Aviation And Airport Security | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for the ‘Aviation and airport security’ Category

Questions to Secretary Napolitano About Using Predator UAVs for Border Enforcement

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

The announcement Monday afternoon by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that Predator B unmanned aerial vehicles will begin patrolling the skies over American’s Southwest border, funded in part by the latest $600 million infusion of cash from Congress, ought to raise some very serious questions about the manner in which increasingly limited homeland security funds are being spent.

Unfortunately for the American taxpayers, and the Border Patrol agents who are the alleged beneficiaries of this largess, it does not appear that those questions were asked before the earmark occurred or even before the current deployment was announced. And in my opinion, DHS continues to waste money on a UAV program that is overly expensive and grossly inefficient when compared to alternative approaches.

In its proper place, the Predator UAV can play a significant role in helping American warfighters. I feel certain that its manufacturer, General Atomics, can make a strong case for its use in armed conflict zones, and there are certainly several of those along the US-Mexican border, if current press reports are to be believed. I submit, however, that there are better alternatives that would achieve better results.

But for the single-mindedness of the head of CBP Air and Marine Operations, who reportedly has rejected any suggestions that DHS consider the capability of other, less expensive and more flexible unmanned aerial platforms (much less the additional capability of more manned airplanes or helicopters), I have serious doubts that a reasonable person would deploy Predators for border surveillance purposes.

Yet Congressional myopia combined with DHS and CBP stubbornness has created a situation where alternative approaches seem to be ignored – a strange position to take for current DHS leadership in light of their other public announcements about reliance on alternative analyses of the proper “mix” of technologies and personnel for border enforcement and a rhetorical “efficiency review.”

OK, so hypocrisy is not illegal in Washington DC, or anywhere else for that matter. Still, it would be nice if DHS would not engage in charades. If DHS wants to deploy Predator B UAVs, then at least admit that Predators are far more expensive than almost every other alternative – or make the case why this is a better choice. Thus far, the explanations are lacking, and this should not be allowed to continue.

When Congress returns, or whenever GAO gets around to it, Secretary Napolitano should be required publicly to address these questions, at a minimum:

What is the operational cost (including personnel) of flying one Predator B UAV for a 24 hour shift and how does that compare with the cost of operating other aircraft in the CBP Air and Marine Operations existing fleet?
How many people does it take to operate the Predator UAV for a single mission?
How many people does it take to operate a Cessna manned aircraft for a single mission?
What additional capabilities does the Predator B UAV give to the Border Patrol that a manned Cessna aircraft does not provide?
What additional capabilities do other CBP aircraft give to the Border Patrol that the Predator B does not?
What is the cost of acquisition and a full year’s operation of one Predator B UAV, and what other UAV platforms could DHS acquire and operate to achieve the same or greater level of detection as a Predator B?
For the cost of acquisition and a full year’s operation of one Predator B UAV, how many manned aircraft could DHS acquire and operate to achieve the same or greater level of detection as a Predator B?
For the cost of acquisition and a full year’s operation of one Predator B UAV, how many Mobile Surveillance radar units could be acquired and operated by Border Patrol agents?
What are the reasons that CBP has rejected the use of smaller UAVs for border detection and enforcement purposes?
What are the approximate costs of UAVs that could be launched and operated by a single Border Patrol agent in the field?
What is the annual cost savings, if any, to CBP by operating Predator B UAVs instead of other aircraft types?

I am sure there many other questions that could be asked – and I hope they are. These are the ones that immediately came to my mind.

The choice to deploy the Predator B UAV for border enforcement purposes is a mystery that needs to be addressed – unless effectiveness, efficiency and cost are not important these days to the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Science & Technology | Comments

Breaking: US investigates potential terrorist test run

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

The news of two men arrested in Amsterdam on suspicion of terrorism is making its way across the news wire. Here’s the latest from AP.

US investigates potential terrorist test run – Associated Press

Two men arrested in Amsterdam may have been conducting a dry run for a potential terrorist attack, U.S. officials said Tuesday after a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle and a knife and box cutters were found in one of the men’s luggage.

U.S. investigators are pursuing leads in Detroit, Birmingham, Ala.; and Memphis, Tenn., according to officials speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation.

The arrests come at a time of heightened alert just days before the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

On Sunday, authorities found the suspicious items — a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, multiple cell phones and watches taped together, and a knife and box cutter — in one of the men’s checked luggage in Virginia. The man and his luggage were headed to separate international destinations, which also raised concerns.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Ted Stevens, Sean O’Keefe and a Powerful Gesture

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

Yesterday’s sad news from Alaska about the tragic plane crash that killed former Senator Ted Stevens and four others, and seriously injured former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, his son and two others, brought to mind a chance encounter I had with both men over seven years ago.

At the time, I was working at NASA Headquarters in the Public Affairs shop, and times at NASA were even more difficult than they are today. In early spring 2003, NASA was dealing with the painful aftershocks of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the seven crew members of STS-107. Everyday new information was coming out regarding the causes of the accident, and that meant painful news headlines for America’s space agency and families of the lost crew. Painful news headlines in turn mean a stirred up Congress, which is always looking for someone to blame and hang out to dry.

Congress was already upset enough with NASA. Rather than wait for some congressionally sanctioned body to investigate the causes and events of the February 1, 2003 accident, NASA, because of post-Space Shuttle Challenger accident reforms, had immediately moved forward in the hours after the incident to begin its investigation.

The work of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), led by retired Navy Admiral Hal Gehman, was underway, but despite their on-going work, Congress still wanted its moment to question NASA. That is where this story begins.

Since O’Keefe was in charge of NASA, he got the hot seat. In the weeks following the accident, O’Keefe and NASA’s senior management poured over every ounce of information they could to find the causes of accident and share that with CAIB and the public, all while trying to move the agency forward. That by itself was no easy task.

When the time came for congressional hearings on the accident, the NASA General Counsel, Paul Pastorek, had the agency’s lawyers prepare volumes of information that would ultimately have to be absorbed by O’Keefe for Congressional testimony. In working with people close to the hearing prep, they literally described it as getting O’Keefe ready for trial. Before dozens of cameras, skeptical reporters and interrogating Congressional Members looking to take someone out, O’Keefe as the chief witness would have to contend with plenty of loaded questions.

In the spring that year, as more and more details were emerging that an apparent foam strike to the leading edge of the Columbia’s wing was the cause for the accident, O’Keefe traveled again to the Hill for another hearing. Each one of these seemed to be more like a public flogging and incendiary interrogation exercise than a civil discussion of the facts of the accidents. We even had a Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) “tirade” of hand waving and screaming at one hearing. (I guess he was getting warmed up for future years.)

When O’Keefe went to the Hill this time, there were unsubstantiated rumors and media speculation about whether he would survive the on-going accident investigation. From the horrifying moments after the accident occurred, through the entire investigative process, O’Keefe showed incredible poise in handling the pressure of what was a truly volatile environment. Regardless of his leadership stamina in this environment, when Congress wants a body to throw on the fire, to tar and feather and place blame for something (rightly or wrongly), it usually gets its sacrifice.

O’Keefe prepared for this hearing with plenty of rounds of questioning murder-boards and was as ready as he possibly could be. So off to the Hill he went. Like a number of people at the agency, I was preparing to watch the hearing when a call came from Glenn Mahone (then Assistant Administrator for NASA’s Public Affairs) looking for a folder of information that had been inadvertently left behind. Since I knew where the Committee hearing room was, I volunteered to take it up, and after a NASA colleague gave me a lift to Dirksen Senate Office Building, I was on my way.

After clearing security and making my way to the hearing room, I arrived to find people literally jammed in the doorway. With all seats taken and more onlookers than physical space, the doors were opened in a way so as to allow more people to witness the proceedings.

Knowing that Glenn needed the materials, I started to move through the crowd saying I had something for the witness table and people begrudgingly let me move to the front to get into the hearing room. At the time, Sen. McCain, who was then Chair of the Commerce Committee, had just wrapped up his opening statement and the then Ranking Committee Member Sen. Hollings was about to begin his. For those who don’t remember, Sen. Hollings, with his well-coiffed white hair and tan complexion, had a full throttle southern drawl down when it came uttering any word. In any of the NASA hearings I had ever seen him attend, Hollings always seemed to have a beef with the Agency, and he was about to let O’Keefe get an earful.

Since O’Keefe was the sole witness at the hearing, he was seated attentively looking at the Senators and listening to their pointed criticisms of the agency’s failings in the accident.

Standing at the front of the mass of people in the doorway, looking for Glenn Mahone, I began to hear behind me a voice saying, “Excuse me. Coming through. I need to get in here. Thank you. Excuse me. Coming through,”

As these words were being said, the crowd of people behind me started to part ways until finally they parted directly behind me to reveal a small man, and there stood the legendary Senator Ted Stevens.

Recognizing him immediately, I also got out of his way. Stevens then proceeded to stand in front of this mass of people around the doorway and surveyed the situation, looking first at the Committee dais where the Members were seated, the well where a mass of photographers were lying on the floor taking pictures, and a gallery full of people. He seemed to take the entire situation in for a moment or two. By this point, Sen. Hollings was already in the full rambling throttle of his excoriating statement as O’Keefe gave him his full attention.

It was then I saw something that I had never seen before. Stevens proceeded to walk across the room and approach the witness table while the hearing was in session and a Congressional Member was speaking. For those unfamiliar with this behavior, this would be tantamount to standing up in the middle of a sermon at church, walking up to the altar and proceeding to adjust the candles and move things around. (You just don’t do stuff like this!)

Stevens went up to O’Keefe, placed his left hand on O’Keefe’s right shoulder and then extended his right hand to offer a handshake. O’Keefe, who seemed as surprised as the rest of the room to see Stevens appearing at the witness table greeting him with a handshake, especially while a Senator was giving an opening statement, shook his hand right back. By this time, all of the photographers had rolled around on the floor trying to capture pictures of the senior Senator from Alaska shaking the hand of his former staffer.

The gallery of witnesses took this all in and started whispering back and forth about what they were seeing.

The other attending Congressional Members looked up from the papers in front of them to see the handshake exchange between Stevens and O’Keefe, and you could almost see the air go out of their sails.

Stevens stayed there a moment or two longer shaking O’Keefe’s hand to make sure the photographers got their pictures and for the crowd and especially his Congressional colleagues to see what he was doing. Stevens’ simple handshake gesture, while breaking an unwritten rule about approaching a witness table during a hearing, delivered a clear and stern message to everyone, especially his colleagues in that room.

Very simply: “Don’t mess with my guy.”

As Hollings rambled on, looking up briefly to see the exchange between the two men, you could almost see the other attending Members begin to revise some of their pointed and nastier questions. Stevens’ public vote of confidence and support for O’Keefe seemed to change the temperature in the room.

In all of my time in Washington, I had never seen anything like it. It literally was a broadcast message that people who messed with O’Keefe risked the ire of Stevens, and they had been warned without a word ever having been spoken.

Stevens’ actions were as much a measure of his powerful presence as they were the authority by which he wielded his Senate powers. It was also a measure of the respect and devotion that he had for Sean O’Keefe.

After taking in what I had just seen, I found Glenn Mahone, delivered what he wanted and headed back to NASA Headquarters.

Upon arriving back, I was asked by my colleagues what I had seen. I shared with them what I witnessed and the unspoken message that Sen. Stevens had delivered. Sean O’Keefe had the full confidence of one of Congress’ titans and anyone who thought Congress was going to take him out was poorly informed.

I’ve thought about that incident quite a bit since news of the accident first emerged. It was one of the strongest memories I have from my time at NASA and from working the Columbia accident – one I feel fortunate to have witnessed first hand.

It also reminds me that for all of the power and authorities that any one of us gains, in the end, we are all mortal.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those lost and with the survivors, for their rapid recovery.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Management & Administration | Comments

Potential Change in the Nature of TSA Enforcement?

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Since its inception in 2001, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) approach to enforcing its rules generally has been a cooperative one. Recognizing the burdens on industry from new security regulations and a difficult economic environment, and understanding that harsh enforcement actions can be counterproductive, TSA generally has sought to educate and train rather than punish. Monetary fines have been uncommon, and serious punishment – steep fines or greater severity – have been rare. While this approach has worked reasonably well, there is reason to believe it will not last forever.

A common catalyst to a “harder” enforcement approach (e.g., more frequent and larger fines) is public focus on instances of noncompliance.

A recent example of such a catalyst is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which has transformed the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service into the new “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement” – enforcement is now part of the name.

The likelihood of public focus on noncompliance is related to at least two factors: the passage of time and the industry’s ability to affect a broad cross-section of the public.

Both factors weigh in favor of an eventual turn toward harder enforcement. First, TSA is still a new agency but, as time passes, the likelihood of a significant rule violation by the regulated industry increases. Second, TSA interacts constantly with a broad cross-section of the public, which is one of the reasons that TSA problems quickly draw broad public attention.

Another possible catalyst to a harder enforcement approach is the growth or diversification of the regulated industry.

When the regulated industry grows and/or diversifies, regulators may be more inclined to take a harder approach to enforcement as a way of signaling seriousness to industry participants.

Hard enforcement actions are often an efficient way for regulators to deliver a message to a large or diverse set of industry participants. When the participants are few in number or homogenous, education and training by the regulators may be sufficient, but a “severe fine” warning message is more likely to be carried quickly (by the trade press, lawyers and others) to a large or diverse set of industry participants.

The industry regulated by TSA has been growing and diversifying quickly. Among the recent additions are businesses newly regulated under the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). These businesses, now approaching 1,000 in number, have to be regulated by TSA without a proportional increase in TSA resources, making an eventual resort to a harder enforcement approach more likely.

For all of these reasons, TSA-regulated companies would be wise to focus on compliance efforts as though TSA were going to take a harder approach to enforcement.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

If the Cargo is not Screened, It Does Not Fly

Friday, July 30th, 2010

By Adam Salerno

Businesses Reengineering the Supply Chain for 100 Percent Screening

When Congress passed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the law mandated 100 Percent Screening of cargo onboard passenger aircraft “commensurate with checked baggage.” The deadline for that mandate is this weekend, August 1, 2010. The law seeks to ensure that all 20 million lbs. of cargo is screened in advance of flights for explosive detection prior to transport. As Douglas Brittin, the Director of Cargo Security at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says, “On August 1, if the cargo is not screened, it does not fly”.

In today’s economy, a vibrant supply chain can ensure that companies have instant access to overnight delivery to nearly 85 percent of the world’s population. While a changing world dictates new necessities to secure the supply chain, the need for expedited trade is an important priority that must be maintained. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognizes this fact, which is why we support a multi layered risk based approach to security which maximizes effectiveness and minimizes impact on businesses.

As with any unfunded mandate, the private sector was tasked with financing this effort and working with TSA to ensure this goal is accomplished. The cost has been dramatic. Most air carriers estimate their costs to be in the tens of millions of dollars range. That figure does not include delays or increasing lead time in the supply chain. To add complexity to the issue, the mandate also included all incoming cargo from around the globe be screened. In short, the law forced companies to completely reengineer their supply chain.

To push the mandate out of the confines of the airport, TSA developed the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). CCSP allows other trusted shippers in the supply chain to participate in the screening process, by securing their facilities, and the chain of custody from manufacturing to the belly of the aircraft. This too proved extremely costly for industry, but something that businesses in all modes of transportation have stepped up for.

Once the domestic deadline is hit, the focus will shift to international inbound flights. TSA needs to step forward at this point and begin to recognize foreign screening methods. Again, because of the nature of the unfunded mandate, it is clear that TSA has not had the resources to pursue this goal yet. However, programs like the German Aviation Security Program or the newly released European Union Framework 300, Rule 185 are comprehensive programs that mirror the basic fundamentals of the TSA program domestically. Working with the international community to ensure that our programs are mutually accepted is essential to ensure that businesses are not duplicating an already burdensome process.

It has been a long and costly road for industry, but with the August 1, 2010 deadline just days away, many are feeling cautiously optimistic that the deadline will be met. Thanks to the ingenuity of the freight forwarders, the airlines, and participants in CCSP, because without their time, effort, and serious investment, a dramatic halt of trade would have become reality. Their investment in security ensured that commerce will continue to move forward at the speed businesses rely on in the air environment.

Adam Salerno is a Senior Manager in the National Security and Emergency Preparedness Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He also manages the Chamber’s Global Supply Chain Security Working Group.

This piece was originally posted on The ChamberPost, the blog for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, International, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

The New Face of Aviation Security?

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

The hunt for someone to lead the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began in 2009, but it wasn’t until June this year that the Senate confirmed John Pistole as administrator. Pistole was the third nominee for the job, after two earlier hopefuls pulled out (see Southers and Harding). Security Debrief followed the confirmation process every step of the way and found the latest development in this week’s Air Cargo Week.

If you visit TSA’s website, you’ll find Pistole’s photo, which looks like this:

In Air Cargo Week’s Arrivals & Departures section, there is a note on Pistole’s confirmation (first bullet, right column). But the photo referenced is clearly not John Pistole.

Who is this man? Nominee #4? A hero cargo pilot? The publisher’s cousin?

It’s Chris Battle, Security Debrief’s founder and editor.

That’s some good PR.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Featured Feed, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Military & Homeland Defense, Narcotics, counterterrorism | Comments

E-passports Key to Border and Travel Security

Monday, July 19th, 2010

A top-rated lacrosse team representing the Iroquois Confederacy apparently won’t be competing in the world championship of the sport their ancestors helped invent. The United Kingdom—which is hosting the tournament—has indicated it will deny entry to the team because its members are not traveling on U.S. passports. The players are understandably upset that despite years of training and commitment, they won’t be able to compete for a championship. In addition, the team members and their supporters have made this an issue of Iroquois identity. However, the British authorities are correct that the decision is a matter of border and travel security rather than Iroquois sovereignty. Iroquois passports, which contain hand-written elements, simply aren’t as secure as the latest generation of U.S. passports.

To terrorists and other criminals, travel documents are as valuable as weapons. Altered passports and visas, or genuine documents obtained fraudulently, allow bad actors to cross borders in the course of planning or carrying out operations. Recognizing this, many countries in recent years have implemented higher security standards for these travel documents so they are considerably more difficult to counterfeit or for an impostor to use should it be lost or stolen. These upgrades significantly enhance the security of international travel. This is one reason, for example, that all citizens from newly designated Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries are required to travel on electronic passports.

Electronic passports, or e-passports, contain a biometric identifier, either a digitized photo of the bearer or fingerprints or both. Digitized photographs and other biometrics are important because they are harder to substitute or alter than glued or laminated photos, for example.

In addition, e-passports contain a microchip that holds the digitized photograph, fingerprints (if used) and other information visible on the passport data page. The data written to the chip is protected from alteration by the use of a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) digital signature. When an e-passport is scanned upon entry, the face of the traveler, the data on the data page, and the data on the chip will all match if the traveler is the person to whom the passport was issued. As a result, border officials are better able to intercept suspect travelers and speed entry of legitimate ones.

E-passports also incorporate several other, more technical security measures (such as watermarks and the like) to guard against fraud or other tampering. Just as important as the security of the document itself is compliance with international standards for reporting lost and stolen passports. The INTERPOL Stolen and Lost Travel Document (SLTD) database – which is the preferred repository for these reports – is used at primary passport inspection by countries around the world to detect those who travel on fraudulent documents.

The United States should continue its efforts to encourage countries to not only produce and issue secure travel documents, such as e-passports, but also, to establish a daily, automatic means of reporting lost and stolen passports to INTERPOL. Both of these measures are requirements of the U.S. VWP because they close gaps exploited by terrorists and other mala fide travelers. Indeed, the Iroquois themselves recognize the benefits of more secure documents, having nearly completed a transition to a new generation of passports.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

GAO says TSA May Miss Air Cargo Screening Mandate

Friday, July 16th, 2010

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released its review of the Transportation Security Administration’s Air Cargo Screening program. The report, requested by several members of Congress, audits the TSA’s program for achieving the Congressional mandate to screen 100 percent of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft by August 2010. For anyone in the business or closely following the issue, the report offers no surprises. (For those unfamiliar with this security challenge, check out the roundtable discussion on air cargo screening that I moderated in May.) If anything, the report illuminates the major hurdles TSA continues to face in achieving the 100 percent screening threshold.

What the report doesn’t do – what it wasn’t intended to do – is determine whether TSA’s program to screen all air cargo improves security. Assuming that the directive to screen every single piece of cargo improves aviation security may be a misplaced assumption.

What the report doesn’t conclude may be more illustrative of the problem with our government’s attitude towards homeland security. A more instructive use of the time and resources that went into generating this report would have been for the GAO to audit the quality of the nation’s air cargo screening program.

One way to accomplish this would be to start with a risk assessment – threat, vulnerability and consequence. Indentifying the weaknesses in the existing process for sending freight by air on passenger aircraft would instruct TSA where to focus its resources. It would also ensure that any weaknesses could be strengthened. And it could also help to develop objective metrics to test the security measures’ effectiveness.

Of course, the law is the law, and GAO’s audit merely considered whether TSA would meet the mandate. Not surprisingly, TSA most likely will not meet the mandate. And even if it does, there are still problems with key areas of the program, like the certification of screening technology, the authenticity of the methodology for calculating the percentage of cargo screened, and the screening of cargo coming from outside the United States.

The report found that TSA’s voluntary Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) has failed to attract most of the shippers that would benefit from participation. The CCSP isn’t well populated and participation levels aren’t what they should be to inoculate the industry against more invasive and harmful regulations. A strong showing by shippers over the next several months will be needed to provide evidence that the industry is serious about achieving the mandate.

The report certainly hits on all the areas where TSA needs to make improvements to satisfy the law. Overall, this is instructive for complying with the law. Whether each of these efforts reduces the risk of passenger’s being harmed is uncertain.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Management & Administration, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

The Value of Aspen

Friday, July 9th, 2010

As we continue to swelter in the ongoing summer heat wave, it is easy for me to reminisce about my recent visit to Aspen, Colo. Tucked amongst the Rockies with its clean air, fervent green and majestic views, a town known primarily for its skiing with the rich and famous was home to what was, simply put, the best conference program I have ever attended.

The first annual Aspen Security Forum put forward a program that I can only describe as pleasant, informational waterboarding. By the time each of the presenters and panelists were done, my hand was dead from writing so much and my head hurt from being given the firehouse treatment of a candor and content overload.

With a venerable “who’s who” of notable names in the national security arena attending the two and a half day program, attendees had the opportunity to hear first-hand from the men and women who have served or continue to serve in some of the most demanding positions in the world. It was literally very hard to turn around and not see a face that you did not recognize from some recent event or news program, sharing insights on our country’s national and homeland security challenges.

While the presented content was outstanding, the best part about the entire program was that the overwhelming majority of notable speakers and presenters made themselves available to engage with the attendees. All too often, speakers rush in, deliver their canned pitch, say thanks to the crowd and are whisked away by their aides to get back to the office, leaving actual human contact an afterthought. To have the many distinguished speakers stick around and engage in that lost art-form of “CONVERSATION” was an absolute pleasure.

Hosted by Clark Ervin and the Aspen Institute, this was the first time they had put on a program with this particular focus. You can call it beginner’s luck if you want, but they put together a top notch effort that literally became a “must attend” for anyone who is interested in national and homeland security issues. Fortunately, for those who weren’t able to attend the program, it was taped for later broadcast by C-Span, hopefully sometime this summer. I have to tell you, there is a significant portion of C-Span’s programming that can cure insomnia, but when they broadcast the presenters and panels from the Aspen Security Forum, it will be as NBC used to call it, “Must See TV!”

To understand why I write that, here’s a rundown of some sessions (with video hyperlinks):

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

When your opening speaker travels all the way from Kabul to Tel Aviv to Aspen to take part in the program, it’s a pretty good indicator that the organizers are up to something big. That was especially true with Adm. Mullen. Coming off a week where Gen. McChrystal was taken out by a large Rolling Stone and replaced by Gen. Petraeus, and then traveling to Afghanistan and Israel to assuage any fears and concerns they may have about the big changes, Mullen made news by essentially not making news. While his comments about the state of the nation’s counter insurgency policy dovetailed those of the White House’s, the plainspoken manner in which they were delivered conveyed the gravity of the situation our military forces are faced with in Afghanistan. His comments about Iran’s nuclear ambitions – “They’ve given us no reason to trust them” – also spoke volumes about what few measures the Administration has left at its disposal in dealing with them.

Aviation Security Panel

There is probably no other facet of the post-9/11 world that Americans gripe about more than dealing with aviation security, but as the CEO of the Air Transport Association (ATA), Jim May, said, “What’s your alternative?” Joined by Erroll Southers of USC’s CREATE Program (and the first Obama Administration nominee to lead TSA) and Christopher Bidwell of the Airport Council International, this panel laid on the table the very real threats and frustrations that accompany this portion of the security environment. One of the most interesting things discussed was the use of full-body imaging devices by airports to screen passengers. While recognizing the civil rights and privacy concerns that people have about them, Jim May of ATA shared that he thought they should be mandatory. When it came to addressing the Government Accountability Office’s recently issued criticisms of TSA’s Behavioral Detection efforts, May and the other panelists pointed out that this program was part of many layers of security, and there was no one-size-fits-all solution or silver bullet that would reduce the aviation risks faced today.

Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush

There are many things that have been written and said about Fran Townsend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush (43), but the word “shy” is not one that would be used to describe her. The only thing that could possibly surpass the candor of her public comments when she was working as a government employee was her candor in being a former government employee. With no holds barred, Townsend explained that, “We have a reason to expect we can connect the dots this time” given all of the post 9/11 work that has been done.

In a more than hour-long conversation with Walter Isaccson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, and the Security Forum audience, Townsend pounded on the fact that much still needs to be done to improve information sharing amongst intelligence and law enforcement agencies across the board. Her declaration that there still needed to be a senior level official or “Cabinet Agency,” but “not a czar,” to “pound these government agencies into submission to do information sharing.” Her proposal that an NGO, public-private partnership, rather than a solely government-led approach to address the growing cyber security risks, was also interesting.

Bill Bratton, former Chief, Los Angeles Police Department

Dubbed by many media outlets as “America’s Top Cop” for having led the police departments of Boston, New York City and Los Angeles, I think Bill Bratton surprised everyone at the program when he explained how the terror attacks in Mumbai, India caused him to change the entire structure of the LAPD. His interview with CNN’s Jeanne Meserve detailed how 60 days after those attacks, he was able to transform his police department with new training, exercises and more. The relatively simply trained Mumbai terrorists were not interested in holding hostages; in fact, they were using so-called negotiations to buy time to kill more people. This showed Bratton that he had to change how his department was positioned to respond to a similar event, should it occur in Los Angeles.

Michael Leiter, Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center

For a man that much of Washington thought would have his head handed to him following the failed information sharing efforts surrounding the failed Christmas Day attack, Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), displayed all of the skill and confidence that make him one of a few Bush Administration appointees to successfully transition into the Obama Administration. His description of his job, his work with the President to report on the range of threats to the country and how he thinks information sharing needs to work made this particular presentation one of the most revealing and compelling of the entire program. Interviewed by Michael Isikoff, a former Newsweek reporter and now Chief Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, ended up producing some great back and forth between the two men that was as revealing as it was humorous. This session again explained more about Leiter’s job and the mission of the NCTC than any government report or Congressional hearing to date.

Border Security Panel

Despite the countless GAO and IG reports and the many hearings before the U.S. House and Senate, there was no better overview of America’s border security than a panel made up of:

Bob Mocny, Director of DHS’ US VISIT Program;
Mark Borkowski, Director of CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI); and
Steve Oswald, Vice President of Boeing.

These three gentlemen described what worked, what didn’t, what could be better and what the future may look like on programs that have regularly been making news for years. In presenting the details of these newsworthy programs, they did so with none of the drama or hysterics that are so often associated with the Congressional hearings that have exhaustively covered the respective programs. What each of them said frankly offered more substantive insight than any of the previous Congressional hearings have produced to date. That was an observation made not just by the conference attendees but also by the first-tier media, congressional staff and others who have observed each of these respective programs closely. Truth be told, if you want to know what is really happening with US VISIT and the Secure Border Initiative (minus the belligerent questions and political posturing), spending 90 minutes watching this panel when it is aired on C-Span will be time well spent.

Attending News Media

As I mentioned, the conference was a literal “who’s who” of notable current and former national and homeland security leaders, and the same could be said for the attending members of the media. With CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, the Washington Post’s Spencer Hsu, Newsweek’s/NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, and more, it seemed as if there was a representative from every major news outlet, print and broadcast media in attendance. While many of them were there to serve as session/panel moderators for the various parts of the program, the entire forum was a reservoir of information for them on today’s security concerns and a background on the actions of the past. It was also a treasure trove for journalists in developing future sources for national and homeland security news stories.

Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security

After consecutive 12-hour days of literally (albeit pleasantly) waterboarding attendees with tons of substantive content, it’s hard to figure out how to end a program such as that in Aspen, but they picked a great closer in former DHS Secretary Chertoff. Whether it was the fact that he’s been out of office for almost a year and half and doesn’t have to worry about a 2 AM phone call from National Operations Center about someone doing something vile to the homeland, Chertoff’s candor and demeanor crystallized for everyone the seriousness of the threats we face while also assuring we should continue to go about our regular lives. As one of the very few “senior statesmen” on homeland issues that we have in this country, his conversation with Fox News’ Catherine Herridge conveyed the balance that we need to have when planning for and operating against the range of risks we face.

A wondering disappointment

I can say without doubt that I loved every moment at the Aspen Institute, but I can’t sign off without discussing the one disappointment that I and many others had in the presentation by DHS Deputy Secretary, Jane Holl Lute. Whether it was her discomfort at the conversational interview format led by CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, her fear in the week after the McChrystal debacle, not wanting to say anything to cause problems for herself or the Administration, or the fact that maybe she was having a bad day, her presentation left the overwhelming majority of attendees scratching their heads in wonder as to the real story at the Department.

All of the questions that were asked by Meserve were fair and nothing was out of the ordinary, but Lute’s responses were defensive, sometimes evasive and could have been dramatically better. Time and time again in her hour long session there were questions to which she could have responded with hard and fast examples of the Department’s accomplishments. Instead, she offered simplistic, almost apple-pie like anecdotal responses that left the audience wondering why she wouldn’t answer the most basic of questions.

When she stated, “the [U.S.] border has never been more secure,” and offered no facts to prove that statement, portions of the audience looked around at one another in shock while others openly chortled at the declaration.

When it came time for Q&A with the audience, the tenor of her responses seemed to be even more defensive. When Michael Isikoff asked her about her statement on the border’s security and her metrics to prove that it had never been more secure, Lute seemed to bristle at the question. She firmly retorted, “The Secretary has been very clear on what those metrics are,” and effectively cut him off.

Lute’s response referred to the speech Secretary Napolitano delivered at CSIS the week before, when she declared, “the U.S. border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo.”

In that speech, Secretary Napolitano detailed a series of metrics to back up her statement, but none of those were shared by Lute with Isikoff or the observing audience. In speaking with Isikoff and some of the other attendees after her remarks, none of them were aware of the CSIS speech and the metrics behind the powerful declaration. To the credit of the Department, Bob Mocny and Mark Borkowski did an exceptional job during their joint appearance on the Border Security panel explaining why DHS leadership is stating things have improved on the border.

It is certainly a debatable point to make a declaration like the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have made in recent forums about border security. When you back it up with information and facts, it provides some measure of credibility and fosters informed debate. When you state it and don’t want to defend it with facts, it leaves people wondering why you would state something like that and not be able to prove it. After her appearance in Aspen, a lot of people were left wondering about the Deputy Secretary, and after viewing her session either on-line or on C-Span, I expect there will be a lot more.

Final thoughts

All of our time is valuable, and God knows we don’t have enough of it, but if you can set your DVRs to record the Aspen Security Forum or go to the Aspen Institute webpage and download panels for your Ipod/MP3 player – DO IT. Think of each of the respective sessions as graduate level courses shared by esteemed faculty who have the real life scar tissue and experiences to tell you what happened and what we can all do better. If you do, I’m confident you will walk away from each session with a lot more knowledge and a bit of a mild headache too. That’s what pleasant informational waterboarding will do to you, but I have to say, it is much more enjoyable amongst the mountains and beautiful vistas of Aspen.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Terror Finance, Terror Strategic Analysis, Transportation Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

NASA’s Mission to Muslims

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

Having worked as a NASA contractor and as an employee, I like to think there is not much that happens at America’s Space Agency that doesn’t surprise me. I was wrong. The recent Al Jazeera interview with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had me staring into my Blackberry screen to make sure it was not another hilarious out-take by The Onion. Unfortunately, it wasn’t and, even the editors of The Onion had to be wondering, “Why is this guy encroaching into our turf?”

In the interview, Administrator Bolden shared that President Obama directed him to do three things:

“”One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”

Like any die hard space enthusiast, I am fully committed to boldly go where no one has gone before, but I never thought that meant catering to one ideology or theology.

Despite the dramatic competition that was the space race to the moon in the 1960s, the human adventure in space has been one of the most transformational and compelling actions we have ever had. Every continent, country and people could take pride in some form of study of the stars, but to select one particular people and their religion and work “to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science… and math and engineering” is political pandering in the worst way.

For all of the good intentions that may be in the President’s direction and Administrator Bolden’s heart for wanting Muslims “to feel good,” I’m more than certain that people of the Muslim religion are perfectly capable of feeling plenty of pride in their accomplishments in science, engineering, mathematics and so forth without the help of a U.S. government official.

If you want people to feel good, respect them – don’t pander to them. People, no matter their religion or ideology are smart enough to realize when you respect them and when you are needlessly sucking up. No amount of pandering (and that’s what it is) by a senior Administration official is going to restore or improve the standing of America in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Having had the pleasure of working at NASA for many years, I can attest to the fact that if you wanted to feel good it was exceeding your requirements; doing the research and hard science; executing your mission and sharing the lessons learned with those who wanted to learn more about our universe as well. Those were (and remain) daily actions completed by Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of other religions (or no religions) that were proudly part of the NASA team. Nowhere in any of those actions did it include pandering to any particular people or their faith. Adopting it as one of the “foremost” missions of the Agency is to boldly go where we don’t belong.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Finally, a TSA Administrator – Pistole is IN!

Friday, June 25th, 2010

This morning by voice vote, the US Senate confirmed the nomination of John Pistole to be the next Administrator of DHS’ Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In what has been a grueling odyssey for everyone involved, from former nominees and their families, the White House Office of Personnel, US Senate Members and staff, the people of TSA, and many more, permanent leadership is now in place at TSA.

While there have to be sighs of relief in Secretary Napolitano’s Office over Pistole’s confirmation, probably no one will be happier than Gale Rossides who has been serving as the Acting Administrator for more than a year and a half. Between the collapsed nominations of Southers and Harding; the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the day-to-day grind in one of the toughest jobs in the country, she has been at the helm. Her service has frankly been underappreciated and under-acknowledged by the Administration, Congress, the media and many others.

For too long, the charge that TSA has been leaderless has gone unanswered and been very inaccurate. The truth is TSA was never without leadership. It had Gail and many other senior career persons taking care of business day in and day out around the country. Amidst the celebration of having a distinguished public servant like John Pistole to be the Agency’s new Administrator, I hope someone will take the time to recognize her for all that she has done during this strenuous time. I also hope she gets to pop open a tall, cold one this weekend. She’s earned it.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

An Air Cargo Screening Roundtable – Not too little, hopefully not too late

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

A couple weeks ago, air cargo industry representatives came together in Washington, DC, to hold an informational roundtable on the upcoming Congressional deadline mandating that 100 percent of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft be screened for explosives. The roundtable was broadcast live from the Newseum and the recorded version is available for viewing on UStream.

When I served at the Transportation Security Administration as Assistant Secretary Kip Hawley’s principal adviser for congressional relations and legislative strategy, I worked closely with the “9/11 Commission Recommendations Act,” which is where the air cargo mandate originated. That is one of the reasons I agreed to serve as moderator for the roundtable, because I understand the potentially severe ramifications of the mandate. And I am not alone. Talking with the aviation security leaders who participated in the roundtable, we delivered the message that time is of the essence, and over 10,000 people logged on to view the webcast. This is both good and bad.

It is bad because thousands of shippers have not prepared for the impending deadline on August 3, 2010. It is good because since the webcast, hundreds have responded by signing up for the Transportation Security Administration’s Certified Cargo Shipper Program (CCSP). This voluntary program offers the only efficient plan to guarantee that cargo will be shipped without overly intrusive and sometimes harmful screening measures.

At this point, TSA confirms that 75 percent of all cargo shipped on passenger airliners is screened. This includes cargo shipped via CCSP. The last 25 percent of the cargo that must be screened before August 3, however, represents the most challenging segment of the mandate. This includes shipments that are banded or shrink-wrapped on pallets. These palleted shipments, if not shipped by CCSP certified shippers, must be disassembled or opened to be screened.

One of the problems for those late to the party may lie with the misunderstanding of the invitation. Sure, the government sets deadlines all the time, but when the regulatory or enforcement agency finally realizes the onerous effects of their regulation, it builds an escape clause for those unwittingly caught unaware; so the conventional thinking goes. However, this deadline is set by statute without a provision for an extension. TSA possesses no authority to extend the deadline or soften its affects. Reality bites when shippers realize that by not being CCSP certified, their products must be screened at the airport. And if that product can’t be screened because the air carrier doesn’t possess screening equipment or the packaging can’t be opened, the product is not shipped.

TSA continues its outreach plan with town hall meetings and other informational products. Realizing that this isn’t an exam they can cram for (the CCSP process takes several weeks), many shippers are starting to take notice. TSA has seen applications for CCSP quadruple over the last month, and industry participation will determine the viability of the voluntary CCSP.

If industry fails or refuses to participate, it can expect a boot on its throat in the not too distant future. In less threatening verbiage, this means that shipping cargo on passenger aircraft may soon find its place in a corner of the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Paris Joins Other Global Transit Hubs in Immigration Advisory Program

Monday, June 14th, 2010

On June 3, DHS announced that it had completed an agreement with France to implement the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) at the Charles De Gaulle International Airport in Paris. When Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are deployed later this summer, Paris will join Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London, Madrid, Tokyo and Seoul (among other locations) as places where the IAP operates.

The IAP enables the identification of high-risk travelers at foreign airports before they board aircraft bound for the United States. In effect, CBP officers stationed in the airport pre-screen travelers and make boarding recommendations to the host authorities. Some of these travelers may not be on watchlists but present other risk factors indicating the need for additional scrutiny.

One of IAP’s key objectives, for example, is to reduce the number of improperly documented passengers traveling from or through a country to the United States. To that end, IAP officers can interview the traveler at check-in to determine if he or she is the lawful bearer of the document or if there is fraud involved. In this way, IAP not only enhances security; it saves millions of dollars. The government avoids the costs associated with removal proceedings, and the airline avoids penalties and the costs of transporting the traveler back to the originating airport.

Not surprisingly, the airports at which IAP has a presence are global transit hubs. DHS should continue to work with these partners to export best security practices and standards more widely. For example, selected hubs (and host governments) could be offered the opportunity to participate in Registered Traveler programs, deploy interoperable screening technologies and collaborate on flights of mutual interest. Such cooperation would ultimately enable the United States and its partners to build a distributed border screening network that minimizes the ability of terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens to take advantage of stove-piped national border screening programs.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Global Entry Expanding and Facilitating Travel

Friday, June 11th, 2010

In November 2009, DHS proposed establishing Global Entry – a pilot “trusted traveler” program – as a permanent fixture at U.S. airports. The final rule should be published soon, and in the meantime, the program continues to expand and facilitate international travel.

Global Entry currently operates at 20 U.S. airports and allows U.S. citizens entering the country by air to skip immigration lines in favor of kiosks. To enroll, citizens pay a fee, provide personal information and fingerprints, and submit to a security interview. When Global Entry members arrive in the United States, they go to a kiosk, place their fingerprints on a reader and exit the immigration area. Frequent international travelers can save significant time by avoiding the lines.

Last year, DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency implemented an agreement with the Netherlands to allow Dutch citizens to participate in Global Entry. Global Entry is open to Dutch citizens enrolled in the Dutch trusted traveler program (called Privium), and U.S. citizens enrolled in Global Entry are eligible for Privium. U.S. citizens accordingly can skip immigration lines in the Netherlands if they are enrolled in Privium.

There are approximately 50,000 U.S. members of Global Entry and 40,000 Dutch members of Privium. These numbers are growing, as the programs are relatively new. The reciprocity arrangement between Global Entry and Privium is just a year old. Already more than 1000 of the Dutch Privium members have become Global Entry members, indicating that they intend to make regular trips to the United States and are willing to pay for the benefits of expedited travel.

The number of participants in these programs likely will continue to grow, particularly as Global Entry partnerships (like the U.S.-Netherlands partnership) expand beyond the Netherlands. In April this year, DHS announced that Germany will be the next partner country.

Additional partnerships create the possibility of expedited travel to multiple destinations – a business traveler from a new partner country may get expedited travel to the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and additional countries, as those countries enter similar arrangements.

An international web of trusted traveler programs should be welcomed and encouraged, as it would facilitate both travel and security.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Will Republicans Embarrass Themselves with Pistole TSA Nomination?

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

Will John Pistole, the FBI deputy director nominated to lead the TSA, go the way of the previous two nominees? Let’s hope not, but it all depends upon whether certain Republicans intend to embarrass themselves – again – by demanding answers from Pistole that he simply will not be in a position to answer. I am speaking here of the unionization issue.

Don’t get me wrong. I am no friend of unions. I was delighted to watch the internal combustion that occurred when the unions sunk millions into the Arkansas Senate election in an effort to hand pick a pro-union candidate. An effort that failed spectacularly as much of the nation watched. As a former government manager, I faced countless frustrations in dealing with certain lackluster employees who relied on government unions to shield them from any accountability for their mediocre performance. As a taxpayer, I am offended that government unions – funded with taxpayer dollars in the form of government employee salaries – are allowed to engage in partisan politics.

I’m not interested in seeing the TSA unionized. This is a national security agency that needs flexibility to respond to threats – and the general inflexibility of unions undermines this flexibility. Sorry, man, I can’t work late tonight to help deal with that guy caught with a bomb in his pants – talk to my union rep.

All of this, however, does not change the fact that John Pistole is in no position to assert whether this administration intends to organize TSA workers.

I cringed as Republican Senator Jim DeMint led a posse to take down Erroll Southers, President Obama’s first choice to lead the TSA, over the pointless exercise of demanding that Southers say whether he would unionize the agency.

Whether he would unionize? Who are we kidding? Does anybody really think that the White House is going to let such a high-stakes decision be left to Erroll Southers – or John Pistole?

I can tell you this: Senator DeMint doesn’t really think so. He’s been around Washington too long to have any delusions about who makes such calls.

And what of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison? “The unionization issue,” she recently told CQ Homeland Security, “is clearly one that he’s going to need to answer.”

It is not. He cannot. And he won’t.

He will dodge it, just as Southers did. You can bet he has received training and talking points from well-placed sources on just how to dodge it.

The TSA has been without a Senate-confirmed leader for an embarrassing and dangerous amount of time. Certainly, President Obama must take a lot of the blame here by not bothering to nominate anyone for close to a year into his administration. However, DeMint’s hold on Southers over the unions issue was absurd.

Pistole is eminently qualified to lead the TSA. He has been the point man on the FBI’s leading counterterrorism cases. Considering his seniority within the FBI, it is highly unlikely the man has any skeletons in his closet, considering the number of background investigations he will have gone through by now.

The TSA needs leadership, and American citizens deserve somebody to finally take the reins and start making the necessary reforms and implementing the necessary strategies to move this critical aviation security agency forward.

Have we already forgotten the Christmas Day bomber incident?

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

The Perfect TSA Nominee: The Pistole Hearing

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

When the Chairman of any Congressional Committee uses the word the “embarrassing” to describe something at the very beginning of a hearing, a feeling or look of fear and dread is prone to appear in the testifying witness. That was not the case when it came to the nomination hearing of John Pistole to be the next TSA Administrator.

He was cooler than a cucumber. He was pleasant, sharp, prepared, comfortable, and never showed one hint of breaking a sweat or being flustered by anything that the Commerce Committee Senators threw at him. In short, he was outstanding. Frankly speaking, I think out of any of the nominees that the Administration has put forward for the various homeland positions, his confirmation hearing was the best performance out of them all. He was Stephen Strasburg in a navy suit and white shirt, and future nominees in this Administration and subsequent ones would do well to watch the tape of his performance to see what you should do and how you respond.

The embarrassing factor, as mentioned by Chairman Rockefeller, was the fact that it has taken the Administration this long to find someone to put in this absolutely critical job. While Pistole received tremendous accolades for his years of service at the FBI and his high profile and pressure-filled experiences from both sides of the political aisles, he had to endure the gauntlet of concerns and loaded questions about prospective collective bargaining for TSA workers.

Sens. Hutchison and DeMint did an exceptional job of framing their concerns about how the unionization of Transportation Security Officers at the nation’s airports might adversely impact national security and protecting the traveling public. In short, they don’t want political pressures to any particular interest to jeopardize national security or how the TSA Administrator does his or her job. While they mentioned these issues in previous hearings, the dynamics of this issue were different this time.

First off, Sen. Hutchison stated that she knew the final decision on the TSA collective bargaining issue would not be made by Pistole, should he become the agency’s new Administrator. That decision would be made by Secretary Napolitano. While her acknowledgement of that fact may seem mundane to casual observers, in the previous nomination hearings, then-nominees Erroll Southers and Robert Harding were made to be seen as the sole decision maker on this issue, and how they felt on the issue absolutely had to be known at that point in time. Hutchison, passing the buck to Napolitano, effectively took that threat away from Pistole. As the third nominee for this post, Pistole’s answer of “needing to look at all of the information” and his pledge “to engage the various stakeholders so as to make an informed decision on the matter for the Secretary” was literally the same statement that Southers and Harding had uttered before. This time his statement seemed to satisfy the concerns of collective bargaining opponents.

The second factor that changed the dynamic on this issue has to do with the results of Tuesday night’s midterm election results and the whole union-Obama Administration dynamic. After failing to take down Sen. Blanche Lincoln (and in the words of one anonymous White House official having “just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise”) organized labor is not exactly getting the political cover that it was once getting from the Administration or members of Congress. Relations between what has been a stalwart supporter of the Democratic Party and the White House have been decaying rather quickly. As such, opponents of collective bargaining are feeling the wind in their sails that they can defeat this issue, and those in favor of granting those rights aren’t exactly feeling warm and fuzzy by the strong-armed, bullying tactics that labor interests have been putting on display.

Of any of the exchanges on this issue, the best question came from Sen. DeMint when he asked Mr. Pistole whether “collective bargaining would improve national security operations at the FBI?”

Recognizing the trap that the loaded question was setting, he answered honestly in stating, “No. At the FBI we have to be able to surge resources and have flexibility to respond…”

While he gave DeMint the words he wanted, Pistole cautioned him that as a prospective TSA Administrator, he would “have to look at all of these issues to make a full and informed decision for the Secretary to consider on this issue.”

That was all the Committee on both sides of this issue needed to hear, and they then moved on to other issues of concern.

Pistole’s background and experiences literally put him in a category unto himself. While the two previous nominees had very distinguished and accomplished backgrounds and could have done admirable jobs if they had made it through the increasingly ugly confirmation process, the fact that Pistole was able to sit at the nominee table as the Number 2 guy at the FBI spoke volumes. He came to the table with no known concerns about accessing databases for personal use or awarding of, or over billing on, government contracts. Nowhere in the hearing was there question that there was any question about him. He was the perfect nominee and his performance showed it.

The only problem with being someone that good is the metric that must be achieved. He’s got one nightmare of an inbox waiting for him should he be “the one” to cross the finish line and finally become TSA’s next Administrator. If we have seen anything these past few months, hype and hope for nominees are two different things, but Pistole proved this week that he truly is the person for a very thankless job. Let’s hope he can live up to both.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

The Air Cargo Screening Mandate for Inbound Cargo

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Beginning this August, 100 percent of cargo bound for passenger planes must be screened before it is loaded. While this looming security deadline is reasonably well known to domestic air cargo companies (and somewhat less well known by thousands of shippers who may be affected), it is hardly known at all outside the United States. That is a problem, because the air cargo screening mandate applies not only to passenger flights within and from the United States, but also to foreign-originating flights to the United States.

Regarding the inbound flights, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated that it may take years to ensure that systems are in place to screen all cargo in foreign locations before loading onto US-bound passenger flights. Until that time, unscreened cargo will not be barred from entering the country. But the Department has repeatedly stated that it will fulfill the screening mandate for inbound flights, even if it takes several years past the deadline, and DHS has taken initial steps toward enforcing the mandate for inbound cargo: at the beginning of May, the Department began to insist that a portion of inbound passenger flight cargo must be screened.

DHS has begun working with a few foreign governments, airports, and airlines to establish or confirm the existence of satisfactory government screening systems for inbound passenger flight cargo. And DHS intends to formalize resultant arrangements in government-to-government agreements. These agreements may remove the need for airline-specific screening requirements that are embedded in each airline’s security program.

The Department is also considering whether and how an air cargo risk rating system – in which risk is assessed from data about the shipper, the contents, the recipient and other factors – might help satisfy the screening mandate. Such a risk rating system might obviate the need for more intrusive screening.

Options for foreign aircraft operators, airports and governments include:

Developing cargo screening procedures to satisfy TSA’s airline-specific requirements;
Working with DHS to facilitate government-to-government arrangements that remove the need for airline-specific requirements; and
Working with DHS to develop a cargo risk rating system that may obviate the need for more intrusive screening.

Sooner (better than later), foreign parties should consider which of these approaches to take.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Management & Administration, Supply Chain Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Watch the Live Broadcast – Roundtable on 100 Percent Air Cargo Screening

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

Readers may recall my past blogs about air cargo screening and an upcoming mandate that will have significant ramifications for supply chain efficiency.

When Congress passed the 9/11 Act of 2007, they made law a mandate for all air cargo flown on passenger-carrying planes to be scanned for explosives. The law gave the private sector three years to comply; it will be three years in August.

So where is the private sector vis-à-vis 100 percent air cargo screening readiness? In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ratcheted up the necessary amount of screened cargo to 75 percent. While this deadline appears to have been met, by most accounts, the private sector is still largely behind the curve and not fully prepared for August.

To be sure, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been working closely with the private sector in preparation for the mandate, in part through the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). CCSP has been well-received in some industries; certainly, we are closer now to reaching 100 percent screening than before. But there is still much to be done.

To that end, American Airlines Cargo is joining forces with TSA and others for a roundtable on the law and CCSP, which will broadcast live online at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, May 26.

The roundtable will broadcast from the Knight Studio at the Newseum in downtown Washington, DC (the same studio where ABC News’s political news show, “This Week,” is shot).

The forum will bring together public and private sector experts who will discuss how to achieve the 100 percent screening mandate, primarily by leveraging CCSP. Roundtable panelists (some of whom contribute to Security Debrief) include:

Dave Brooks, President, American Airlines Cargo Division
Doug Brittin, General Manager, Air Cargo, TSA
Brandon Fried, Executive Director, Airforwarders Association
Ken Konigsmark, Senior Manager, Supply Chain & Aviation Security Compliance

Jeff Sural (former legislative counsel at TSA and crruently homeland security counsel at Alston and Bird’s Legislative & Public Policy Group) will serve as moderator.

If you’re unfamiliar with the law requiring 100 percent screening, or if you would like to see — and participate in — a forum on how it applies to your business, be sure to watch AA Cargo’s air cargo screening roundtable at 2:00 PM EDT on Wednesday, May 26. Panel participants will take questions from viewers live online during the program.

Editor’s note: American Airlines Cargo is an Adfero client.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Cooper on Federal News Countdown

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Last week, I had an opportunity to speak with Federal News Radio’s Francis Rose about a variety of topics. We covered John Pistole’s nomination for TSA administrator, the Taliban’s plans for attacking our nation’s capital and of course, the ongoing discussion on immigration. You can listen to the broadcast by visiting the Federal News Countdown for May 21.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Napolitano Eliminates Paper Arrival-Departure form

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Last week I pointed out both that the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) does not contribute to illegal immigration and that DHS has a functioning biographic air exit system.

This week Secretary Napolitano announced the elimination of the paper I-94W form (the green arrival/departure form long used by VWP travelers.) In doing so, she rightly commented that “The Visa Waiver Program facilitates secure and hassle-free travel for citizens of participating countries—making international travel safer and easier.” She could have just as easily pointed out that eliminating the paper form will improve the Department’s ability to match entry/exit records and calculate overstay rates.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, counterterrorism | Comments