Buy Viagra Without Prescription - Trusted Online Pharmacy

Last night I heard from the third "reliable source" in two weeks that a decision has been made to replace the current collection of Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) with much more concise and truly strategic Presidential Statements of Strategy or some other nomenclature to be decided.  I hope these rumors are accurate.  It's the right direction.  Like most previous administrations, the White House was stumbling into the trap of mistaking effective policy  guidance with operational micro-management.  Two of my three sources suggest a senior official finally recognized that this tendency-- among other problems -- is a colossal waste of time. As reported previously, I am a life-long Republican who volunteered on candidate Obama's Homeland Security Advisory Council.  My last assignment was to work with a set of state homeland security leaders to review and suggest a revision strategy for the HSPDs.   I am sure this work has been lost and long forgotten.  Not all the ideas were mine.  Several of the co-authors are now senior administration officials.  I think it is worth retrieving... and in the spirit of transparency promised during the campaign, here is the memo.

A Review of Current Homeland Security Presidential Directives and  Recommendations for Action after January 20, 2009

SECOND DRAFT: December 11, 2008

Statement of the Problem

The twenty-four existing Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) often obscure and complicate the identification and understanding of strategic priorities for Homeland Security. Sources of the Problem 1.    Many of the HSPDs serve an interagency coordination function that has been superseded by creation of the Department of Homeland Security (e.g. enhanced INS and Customs cooperation).   2.    Many of the HSPDs are operational rather than strategic.  Moreover, the operational frameworks set-out may not be well-suited to current and emerging conditions and complicate strategic adaptation.   3.    Taken together the HSPDs give much more attention to response than to prevention, preparedness, or recovery.  Mitigation is seldom considered.   4.    Between the first HSPD in October 2001 to June’s publication of HSPD 24 there is increasing attention to threats other than terrorism.  Beginning with HSPD 5 (February 2003) a goal is articulated to be prepared for all-hazards (or “terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies”). But there is an ongoing threat-orientation as opposed to a risk-orientation.  This is inconsistent with the risk-based foundations of both the existing Homeland Security Strategy and the strategy signaled by President-elect Obama.   5.    There is no significant or sustained attention to resilience and the distinction between catastrophic risk and other risk is implicit at best.  The current collection of HSPDs offers a broad view of the threat horizon, but very little guidance as to strategic priorities along that horizon.   Proposed Approach for Engaging the Problem   The most serious problems with the current HSPDs will be resolved as the new administration releases its own strategic guidance for Homeland Security. The early publication of an explicit White House Homeland Security strategy will be crucial to giving the current HSPDs badly needed strategic context.   But especially because so many HSPDs have considerable operational implications there is a need for diligence in adapting the HSPDs to emerging needs and the new strategy.  Simple abrogation would cause difficult and sometimes unpredictable consequences.    To clarify strategic priorities while avoiding operational discontinuities it is recommended that most current HSPDs be treated in one of three ways:   Affirm and Adapt: Six of the HSPDs focus on strategic goals that are coherent with those communicated by the President-elect during the campaign.  In most of these more-strategic HSPDs modest edits will be needed.  The one exception in this category is HSPD 8 which should be affirmed, but will need substantial adaptation.   Delegate and Revise: Twelve of the HSPDs focus on operational processes that will benefit from review, updating, possible revision, or other actions but should not require a renewed statement of Presidential priority-setting.  Homeland Security Council staff should work with their departmental colleagues to “devolve” these ongoing operational matters to the most effective structures outside the White House. Final devolution may be formalized through Presidential action.   Communicate Strategic Intent of Classified Documents:  This review does not address specific revisions to the six classified HSPDs. Declassified versions of these key statements of policy and strategy should be made available, as is the case with HSPD 4 and HSPD 10.  Given the nation’s risk environment it is critically important that there be substantive understanding across the law enforcement, fire service, public health, emergency management, related disciplines and the private sector regarding core strategic perspectives and goals.   The exception to these three categories is abrogation of HSPD 1.  This document sets out how the Homeland Security Council is organized. This should be replaced.  A draft replacement is attached as an annex to this review. Monday: Specific Recommendations for each HSPD

Viagra, Going over my notes from last week's House hearing on the Flight 253 event, I recalled Deputy DHS Secretary Jane Holl Lute saying DHS was finished with the QHSR, and that it was at the White House for coordination.

I believe next week the Homeland Security Advisory Council is meeting, viagra kopen. Osta viagra,  Perhaps they will be briefed on the Review.

And eventually so will Congress and regular people, Arizona AZ Ariz. . Billig viagra apotek. Buy viagra cheap. Kjøp Discount viagra. New Hampshire NH N.H. . Viagra farmacia a buon mercato. Pharmacie viagra bon marché. Buy viagra. Acheter viagra. Comprar en línea viagra. Nebraska NE Nebr. . Kjøpe billig viagra. Connecticut CT Conn. . Ordering viagra without prescription. Buy cheap viagra. Cheapest viagra online. Tennessee TN Tenn. . Viagra prices. Buy viagra online legally. Pharmacy viagra. North Dakota ND . Buy generic viagra. αγοράζουν φτηνά viagra.

Similar posts: Buy viagra online. Buy cialis no prescription. Order soma without prescription. Ordering viagra from canada. Buy viagra cheap. Buy diazepam without prescription.
Trackbacks from: Viagra. Viagra. Viagra. Viagra. Viagra. Viagra.

In Early August I wrote Homeland in a Haiku, an entry about the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to better utilize social media and new technologies in its efforts to promote homeland security and preparedness.  I was reminded of that piece this morning as I was reading CQ Homeland Security and came across Matt Korade's story, Technology Makes Crisis Communication More, Not Less, Complicated. Korade writes of the uptick of Tweets from people at Fort Hood, Texas after the shooting attack earlier this month in which Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan allegedly killed 13 people on base and wounded 30 others with a high-powered pistol. The press, unable to get quick information from the government, turned to Twitter and other social media to get information.  Information that, written in the panic, may not have been accurate or complete.  As Korade reports, at a Friday forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute, a panel of experts  discussed how the government faces challenges in crisis communications and how changing media is effecting how we communicate and respond to incidents -  both disaster and terrorist. In the August piece, I noted that DHS, as it migrates to a social networking model, should seriously consider how to harness the power of the people to be advocates for preparedness or to spread information  on such things as evacuations, routes, and safety information. These individuals, after all, have created a mechanism - often trusted among their circle of friends - for spreading information quickly in a manner that outpaces traditional media.  How much more prevalent, for example, is it becoming for a tweet or facebook status update to report a current event before the "breaking news" emails of the traditional news outlets? At the time I took a pass in tackling the challenges by noting that putting together such a system would keep the lawyers at DHS busy for awhile.  I also noted that there would be required some thought on how to counter gossip and panicked responses that might not be completely accurate, the situation that occurred at at Fort Hood.  In thinking about it more thoroughly, the only way to effectively take control of the situation is to become the conveyor of unfettered information in real time.  To gain this control, however, the government would have to lose control - control that is already eroding away in today's "need to know now" landscape. It would require a change in how the government, especially law enforcement, communicates with the public.  In an incident that involves quick response, the responders should be most concerned about the safety and security around the incident, rather than tweeting and updating.  If that incident is determined to be a crime, then revealing tons of details could be detrimental to an investigation, taint evidence, and potentially harm prosecutorial efforts down the line.  That said, it may be time to reconsider how information is released.  Obviously, the controlled press conferences of the past do not satisfy today's needs. Indeed, the use of social media to send out alerts was recently recommended by the Homeland Security Advisory Council in its recent assessment of the effectiveness of the color-coded system.  In its final report, the HSAC states: # 14   Since 9/11, a revolution has upended media and communications; the Homeland Security Advisory System should stay current with the communications revolution and adopt an "all tools" approach in reaching the general public. In addition to conventional media, this approach should encompass:

• New media generally (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Wikis, etc.)
• Bloggers
• Social media
• Delivery through PDAs
• Public sign up for online/PDA alerts

Quite simply, if there was a mechanism for the government or official entity to tweet and update more effectively and accurately it could supplant some of the more viral inaccurate communications out there. (Obviously, it is is never that simple).  To do so successfully, the government should enlist the private sector to help.  The Silicon Valley companies that helped create the social networking phenomenon "get" it and could be a great resource, as could the companies who have created on-demand response and communications systems. Some of these are already being utilized but a more comprehensive approach to building out a system or systems is in order.

For the next month -- and no more --  I will focus my thrice-weekly posts (and perhaps some weekend bits) on how resilience might serve as an effective, long-term homeland security strategy. This will be an exercise in serialized strategizing.  You are invited to contribute and critique the work-in-progress.  I expect -- even hope -- to find myself going down intellectual blind alleys and ending up in logical box canyons.  This is the value of writing and thinking out-loud. It is often said that journalism is history's first draft.  If so, blogging is a rough draft.  To save time and effort -- and to more fully invite your contributions -- I will not do much refining as we go along.  If we end up with something worthwhile at the end, then we can attend to tightening and polishing.  There is a ton of worthwhile source material for this effort.  But whatever I produce in the next thirty days will be especially influenced by the following:

The original 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security.  There are always quibbles, but I thought Richard Falkenrath (principally) did the nation a substantive service in bringing this together.  I am much more critical of the 2007 update.  Even if you disagreed with the original, there was something coherent with which to disagree.  The update goes every which way. 

Beginning in February 2008 I worked with the Obama Homeland Security advisory council and several state and local leaders to draft a new homeland security strategy.  The campaign never took formal action on the full proposal (some portions ended up in speeches and such).  After the election I worked with a few others to produce a thirty-one page working draft of what emerged during the campaign ( linked here).

Our exchanges on resilience here at The Watch will inform whatever is produced in the next month.  There are several posts-with-comments on which I will draw.

Mr. Brennan comes to dinner (June 4)

Fundamentals of Resilience in Brief  (July 14)

Resilience as public policy: Moving from the individualistic to the systematic (July 19)

Choosing  the Cusp of Chaos (August 14)

The Case for Resilience (September 11)

Preparedness, Readiness, and Resilience (September 27)

Does Resilience have a fairy god-mother? (October 2)

Resilience and the Commons (October 12)

As a model for our ultimate product we will follow George Kennan's Long Telegram.  Written early in 1946, this 2000 word analysis and set of recommendations had a signal influence on US Cold War strategy.  I am unlikely to achieve such cogency, but can aspire to it. These twelve or so posts will be a long swan-song or --  given the extended character -- a Wagnerian final aria.  Before Thanksgiving the fat lady will finish singing and I will hand-over The Watch to others. My greatest regret regarding The Watch has been the very few occasions for real dialogue.  I am sure this mostly reflects my own style of writing.  I am inclined to obscure references, complicated metaphors, and premature pronouncements.   In these last few weeks, I will try to avoid these off-putting behaviors. I expect to share uncertainty and lack of resolution.  I especially welcome your critical, questioning, and constructive contributions to seeking resolution.  If this remains a mostly personal product, it will not have much value. It will also not have much value if I blog my opinion and others respond with their opinions.  That is, sadly, what mostly happened with public contributions to the QHSR... and what characterizes the vast majority of blogging.  Real dialogue requires a vital mix of humility and courage, restraint and generosity, listening and engaging what is heard. (How's that for a pronouncement?) If something strategically coherent emerges from a very public process of reasoning together... well, that would be news in itself.

  Important developments this week to which HLSwatch had hoped to give more attention: On Tuesday Craig Fugate testified on FEMA's FY2010 Budget.  Documentation and a video of the House Appropriations Committee hearing is available online.  The Administrator's prepared remarks give particular attention to intergovernmental and public-private collaboration. "FEMA will work even more closely with our partners in other federal agencies, states, territories, tribal nations, local governments, first responders, voluntary organizations, business, industry, and individuals. Included among these will be key partners who, though often critical to an effective response at the local level, are often on the outside looking in during response planning: local charitable organizations and health care delivery organizations. We need to ensure that these critical grassroots organizations are effectively integrated into our response planning and strategies." The New York Times reported that FEMA  officials, "are struggling to calculate the fiscal impact that climate change could have on the nation's troubled public flood insurance program, amid predictions of intensifying downpours and more potent hurricanes. The mission is proving extremely difficult, according to one researcher, who said the effort so far has failed to reveal even 'squishy assumptions'." Drug (war)lords continue their fight against the Mexican government.  Shoot-outs involved scores of fighters in Durango, Mexico's third largest city, and Acapulco, perhaps its best known tourist destination. According to AFP, "US border czar Alan Bersin warned Mexico's brutal drug cartels Tuesday that threats to target law enforcement officials on both sides of the border would be met by a 'significant response.'  Bersin said a recent call by one cartel kingpin to ramp up violence against US and Mexican law enforcement agents was potentially of 'grave significance' and was being 'taken seriously' by the administration. The cartel's threat to US law enforcement is of particular concern given the deep roots of the criminal gangs in the United States.  The Department of Justice estimates Mexican drug organizations operate in 230 US cities. DHS and the Justice Department  have announced further plans for curtailing drug transport along the Southern Border.  ABC News explains, "The new strategy aims to combat these cartels by establishing new channels of communication between involved agencies and utilizing new personnel and technologies to expand the amount of information available. It includes a call for increased prosecutorial and disruptive efforts, including the assignment of attorneys from the Department of Justice's Violent Crime and Gang Unit to the southwest border and additional resources for the offices of southwest U.S. Attorneys." (More from the Washington Post and you can access the complete Counternarcotics plan from the White House website.) Important judicial proceedings this week included the conviction of Syed Haris Ahmed, a former Georgia Tech student,  in Atlanta.  The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, the so-called "Law Lords," largely rejected the use of secret evidence in the trials of suspected terrorists.  According Deutsche Welle, "Four suspected Islamist militants on trial for plotting to kill Americans in Germany have told a Duesseldorf court they are prepared to confess." Jane Harman, Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment  of the House Homeland Security Committee, has proposed legislation to close down the National Applications Office. A Senate hearing was held Wednesday on the nomination of Dr. Tara O'Toole to serve as DHS Under Secretary of Science and Technology.  Some have criticized Dr. O'Toole as an "alarmist" regarding bio-terrorist threats. (More from HSToday.) But despite some sustained questioning by Senators, confirmation still seems likely. FEMA has extended its comment period on Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants. Last week HLSwatch reported on the appointment of a new Homeland Security Advisory Council.  Since then considerable attention has been given the -- admittedly unusual -- pick of Jeff Moss, a well-known hacker.  Less has been said about other appointees, including the Governors of Maryland and Georgia, the mayor of Miami, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, the Police Commissioner of the City of New York, President of the Navajo Nation, and several other public and private senior executives. Much has been said about more actively seeking the counsel of State, local, tribal, and private sector leaders.  HSAC members have the experience and political weight to provide very meaningful advice.  What is worth watching is whether or not these senior leaders will make the sustained investment of time and energy that is necessary to be more than a typical blue ribbon panel. Of course there was even more -- much, much more -- and if you consider something worth immediate consideration or ongoing coverage, please add your issues using the comment function.

Following are a few Homeland Security events for the coming week.  For more information  access the embedded links.  Please use the comment function to identify other events you would like to bring to readers’ attention.  If you are attending or monitoring any of these events, please use the comment function to report out to the rest of us. Monday, June 8 5:00 pm (eastern) Washington D.C. House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security will meet to mark-up the FY2010 DHS appropriations bill. 2:00 pm (eastern) Washington D.C.  Brookings Institution hosts a status report on the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 3:00 pm (eastern) Washington D.C. Woodrow Wilson International Center hosts a panel discussion on US-Mexican relations. Tuesday, June 9 2009 Urban Area Security Initiative Conference opens in Charlotte, North Carolina and continues through Thursday. Governors' Homeland Security Advisory Council meets in Arlington, Virginia. 10:00 am (eastern) Washington D.C. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications Preparedness and Response will hold a hearing on the 2010 FEMA budget. 2:00 pm (eastern) Washington D.C.House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology will hold a hearing on the 2010 DHS budget. Wednesday, June 10 10:00 am (eastern) Washington D.C. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing to consider two DHS nominations. 2:00 pm (eastern) Washington D.C. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection will hold a hearing on the 2010 DHS budget.  (Appears on DHS schedule but not Committee schedule, worth re-confirming.) Thursday, June 11 10:00 am (eastern) Washington D.C. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism will hold a hearing on the 2010 DHS budget. Friday, June 12 3:00 pm (eastern) Washington D.C. Center for Strategic and International Studies hosts a review and discussion on cybersecurity with Melissa Hathaway.

Later this morning Secretary Napolitano will meet with the new Homeland Security Advisory Council in Albuquerque (10:00 mountain).  The PSD-1 recommendations include "enhancing" the role and influence of advisory councils as a way of better ensuring the involvement of State, local, tribal, and private-sector leaders in policy-making.  You can follow the meeting via a new social media tool being deployed by DHS at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nmspirg-hsac Yesterday the Associated Press reported, "The Obama administration's pick for a top intelligence post at the Homeland Security Department has ties to the CIA's harsh interrogation program, a congressional aide said. This could become an issue during Philip Mudd's confirmation hearing, which is expected next week. Mudd was nominated to be under secretary of intelligence and analysis at Homeland Security." While yours truly, in particular, has been obsessing about resilience, other issues relevant to Homeland Security have certainly been popping.  In Case of Emergency, Read Blog is a good complement to HLSwatch.  This week the coverage there includes an exclusive look at Mike Chertoff's new book. Among  several other matters not covered since May 26 is the nomination hearing of Rand Beers as DHS Under Secretary for National Preparedness and Protection.  I appreciate William R. Cumming asking about it.  The hearing was conducted on June 2.  The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has an archived video of the 105 minute hearing. Prepared statements and testimony are also available for review. Chairman Lieberman gave notice that his priorities for the NPPD include, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, target hardening, visa policy and enforcement, and chemical security.  I heard -- or recognized -- no surprises in the testimony or inquiries.  Toward the middle of the hearing, Mr. Beers explained that, without a statutory reorganization, he will -- when confirmed -- be "in charge" of all DHS cybersecurity operations, as has been reported elsewhere.

The President's statement on the creation of the new National Security Staff references standing up a White House Resilience Policy Directorate.  In their remarks at the Homeland Security Policy Institute the co-chairs of the PSD-1 study identified this Directorate as a potential "center of gravity" for state, local, tribal, and private-sector involvement in homeland security policy. Next week -- and perhaps for a few weeks -- I hope we can give this concept some sustained attention and discussion.  In his HSPI comments Randy Beardsworth, one of the study's co-chairs,  applied an architectural metaphor.   Adapting the metaphor to my purposes, the President's decision has initiated building of  a new policymaking structure.  The President's decision and the PSD-1 Review have identified several functional requirements for the the new structure and offer a rough rendering of an architectural concept for the final structure. The actual form of the structure is far from finalized.  There are no detailed blueprints.  But the carpenters are on site and at work even this weekend.  You and I -- and our neighbors -- will reside in whatever structure emerges.   The next few weeks will be the best opportunity we have for offering our thoughts on how the structure is built-out.  I expect the property developers (John Brennan, General Jones, President Obama, et al) might  appreciate some principled, practical, and considered advice.  They clearly listened during the PSD-1 study, they are likely to continue listening if we write with some clarity and insight. The advice most likely to be considered will reflect the goals set out by the President and reflect prior discussions that produced the current architectural concept.  For this purpose here is a reading list.   Please review: Presidential Study Directive 1 The President's statement on creation of the National Security Staff. Listen to and watch the PSD-1 briefing at the Homeland Security Policy Institute. The Homeland Security Advisory Council report on Critical Infrastructure and the HSAC's report on the Top Ten Challenges, giving particular attention to Challenge 7 focused on resilience. Steve Flynn's Foreign Affairs piece (or book) on resilience. The Reform Institute's report on Building a Resilient Nation. The House Homeland Security Committee's collection of testimony on resilience: May 6, 2008, May 7, 2008, May 14, 2008, and  May 15, 2008. The National Preparedness Leadership Initiative at Harvard has also explored the key role of leadership -- and especially meta-leadership -- in the emergence of resilient capabilities and capacity.  Please use the comment function to add to this reading list. Below Chris Bellavita thinks out loud about how we create the future.  He does not say so, but I will add that too often destructive cynicism is mistaken for intelligent commentary.  Analysis -- the breaking apart of knowledge --  can be a first step in the creation of new knowledge.  But analysis alone is deadening.  Analysis should be the servant of creativity.  Please read Chris' piece on the value of imagination and appreciative inquiry.  I hope our consideration of resilience -- and the new policymaking structure -- will feature analysis, appreciative inquiry, imagination, and creativity.

I’ve covered the work of the DHS Essential Technology Task Force here and here, and yesterday the ETTF reported out its final recommendations to the Secretary during the public portion of the HSAC’s bi-annual meeting with the Secretary. The Secretary of Homeland Security tasked the Homeland Security Advisory Council with establishing an Essential Technologies Task Force (ETTF) to address the following questions: • What are the legal, financial and operational issues that must be understood to assess whether and to what extent DHS should acquire various types of technology on a service or lease basis, rather than as a purchase/capital investment? • What types of technology might be considered as candidates for different approaches? • What types of financial arrangements would the private sector likely be prepared to accept, and how should DHS assess the pros and cons of each? IBM’s Scott Gould and I were among those invited to testify before the Task Force. On the two occasions that I presented to them, my testimony focused on key attributes of successful technology acquisition from other parts of the USG, as well as opportunities for DHS to collaborate with international partners for joint technology development, the models for which reside at the EU, NATO, and elsewhere. Both Scott and I made the point that without an overarching framework to guide a Department-wide acquisition strategy, little progress is likely. Scott actually recommended using the Global Movement Management framework as a model, which the Task Force chose to include as a specific example in their final report. That report described in detail the following seven top-level recommendations: 1. Build a high performance acquisitions and program management function implemented by capable staff. 2. Adopt a rigorous Department-wide requirements management process. 3. Develop a Department-wide acquisition strategy with a clear implementation plan. 4. Improve engagement with the private sector. 5. Manage innovation though a variety of approaches. 6. Use the regulatory and standards setting role of DHS to generate economies of scale across stakeholder domains. 7. Continue to advocate for the reduction of homeland security Congressional committees. The Secretary stayed only to delivery praise to the Task Force and swear in three new members to the HSAC. He left before ETTF chairman George Vradenburg delivered his presentation on the Task Force’s findings. This is unfortunate. The ETTF is another example of how the HSAC is becoming a more focused and more useful advisory entity to the DHS leadership. Kudos to Chuck Adams and Amanda Rittenhouse for their tireless efforts over the last several months in leading the Task Force’s staff team. Before he left, Chertoff charged the HSAC membership with one more task: “What are the ten tasks for the next Administration to take up and accomplish over its first year or two?” It seemed odd to charge this group with something so trite. However, he explained, rightly, that it is important that efforts be made to preserve the institutional knowledge of the Department into and through its first ever Presidential transition. I'd like to know what you think should make the top ten list. Comment below.

The Senate’s version of the FY 2009 spending bill to fund DHS actually provides less funding for the Office of Policy than the Bush Administration requested. The Policy Office was created after Secretary Chertoff came to office as part of his Second Stage Review. Most everyone welcomed the move as only overdue. Today, the Policy Office is a cross-cutting entity operating out of the Office of the Secretary with portfolios such as Policy Development, Strategic Plans, International Relations, Immigration Statistics, and Private Sector engagement, and it houses the Homeland Security Advisory Council. It is a critical Department function that may someday serve as vital a role as its counterpart at the Defense Department. Like DoD, DHS now creates a strategic assessment of its policies, plans, priorities, and goals for a four-year window. The Pentagon calls it the Quadrennial Defense Review, and DHS is now at work on its first ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. The QDR is an influential document that benefits from senior leadership buy-in, Congressional support, and sweat from across the Defense community. The QHSR is off to a rough start. The FY08 appropriations act funded the QHSR with only $1,500,000. (An additional $150,000 was assigned to the CFO’s office to support the QHSR.) Nearly all of that funding is being spent on contractor support to help the Office of Policy write the QHSR. The current Senate FY09 bill takes DHS to task for this:

The [Senate] Committee [on Appropriations] is concerned that almost the entire request of $1,500,000 for the QHSR is for contractor support even though many of the functions intended for contractors are inherently governmental. Contracting out the job of long-term planning and goal setting undermines the mission and purpose of this Department. Requiring agencies to work together to develop long-term goals was one of the intended benefits of the creation of the Department. Therefore, funds for contractor support shall only be used for administrative and clerical tasks in support of the QHSR.

The Committee is right to be concerned about outsourcing such a critical initiative as the first QHSR. However, blame can be shared. The Defense Department QDR is funded at nearly 10x the amount given to DHS, and the Pentagon leadership is heavily invested in supporting the QDR drafting process with staff from across the services and the civilian leadership. The DHS Policy Office is being given a pittance to perform this QHSR the right way, but the Policy Office is also not supported by the DHS leadership sufficiently to gain the DHS-wide support necessary to staff it up. In my meetings with Chertoff this year I’ve asked about the QHSR nearly every time. His response indicates a downplayed priority. It could be because the QHSR will benefit the next Administration more than the current one, but the process needs to be institutionalized and supported for the long-term success of the Department. Let’s hope that over the course of the appropriations negotiations we see an elevated profile – as well as higher funding – for the QHSR initiative.

Yesterday IBM and GW’s Homeland Security Policy Institute convened a panel event and discussion entitled “Technology in Homeland Security: A Double-Edged Sword.” Brad Buswell, Deputy Under Secretary for S&T at DHS kicked it off with a presentation on how his directorate views the technology landscape, with a focus on not falling victim to the “failure of imagination” the 9/11 Commission blamed as one of the reasons the 9/1 attacks were not disrupted. This notion caused a number of us to ask about the practical limits on such an approach to technology. Specifically, how to insure against spending money on an “anything’s possible” mentality that invests in countermeasures against any threat imaginable? Buswell explained that White House guidance, Department level plans, and input from the customer community (the component agencies at DHS) helps bound the imagination. Jan Lane stepped in for Frank Cilluffo to moderate Busewell's presentation and Q&A and I joined the panel as moderator and occasional referee. Frank was able to join toward the latter half and weigh in on the issues. Our panelists provided a diverse treatment of this challenging topic. Parney Albright, former DHS Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, and now Managing Director & Vice Chairman at Civitas, weighed in on the challenges confronting the innovators on the business side of the equation who seek to take pre-prototype solutions to market and how that shapes the spectrum of technology solutions deployed at the state level. Christian Beckner, Professional Staff Member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, explained some of the rough patches still preventing a more accelerated trend in technology as a homeland security advantage, as well as indications of areas of interest from an oversight perspective. (Note that Christian spoke not on behalf of the Committee.) Greg Nojeim, Director of the Project on Freedom, Security, and Technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology offered insightful warnings about the unintended consequences of technology when it is not developed or deployed with privacy protections at the initial stages. He cited such things as the PATRIOT Act and government wire-tapping outside of FISA. Langdon Greenhalgh, CEO of Global Emergency Group, provided the needed perspective of the international emergency response community, which depends to an ever increasing degree on technology as an enabler. I’m working with Jan and Frank to generate an after action report that condenses the highlights of the discussion. Look for it to be available here and possibly on the HSPI website. Over 70 participants attended representing the following, among other, organizations: • DHS, NPPD, IP, HITRAC • DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council • Homeland Security Institute (DHS S&T) • DHS S&T • U.S. Secret Service • Department of State • Department of Energy • The White House • Immigration and Customs Enforcement • Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee • Government Accountability Office • European Union • IBM • Bingham Consulting Group • Northrop Grumman Corporation • Lockheed Martin • Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) • Trade Security Institute • Dutko Worldwide • The Washington Times • USA Today • Swedish Institute of International Affairs • Embassy of El Salvador • Embassy of Switzerland • International Association of Fire Chiefs • Embassy of Australia • International Development Bank • Latin America Working Group • Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) • Partnership for Public Service • Center for Democracy and Technology • MSCL, LLC International Maritime Consultancy • Oxford Analytica, Inc. • American Red Cross • Institute for Regulatory Science

An AP story by Scott Lindlaw sheds some light on how DHS is preparing for its first ever presidential transition. On or about January 20, 2009, DHS will lose its political appointees who will leave when the new president comes to town. Shane Harris at the National Journal put that into perspective with his piece on the impending transition as follows:

According to figures compiled in the quadrennial Plum Book by the Office of Personnel Management, as of September 2004 the 180,000-employee Homeland Security Department had more than 360 politically appointed, noncareer positions. By contrast, the Veterans Affairs Department -- the government's second-largest department, at 235,000 employees -- had only 64. And the Defense Department -- far and away the largest department in the government, at 2.1 million employees, including military and civilian -- counted 283 appointed, noncareer billets. That figure includes political appointees at the Army, Navy, and Air Force. DHS's own reports show that since 2004, it has often added more political positions to its ranks, and more frequently, than other large departments.

Secretary Chertoff told Lindlaw that the department is “working to line up career officials for about 50 key roles” to manage DHS until the next president’s appointees are named and, if necessary, confirmed by the Senate. This could take months, but the new Secretary of Homeland Security is likely to be on a fast track through the Senate. Next month, AP reports, DHS is convening a three-day conference with nearly 200 senior career officials to conduct a table-top exercise in response to a scenario depicting a national-level incident. It is unclear if this effort includes state and local partners, international counterparts, or even officials from other departments (i.e. Defense). In some ways, we are seeing the impact of the work done by the Administration Transition Task Force, organized under the auspices of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, that issued earlier this year its report with basic recommendations for the DHS transition. However, there is still a sense in the Congress that DHS is conducting the transition planning effort behind closed doors. An article in the Wall Street Journal about the effort to convert political appointee positions to career slots in advance of the next election contributed to the Congressional oversight of DHS transition planning. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Secretary Chertoff traded letters in which Thompson requested more information on the DHS plans. In his response, Chertoff declines to provide the laundry list of details requested by the Committee. “In most cases, the transition planning documents are still under development and, in any event, they constitute executive branch materials intended to be shared in the first instance with the incoming administration.” UPDATE: Special thanks to William Cumming for sending in the CRS report released yesterday on "National Security Considerations and Options" related to the 08-09 presidential transition. You can download a copy here. The report outlines critical issues that pertain to five phases of a transition, spanning from the campaign to the inauguration. The report also includes a table of recent military operations occurring during Presidential transitions and a table of Congressional legislation addressing various aspects of national security during Presidential transitions.

This week, the Administration Transition Task Force reported out to Secretary Chertoff and the overall Homeland Security Advisory Council on its recommendations for how the Department leadership can prepare for and manage the first transition for DHS.  Its a rather skeletal report at 9 pages (the remaining 18 pages are appendixes), but it represents the beginning of a very worthwhile process of managing what will surely be a challenging transition. 

 Many people, even the Secretary, are advocating for a depoliticized transition that focuses on the mission.  This report speaks to that with some detail.  Other efforts to manage the HLS transition are underway at the DNDO, the HSC, and even by contractors of DHS (namely the Council on Excellence in Government).

The "Secure Borders Open Doors Advisory Council" -- more easily referred to as the SBODAC -- also reported out.  This report can be downloaded here.  UPDATE: Thanks to reader William Cumming for identifying the related story in today's Washington Post.  Stephen Barr interviews acting Deputy DHS Secretary Paul Schneider about how the Department is gearing up for the transition.  Check out William's comment on this post for more.

DHS has formed a new Task Force under the Advisory Council Act to assess the ways in which the Department of Homeland Security can improve its acquisition of essential technologies. Under the auspices of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, the Essential Technologies Task Force, as it is called, is sponsored mainly by Under Secretary for Management Paul Schneider, TSA Administrator Kip Hawley, and Chief Information Officer Scott Charbo. With very explicit terms of reference, and a very short amount of time to do its work, this may be one of the better run advisory councils yet for DHS. The topics under discussion ranged into critical areas of strategy, process, and leadership during the Task Force's first hearing this past Thursday. Both Scott Gould, VP of Strategy & Change at IBM Public Sector, and I were invited to testify before the Task Force to address a number of issues we believe ought to inform the process of improving DHS decision making in this area, as well as a number of options for immediate, near term, and long term improvements to DHS technology acquisition. The hearing was closed and so I’ll refrain from uploading our comments here or those of others who appeared before the panel. However, the Task Force’s final report will be made public. Following are the members of the Essential Technologies Task Force for DHS.

George A. Vradenburg III, President, Vradenberg Foundation - Chairman

Joseph White, CEO, American Red Cross, St. Luis MO - Co-Vice Chair

John L. Skolds, President, Exelon Energy Delivery and Exelon Generation - Co-Vice Chair

Dr. Richard Andrews, Senior Director, National Center for Crisis and Continuity Coordination

Nelson Balido, President and CEO, Balido &Associates

Elliott Broidy, Commissioner, Los Angeles City Fire and Police Pension Fund

Dan Corsentino, Former Sheriff, Pueblo County, Colorado

Dr. Ruth David, President & CEO, Analytic Services, Inc. (Arlington, VA)

Dr. Victoria F. Haynes, President, Research Triangle Institute (Research Triangle, NC)

Phillip E. Keith, Former Chief of the Knoxville Tennessee Police Dept. (Knoxville, TN)

Stephen Payne, President of Worldwide Strategic Partners and Worldwide Strategic Energy

Richard “Rick” Stephens, Senior VP, Human Resources and Admin., The Boeing Company

Dr. Lydia C. Thomas, President and CEO (Ret.), Noblis

David Wallace, Mayor of Sugarland, Texas

Allen Zenowitz, Retired General and FEMA Senior Official

Ex-Officio: Judge William Webster, HSAC Chair, Partner, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP

Ex-Officio: Dr. James Schlesinger, HSAC Vice Chair, Chairman, Board of Trustees, The MITRE Corporation

Must be a slow news week(s) for CQ Homeland Security to take off for about 17 days.  (They are back up on 9/4/07.)  But we’re still watching developments.  I’ve commented here in the past on the work of the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council, which was the President’s Homeland Security Advisory Council until the Department stood up.  Outside advice is nearly always a good thing when it comes to running a bureaucracy of ~185,000 people.  The added challenge for the HSAC is that the subject of homeland security is so frustratingly broad it is difficult to populate an advisory council with individuals representing the needed specialties while still expecting a group of people with little in common to work together.  The HSAC is ironing that out.  They have the following subgroups: 

• Academe, Policy & Research Senior Advisory Committee
• Emergency Responder Senior Advisory Committee
• Private Sector Senior Advisory Committee
• Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee (focused on the Rice-Chertoff Initiative)
• State and Local Officials Senior Advisory Committee

They’ve also established a working group focused on the mission of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.  The DNDO leadership has so far been very forward leaning in seeking outside counsel.  There are at least three groups focused on this challenge of combating smuggled nuclear weapons.  Yesterday, Secretary Chertoff announced the appointment of three new members to the HSAC and ten new members to the subcommittees.  The three new members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:  County Supervisor Don Knabe will serve as the chairman of the State and Local Officials Senior Advisory Committee. Supervisor Knabe was first elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in November 1996. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Knabe to the California Emergency Council.  Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue will be Vice Chairman of the State and Local Officials Senior Advisory Committee. Dr. John “Skip” Williams is the provost and vice president for health affairs; professor of anesthesiology and of health services management and leadership at George Washington University. Dr. Williams previously served as a member of the HSAC’s Emergency Response Senior Advisory Committee.  Skip Williams is also a champion of the Homeland Security Policy Institute that Frank Cilluffo founded at GWU in 2004.  Frank’s already a member of the HSAC.  The three new members of the HSAC’s State and Local Officials Senior Advisory Committee:   Trenton, N.J., Mayor Douglas Palmer is the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the New Jersey Urban Mayor’s Association.   Sugar Land, TX, Mayor David Wallace is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Homeland Security Task Force and also serves as a trustee member of the Executive Committee. IN State Senator Thomas Wyss is chairman of the Homeland Security, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs Committee in the Indiana Senate. Senator Wyss will serve as the organizational representative for the National Conference of State Legislatures.  The two new members of the HSAC’s Private Sector Senior Advisory Committee:  Nelson H. Balido is founder of Balido & Associates, Inc. a public strategies, multicultural marketing, and real estate consulting firm. He worked at SBC Communications (AT&T) as the director of multicultural marketing. In 2003, the governor of Texas appointed Nelson to a six-year term as the commissioner of the Texas Commission on the Arts.  Emily Walker, managing director at Citigroup in London, recently served as business executive advisor to the United Nations World Food Program on loan from Citigroup to set up an emergency network for corporate donations to global disasters. She also served as professional staff member and family liaison for the 9/11 Commission.  The two new members of the HSAC’s Emergency Response Senior Advisory Committee:  Ellis M. Stanley Sr. is the general manager of the City of Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Department. He is past president of the International Association of Emergency Managers, a Certified Emergency Manager, and a member of the National Advisory Board for Harvard University’s National Preparedness Leadership Institute. Joseph White is the CEO of the American Red Cross, St. Louis Area Chapter. Mr. Whitehas deployed on many disaster assignments, including to Baton Rouge and New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Mr. White serves on the National American Red Cross President’s Advisory Council.  The three new members of the HSAC’s Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee: Thomas J. Donohue is president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Donohue served 13 years as president and CEO of the American Trucking Association.  Susan Ginsburg, Esq. is a visiting senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute and private consultant. Ms. Ginsburg served as senior counsel and team leader on the staff of the 9/11 Commission and was responsible for research and policy recommendations concerning the entry of the 9/11 hijackers, terrorist travel, and border controls. Ginsburg worked at Treasury as senior advisor and firearms policy coordinator for the Under Secretary for Enforcement.  Stephen Payne is the president of Worldwide Strategic Partners and Worldwide Strategic Energy.  He is also board member of the National Defense University Foundation and the U.S. Baltic Foundation.

To go with the second installation in this series of posts looking into sections of the conference version of HR1, note the provision establishing a second Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.  A posting here in February detailed a then-newly released report of the Homeland Security Advisory Council on the culture at DHS.  Readers will recall that it included a recommendation for creating another Deputy Secretary, but one for “operations.”  That report made more hay with its comments about a lack of unity among the ranks coinciding with the release of the Federal Human Capital Survey, which placed DHS at the bottom of the list measuring its performance culture.  However, its recommendation for a Deputy Secretary for Operations (DSO) gained enough support in the Congress to find a version of it proposed into law.  Section 1601 of the bill “to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” (read: the 9/11 Bill) creates a second Deputy Secretary for DHS.  This one is charged with a Management portfolio, whereas the HSAC believed a new DepSec was needed to focus on Operations.  There is a significant difference between these two portfolios.  Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the U/S for Management, described it as being responsible for: 

the management and administration of the Department, including the following: (1) The budget, appropriations, expenditures of funds, accounting, and finance. (2) Procurement. (3) Human resources and personnel. (4) Information technology and communications systems. (5) Facilities, property, equipment, and other material resources. (6) Security for personnel, information technology and communications systems, facilities, property, equipment, and other material resources. (7) Identification and tracking of performance measures relating to the responsibilities of the Department. (8) Grants and other assistance management programs. (9) The transition and reorganization process, to ensure an efficient and orderly transfer of functions and personnel to the Department, including the development of a transition plan. (10) The conduct of internal audits and management analyses of the programs and activities of the Department. (11) Any other management duties that the Secretary may designate.

That has to rank among the world’s most difficult jobs.  The language in the 9/11 Bill elevates the current DHS Under Secretary for Management (now Paul Schneider) to a Deputy level that is implicitly junior to the existing Deputy Secretary (now Michael Jackson).  But managing the finances, IT, and facilities just doesn't seem like the role that needs elevating at DHS.  The HSAC proposed a new DSO for specific reasons having little to do with human resource management.  Their report states: 

The DSO would be responsible for creating and/or championing strategic initiatives that reinforce the assumption that all efforts should be about “the Security of the Homeland” – not about the Department of Homeland Security….

Originally, the report made no mention of the U/S for Management.  I was asked to read a draft of the report and made a few very minor suggestions.  One was to cite the role of Management Under Secretariat in order to clarify its relative role, which would be unchanged and junior to the DSO.  The text: 

This [Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Operations] would also be in a position of continuity to help drive organizational maturation and to reinforce the culture required for the long-term success of DHS and its components. The DSO would be selected from candidates with a strong National Security operations background similar to a Chief Operations Officer…. The DSO would also maintain close coordination with the Under Secretary for Management, whose ultimate role would be reinforced by the DSO’s seniority and Department-wide jurisdiction.…

So what will happen to Section 1601?  There is some saving language that might compensate for actually moving the U/S Management into second in line of succession behind the regular DepSec (Sec. 1601(g)(2)).  HR1 actually changes Sec. 701 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to alter the responsibilities of the U/S Management as follows: 

The Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for Management shall serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary on matters related to the management of the Department, including management integration and transformation in support of homeland security operations and programs.

That’s closer to the HSAC's original intent.  However, the HSAC report also stipulated that this new position should be filled by a careerist, as opposed to a political appointee, in order to instill some continuity and overcome some of the politicized nature of the Department’s image.  The HSAC report went a step further by offering this candid assessment of the workforce challenge facing DHS (in 2006): 

Historically and for reasons of urgency it would appear that much of the decision making within the Department’s headquarters has been made by a core group of trusted appointees. … we recommend immediate efforts be undertaken to … identify, select, formally train and empower Government Service personnel throughout the Headquarters to assume positions for a leadership transition period that should be in effect for at least six months on either side of the November 2008 presidential election.

HR1 offers a second nod to the intent of the HSAC recommendations by imposing (albeit with caveats) a five-year term on the position of Deputy Secretary for Management.  That's a valuable detail to gain the continuity value, but the responsibilities of this new DepSec could be made more concrete and relevant to the challenge by adding some of the more strategic roles envisioned by the HSAC.  Perhaps something will change in conference.