Homeland Security Watch

Over the past few days an interesting theme has emerged around homeland security budget deliberations. As Jessica, Chris, Phil and many commentators on their posts have pointed out, we have no shortage of views about what’s right or wrong with the way we’ve been spending money over the past ten years or about how we should spend money in the future.

As I read these interesting and very informative perspectives, I could not help but think that despite all the discussion of politics this situation is more a problem of policy and the tendency of politicians to confuse the two. The distinction I intend here is simple: Politics concerns itself with competing conceptions of the good related to who, why, where and what; policy extends these judgments by focusing on how, when and how much.

No doubt the competing narratives about whether we’ve spent wisely or whether the proposed cuts go too far are steeped in politics. But the policy questions raised by the decisions unfolding before us have very real implications for programs, processes, people and ultimately what we choose to call progress.

This last point — how we define progress — illustrates the central problem confronting politicians and policy analysts alike. Politicians tend to define success very differently from policy analysts.

A simple semantic distinction might make this problem clearer. Public officials often use the terms efficiency and effectiveness carelessly. If we’re talking about economic (aggregate) efficiency — welfare maximization — then they may not be all that different. But when we talk about efficiency the way the current budget debate seems to be — as a question of productivity or throughput, then it is far less clear that the two terms have the same meaning.

Indeed, when politicians frame budget cuts as a way to hold public administrators accountable, they usually want to improve productive or managerial efficiency, rather than aggregate efficiency. As a consequence, it should come as no surprise when policy analysts and public administrators raise concerns that these decisions will compromise the effectiveness of their programs.

This, of course, sets off a knee-jerk response on the part of politicians, who suspect that the policy analysts and public administrators are only concerned with their own welfare, not the public’s. For their part, the policy analysts and public administrators usually respond to such rhetoric by wondering aloud (albeit under their breath) about the parentage of their political masters.

I am not usually one to suggest that such complex problems have simple solutions, but this might be an exception to that rule. The current budget debate underscores why it is important for us to produce a better understanding of how homeland security contributes to aggregate improvements in welfare. These gains can take many forms, not all of which are economic in nature, but which nevertheless all have some form of value.

Security is a value. So is liberty. Clearly people have competing conceptions of what they would be willing to pay to feel secure. These decisions are in essence a question of how much liberty individuals are willing to sacrifice to feel safe.

We can monetize the value of security by asking ourselves how these individual decisions play out in light of different political or policy choices. Perhaps more importantly, we can assess the ways competing policies affect these tradeoffs. By questioning not just how much we have spent and on what, but also by examining how airport security, for instance, has facilitated or inhibited the desire of individuals to travel as measured by passenger trips taken and the health of the industry, we can assess whether our political choices and policies resulting from them have had their intended effects.

Obviously, these techniques have limitations. Not the least of which is the difficulty measuring how well our investments help us prepare for threats we have not yet imagined. These questions require politicians to trust the policy analysts and public administrators rather than second-guessing them and moving beyond the who, why, what and where to concern themselves with how, when and how much.

Gaining the trust to tackle these difficult questions makes it all the more important that we establish some common ground between the politicians and policy analysts when it comes to deciding what investments to make and how to make them. As such, both groups would do well to review a primer on welfare economics and transaction cost economics before the final vote on the budget.

Stock and commodity markets reacted negatively today to news that sluggish private sector hiring, slipping domestic manufacturing and sliding Greek sovereign debt ratings. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans met with President Obama to discuss legislation to raise the debt ceiling following a show-vote on Tuesday meant to signal their resistance to any measure that fails to herald a new era of fiscal discipline in Washington. (Which, it should be noted, they regard primarily, if not solely, as cuts to domestic discretionary spending and entitlement programs.)

Although the economic situation in Germany and Japan are not much better than here in the United States (and some would argue much worse), the stories grabbing the biggest headlines in these countries are very different from those here at home. Indeed one might wonder whether the tables have now truly turned since the end of the Second World War.

Those Americans who worked to defeat the axis powers in World War II have come to be known as the Greatest Generation for their willingness both to make difficult decisions and to make significant sacrifices at home and on the battlefield for the sake of future generations. Their leadership benefited not only our generation, but those too of the nations they fought.

The turnabout decision this week by Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022 and invest heavily in renewables with a target of supplying at least 80 percent of their domestic demand by 2050 reflects nothing short of a payback on our nation’s post-war investment in rebuilding war-ravaged Europe. Germany’s decision and the actions that must follow are no less ambitious than the mobilization of labor and capital required in the United States to supply the war effort 60 years ago. The German people will only succeed in reaching their goal through a combination of expanded capacity, technological innovation and significant reductions in demand through energy conservation and increased efficiency.

A segment of the population of that other great power of the war era has shown a different kind of foresight and fortitude that reflects a more personal sort of sacrifice. The lingering crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has fueled the loss of faith in the government and is now mobilizing a segment of Japanese society that one might assume has every right to sit back and wonder what happened to the country they helped build as the successors to the generation defeated by our grandparents. Instead, this generation of retirees and grandparents is volunteering to expose themselves to dangerous levels of radioactivity by helping cleanup the damaged nuclear reactors rather than leaving the job to younger workers who would be more likely to suffer the long-latent effects of such significant radiation exposures.

In both instances, the decisions and actions we see taking center-stage overseas reflect the sorts of values that made our forebears great. At the same time, their presence, even prominence in the news from abroad makes their absence from our own political debate that much more glaring and indeed worrying for our stability, stature, security and future prospects of success.

What sacrifices are we willing to make to maintain our greatness? How hard are we willing to work? How much would we pay to remain an exemplar of the can-do spirit for other nations to follow?

Judging by the crisis of confidence afflicting both the political and economic spheres, it seems the answers to these questions are “not so much.” Our crisis will continue, if not deepen, unless those who can start doing. Americans should not expect leadership of the sort displayed in Germany and Japan this week to come from politicians alone. As the examples of our former rivals aptly illustrate, we need leadership at every level of our society if we are to restore our greatness.

Following is a good example of why pay walls are going up all over the web.  I have — contrary to my stated principles — reproduced in full a Dow Jones news story.

When we take action contrary to our principles we usually convince ourselves there is sufficient cause, good cause, even a noble cause.  In this case I am probably being lazy and expedient.

Even when our rationalizations have some validity we almost always pay the consequences sooner or later in ways predictable or not.  I have not been a fan of Senator Rand Paul.  But in regard to the Patriot Act we should at least be giving close attention to his arguments. (Please see video and transcript of the Senator’s comments on two failed amendments to the Patriot Act.)

–+–

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–The U.S. House of Representatives voted to renew three key provisions of legislation granting law enforcement officials authority to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists.

The Senate voted earlier Thursday to approve the extension bill, after resolving a week-long impasse over the legislation.

The House vote was 250 in favor, with 153 opposed.

With the House vote, Congress has completed its work on the bill, but it must still be signed by President Barack Obama by midnight EDT Thursday in order to avoid an expiration of the three provisions. Obama is in France for a meeting of the G-8 group of nations. A White House spokesman said the president will use an “automatic pen” to sign the legislation into law.

All week long, the Senate has been in a logjam over attempts, primarily by a single lawmaker, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), to amend the legislation. Paul, a self-styled libertarian, opposes the legislation and spent the last several days decrying it as an invasion of privacy.

As the deadline approached, top lawmakers and senior Obama administration officials began issuing stark warnings about the impact on the ability of the nation’s intelligence community to continue to do its job if the provisions were allowed to expire. James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a letter this week to Senate leaders there could be serious repercussions for law enforcement’s surveillance efforts if the measures expire.

The provisions are contained within the Patriot Act, a law passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that vastly expanded the abilities of law enforcement officials to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists both in the U.S. and abroad.

Over the years, the legislation has gradually been more tailored, with some of its provisions allowed to expire and others made permanent.

But some of the authorities granted by the law require Congress to renew them. There are three such provisions in the legislation.

One would enable law enforcement officials to conduct surveillance on suspected individuals who switch communication devices, such as using disposable cellular phones. A second would let officials conduct surveillance on so-called “lone wolf” individuals–suspects not currently linked to any known terrorist organization abroad. The third would enable officials access to suspects’ business transactions–rental cars, hotel bill and other credit card transactions.

All three have been extended until June 1, 2015.

Ultimately, 22 senators joined Paul in opposing the legislation. The majority of those no votes were cast by liberals who are opposed to the continuation of the expanded authorities contained within it. Several of them, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had hoped to add language providing for further oversight and audits of the activities the law permits. This wasn’t allowed as part of the compromise reached Thursday, which sparked some of those no votes.

Leahy pledged to bring up the oversight language as stand-alone legislation soon.

Before they moved to a vote to finalize the legislation, lawmakers first had to deal with a Paul amendment that would have excluded gun sales from law enforcement officials’ ability to monitor business transactions.

Paul said this was a violation of individual rights protected by the second amendment to the U.S. constitution.

“It’s very important that we are eternally vigilant of the powers of government,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “I don’t think the government should be sifting through the records of gun owners.”

Even the National Rifle Association didn’t support Paul’s gun amendment. The organization didn’t oppose it outright, but chose to take no position on the issue.

The proposed change was easily defeated by the Senate

Late this afternoon (Thursday) the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee conducted a hearing entitled Catastrophic Preparedness: How ready is FEMA for the next big disaster.  A video of the hearing is available. I don’t recommend taking time to watch it.

In a process and outcome emblematic of our overall stance on catastrophic preparedness,  several other issues and purposes were mixed into the hearing.   In a nearly two-hour session I perceived about 15 to 20 minutes were committed to what I recognize as catastrophic preparedness.

The situation in Japan was discussed, but mostly in terms of the nuclear emergency.  Senator Lieberman committed one seven-minute round of questions and answers to the implications for the US of  the Japanese experience of preparedness, response, and recovery beyond the nuclear emergency. I am not wanting to discount the potential harm and implications of the nuclear emergency. But it seems to me our (both Japanese and others) preoccupation with the nuclear emergency has discounted the urgent needs of those who survived the first two stages of this crisis.

Available at the hearing website is prepared testimony by each witness.  Below is a long quote from Administrator Fugate’s prepared testimony that does address important issues of catastrophic preparedness. It is worth reading each paragraph and beginning to insert your own footnotes related to the emerging lessons-learned from Japan.

–+–

We must view all of the work FEMA does in concert with the rest of the emergency management community as part of a broad plan for addressing the demands and challenges of a catastrophic disaster.

To ensure that our efforts become part of an interconnected plan of action, we are focused on our “Whole Community” initiative. This initiative will continue to leverage the capabilities that both governmental and non-governmental entities play in preparing for a catastrophic disaster.

We cannot effectively respond to a catastrophic disaster alone. Our planning and preparedness scenarios require all parties to pitch in, including FEMA and its partners at the federal level; state, local and tribal governments; non-governmental organizations in the non-profit, faith-based and private sector communities; and most importantly, diverse individuals, families, and communities, who continue to be our most important assets and allies in our ability to respond to and recover from a major disaster.

As the name of the initiative indicates, it is truly the whole community that must be prepared to respond in ways that extend beyond the normal paradigms in which we have traditionally operated. As a result, when we at FEMA address our own preparedness and response capabilities, we now do it through the “Whole Community” framework…

“Whole Community” uses planning assumptions for catastrophic disasters that are based on the worst case scenarios. These scenarios are designed to challenge preparedness at all levels of government and force innovative, non-traditional solutions as part of the response strategy to such events.

To begin this change in national preparedness practice and doctrine, we are enlisting the active participation of the whole community, partnering with emergency management, public health, security, law enforcement, critical infrastructure and medical organizations to plan, train, organize and heighten awareness as a team.

The “Whole Community” initiative identifies the highest priority tasks necessary to save and sustain lives and stabilize a community or region during the crucial first 72 hours after a catastrophe. This initiative also addresses the fundamental pillars of the entire emergency management spectrum. While the initial 72-hour period after an incident is the most critical in saving and sustaining lives, the Whole Community approach spans not only response operations following a disaster, but also recovery, prevention, protection, and mitigation activities that occur before, during and after a catastrophic event.

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure we work together as a nation to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. Too often we have overlooked our role as supporting citizens and first responders. The “Whole Community” initiative recognizes that FEMA is not the nation’s emergency management team – FEMA is just part of the team.

FEMA continues to play an integral role as part of the emergency management community. However, we know that we cannot and should not do it alone. We know of the capabilities of federal agencies, which can be leveraged in the event of a disaster to provide a robust federal response. We know of the importance of effective coordination with state, local and tribal governments, who provide direct, on the ground experience, and who usually have initial and primary responsibility for disaster response. We know that non-governmental organizations, like faith-based and non-profit groups, and private sector entities, possess knowledge, assets and services that government simply cannot provide. An effective disaster response involves tapping into all of these resources.

Finally, and most importantly, we know of the great capacity of individuals to care for their families, friends, neighbors and fellow community members, making our citizens force multipliers rather than liabilities. Together, we make up the whole community, and we all have an important role to play. We must engage all of our societal capacity, both within and beyond FEMA, to work together as a team.

I expect Chairman King well understands the stakes.  He is an experienced, wily, and — at times — even a wise man.

There is great value in the authentic question — no matter how awkward — because an authentic question is open to new understanding.

The method of Socrates had no script.  It was a high wire act. The wisest of all could still stumble over preconceived notions, private prejudices, and Plato’s own purposes imposed post-hoc.

An authentic question need not be innocent, but it does require a spacious susceptibility to honest answers and (especially) to being surprised.

Each of us who listened today will likely judge Chairman King, the committee’s other members, and each witness in light of our own intent, our own innocence, our own authenticity… or in the dimness and darkness thereof.

I have lost my taste for the politics of these events.  Many others are offering their thoughts on that (linked below).

See if you share my sense of hearing an interesting answer to the committee’s questions (and comments) in these words written seventy years ago:

Peter King defiant at tense Muslim hearing (Politico, news)

Witnesses at King hearing say US “failing” to confront radical Islam (FoxNews)

Islam show-trial opens in US Congress (Telegraph, news)

House hearing worries US Muslims (Al Jazerra, news)

Congressman defends panel on US Muslim community amid national uproar (Haaretz, news)

Republicans and Democrats disagree on Muslim hearings (Gallup, survey results)

Friday morning update:

The homegrown terror hearings (Wall Street Journal, opinion)

King: Next hearing is on Muslims in prison (AP, news)

Tears, fears at hearing on Muslims (The Hill, news)

Local Muslims slam hearings as unfair, unbalanced (Detroit Free Press, news)

Cries of McCarthyism over US Muslim hearing (Independent, news)

Spectre of McCarthy hangs over hearing into radicalization of American Muslims (The Australian, news)

Muslim hearings in US Congress dismissed as equivalent of reality TV (The Guardian, news)

That is how Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, characterized the threat of Islamic fundamentalist-connected terrorism to Ranking Minority Member Bennie Thompson in a letter.  The full quote:

While there have been extremist groups and random acts of political violence throughout our history, the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and the ongoing threat to our nation from Islamic jihad were uniquely diabolical and threatening to America’s security, both overseas and in our homeland.

King’s letter was a response to Thompson’s request to expand the subject of an upcoming hearing on radicalization within the Muslim-American community to a broader consideration of domestic extremism in general.  In defending his narrow focus, King goes on to compare the impacts of terrorism of different ideological stripes:

In short, the homeland has become a major front in the war with Islamic terrorism and it is our responsibility to fully examine this significant change in al Qaeda tactics and strategy. To include other groups such as neo-Nazis and extreme environmentalists in this hearing would be extraneous and diffuse its efficacy. It would also send the false message that our Committee believes there is any threat equivalency between these disparate groups and Islamist terrorism.

This seems a little short sighted to me as I think back to 1995:

It is just my opinion, but the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City seems pretty diabolical to me.  Homeland security should continue to be concerned about the present and evolving threat presented by Al Qaeda and like-minded groups.  However, too narrow of a focus will leave us vulnerable to a range of risks we choose to ignore or do not even notice exist.

I do not question the efficacy of hearings about radicalization in the U.S. Muslim community, but the reported tone of these hearings and the accusations that unidentified members of the law enforcement community have complained to King that they are not receiving cooperation from Muslim-Americans is troubling.  Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca seems to share these concerns, as reported by Politico’s Ben Smith:

Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca said Monday that there is nothing to support Rep. Peter King’s (R-N.Y.) view that American Muslims are being uncooperative with law enforcement.

“If he has evidence of non-cooperation, he should bring it forward,” said Baca at a forum held today by Muslim-American groups in advance of King’s hearings on radicalization in the Muslim community. “We have as much cooperation as we are capable of acquiring through public trust relationships.”

“I sit on the Major City chiefs association as one of three chairs,” said Baca. “I also sit on the Major County Sheriff’s Association and I’m on the national board of directors of the international association for the sheriffs departments. Here’s the thing: I don’t know what Mr. King is hearing or who he’s hearing it from.”

Community engagement across the entire spectrum of homeland security-related activities is required to build resilience (however one defines the concept).  Alienating a specific group due to unfounded fears seems not a particularly forward thinking strategy.  In the process of carrying out important and necessary investigations, I hope that proper balance can be found for current and future issues.

[T]his is a situation where … people … really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district.

When people do that, they’ve gotta realize there’s consequences to that action.

When you look at these examples [from the left and the right] around the country which really try to incite people and inflame emotions…. You’re going to have … extremes on both sides…, and that’s where leaders have to come together and say….

—– Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, March 25, 2010

And after leaders “say” whatever it is they are going to say, then what?

————————-

Update: Here’s one leader (Pima County Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik) talking.  Some thought leading at about the 1:30 mark in the video:

As the House of Representatives reorganizes itself for the 112th Congress, it is time to revisit, yet again, what to do about the jurisdiction of the House Homeland Security Committee.  Specifically, how should “Rule X,” which determines Committee organization and oversight, be formulated to ensure that homeland security is best served. Since its creation as a “Select” (aka “temporary”) Committee in 2003 during the 108th Congress, there has been a constant drumbeat of experts, pundits, and Department of Homeland Security officials calling for oversight and legislative jurisdiction to be unified under one Committee. Reports abound of the 100+ Committees and Subcommittees that DHS has to appear before and of legislation getting stalled because of jurisdictional infighting inside of Congress. Those outside of Washington are probably scratching their heads and wondering why does this matter? Isn’t it really an insider’s game of turf battle and power grabs?

Well, yes and no. There is obviously a tradition in DC of protecting one’s turf and preserving power. And that has played a significant role in not only how Congress treats homeland security, but in how the Department has developed. The jurisdictional fights, while inherently D.C., have a tremendous impact on how homeland security has developed and how it will continue to grow. Split jurisdiction means that the Department lacks a clear guiding voice on how it should move forward on security issues. Instead, it has many keepers in some areas — all of whom have different and potentially conflicting interest. The jurisdictional split also means that the Department does not have a clear overseer to hold it accountable and ensure that efficiencies and effectiveness are front and center. As a result, DHS reports to many, causing it to be sluggish and not able to fully maximize its resources to the homeland security mission.

When the Homeland Security Act was passed and DHS was created, 170,000 employees and 22 departments and agencies were merged. Among the entities that moved to the new Department:

• Coast Guard -  Department of Transportation
• TSA – Department of Transportation
• U.S. Customs Services – Department of Treasury
• Secret Service – Department of Treasury
• Immigration and Naturalization Service – Department of Justice
• Border Patrol-  Department of Justice
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Department of Agriculture
• Critical Information Assurance Office – Department of Commerce
• National Infrastructure Protection Center – FBI
• Various other entities from Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, GSA,  Health and Human Services, Justice, & Treasury

The creation of DHS was the biggest reorganization of the government since the Department of Defense was created in the National Security Act of 1947.  In creating the agency, Congress deemed it necessary to rethink how we approached federal governance in a post-9/11 world.  The new Department was to help the nation heal and be prepared for the next attack.  Its mission was (and is) simple, as described on the DHS website:

to lead the unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms. While the Department was created to secure our country against those who seek to disrupt the American way of life, our charter also includes preparation for and response to all hazards and disasters. The citizens of the United States must have the utmost confidence that the Department can execute both of these missions.

Unfortunately for the agency, confidence is constantly being questioned as the agency has tried to manage itself over the past 7 years.  Whether uniting jurisdiction in one Committee will solve the agency’s problems is unknown and questionable, but the voices of those who say it is the right thing to do are many. For example:

• The 9/11 Commission: Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.  So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.  The United States needs a strong, stable, and capable congressional committee structure to give America’s national intelligence agencies oversight, support, and leadership.
• CSIS/BENS Task Force on Congressional Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security: The result is a Department of Homeland Security that is hamstrung by a system of Congressional oversight that drains departmental energy and invites managerial circumvention. Until Congress confronts the hard task of correcting this mismatch, DHS is at risk of failing to achieve its full potential.
• The Center for Public Integrity: The Department of Homeland Security is still coping with an extraordinary number of demands from Capitol Hill, which are tripping up a fledgling organization. And the crazy quilt of oversight is making it difficult for Congress to provide cogent guidance on budgeting, organization, or priorities for a department still struggling on all those fronts.
• Homeland Security Policy Institute:  Congress must not let its homeland security efforts remain unfocused and dispersed. Consolidation of authority under a single permanent standing committee is the best answer to a problem that has already persisted two years too long.
• Heritage Foundation: It has been seven years since the Department of Homeland Security was created, and yet Congress has still not reformed oversight of homeland security. The lack of congressional action has become something of a joke, even catching the attention of institutions like National Public Radio that would normally dismiss oversight of a department as an “inside the Beltway” issue.
  

Left. Right. Center.  It seems that the jurisdictional issue is one that unites across the political spectrum.  I have not seen outside of Congress a good analysis of why jurisdictional should not be consolidated. The strongest argument made to not consolidate in 2003-2004 was that expertise over the various portions of the Department resided with existing Committees. To create a new Committee without that expertise and historical knowledge would lead to more chaos according to many of the Committee Chairmen in that timeframe.  Indeed, in creating the temporary “Select” Committee on Homeland Security in 2003, then Speaker Hastert tried to address this concern by naming almost all Chairmen to the Committee.  That proved disastrous as many used the position to ensure that the Committee did not encroach upon their existing jurisdictions.  The majority of Chairmen did not show up for the Committee’ mark-up of its first authorization bill, requiring then-Chairmen Chris Cox (R-CA) to defend against several dozen amendments offered by Democratic Members without a Republican majority. The result? The mark-up was canceled.

When the Committee became permanent at the beginning of the 109th, the jurisdictional fighting did not cease.  A number of Committees raised concerns with the proposed Committee’s jurisdiction and pushed back.  In a legislative history prepared by the Speaker’s Office in early 2005, a number of areas were identified as needing to remain with the existing Committees.  They can be viewed here.

At the beginning of the 110th, with the Democrats taking over the House, there was discussion about how to revise jurisdiction.  Some jurisdictional battles were resolved between Committees.  For example, the Homeland Security and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on how they would share jurisdiction over emergency preparedness and related issues.  At the beginning of the 111th Congress, there was discussion once again about jurisdiction. No significant changes, however, were made to the House Homeland Security Committee’s jurisdiction.

So, looking forward to January, what changes should be made in Congress to the Committees to better oversee and legislate on homeland security issues? Here are a few suggestions:

• Emergency Preparedness/FEMA:  Jurisdiction over FEMA and emergency preparedness issues should be transferred to the House Homeland Security Committee. While the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will object, there are few reasons to keep jurisdiction at T&I.  Under the current Rule, T&I has jurisdiction over generic emergency preparedness while Homeland has jurisdiction over emergency preparedness activities relating to terrorism.  The same entity (FEMA) and personnel are responsible for both in today’s all-hazards approach to emergency preparedness.
• Border Security and Immigration:  Homeland Security has jurisdiction over border security generally while Judiciary has jurisdiction over immigration, visa, and non-border enforcement (e.g. ICE).  There is a larger question about whether immigration administration should be married with border security and whether USCIS belongs in DHS at all (but that is a subject of another blog).  What is clear, however, is that non-border enforcement elements such as ICE should be within the jurisdiction of Homeland, esp. given its related work on CBP, over which it has jurisdiction.
• Secret Service: Currently, Judiciary has primary jurisdiction over most of Secret Service’s elements.  Since the agency was moved to DHS, oversight and legislative authority over the agency should also be moved over.
• Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC):  Another agency that moved to the Department, of which jurisdiction should be given to Homeland.
• Coast Guard:  Currently T&I has primary jurisdiction over the Coast Guard.  The agency itself is complicated and has a number of non-security functions and responsibilities. That said,  authority over it should probably be moved over to Homeland Security.’
• Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity, other than that involving government-wide cybersecurity efforts relating to government computers, has never really had a home jurisdictionally. Originally, Homeland was going to be given jurisdiction over the issue in 2005, but other Committees protested so the rules were left silent on the issue, except for the existing government systems jurisdiction granted to Government Reform.  As an issue that is too important to be left unaddressed, civilian cybersecurity efforts should be within the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. Military and intelligence efforts should remain within Armed Services and Intelligence.

There are other areas where overlapping jurisdiction can be further clarified. Among them are the Federal Protective Service, emergency communications, and some infrastructure protection programs. They should certainly be explored though the items listed above should clearly be addressed.  If we are going to demand that DHS continue to improve and evolve in its efforts to protect America, then Congress must do its part to assure the agency is well-organized and armed with the right tools.

             Representative Harold “Hal” Rogers (R-Kentucky).  Picture by the Associated Press

Earlier this week the House Republican Steering Committee and House Republican Conference tapped Harold “Hal” Rogers as the next Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.  Selection of the senior member of Kentucky’s House delegation was greeted by protests from Left and Right.

Mr. Rogers previously served as both chairman and ranking-member of the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.  He also served on the transportation and defense appropriations subcommittees. (See his official biography.)

Elected in 1980 to represent one the nation’s most economically challenged congressional districts, Mr. Rogers has been effective directing federal funds to a wide array of local wants and needs.  As such he has been assailed by the Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), New York Times, and others as the “Prince of Pork.”  This accusation headlined most of the news coverage given his pending role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee.  Mr. Rogers has joined other GOP leaders in pledging no-new-earmarks.

Constituting less than .05 percent (half of one percent) of the federal budget I perceive outrage over earmarks to be one of those symptoms that complicate diagnosis and treatment of the underlying disease.  In this particular case the pork barrel critiques of Mr. Rogers also obscure his substantive legislative record and specific interest in homeland security.

Full disclosure: from 2005 through 2007 I was Chairman of the Board of a company with a facility in Mr. Rogers congressional district.  As such I often participated in local economic development activities and met with Mr. Rogers or his staff.  During several of these discussions, homeland security was a topic.  While we would not have turned down an earmark sponsored by Mr. Rogers, the company I served did not receive such support. 

From this experience I came away with three strong impressions:

1. Mr. Rogers is an accessible and intelligent man.  He has a particular interest in homeland security and especially in how science and technology can be a force-multiplier.  In my first encounter with the Congressman he quizzed me on homeland security like the former prosecutor he is.  He knows the issues. He understands the complications. He is sophisticated in his strategic approach to homeland security challenges.  He listens.  This personal impression was confirmed by watching him question witnesses in subcommittee hearings. 

2. Mr. Rogers is consistently bipartisan in his approach.  The old saw says there are three parties on Capitol Hill: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators. While Mr. Rogers is certainly conservative in most ways, appropriators tend to be pragmatic and less partisan.   This approach served him well in the Minority, it is likely to mark his return to the Majority and to leadership of the full Appropriations Committee.  Chairing Appropriations has been a long-time personal ambition.  On December 31 he will turn 73.  Mr. Rogers is not looking to squander this opportunity.  Leaving a meaningful legacy is one of the more constructive motivations.

3. Like all members of  Congress and most busy professionals,  Mr. Rogers is — at least in part – a creature of his staff and contacts.  Every staff member I met was smart, competent, and wildly over-worked.  Both on Capitol Hill and back in the District what I observed was a tendency for the most narrowly self-interested people to be the most assertive and effective communicators, proposers, and planners.  On several occasions I saw senior public servants choke and defer when Mr. Rogers or his staff were entirely prepared to listen to alternatives.  In retrospect I was one of a whole host of folks who should have — could have — pushed harder on key issues of homeland security.  My hesitation — our hesitation, or cynicism, or laziness, or disdain — just offers opportunity to others who are more willing and ready claim a Congressman’s attention.

Because homeland security — the mission, not the budget per se – is important to me, I will be glad to see Mr. Rogers become Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.   He is more interested in and better able to meaningfully engage homeland security than any other serious candidate for the leadership role.  

As always in democracies — even those with republican constitutions — the quality of leadership will reflect and largely depend on the quality of those who choose to seriously engage the process.

Last Thursday, September 30, the President reported to Congress on the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Courtesy of the American Federation of Scientists Secrecy News Project, you may now read the report for yourself.   It is a 1.25 megabyte download from: http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/wh-afpak.pdf

I hope we will all give the document substantive consideration, right now a comment on process:  It is reasonable — especially in a republic — for the executive to engage in discreet and confidential conversations with the legislature.  In principle, I have no problem with the practice and, in fact, would prefer to see a more principled pattern of such practice.

In this particular case everyone in the system — White House, Hill, and the Fourth Estate — knew this pdf would eventually be available on the net.  It does not advance confidence in our system for this document to be gamed and made available by a non-governmental source.   Give advance copies to Congress, fine.  But in my judgment this kind of report should have been released by the White House not later than Thursday, October 7.

–+–

Monday, October 11 Update

The AfPak report strikes me as a reasonably accurate and professional account of what is happening and not happening in-theater.   If its Congressional readers learned anything new, they have not been paying attention. (Which again highlights that such reports ought to be provided by the government to the governed in order to facilitate their consent or dissent.) 

The report is operationally focused.  There are strategic implications — and rather clear implications — but they are understated or unstated.

In terms of Pakistan, the reader comes away with a sense that anything anyone might claim as true is  exquisitely precarious.   The political situation is especially surreal.  That this warped reality includes the world’s sixth largest military, nuclear weapons, and arguably the core of world terrorism reinforces the sense that Salvador Dali might be more effective than Richard Holbrooke as our AfPak special representative (and, of course, Dali is dead).

A few recent headlines to further complicate the context:

Pakistan’s nuclear arms push angers America — Pakistan has been secretly accelerating the pace of its nuclear weapons programme, infuriating the US which is trying to cap worldwide stocks of fissile material and improve fraught relations with a fragile ally in the Afghanistan war. (More from the Telegraph)

Non-proliferation: A nuclear exchange — More than 100 cold-war era research reactors run on uranium pure enough to be used in a nuclear weapon. But switching to safer fuel isn’t easy. (More from Nature)

Member of AQ worked at six US nuclear plants  —  A New Jersey man accused of joining Al Qaeda in Yemen spoke openly of militant views while working at American nuclear plants, according to a report by the inspector general of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that proposes tightening personnel security rules. (More from the New York Times and the NRC IG (redactions)) 

           Premonition of Civil War by Salvador Dali

The existing [congressional] standing committees have expertise and decades of experience with the policy problems of which [homeland] security is now a component, and their continued involvement in the development of legislation that affects their traditional jurisdiction is a possibility. Their leverage lies in the legislative process. — Congressional Research Service “Homeland Security: Compendium of Recommendations Relevant to House Committee Organization and Analysis of Considerations for the House, and 109th and 110th Congresses Epilogue;” Updated March 2, 2007, p.58

—————————————

The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress. — 9/11 Commission Report, 2004, p. 421

—————————————

The … diffused and unfocused congressional jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, and homeland security in general, not only imposes extraordinary burdens on the Department, but makes it far more difficult for the Congress to guide the Department’s activities in a consistent and focused way that promotes integration and eliminates programmatic redundancies, and advances implementation of a coherent national homeland security strategy. — “Recommendations of the Select Committee on Homeland Security on Changes to the Rules of the House of Representatives with Respect to Homeland Security Issues” 2004, pp. 1-2.

—————————————

Currently, nearly 90 congressional committees and subcommittees oversee [DHS]. With this many overseers, on a given day, there is a good chance that someone at DHS is being asked to testify before at least one of them. — Michael Chertoff, “Homeland Security: Assessing the First Five Years,” 2009, p. 182.

—————————————

DHS … answers to eighty-six committees or subcommittees…. I suppose we should have been flattered by all the attention DHS and its components received from Congress. Certainly, we broke the modern record — and perhaps all records — for the number of times people in leadership positions of a federal department were cordially invited to take their seats in front of an array of senators or representatives, pour glasses of water, clear their throats, and testify. Tom Ridge, “The Test of Our Times, 2009, p. 259.

—————————————

In the 110th Congress, 108 committees and subcommittees [oversaw] the Department of Homeland Security.

—————————————

“Do you know who made you?”

“Nobody, as I knows on,” said the child, with a short laugh.

The idea appeared to amuse her considerably; for her eyes twinkled, and she added,

“I spect I grow’d. Don’t think nobody never made me.”

Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, 1852, Chapter 20

Three announcements came out of the White House on Monday, the combination of which got me thinking, “What exactly are we protecting?” As depressing as this thought seemed, I managed to find one item of news heartening enough to give me hope that things might improve even if they keep getting worse.

First, President Obama, speaking in Austin, Texas, responded to growing concern about the decline in American competitiveness marked by the number of people graduating (or not) from its institutions of higher education. His speech announced no new policy initiatives. He did, however, highlight several programs launched earlier as evidence of his efforts to prepare students for success in the workplace. These include the Race-to-the-Top K-12 funding competition launched by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, which asks states to throw under-performing schools and their faculties under the bus to qualify for federal financial assistance. Reforms to student loans, Pell Grant rules and college tax credits for working families were also cited as efforts to improve academic performance and economic competitiveness.

Later in the day, I received a request from President himself on my Facebook wall asking me to contact my representatives in Congress to let them know I wanted the Republicans to stop blocking progress on the jobs bill passed by the Senate on August 5, which helps states cover the costs of Medicaid and funds the salaries of police, firefighters and teachers. As Nobel-laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out in his Monday column, state and local governments have slashed spending since the beginning of the recession. Few areas of local service have been held harmless from furloughs, layoffs and service cuts. Public safety services were among the last to suffer serious budget cutbacks, but few communities can afford to maintain that position these days since local tax revenues always lag any recovery and the signs of such a rebound are weak at best.

Then, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he is taking drastic steps to reduce military spending by as much as $100 billion over the next five years by eliminating one major command, freezing senior uniformed and civilian executive appointments and curtailing spending on contractors. It should come as no surprise that Gates is interested in a strategic reassessment of our defense investment profile with the U.S. struggling to “win” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously countering threats posed by unstable regimes in Iran and North Korea despite spending what some estimates say is almost as much of its wealth on defense as all other nations combined.

Few areas of state and local government performance are harder to measure than public safety. At the same time, like defense these services have become all but sacrosanct, especially since 9/11 and the fear it provoked took hold of our society. Even those who were not moved by the threat of terrorism seemed moved enough by the sacrifices made by the men and women of New York’s emergency services to support their brothers and sister in blue elsewhere. Measuring educational outcomes using test scores, graduation rates and other objective measures has proven controversial even among those who do not consider the task all that difficult. After all, how can we truly assess the value of knowledge? Similar problems plague our assessment of efficiencies in national defense. What price can we put on our national security?

Sadly, the answer to this last question is all too clear. Our investments in government expenditures aimed at protecting us have only helped make us more vulnerable. Unlike investments in education and basic infrastructure, money invested in defense and protective services produces a very small multiplier. Even if you do not consider those who receive government salaries for delivering these services “special interests,” you would find it hard to come up with a convincing argument that these expenditures stimulate creativity, innovation or productivity in the broader economy that enhances national competitiveness. On the contrary, efforts to leverage defense spending to reduce our balance of payments deficit by exporting military technology put weapons and tactical capabilities in the hands of others who wreaked havoc in regions we consider key to our national security interests while arming those who now have become our adversaries.

Imagine how differently things might have turned out if we had invested only fraction of the money squandered on arming other nations and ourselves educating our own people and those in the countries we sought to liberate. Greg Mortensen has wondered just this. His book Three Cups of Tea has become required reading in some commands as our troops on the ground wonder how to defeat insurgents. If they follow Mortensen’s advice, this will involve building schools and educating women to develop their capacity to participate fully in shaping the future of their societies.

I know these are not either/or choices. We must spend on both defense and development. Judging by the quantum spent on security and defense compared to other programs though one might reasonably wonder what we aspire to in America. Are we a people who live in hope of a brighter, better tomorrow. Or have we been overtaken by a sense of impending doom, convinced that we are slowly sliding toward moral, cultural or environmental oblivion?

Amidst all this bad (or least not so good) news, I was heartened by one new item over the past couple of days. It seems researchers have confirmed what some might consider counter-intuitive: It seems those who identify themselves as being of lower socio-economic status are considerably more generous than those who think of themselves as better off. Researchers suggested this might be due in some small part to the fact that those who consider themselves poor are more likely to identify with those in need.

I suppose that finding should give us at least some small hope in the event the economy does not improve soon. Maybe with less to share we’ll be more willing to spread it around a bit if only so we won’t have to watch each other suffer.

I would like to believe though that we can become more compassionate and caring without suffering greater economic hardship in the short-term. But doing so will require us to rethink what we are doing and how we are going about it. For most of the post-war period, we have employed strategies consistent with a male-dominated worldview that takes an aggressive posture toward protection. Maybe it’s time we tried a more female-friendly, nurturing approach to protecting our interests? We can start simply enough by investing in the future of the world’s children and their mothers.

P.S.: It seems the former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary and University of California professor Robert Reich seems to have been thinking similar thoughts today; read his blog post at RobertReich.org.

Yesterday was a fine day for watching national homeland security leaders.

The day started (for me) watching the House Committee on Homeland Security hearings: “Flight 253: Learning Lessons from an Averted Tragedy.”

It ended with President Obama’s State of the Union talk.

The hearings were nominally about “what happened on December 25th on Northwest Flight 253, how it happened, and what can be done to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

But it was also a display of the multiple varieties of leadership that fills some of the homeland security ecosystem.

Democrats and Republicans complained about Secretary Napolitano’s absence from the hearings.

Her representative, Jane Holl Lute, Deputy Secretary of DHS, stayed forcefully and persistently on the “layers of security” message.

Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management at the Department of State, leaned into the microphone smoothly, but a tad unctuously, assuring everyone that improvements had been made since Christmas.

Michael E. Leiter, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), seemed impatient to get back to work, instead of spending  three hours in a meeting that could have been finished in maybe 30 minutes .

Chairman Bennie G. Thompson and ranking member Peter T. King showed different ways to lead — one conducted like he was directing an orchestra; the other barked.

Peter DeFazio, a democrat, praised the former leader of TSA, Kip Hawley, and complained about a “wacko republican” who believes unionizing TSA employees will threaten national security.

Paul Broun, a republican, said Napolitano should resign and be replaced by “someone who’s not in LaLa land.”

Candice Miller reminded people that Attorney General Eric Holder helped defend Guantanomo terrorists, and for free.

Bill Pascrell pointed out this was the 4th congressional hearing held on essentially the same topic.  He claimed the bureaucracy — especially in the intelligence community — is as great a threat to national security as anyone else.  Intelligence is a bureaucratic nightmare, he said, no one’s accountable.  “That’s why we create bureaucracies.”

Sheila Jackson-Lee, Daniel Lungren, Al Green, Pete Olson, Yvette Clarke, Dina Titus, Mary Jo Kilroy, Charles Dent, Christopher Carney, Michael McCaul, Emanuel Cleaver, Mark Souder, Mike Rogers, and Jane Harman all took a brief turn channeling the voice of the American people, or at least the voices they hear.

They spoke about controlling and sharing intelligence, whether anyone was disciplined for the December 25th incident (not yet), what the State Department does, the role of the NCTC, Miranda rights for the attacker, “preparing, not scaring” the public, “the part of the system that did work was the aware public on Flight 253,” how to revoke a visa, using dogs that can smell “the vapor wake” when someone walks past, the fiscal obligations of other nations to assist us, continuing vulnerabilities, whether NCTC has the money, people and authority it needs (no), new and improved technology, are Custom agents trained to interrogate terrorists, we’ve tried terrorists before in criminal court and it worked out ok, how to avoid political correctness, how to build a system that will be able to detect an adaptive enemy that tomorrow might show up as a blond Anglo Saxon, and whether anything could be done to make sure Congressman John Lewis is not always getting hit by secondary screening.

I’m not sure what I learned about homeland security leadership watching the hearings.  But it did strike me that the representatives are as pressed for time, and their cognitive bandwidth as compressed, as everyone else in the complexity that is the homeland security enterprise.

I’m not sure I know what the country wants or expects from its homeland security leaders.

“Do the best you can,” one of the congressman said.  Anything less is unacceptable.

I think that’s what all the people at the hearing were doing: the best they could.

Obama outlined his idea about the best we can do toward the end of his speech:

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I’m not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who’s tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and for the world.

All in all — amidst symbol, stupidity, caring, tediousness, anger, posturing, thinking, reacting, recommitting, hoping –  it was a pretty good day for bananafish.

——————

UPDATE

J.D. Salinger, 91, Is Dead

It was a bizarre coincidence.

Last night I used J.D. Salinger’s “A Fine Day For Bananafish” (later published as a “Perfect Day for Bananafish”) indirectly, as a broad theme for the post.  I hadn’t thought about Salinger or Bananafish for maybe a decade.  Not sure why I thought about him last night.

Around 11 AM Pacific time today (January 28th), I learned J.D. Salinger died in his New Hampshire home.

I had nothing to do with his death.

I hope no one criticizes the New Hampshire authorities  for failing to connect the dots.

Monday’s New York Times featured an article by William J. Broad on renewed collaboration between U.S. intelligence agencies and climate change scientists. Efforts to exchange arctic surveillance photos and other data for improved understanding of the national security impacts of climate change seem eminently sensible.  (See also the CIA press release on the opening of the Center for Climate Change and National Security.)

Why then do some overseers in Congress, like Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso object to the idea? Well, for starters, they got their way on this question for the past eight years while President George W. Bush and former Wyoming Congressman, Halliburton CEO, and Vice President Dick Cheney were in office. The recently restarted program known as Medea – Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis – was suspended on their watch.

Economic, social, and political instability in oil-rich Muslim nations is among the biggest potential national security challenges presented by global climate change. At the same time, growing concern about the impacts of ice melt and habitat loss on northern climes and their fragile ecosystems has influenced the debate on drilling and exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other remote regions.

The circumstances attending such instability strike most of us as particularly bad news. But that is not the case for those with a vested interest in America’s energy addiction. Enabling instability suits them just fine. Driving up the price of energy makes exploration in previously unthinkable places more attractive and indeed competitive. Defense contractors benefit from our sense of insecurity and our desire to arm our enemies’ enemies.

The U.S. government, on the other hand, gains very little from these exchanges. We face a world in which the effects of climate change drive up the costs of combating terrorism while fueling the cause of extremists seeking to recruit and convert new radicals.

But as Broad’s article makes clear, not all of the consequences of climate change, at least in the arctic region, should strike opponents of this renewed collaboration as negative. Barring international agreements or other new regulations, melting sea ice will facilitate navigation and open access to previously untapped fish stocks and mineral reserves.

According to sources quoted in the article, the fiscal impacts of this program are negligible. U.S. spy agencies maintain extensive sensor networks that produce a very detailed picture of conditions in the arctic region where the effects of climate change have already become quite apparent. The scientists with whom intelligence agencies work receive degraded imagery and must hold appropriate security clearances. In exchange, they aid the country in achieving a better understanding of the world in which we and our children will live.

For once, by bringing our spies in from the cold, it seems we might just be fighting the next war instead of the last one. The next question we must ask ourselves is what we will do with the new information produced by this partnership and the insights it yields.

More information on national security and climate change is available from these sources:

CNA Analysis & Solutions

Council on Foreign Relations

Pew Center on Global Climate Change

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

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.