Before an assembled audience of invited guests and American Red Cross personnel, DHS Sec. Napolitano rolled out her most definitive description of what American preparedness and resilience should be.  Heralding the successful close of National Preparedness Month 2009, she went to great lengths to stress that preparedness is not just DHS’ job or that of FEMA’s.  Rather it is a “shared responsibility” that every American, community, enterprise and organization are owners of.

Referencing classic as well as current examples of American history to describe the spirit and actions of resilience, Napolitano delivered a number of key points to help frame the content and character of a national resilience strategy.  These included

• We need to leave behind the notion that security is a purely government role and function – it is not. Security is a shared responsibility of public and private sectors which citizens must be engaged.
• Disasters can happen anytime, anywhere and no community is immune from threats or events that cause disruption
• Acts of terrorism occurring in America are a reality we have to learn to live with, prepare for,and plan how to respond.  Terrorism is not just a big-city problem.  It’s every community’s problem.
• A resilient nation does not come from a government run program.  It is a bottom-up approach that involves all.
• America’s history is not written by the tragedies that have occurred to us. Rather its history is written in how we responded to these events and rose from them.  (This had to be my favorite part of her speech.)

While there was nothing controversial about the speech or its contents – it was well written and a thematic homerun in framing the national vision for resilience and preparedness, however, I have to say I was disappointed that there was not more offered in terms of talking about the private sector and its role in national resiliency and preparedness.

While it is true that the words “private sector” were mentioned several times in her remarks and it’s true that they were described as “an important partner” and “public and private sectors need to work together to advance the preparedness and resilience mission,” part of me wanted to hear the Secretary offer more definitive direction to the part of our country in which our economy, technological innovation and future are critically dependent on.

I thought the speech was remarkably vacant on those points and missed the mark when addressing the roles, responsibilities and prescriptive actions our private sector needs to be taking to be resilient and prepared.

I am fully cognizant that a speech like what was offered at the Red Cross can not cover everything in exhaustive detail but with nine months into her position as Secretary, it’s time to start asking, “Where’s the beef?” in terms of guidance to the private sector on these issues.

Since taking office, the Secretary has spoken forcefully, eloquently and exhaustively at every opportunity about the roles of citizens and communities in the building of a more resilient America.  What she has said about those audiences has been right on the money but when it comes to the private sector the words and rhetoric don’t seem to get below the cruising altitude of 37,000 feet.

That has to change if the well-crafted and well-articulated vision that was shared in today’s remarks is to have any meaning and lasting effect.

Maybe it was a conscious decision to avoid getting into specific direction to the private sector.

It has not gone unnoticed by the private sector or homeland security observers that a number of major positions specifically dedicated to the private sector remain vacant (e.g. Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection; Assistant Secretary for the Private Sector; FEMA’s Director for it’s Private Sector Office, etc.).  While these posts are all currently filled with good people performing these duties in an “Acting” capacity, the fact that they remain unfilled by permanent replacements does not help build the confidence or relationships between DHS and the private sector that can help them both succeed in their daunting responsibilities.

Nor has it gone unrecognized that more than two years after the enactment of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, DHS is still trying to figure out what to do about the PS-Prep Program as required by Title IX of the law.

The Secretary and Administration are hitting all the right notes in terms of vision and prescriptive measures for citizens and communities when talking about resilience and preparedness, but it’s time it really started talking to the private sector on these issues beyond the offered rhetoric and platitudes.  It’s time for details because if you’re going to be resilient and prepared – details matter.

By Douglas Doan

The good news is that the Secretary Napolitano is, finally, starting to focus on the growing problem regarding how over a $1 billion of Stimulus funding was quietly diverted from its intended purpose and is being squandered.

Stay tuned to this one: nasty congressional hearings could be just around the corner.  Of course, the oddest part is that while DHS Secretary Napolitano tries to quiet the growing alarms, members of her own department at CBP are busy tossing gasoline onto the fire and seem to be working just as diligently to make the problem even worse.

Let’s do a quick review.   A few days ago on this blog and elsewhere, growing alarms were sounded about the CBP decision to spend nearly all of the $1 billion in Stimulus funding at the smallest Ports of Entry, mostly along the northern border.

The problem, of course, is that our smallest ports of entry feature small numbers of daily crossers, while the larger POEs (San Ysidro, Buffalo, Detroit, and in Southern Texas) are often congested with legitimate trade and travelers as they attempt to cross the border.

These larger POEs feature more than $1 billion in cross border trade each day, so it came as a huge disappointment to border communities to learn that, instead of helping trade and travelers with infrastructure improvements where the needs are greatest, Acting CBP Commissioner Jayson Ahern elected to spend nearly all of the funding to upgrade living conditions for CBP officers serving at POEs that often see less than 20 people crossing the border each day.

To be sure, these small POEs are outdated and the buildings are old.  No doubt the new car parks and other planned improvements are useful.  But the larger point is that President Obama promised the nation that he would use all of the Stimulus funding to help jump start the economy and would specifically focus that funding on long delayed infrastructure projects that would do just that, which, clearly, is not happening.   So now, Secretary Napolitano and the President need to do some explaining about how and why, the spending on POEs is going to low priority, low impact projects.

No doubt, Secretary Napolitano is trying to grip on the problem.  I wish her well.  Perhaps her first effort should be to get a grip on the excuses and the regrettable bureaucratic efforts to find someone to blame for the embarrassment.  Here, I am speaking about a recent attempt by CBP to divert attention and responsibility that was featured in the DHS Leadership Journal.  You can, and should, read the whole sorry thing.

The first whopper that will catch your attention is the assertion that Stimulus funding was provided to “improve security along our borders at our land border ports of entry.”  But, when members of Congress talked about improving the infrastructure at our POEs, it was primarily to alleviate the long lines of stalled traffic, caught in lines of more than 6 hours, as they attempt to cross the border.

In fact, all of the Congressional leaders responsible for pushing POE infrastructure into the giant $787 billion Stimulus funding (Reyes, Filner, Cuellar were especially forceful) did so to help solve congestion problems by building more lanes, bridges, and roads to get stalled trucks and travelers moving more quickly.  Hence, the anger and growing congressional alarm over the CBP decision to divert the funding to projects such as new pistol ranges in isolated locations that few will ever use.

In the Leadership memo, CBP does the typical bureaucratic dance, complete with wild gestures and finger pointing at other federal agencies that they claim are really to blame.  Nothing new there, covering your ass and finding someone else to blame are part of every bureaucrat’s routine.  But, it is still sad to watch.

Unfortunately, CBP misses the much broader and important point.  Americans don’t care a whit about all the bureaucratic maneuverings and finger pointing.  We want results.  We expect agencies such as CBP to execute the orders of the Congress and the President, and if the intent of $ 1 billion in new federal spending was to build more capacity at POEs and get stalled traffic moving, that is exactly what CBP should be doing.  There can be no excuse for diverting those funds to build pistol ranges.

I am particularly amused at the assertion that ownership issues with GSA complicated the ability of CBP to build the urgently needed new capacity at the larger POEs.  Anyone with any experience at all in government programs understands that ownership issues are irrelevant.

All CBP has to do is ask GSA to build more capacity at the POEs with the greatest need, transfer the necessary funding required to get the job done, and the project can move forward.

Of course, the dirty, little secret that the CBP guys are not telling everyone is that they captured nearly all of the $1.3 billion in funding aimed at POEs.  Moreover, Congress and the President expected that CBP would work with GSA and any other federal agencies like the Federal Highway Administration as well as the appropriate state and local governments to develop a single slate of high impact projects at the POEs.

For sure, that would have taken some leadership and it would have required Acting Commissioner Ahern  to seek the guidance, support, and input  from other federal and state agencies that are critical stakeholders at the large POEs.  Instead, the Acting Commissioner viewed the POE funding as a private CBP honey pot, giving him the ability to distribute largess and fulfill even the smallest needs at the most insignificant locations.

Still, you have to admire the CBP sharp elbows thrown in order to capture all of the POE funding to improve the infrastructure at POEs and the simultaneous bureaucratic craftiness to assign the blame for project failure on others.

See you at the hearings!!

At this morning’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on the report of the WMD Commission (also known as the Grahan-Talent Commission) former Senator Bob Graham started his testimony by highlighting the critical need for congressional reform of the homeland security oversight process. Hooray for him!

Graham pointed out that at the same time he was testifying, two other Senate committees were holding hearings on the same subject. This is a waste of resources, Graham said, and it needs to be rectified.

There is no doubt that Senator Graham’s comments found a friendly audience with the Senate Homeland Security committee this morning. Even Chairman Lieberman noted that previous efforts to reform the congressional process was an “embarrassing failure.” He promised to be “stubborn” about eliminating redundant oversight but noted it is far easier for Congress to reform the Executive branch than it is to reform itself. As I have said previously, it is time for Congress to take a “Physician Heal Thyself” approach.

The continuing question is whether Senate and House leaders who can actually change the oversight jurisdiction of other committees are listening to former Senator Graham and other bi-partisan thought leaders.

If they are listening, it is high time that they take action. If they are not listening, then it is time they started to pay attention.

This week my hometown of Pittsburgh will play host to the world as the G-20 Summit comes to the City of Champions.  Along with hosting an array of the world’s top leaders to talk about the challenging issues of our time (e.g. the economy, environment, etc.), thousands of protestors will also be descending upon the city of three rivers to share their perspective on things.

As we know from previous G-20s, World Trade Organization meetings and other high-profile international summits, gatherings such as these bring out the best and worst of people.  While we will see panoramic images of smiling leaders taking in the sights and cultures of the host city, we will also see protestors carrying signs, bullhorns and “floats/displays” or large-scale puppets to show their disdain for the policies, programs and people present at the summit.  The overwhelming majority of these protestors will be peaceful in exercising their civil and human right of free speech, but there are those few individuals that are hell-bent on causing chaos and destruction.  It is those persons that give any host city for a large-scale event of this type pause in preparing for such a gathering.

Pittsburgh is no different, but I have to say my concern has grown after I got a message on Friday from a high school friend who alerted me to a news story that the area’s jails were releasing 100-200 inmates to make room for the protestors.

While Western Pennsylvania is home to some of the most distinguished, practiced and professional emergency managers and public safety personnel in the country, I’ve been concerned for some time about the city’s preparations for this event given the short time frame they had to prepare for it.  There is little doubt that the city is HUGE on the sports scene and in the banking, medical and technology areas, but Pittsburgh is not a city of the scale of New York, Chicago or Los Angeles.  Each of those cities is huge geographically and operationally, and is used to having large scale events of this type.  Hosting the world’s leaders and its most practiced and professional protestors are a first for Pittsburgh.

Security at events like these is always the top concern.  The U.S. Secret Service will be running the show providing protection for the President, his family and the other visiting world leaders.  I have no concerns about their performance – they are the best in the world, but I am concerned about the Pittsburgh community at large.

Supplementing the Secret Service will be the city’s police department (only 900 or so uniformed officers) along with Pennsylvania State Police and regional law enforcement jurisdictions.  Large-scale protests of any size can be taxing upon any police force, but some of the folks that are making their way to my hometown this week are the world champions of havoc and chaos and have the YouTube footage, criminal records and destroyed property to prove it.

It’s one thing to prepare for protestors but it’s another when you have to release people from jail to make room for those who are coming to town and expect to take up residence behind bars.  While assurances have been made that those released are not violent offenders, these folks were in jail for a reason.

This action by the region last week begs the question, at what cost should a community have to bear to host an event such as this?

It’s bad enough Pittsburgh, like previous U.S. host cities for National Special Security Events (NSSEs) – New York City, Denver, Boston, Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc. is having its daily life interrupted by some necessary (and in some cases excessive) security arrangements.

The community is already being forced to close schools, government offices and businesses (at considerable expense and inconvenience) to accommodate the required security needs and transportation logistics.

These costs in terms of time, money and convenience are on top having a financially strapped area foot the bill for a range of things the Feds won’t pay for after they leave town.

Now it has to have its own personal security jeopardized by needing to release inmates to make room for ill-behaved protestors?

Many in Pittsburgh are taking great and deserved joy in showing themselves off to the world but many more are asking after the release of these jail inmates, “Is this event worth it?”

That’s a question many of my family and friends have been asking me and themselves these past few weeks.

We’re going to get some answers real soon.

The Virginia Military Institute hosted a conference on the role of the National Guard and Reserves in homeland security. Lots of great discussion, but I guess my biggest take-way is how little has changed since 9/11; how much there is left to be done; and how little momentum there is get where we need to be. The policies for managing the reserve components and flexibly employing them for disasters are not there yet. Establishing requirements for defense support of civil authorities is still in its infancy. Finally, there are no prospects that the Pentagon will have adequate resources to maintain the kind of reserve components we are going to need in the future. I did not walk away from the conference with a lot of optimism.

By Guest Contributor Jena Baker McNeil

Congress just got back from recess and it makes me wish it was summer. The fall legislative agenda leaves much to be desired.  Eight years after the attacks of 9/11, you would think that Congress would be thinking smarter about homeland security.  But the agenda is filled with lots of bad bills, bumper sticker legislation that doesn’t make Americans any safer.

In a recent Heritage WebMemo, my colleagues and I discuss the Do’s and Don’ts of Homeland Security for the fall.  Among the Don’ts is PASS ID, which would basically roll back the 9/11 Recommendations dedicated to improving driver’s license security as well as the Homeowners Defense Act, a disastrous move to make all Americans subsidize hurricane response.

Congress should have a different “To-Do” list. It could do things like scrapping the ill-conceived 100 percent scanning mandates, or reforming the pork barrel homeland security grant program.  These steps make Americans safer, while keeping us free and prosperous.

There’s no doubt our nation is safer because of legislation Congress has enacted since 9/11, over 23 terrorist plots foiled since 9/11 demonstrates this success.  In order to maintain this progress, however, legislators must resist dumb initiatives that add no security while impairing invaluable aspects of American life. It is time for Congress to exert some leadership and set the tone for homeland security for the rest of the year.

Eight years ago I, like the rest of America, was shocked by the events of Sept 11th 2001.  The attacks changed our Nation, and for me, it was personal.  At the time, I was serving as the Military Assistant to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

I had joined the Secretary of Defense’s team on July 1st, and it had been a rollercoaster ride the entire way.  We had first struggled to fill the numerous high level billets for political appointees in the Pentagon, doing an enormous amount of work with less than half of the people we needed.  President Bush had given Secretary Rumsfeld a mandate to bring the Department into the 21st Century, and he set about to apply all he had learned in 25 years of business since his last stint as Secretary of Defense to the experience he had used that time.  Controversy swirled.

The much talked about friction between the Secretary of Defense and the senior military leaders was real.  However, in my opinion (based on my first hand observations vice rumors), it was due to the very different style which Donald Rumsfeld used.  The previous Administration was very solicitous to the uniforms.  If they said, “Mr. Secretary, this is the best course,” he almost reflexively sign-off.  Not so with Sec. Rumsfeld.  He wanted to be convinced of the right way to go, he never simply “trusted” any expert.  He also cut down the size of meetings dramatically.  All the 2-3 star officers and colonels who had previously accompanied their 4 star bosses to meetings were no long allowed at the table.  This had several effects.  First, the 4 stars had to become the experts; they hated having to be so well prepared that they could answer all his questions, and the staffs hated the painful process of “prepping” their bosses.  Next, those officers now left out of meetings no longer had the inside scoop, which tragically was often leaked in the past.  They felt left out, and were very peeved.  I know this, because I was the one turning them away at the door, and it was rather uncomfortable.  Bottom line was that this added greatly to the myth that Rumsfeld doesn’t “listen” to the uniforms.  Actually, he listened all the time, just not to the guys who were later complaining.

All that changed on 9/11.  While transformation continued, we were going to war.  We watched the news with the rest of America as the first plane hit in NY.  We were as baffled as everyone else as to the cause (pilot error? heart attack?).  Then the second plane hit, and as soon as we realized it was not a replay, we began to move into action.  The Secretary had just finished up a breakfast with a group of legislators, and called for his closest advisors.  The Senior Military Advisor looked at me and said, “Steve, this will not be answered by Tomahawk missiles this time, it will take tomahawks like the one in your office, in the hands of your Green Berets to respond to this.”  I did not know how prophetic he was being.

I was sent by the Senior Military Assistant into our classified area with several senior staffers from our Policy team and the Joint Staff.  We began brain storming as to who could have done this and why.  It was clearly terrorists, but which ones?  Were there other attacks planed?  After only a few minutes, we felt an odd vibration, and the building seemed to shift slightly.  We all looked at one another with the “What the heck was that?” look on our faces.  I stood and said I would go and find out what had happened.

Returning to the main Secretary of Defense’s office, I quickly asked what has just happened, and was told by a shocked sergeant that a plane had hit our building.  I asked “Where is the Boss?” and was told that he had gone out to the crash sight.  Shocked, I said, “We are supposed to get him away from the danger, not let him go toward it.”  I grabbed an Non-commissioned Officer and headed out to find Sec. Rumsfeld.  There he was, at the site of impact, hauling a stretcher.  Against his desires and concerns for the people who had been hurt, we convinced him to return to the office so we could begin the Department of Defense’s response.

We began in the relatively small classified area on the 3d floor that belonged to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).  Rumsfeld’s first question was “Where is the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs (CJCS)?”  Gen. Sheldon was out of town, but Gen. Myers, the Vice Chairman (VCJCS) was downstairs in the National Military Command Center (NMCC).  The Secretary asked why he was separated from his military advisors, and was informed that we each had our own “areas.”  He frowned his soon to famous frown, asked where the better communications capabilities were located.  When he was told that the NMCC was better equipped, he immediately moved down to join the General.  There would be no standing on turf issues.

We were only able to stay there for about an hour, as smoke from the fire was soon filling the NMCC.  Several advisors counseled him to move to an alternate location away from Washington.  Rumsfeld refused, saying that the American people expect the defense of the Nation to emanate from the Pentagon, not “an alternate site.”  We were forced to move back upstairs to the 3d floor facility due to the foul air.  Gen. Myers and the key members of the Joint Staff accompanied the Secretary and his civilian advisors.  We were now locked it to a very long, difficult day.

As all this was happening, communications were established with the President, Vice President, and other key Cabinet officials.  Information came in with fits and starts, concerning the grounding of commercial aircraft, the crash in Pennsylvania, and our nascent response through NORAD.  This was brought home to me later, after talking to my wife.  She had come to the Pentagon that morning to have her first day as a volunteer in the medical clinic that cares for the leadership of the Department.  After we parted at 7:00 am, I did not see her until 4:30 pm.  She told me that while caring for the wounded and the responders, they had been told that another plane was approaching.  Everyone scattered, until they looked up and saw an America fighter plane streak overhead.  All the people cheered, and knew they would now be safe from further attack.  As we learned later, it was one of the brave Air National Guard pilots who took their post without hesitation, with no ammunition for their weapons.

All day long, we endeavored to keep the Boss armed with everything he and the VCJCS needed to properly advise the POTUS, and to direct the military assets of the Nation.  To be honest, I could not tell you what exactly was decided on that day.  I do know that the Boss had been spot on as to the galvanizing effect of staying at the building despite the ill advised warnings to leave.  He gave a news conference that evening, flanked by the VCJCS, and the two ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  It would be the first of many he would give over the next few years.  America no longer had just a Secretary of Defense – it had a Secretary of War.

Regardless of one’s position or feelings about other policy decisions made later by the Administration, that day, September 11th, 2001, every American should have been proud of how their leaders responded to the crisis.  As I finally departed the Pentagon at around 11:30 PM, I knew it was only the beginning of many days of difficult times, and even more difficult decisions.  Suddenly, my “office job” at the Pentagon had become the epicenter of America’s first 21st Century war.  As I look back today, at the moving memorial to the victims of the Pentagon attack, I will always remember how that spot looked eight years ago as I walked next to the man I will always think of as the Boss.