will increase by 2.6 percent.   The President also intends to provide $50.6 billion in advance appropriations for the VA medical care program.

Look for a deeper analysis later today/this evening, pfizer viagra for sale.

Similar posts: Cheapest viagra prices. Buy propecia c.o.d.. Buy viagra online. Is viagra illegal in thailand. Indonesian viagra. Viagra music trans.
Trackbacks from: Kjøpe viagra online. Kjøpe viagra online. Kjøpe viagra online. Low cost viagra. Generic viagra, fast shipping. Alternative viagra female viagra.

Cheap viagra overnight delivery, Last week, Congress held a series of hearings on the December 25th attempted bombing.  More hearings will follow this week.   While there have been countless analysis and assessments of the hearings, here is my 17 syllable assessment:

Intelligence Failed

Technology Will Save Us

Send More Money, Please

On Friday, the United Kingdom raised its threat level from "substantial" to "severe."  The level, made by the U.K. government upon recommendations of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Center (JTAC), "means that a future terrorist attack is 'highly likely,' although not necessarily imminent." The UK threat level had been at substantial since last July, discount viagra online, when it had been lowered after two years at the "severe" level.  The level, previous to that, Como se corta la viagra, had shifted between severe and critical since the July 2005 attacks on the London Underground and on a Double Decker bus.  Interesting, U.K. officials were very quick to point out that its move was not related to the December 25th underwear bomber attack, though little information and lots of speculation as to the real reason has emerged, viagra prices.

Also on Friday, India raised its threat level, When does generic viagra come out, deploying air marshals and issuing a Civil Aviation Ministry security alert to airports and airlines for the "the stepping up of security arrangements at all concerned airports and airlines following inputs received from security agencies as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs." The alert was issued just days before tomorrow's celebration of Republic Day, which notes the country's adoption of a constitution (following its independence form the U.K.).

Also, on Friday, viagra gel for women, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with members of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in Geneva regarding aviation security standards.  IATA represents approximately 230 airlines and 90 percent of the world's air traffic. IATA raised several issues with the Secretary including industry operational capacities, better mechanisms for sharing passenger information, more input from airlines into security measures, and better international coordination between governments imposing security on the aviation industry, cheap viagra overnight delivery.

These announcements came before the weekend reporting of a new video recording from Osama bin Laden claiming responsibility for the Christmas Day attempted bombing AND reports of non-Arab female suicide bombers, Cheap viagra nz, carrying Western passports, possibly attacking the U.S.

Collectively, this past week of events and announcements provide insight into the various challenges faced by the U.S, phentermine viagra. and its global partners in their terrorist-fighting efforts, both here and abroad. Viagra order online, Here are some observations:

• Congressional Hearings: The hearings made clear that eight and a half years after 9/11, intelligence sharing, culture, and assessments still are lacking -  Commissions, is it easy to buy viagra in mexico, Administration reorganizations, and Congressional actions not withstanding.  Whether posed as failures or challenges, Over the table viagra, it is clear that some change is needed -- what that change is remains the question. Or is it simply the case that intelligence challenges are unfixable and as a nation we need to reassess how we work around them?

• International Efforts: Cheap viagra overnight delivery, Despite the "homeland" in homeland security, the actions in the U.K. and India remind us that terrorism is an international issue that links us all together.  Terrorism is not only a threat against the U.S., but one that has harmed a number of our allies.   Consequently, our efforts - both on the intelligence and counterterrorism fronts - have to be bigger than the U.S.  They also have to be bigger than the Inside-the-Beltway fighting over who "owns" terrorism as an issue within the political parties.

• Private Sector as Partner: The IATA-Napolitano meeting demonstrates that security is not  a government-only function.  The government's efforts affect the private sector, viagra, atlanta, ga, requiring the private sector to be a key partner in any security efforts.  Add the international angle, then this partnership becomes even more complicated and in need of constant communication.  While much of the attention relating to the December 25th bombings have focused on the airlines and aviation industry, Pfizer viagra, it would behoove the government and DHS to reach out (or better publicize) its efforts with others affected by security measures.  After all, it was the traveling public that diverted the underwear bomber attack.

• Terrorists Come in Different Sizes, Colors, and Genders: The threat of people who may not "look like Al Qaeda terrorists" is one that experts and Congress have raised on numerous occasions over the past several years.  In reality, viagra bahrain, none of us know what a terrorist looks like - we just know who has attacked us in the past.  That image is constantly evolving and changing as more attacks are thwarted and responsible individuals come to light.   What's becoming clear is that we cannot and should not rely on "profiling," as we will be left unprepared.

• Bin Laden as Boogie Man: Interestingly, Buy viagra online with overnight delivery, after Bin Laden took credit for the December 25th attack, a number of U.S. intelligence agencies stepped up to adamantly discredit the claims. Does it really matter if he was behind the attacks to the average American. Well, it may or may not but there are reasons for these strong assertions.  First, if Bin Laden wasn't involved, then there is evidence of a continued splintering of Al Qaeda and its strength, though such splintering could arguably make our terrorist-fighting efforts even more difficult.   Second,  if Bin Laden was involved, it is just a reminder that he is still out there and has not been captured or brought to justice.  Third, Bin Laden epitomizes terrorism to many average Americans and his omnipresence in all episodes that are terrorism make him an even more iconic figure to those who would follow him.

.

Similar posts: Pharmacie viagra bon marché. Köpa viagra online. Buy viagra online without prescription. Kjøpe billig viagra. Buy diazepam no prescription. Tamilviagra.
Trackbacks from: Cheap viagra overnight delivery. Cheap viagra overnight delivery. Cheap viagra overnight delivery. Viagra best price. Why we use viagra. Female viagra.

At first I thought they were being funny.

“Let’s hold a hearing about measuring preparedness and do something wacky to see if anyone’s paying attention.  Let’s attack something for being subjective.  And use subjective data to support our claims.”

On Tuesday, the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response held a hearing titled “Preparedness: What has $29 billion in homeland security grants bought and how do we know?” [You can read the prepared testimony and watch a video of the hearings here]. During the hearings, members of Congress criticized DHS for using a particular assessment tool -- something called "Cost to Capability." Otherwise known as C2C The primary criticism: the tool was too subjective. And what data were offered to demonstrate how subjective the tool was? Opinions of the committee members.  Opinions of witnesses. Opinions of constituents. Two examples (with my emphasis): The tool "... remains entirely subjective. Grantees are simply asked to guess the impact of the grants on their grants." said Chairman Henry Cuellar (according to his prepared remarks). "I am ... concerned that the tool requires a subjective judgment of our base capabilities and perhaps more importantly how much an investment has increased a capability," said the unfailingly gracious Dave Maxwell, Director and State Homeland Security Adviser of Arkansas’ Department of Emergency Management. Were Cuellar and Maxwell offering objective or subjective assessments?  Aren't opinions -- even informed opinions -- subjective? If they were being subjective, what’s so bad about subjectivity?  Why do intelligent, well-meaning people seem to be at war with it? -------------------------------------------------- Tuesday’s hearings were not a joke.  Anyone interested in this topic can see a dozen thoughtful, knowledgeable and concerned people struggling over this very wicked problem: “What has $29 billion in homeland security grants bought and how do we know?” Those are important questions.  They seem ripe for what FEMA Deputy Administer Tim Manning later described as "rigorous analysis and the development of precise metrics which will enable us to connect dollars spent to results achieved and ultimately to improvements in preparedness." How hard could it be to figure out some objective way to answer those questions? "I thought C-2-C was supposed to get rid of the guesswork." said Chairman Cuellar. -------------------------------------------------- No wonder he thought that.  Here's how C2C was marketed:

With the tools generated by the C2C Initiative, [homeland security] grantees will be able to maximize their local preparedness investment strategy with respect to the Nation's Homeland Security priorities. By design, these tools will adapt to changes in the Nation's Homeland Security Strategy, translating national priorities into a clear prioritization of capabilities-based investments that all levels of government can use. C2C tools will inform grantees' use of limited grant funding and better measure how grants increase the capability of States and local communities to respond to all-hazards.

Tools, maximize, preparedness, strategy, adapt, priorities, prioritization, capabilities-based, investment, limited funding, better measures, all-hazards -- one can hear buzzers going off all over the place. Whatever C2C is supposed to do, one is comforted by the promise that it will provide tools.  Tools are things we can hold in our hands.  We use tools to fix things.  So C2C will fix things.  It will fix the thorny problem of how to measure preparedness. -------------------------------------------------- I do not want to add to what Cuellar described at the end of the hearings as “a tsunami of concerns” about C2C.  In my view, C2C is only the latest iteration of the quest to measure preparedness -- the homeland security equivalent of trying to turn straw into gold. In 2003, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 commanded that there be an annual status report of the nation's preparedness. I do not believe that command was ever obeyed.  But I do know of a half dozen pilot efforts to figure out how to do it. In 2006, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act reissued the command as a requirement to establish a "comprehensive system to assess, on an ongoing basis, the Nation's prevention capabilities and overall preparedness." Three years later, from C 2 shining C, the nation still waits to find out. (I am sure I am not the first to make that horrible pun. Still, I do apologize.) -------------------------------------------------- Congressman Cuellear wrote his 1998 doctoral dissertation on government performance: "A Comparative Analysis of Legislative Budget Oversight: Performance Based Budgeting In The American States." He volunteered to help FEMA and offered what he called "free advice" (on a single piece of paper) about how to measure preparedness: figure out the mission and what preparedness means, determine your goals, your strategy, your performance measures.... Really smart people have worked on this wicked problem for six years. If it were as straight forward as Dr. Cuellear suggests, perhaps it would have been done already. That national preparedness hasn't been measured – in spite of major efforts to do so -- ought to count as objective data to support the hypothesis that perhaps it cannot be done. -------------------------------------------------- Cueller said (regarding C2C) "It's better to not defend something that's not working." Maybe those words should be directed to those who believe we can measure preparedness objectively. -------------------------------------------------- Can we try something different? Perhaps an approach could be built around blatantly subjective impressions of preparedness.  The impressions would come from the professionals charged by their constituents with the mission to make sure their communities and the nation are prepared and resilient. Maybe we can trust that -- in general -- they know what they are talking about. -------------------------------------------------- Here’s an example: One of the witnesses was Kathy B. Crandall, Director of Homeland Security & Justice Programs from the Columbus, Ohio Urban Area.  She said, in response to a question, that "Yes, we have solved the [interoperable communications] problems in the Columbus urban area." You read that correctly.  She actually said the interoperability problem in her jurisdiction had been solved. Was she being subjective?  I think she was. She offered no objective data to support that claim. But I believed her. Should other people believe her?  Can we build a national assessment program around trusting the “word” of people in a position to know whether or not they are prepared? But what if the people we ask have other motives?  What if they are just in it for the money and will say whatever they think they need to say?  What if they lie? On the other hand, what if they are giving as accurate a picture of preparedness as we are ever likely to get? -------------------------------------------------- The War on Subjectivity is fundamentally about not trusting each other.  I can't trust what you tell me because, being human, you probably have some hidden motive for what you're saying.  Or worse, you may not even know what you're talking about. And you can think the same about me. -------------------------------------------------- Preparedness -- as the participants in Tuesday's hearings acknowledged in one way or another -- is not an "external object" subject to the same kinds of measurement processes as physical objects.  Preparedness - like the resilience Phil has been writing about this week – is a subjective concept. We can objectify it as much as we care to.  But like the term “homeland security,” preparedness means different things to different people.  That’s not likely to change anytime soon. -------------------------------------------------- So what has $29 billion in homeland security grants bought and how do we know? Tim Manning provided a compelling answer:

Intuitively, we could answer the question “Are we better prepared?” with a “yes.” We could validly point to the amount and type of equipment that has been purchased, the physical security improvements that have been made, and the planning and training improvements that have occurred, and conclude that we are better prepared. Our national, state, local, tribal and territorial efforts have certainly increased our interagency planning across the spectrum of preparedness. This is in itself an achievement that greatly improves our ability to act decisively in a crisis.

I think it's more than intuition that allows one to say that.  Talk with any experienced practitioner in a homeland security-related activity and ask if we are better prepared for a variety of events than we were on September 10, 2001. When I ask that question, the subjective but consistent response is almost always yes. Ask the same question about equipment, training, collaboration, information and intelligence sharing, border and transportation security, immigration, interoperability, critical infrastructure protection, private sector preparedness, attention to privacy and civil rights concerns, terrorism finance, weapons of mass destruction -- pick your list. Are we better prepared now than we were on September 10, 2001? When I ask, the answer is almost always yes. -------------------------------------------------- Don’t get me wrong.  There is still a lot to do in all of these areas.  I have objective evidence to prove that assertion. And while we're at it, the preparedness grants I want for my community ought to get priority attention from Congress, DHS and FEMA. But that’s an argument for a different hearing. -------------------------------------------------- Our country has enough wars going on right now.  We do not need another one. I propose we open negotiations with Subjectivity.  We should seek at least a tentative peace with it. I believe once we trust -- and verify -- what Subjectivity has to say, we will learn that we are an increasingly prepared nation. And homeland security can move forward from there. Of course that's just an opinion.

As Jessica Herrera-Flanigan pointed out in her Tuesday post, a Homeland Security authorization bill has never been sent to the President for signature.  In its absence the power of appropriators is amplified, as if appropriators were not already plenty powerful. In prior posts I have offered an exegesis of what has been said by President Obama, Secretary Napolitano, and John Brennan, the Deputy National Security Advisor.  To be an exegete is to closely analyze what is said or written by another in order to derive guidance.  Appropriators don't leave exegesis to others.  The official Conference Report of the House and Senate regarding the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010 is 149 pages long (and a 12 megabyte download).  It is followed by a semi-official (for lack of a better term) "Joint Explanatory Statement"  that is 12o-plus  pages long (depending on whether you include the list of earmarks). A House-Senate Conference highlights agreements and resolves differences between related legislation passed by each chamber of Congress. In doing this, provisions of each body's legislation is adjusted with the agreement of conferees from both bodies. There is much horse trading both before and during a conference.  If the conference is successful, a compromise measure is presented to both House and Senate for passage.  The House approved the Homeland Security Conference Report on Thursday afternoon. The explicit purpose of the Joint Explanatory Statement is to set-out, "the effects of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report."  It is not the law, but it has at least as much power as the law.  I have usually been more interested in what is in the "Joint Explanatory Statement" or its equivalent than in the law itself. I am usually looking for a single obscure sentence, something that most others will not even recognize as having importance.  But I know -- and senior Hill staff and senior public servants know -- that this represents the formidable intent of a conferee or conferees.  I assume there are dozens of such discreetly pregnant sentences.  I recognize a few in this explanation. At times formidable intent is a matter of how much money goes where.  So, for example, on page 67 we read,

The conference agreement provides $64,179,000 for NCSD Strategic Initiatives as proposed by the House instead of $57,679,000 as proposed by the Senate. As discussed in the House report, the total amount includes: $3,500,000 for a Cyber Security Test Bed and Evaluation Center in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; $3,500.000 for cyber security training at the University of Texas at San Antonio; $3,000,000 for the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) at the New York Office of State Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination; $3,000,000 for the Power and Cyber Systems Protection, Analysis, and Testing Program at the Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho; $500,000 for Virginia's Operational Integration Cyber Center of Excellence (VOICCE) in Hampton, Virginia: and $100,000 for the Upstate New York Cyber Initiative at Clarkson University.

Some will immediately see this as "pork." I am not so inclined.  Since many of my family and friends raise hogs, I don't have a prejudice against pork.  Depends on how it is raised and slaughtered.  The proof is in the tasting. On other occasions the amount of funding is not mentioned, but a preferred "partner" is identified. On page 79 the explanation reads, "The conferees direct FEMA to consider utilizing the National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC) to enhance its translation services. FEMA is to report to the Committees, as specified in the House report, on possible uses of NVTC." You can anticipate the outcome.  But, again, I have seen this power-of-the-purse be constructive, even innovative and creatively disruptive.  I have also seen the power cynically abused. But especially in the absence of an authorization bill, the guidance given through these explanations can go well-beyond what we might reasonably expect of appropriators. The following is excerpted from page 76 of the conferees self-exegesis.

The conferees recognize that since September 11, 2001 there has been a rush to increase, restructure, and reinvest in preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation policies and capabilities. This effort was reemphasized after Hurricane Katrina. Major preparedness and response policies have been developed or reshaped including: the National Preparedness Guidance; National Incident Management System; the National Response Framework; Comprehensive Planning Guidance; Disaster Housing Strategy; and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. Countless guidance documents have been issued to address specific issues or disasters. Additionally, over $27,000,000,000 has been invested by the federal government in grants, and an untold amount at the local and State level. These investments have provided equipment to make our public infrastructure safer, our first responders better protected and prepared to respond to all hazards, and to ensure a more coordinated effort among the levels of government. Efforts to fully assess these investments and improved capabilities have not yet come to fruition, though disparate attempts to find a more comprehensive measure through programs such as Cost-to-Capability, the Target Capabilities List, and the Comprehensive Assessment System are ongoing.

The conferees note that tremendous time and fiscal investments into preparedness have been made to date and believe it is time to take stock of such efforts to find ways to ensure the most efficient investments are made in the future. The reality of a constricted economy and competing interests make it imperative that current efforts related to homeland security and all-hazards response and recovery be streamlined. Therefore, the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD), in cooperation with the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, shall lead the administrative effort of a Local, State, Tribal, and Federal preparedness task force. The task force is charged with making recommendations for all levels of government regarding: disaster and emergency guidance and policy; federal grants; and federal requirements, including measuring efforts. The task force shall especially evaluate: which policies and guidance need updating, and the most appropriate process by which to update them; which grant programs work the most efficiently and where programs can be improved; and the most appropriate way to collectively assess our capabilities and our capability gaps. Representation on the task force shall include: decision makers and practitioners from all disciplines including, but not limited to, firefighters, law enforcement, emergency management, health care, public works, development organizations, mitigation, and information technology, elected officials, the private sector. NPD is directed to brief the Committees within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act on its approach to establishing this task force and milestones for accomplishment.

I am not questioning the potential value of such a task force.  On the face of it, sounds like an entirely reasonable idea.  I suppose there may be a couple of discreetly pregnant sentences here as well, but too discreet for me to recognize.  Depending on who is appointed to the task force it might be cats fighting over scraps... or saints leading us to salvation.  Don't know.  Will be interesting to see. But I do question the wisdom of such a far-reaching endeavor emerging from the bowels of a conference this late in the process.  Someone recently said that reality can be layered, messy, inefficient, and randomly revealed.  This is true of most conference reports.  But that's not the best benchmark for effective legislation.

Interesting piece this morning from Tim Starks of CQ regarding the "urgency" of passing  the Homeland Security Appropriations bill conference report, which will be in House rules tomorrow and is expected to be on the House floor by the end of the week.  Starks notes that the bill, which traditionally has been above politics and quick to the President's desk, is moving slower this year.  Not the first bill out, it is in the middle of the spending bills pack this year.  On the authorizing side, the Department will not see this year the passage of a homeland security authorization measure in either the House or Senate. Is this slower pace of passage a warning that homeland security is waning as a priority for the U.S.? Have we finally reached a point where the panic has passed and we are looking at homeland security more holistically and less urgently? It is difficult to say with certainty.  The amount of federal spending dedicated to homeland security does not necessarily indicate a waning.  A healthy chunk of funding from the stimulus bill this year also went to the Department for distribution. The Department of Homeland Security's proposed budget for FY2010 is $42.77 billion - a 6.6% ($2.64 billion) from FY2009.  This increase came despite the predictions of many that homeland security's budget, especially in the grants area, would have have to be cut to accommodate domestic needs. With regards to an authorization bill - there has never been, since the Department's creation, an authorization bill sent to the President to sign.  In 2003, when the House Select Committee on Homeland Security first attempted to pass such a bill out of Committee, Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA) walked out of the mark-up as he couldn't get the majority of his Republican Members to show up.  He had a hard time because the majority of his Members were Chairmen of other Committees who did not want to cede power to the temporary Committee.   The Committee's Democrats, on the other hand, showed up in force with more than 100 amendments and were accused of being obstructionists to the process. A rocky start to say the least. That first attempt would be a sign of things to come though the House did finally pass an authorization bill in 2005 for FY2006.  An FY2007 authorization bill made it through the House Homeland Security Committee in 2006.  There have been no other attempts to tackle a catch-all authorization bill since that date in the House.  The Senate has never acted to pass an authorization bill. If we are not seeing a waning, we certainly are seeing a shift of priorities on how Congress is tackling the homeland security problem.  Committees in both the Senate and House are focusing on more "nuts and bolts" issues that are critical to the management, procurement, and processes of the evolving Department.  For example, on Wednesday, the House Homeland Security is looking at diversity within the DHS career ranks.  There have been a number of hearings this year looking at such issues as acquisition processes, specific programmatic contracts, and the Department's pending move to the St Elizabeth's campus. Unless some catastrophe strikes, we can expect this nuts and bolts approach to continue, especially once the findings of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR ) are made public. At that time, there is some expectation that DHS may see some more shifting of programs and policies to ensure a more functional and operational "one DHS, one one enterprise, a shared vision, with integrated results-based operations." These issues may not be sexy but they are important ones to assuring that the agency is capable, if the U.S. is attacked or a natural disaster strikes, of managing its response.

This post is about fusion centers. Fusion centers are my favorite example of how emergence works in the complex adaptive system that is homeland security. The story has often been told.  Contemporary fusion centers started in a half dozen states and cities.  Independently public safety officials perceived a need to organize and analyze various streams of information and intelligence.  There was no grand national plan.  Centers just emerged in response to a need. That was Phase I. The federal government stimulated Phase II by offering Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention funds to states and cities that wanted to set up their own centers.  The funds were accompanied by oral and written entreaties to standardize. Conceptually, this was an effort to bring regularity to a largely uncontrolled national experiment. Money plus perceived need created an ideal growth medium for the fusion center ecosystem.  There are now more than 70 fusion centers. I don't know when we entered the current Phase III, but like the economy, fusion centers have stopped growing. In the words of one federal official I spoke with this week, "Fusion centers are in jeopardy." Homeland security may be a complex adaptive system subject upon occasion to evolution's  "variation, selection and reproduction" ritual.  But the people who make up that system are not the blindly obedient servants of a disinterested nature.  They are agents of interests with -- to varying degree -- free will. Evolution of human systems can be affected by those humans.  Not controlled, but influenced. Serendipitously, I had the opportunity to speak with three people this week who are in the midst of fusion centers' Phase III evolutionary dynamics.  These are people who have a perspective about fusion centers and who are in a position to influence what happens to them.  To influence, not control. One person manages state budgets.  Another is a federal executive trying to make fusion centers work across the country.  The third person runs a state fusion center. What follows is a summary of the words they spoke this week, via email, telephone and in person.

The state budget manager: Sustainment funding should be a baseline capability

"I am in a meeting  listening to a presentation by a very nice gentleman from [a state] Fusion Center.  The speaker is speaking now about the lack of funding to sustain regional centers and the state center.  I have a brief discussion with him about this issue. He thinks I'm nuts. What I don't understand is why neither he nor anyone else seems to understand the fundamental issue with these and other programs that are initiated with grant dollars. Federal grant funds can allow state agencies to bypass their normal state funding and program approval processes.  States get appropriations for federal grant dollars through their legislatures often without specific capitol projects or programs being debated or discussed and often without studies to determine the sustainment costs and budgetary impacts on states or local governments.  So a state police agency stands up a "fusion center" using grant dollars.  But sustainment is not in their budgets.  After operating for a year or two, these facilities find that maintenance, system refreshments and personnel costs begin to affect their operating budgets.  They also find their host department's budgets are being cut because of state or regional economics.  And they, including the speaker I'm listening to, suggest that perhaps the feds should fund state fusion centers.  I contend doing that would make them federal fusion centers. I suggested that state or regional fusion centers should not be built or operated if they cannot be supported by regional revenue.  The response was that they are already built and should be  sustained.  Why?  If there is value they should be in the host agency's budget.  Isn't this why there is a deficit?  Someone should be looking into the governance issues associated with the homeland security grant funded programs in the various states.  I suggest that fusion centers should not be constructed without a mechanism for sustained funding by their host government.  There is a fusion center fad right now that seems irrational. I think the speakers think I'm crazy, but isn't there more than one way to do fusion, or must we build expensive facilities for this purpose? Someone needs to point out that we are heading down the road of implementing programs for the sake of programs, and that the grant funding model that we have facilitates the ability of agencies to implement programs without the full support and checks and balances associated with existing funding mechanisms in governments.  Few city councils or legislatures are going to refuse grant dollars.  But they don't realize that they are being used to stand up programs that they (councils or legislatures) will be expected to fund in the future. The feds have published fusion center guidelines and baseline capabilities.  They work with states to make sure that their fusion centers meet this guidelines in order to get DHS support and involvement.  Sustainment funding should be a baseline capability or at least a guideline for an approved fusion center."

The federal executive: Fusion centers contribute to national security

"Many fusion centers started because of grants that helped states build intelligence and information sharing capabilities.  Then came declining budgets and the economy.  Everybody's hit hard.  Yeah, a lot of the centers are in jeopardy, very much so.  That is why its important for them to show their relevancy, why they are important, and the value they add.  Because if they add value and somebody wants to shut them down, well they're not going to let them shut down and then have to deal with their constituency.  That's why its important to build toward standardized baseline capabilities. I've heard it said that 'If  you've seen one fusion center you've seen one fusion center.'  That's total nonsense and it's counterproductive, because it's not true. Nor should it be true.  This is why the federal government needs to work with states and locals to help them build toward baseline capabilities.  FEMA, DoJ and I&A have done some good things related to technical assistance [to fusion centers] with connectivity, training, privacy, civil rights and helping to build that value added.  But the federal government can only do so much.  It's also up to the states and major urban area fusion centers to build the capabilities.  But we'll help them. I support an increase in financial support for fusion centers.  But it needs to be a blend.  While states and cities have to carry their weight, there is also a federal responsibility here.  There needs to be a fiscal balance because fusion centers add value at a state and local level.  But fusion centers are also contributing -- significantly sometimes -- to national security.  So the federal government should help pay the bill."

The fusion center director: trying to get out of Dodge

"I've come to the view that the idea of us guessing when the next attack is going to occur from the fusion center perspective is just not going to happen.  I'm fooling myself by trying to guess what the next dot is I have to connect.   I know I have been a huge proponent of prevention, but it's also ok to respond to something as long as you respond in a timely manner. To me, that changes the paradigm of fusion centers as well as homeland security. We know that police and fire are tuned up to be responders, so why not leverage what we are good at?  I'm not saying intelligence goes away.  By no means am I saying that.  Intelligence can become more of a contextual basis for what may be happening or what may happen.  It can provide us with strategic situational awareness. Intelligence fusion centers can contribute to the Orient stage of the homeland security OODA loop.  The function of intelligence should be to help an agency process through its OODA loop at a much more rapid rate.  Using intelligence this way adds to our resilience. That's my theory.  But there is also a practical reality: in this economy, I can't hire analysts. I can't get funds for any collaborative platforms for wikis or other tools.  And it's not going to happen any time soon now, not with what's going on fiscally. I certainly want to win here. I want to prevent terrorism.  I want to put numbers on the board.  But I'm not stupid either.  I have got to chose my battles. It's like George Washington.  Once he kicked the ass of those Hessian soldiers he said, 'You know what, I gotta get out of Dodge and scram. I got to get back across the river.'  He did that because the other Hessians were heading in to help.  And right now I'm just trying to get out of Dodge. I'm nervous now.  I'm really serious about and committed to fusion centers. But we're finding out there's a lot of things we can't control, for a variety of reasons. You know a lot of folks have forgotten about the catastrophe and consequences of 9/11.  And it's really not driving budgets right now.  I still believe in fusion centers but there's more happening on the criminal side.  I see the really cool things we are doing with mashing information and data.  I just don't see it happening to the degree, to the level it should be happening with [the terrorist] threats.  It is making me very nervous."

Yesterday the New York Times editorial board highlighted an urgent homeland security threat.  I am not pointing to their second piece, Chemical Plants Could be More Safe.  While undoubtedly a real risk, as far as we know there is no actionable intelligence on plans to attack US chemical facilities. Tuesday's lead editorial in the Times is entitled, "States in Distress."  It outlines consequences of $143 billion in state budget cuts.  In twenty-one States public health funding has been among the biggest losers. There is actionable intelligence, known vulnerabilities, a specific threat sequence, and potentially ominous consequences for an Autumn pandemic.  Despite this we are accelerating a process of public health disarmament. The Illinois public health budget has been cut 25 percent and further cuts are threatened.   At one point in late July the Illinois budget  had zeroed out funding for infectious disease surveillance.   Heroic last minute efforts restored the money, but there is still a huge budget deficit to close and the public health budget is still at risk. In Sacramento County, California the public health department's budget has been reduced from $9.8 million in 2007-2008 to $5.1 million this year.  The number of county  public health positions has been reduced by one-fourth.  More cuts are possible as the County attempts to adjust to  reduced State funding. On July 27 the Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court noted in a judgment against the State's Department of Health and Human Resources, "I conclude that DHHR's ability to adequately comply herein with its legal obligation was caused not by any desire of a DHHR employee or administrator to do so, nor by the best efforts of DHHR employees and administrators, but rather by the continuing lack of requisite resources which DHHR receives to meet its mission. There is only so much that dedicated DHHR personnel can accomplish without adequate resources. I am deeply troubled and concerned about this continuing resource problem _ a problem which I sense may be worsening and may be becoming systemic." The same could be said for a whole host of public health departments and functions across the United States.  Committed professionals are doing their best with less and less.  But  budget reductions, staff cuts, and distraction undermine the fundamental capacity of even the most dedicated professional organization. Yesterday Secretary Napolitano highlighted the lag-time and increased vulnerability between the beginning of school -- late this month -- and the hoped-for availability of an H1N1 vaccine in mid-October. Yesterday news reports suggested a possible pattern of H1N1 resistance to Tamiflu in Southern Texas. (See possible correction from CIDRAP).  Yesterday other news reports seemed to confirm that H1N1 had evolved a resistance to Relenza.  Perhaps H1N1 will ultimately prove to be no more than a tweak of the seasonal flu. It could also be considerably worse.  We don't know.  There is no way to be certain.  But H1N1 is not the only threat  requiring ongoing care by public health professionals. Precisely because of the uncertainty, this is the time  to reinforce our front lines of surveillance and defense.  Instead we are reducing our troop levels, withdrawing our artillery, grounding our planes, and moving our ships into drydock. In considering the current situation of our State and local public health capacity the analogy of a bio-medical Munich  -- or at the very least, a kind of summer Sitzkrieg -- is hard to avoid. UPDATES: Inside the fight against a flu pandemic (TIME) California nurses say swine flu training, protections inadequate (Mercury News) Some measures won't help prevent flu pandemic: report  (Reuters) Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957-58 Influenza Pandemic (UPMC-Center for Biosecurity) WHO sees swine flu vaccination from next month  (Reuters)

Homeland security encompasses more than national level policy, doctrine and talk.  It also includes the impact national decisions have on frontline homeland security professionals.  Today's post is from one of those professionals.  Sara Diaz is the Emerging Technologies Manager for Special Operations with the San Diego California Fire-Rescue Department. She suggests what can be done to sustain some of the preparedness gains of the past few years.

What one sentence best describes your idea about how to improve homeland security?

Allow a maximum of 5% of Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) awards to be used to purchase maintenance contracts for equipment obtained in previous HSGP funding cycles.

Describe your idea in more depth.

Every year state, tribal, and local agencies prepare HSGP investment justifications outlining projects, training, personnel, and equipment to be used to reduce risk in their jurisdictions and increase target capabilities. The goal of HSGP is to enable agencies outside the federal government to prevent, prepare, respond, and recover from incidents, both natural and man-made.  Each year more and more equipment is purchased to address these requirements.  With the current state of budgets, some agencies cannot sustain the cost of maintaining all of this equipment after initial warranties and maintenance contracts end. As equipment is used in training, exercises, and actual incidents, it suffers wear and tear.  If equipment is not well maintained, the reliability and overall usable life of the equipment decreases significantly.  It is not a cost effective use of funds to let equipment deteriorate prematurely; doing so perpetuates a perception that items purchased through grants are “disposable.” The purpose of HSGP purchases is to improve capabilities. Proper maintenance is vital to ensuring equipment will function as expected when needed. Under current grant guidelines, the grantee is responsible for maintaining equipment past the performance period of the grant.  However, if grant recipients were able to use up to 5% percent of their grant awards to maintain equipment previously purchased through HSGP, local agencies would have an option to ensure equipment is in good working order if local funds were not available for sustainment. The decision would be up to the individual agency to determine if they had equipment that would benefit from an extended maintenance contract, in lieu of purchasing additional or replacement equipment. For agencies facing budget shortfalls, this option would be very attractive as they struggle to find ways to cut costs while continuing to provide additional services related to homeland security.

What problem or issue does your idea address?

Some would say that grant recipients are lucky to receive  funds to assist in adopting homeland security strategies within their jurisdictions. Incidents are a local responsibility, and the federal government’s role is to support and augment resources when local governments are depleted. However, from the local perspective, equipment purchased through the grant programs is often specialized.  As stated in program guidelines, it cannot be used to supplant existing operations. The result is equipment often sits in cabinets, used only during exercises, training, and the occasional incident. The reality is, when faced with budget shortfalls, agencies must decide where to cut costs. Deferring maintenance of equipment seldom used is one viable option for local agencies, one that is often selected over cutting core services. However, from the federal perspective, deferring maintenance is wasteful and leads to less prepared communities.

If the idea were to become reality, who would benefit the most, and how?

HSGP recipients would benefit from having well maintained equipment necessary to prepare, prevent, respond and recover from incidents.  Adopting this idea would extend the usable life and overall reliability of the equipment. The federal government would benefit by maximizing its investment, confident that grant recipients will be able to execute target capabilities the grant programs were meant to support.

What are the initial steps needed to get the idea off the ground?

Program guidelines would need to be updated for the fiscal year 2010 HSGP to outline what equipment is eligible (any equipment on register as purchased through an HSGP award) and the allocation guidelines.  Grant recipients would be encouraged to conduct a business case analysis to determine if there is an advantage to using grant awards for equipment maintenance versus other allowable expenditures.

Describe the optimal outcome should your idea be selected and successfully implemented. How would you measure that outcome?

The expected outcome is equipment purchased through grant funds to prepare, prevent, respond, and recover from attacks against our homeland and natural disasters is well maintained and functions as expected when used during exercises, training, and actual incidents. Local agencies hesitant to apply for federal grant funds because they know they cannot afford to sustain new capabilities would be able to participate, resulting in more jurisdictions with increased capabilities, and a better prepared nation.

As we learned in sixth grade social studies, the power of the purse is the premier legislative power. Recently a Congressional Budget Office staffer was part of a discussion  about defense strategy.  He noted, "I pay less attention to what they say about strategy than where money is spent."  Indeed. The power of the purse is especially concentrated in the hands of Congressional appropriators and, if anything, as politics, finance, policy, and strategy has become more complex, the comparative power of  appropriators has grown.  The House Appropriations Committee has reported out its Bill for the FY2010 DHS budget.  The 93 page document is easily available from the Committee website. Often less readily available is the Report together with Additional Views of the House Appropriations Homeland Security subcommittee.  But the International Association of Emergency Managers has made this 211 page document available on their website.  Thank you IAEM. The Report together with Additional Views  and -- even more -- the later Appropriations Conference Report, where House and Senate differences are resolved, is a Talmud for our budgetary scripture.  The chairs of the appropriations sub-committees are known as the Cardinals and the reference is to the Vatican, not Busch Stadium.  How the Bill is interpreted by the Cardinals is often what matters most.  The Report together with Additional Views is a Magisterium for our secular republic. For the next several weeks, at least once a week, HLSwatch will excerpt a passage from the Report together with Additional Views for the House Appropriations Committee's DHS Bill.  It will be offered for your close reading and commentary.  If I feel compelled to comment I will join you "behind the wall" in the comment function. I will proceed through the report as it is written, excerpting what seems interesting to me.  You are welcome to use the comment function to give attention to passages I neglect.  At its best a Committee Report gives context and expands on Congressional intent.  At its worst a Committee Report seeks to manage specific Department decisions with little context or explanation. I expect we will encounter examples of each end of the continuum and everything in-between. Starting on page 7 and continuing on page 8 of the Report together with Additional Views to accompany H.R. 2892:

In fiscal year 2008, DHS’s immigration agencies set several new records: deporting the most people in any year in U.S. history (369,409); holding more people in immigration detention per day than ever before (30,429); and initiating 1,191 worksite enforcement investigations that resulted in 6,287 arrests, the largest numbers since the formation of DHS. These figures reflect the billions of dollars the Committee has invested in immigration enforcement activities since 2003. But rather than simply rounding up as many illegal immigrants as possible, which is sometimes achieved by targeting the easiest and least threatening among the undocumented population, DHS must ensure that the government’s huge investments in immigration enforcement are producing the maximum return in actually making our country safer. A closer examination of the data may give some pause:

 

·         Since 2002, ICE has increased the deportation of non-criminals by 400 percent, while criminal deportations have only gone up 60 percent.

·         Of the nearly 370,000 deported by ICE in fiscal year 2008, less than a third, or 114,358, were ever convicted of a criminal offense. This, despite the fact that up to 450,000 criminals eligible for deportation are in penal custody in any given year, according to ICE estimates.

·         Less than one-quarter of those interdicted by ICE’s Fugitive Operations Teams last year were actually convicted of criminal offenses.

·         Over three-quarters of those arrested in ICE worksite enforcement raids last year were not charged with any crime.

 

Since 2007, the Committee has emphasized how ICE should have no higher immigration enforcement priority than deporting those who have proved their intent to do harm and have been convicted of serious crimes. In fiscal year 2008, ICE received $200 million to identify incarcerated criminal aliens and remove them once judged deportable. In fiscal year 2009, ICE was directed to use $1 billion of its resources to identify and remove aliens convicted of crimes, whether in custody or at large, and the Congress mandated this be ICE’s number one mission. In this bill, the Committee directs ICE to use $1.5 billion of its budget to expand efforts to locate and remove those criminal aliens who have proved they are a threat to our communities.

Last evening the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee completed its mark-up of the FY2010 DHS budget. In his statement, Chairman Price explains, "Overall, the discretionary total in the bill for the Department of Homeland Security is $42.625 billion. This is $2.6 billion, or 6.5 percent, above the comparable fiscal year 2009 amount and about 1 percent below the Administration’s request when you exclude the cost of the Coast Guard overseas operations. This funding level reflects the hard decision Congress made in adopting this year’s budget resolution, which reduced overall funding levels by $10 billion. This Subcommittee had to take its share of that cut." In what may be the most significant difference from the administration's budget request the sub-committee substantially increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations on the Southern Border. "The mark provides $97.8 million, or $27.8 million more than requested, for ICE programs that support the Southwest Border Initiative including: a $10 million expansion of ICE investigations of transnational gangs; an additional $10 million for ICE to improve investigations of cross-border weapons smuggling; $5 million more for ICE drug smuggling investigations; and an additional $2.8 million to expand human smuggling and trafficking investigations." In its latter years the Bush administration had, winking and nodding, discontinued many first responder grants. OMB knew that these would be restored by the Congress. This year the White House budget included these grants. "DHS requested $3.867 billion for grants to assist them with everything from planning to equipment. The Subcommittee strengthens that commitment to our State and local partners by providing $3.96 billion for comparable grant programs, including: $330 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants, our one true all-hazards grant program; $800 million for Firefighter Assistance Grants to equip our Fire Service and help stem the tide of layoffs that diminish public safety; $950 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program; and $887 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, which is security money targeted to the highest risks of terrorism." I always associate June mark-ups with my flower garden. The blossoms are beautiful. But the real story is deep in the soil. It is worth digging deeper into the details of both the mark-up and the eventual conference report. A bit more -- including the ever-popular summary table and earmark list -- is available from the subcommittee's website.