|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |


Archive for the ‘Congress, Politics & PR’ Category

« Older Entries

Congress has already passed a law allowing state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration

Friday, July 30th, 2010

This morning I published a piece in US News & World Report about the controversy over Arizona’s immigration law and the fight between the federal and state governments. The federal government asserts that Arizona is usurping the exclusive authority of the federal government to enforce immigration law.

To me, what has been curiously missing from the debate is that back in 1996 Congress passed a federal law  giving state and local governments (and their law enforcement organizations) the right to enforce immigration law.

On the one hand the federal government is suing Arizona for authorizing local law enforcement to coordinate with federal authorities regarding illegal immigration; on the other hand, the federal government is simultaneously requesting such assistance from local governments.

Below is a brief excerpt. To read the full article, go to: Congress Passed an Arizona-Like Immigration Law in 1996 – Chris Battle (usnews.com)

Back in 1996 it was time to get tough on immigration, and an interesting little law known as 287g was passed. This federal law deemed it appropriate for state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

Want to know what 287g says? Well, just read the law in Arizona. Yes, that law. The one causing protests in the streets of Phoenix, hysteria on cable talk shows and confusion in the courts. The one that empowers state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Featured Feed, Immigration & Visa Policy | 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

Politics vs. Security – A Tale of Two Committees

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Two Senate committees, three chemical security bills and one issue to rule them all – the role of so-called Inherently Safer Technologies (ISTs) in America’s approach to safeguarding communities from acts of terrorism.  With DHS’ Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) set to expire in October, lawmakers in the Senate are taking steps to keep it alive. What form the program ultimately takes will depend on whether legislators choose to focus on politics or national security.

Here’s where members agree:
1. CFATS, at least in its general form, needs to be maintained
2. The exclusion of drinking water and wastewater systems from CFATS (or a CFATS-like regime) presents a “security gap” due to their use of hazardous chemicals, such as gaseous chlorine

Here’s where members disagree:
1. Whether the existing CFATS program should be made permanent
2. Whether CFATS should be expanded to include other provisions, such as a requirement that certain facilities assess and/or implement IST

Due to jurisdictional issues in the Senate, the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) can only address provisions relating to chemical facilities. The Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee can only address provisions relating to drinking water and wastewater systems.

Both committees held proceedings on chemical security this week. Here’s how things panned out:

  • HSGAC’s Ranking Member, Susan Collins (R-ME), chose to scrap her own bill (S. 2996, the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010) in order to report out an amended version of H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 – which would now extend CFATS for three-years and excludes IST provisions. It passed 13-0 with bipartisan support.
  • EPW used Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) bill (S. 3598, the Secure Water Facilities Act) as a backdrop for its hearing.  S. 3598, which includes a strong IST component, does not have bipartisan support.  The hearing was used to extol the virtues of providing the government with IST mandate authority.

HSGAC, which spent most of its time addressing how factors such as risk, vulnerabilities, and consequence impact chemical security, passed a Republican-drafted amendment with unanimous support and moved us closer to establishing a permanent CFATS program. EPW used a hearing as a platform to play politics.

You tell me who got it right.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Bill Would Nix Deadline for Scanning Cargo at Foreign Ports

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Bill Would Nix Deadline for Scanning Cargo at Foreign Ports – CQ Homeland Security

A new bipartisan bill would eliminate the congressional mandate for the Department of Homeland Security to scan all U.S.-bound cargo in foreign ports for radiation by 2012.

The bill is one of two measures introduced this week that would reauthorize the 2006 law known as the SAFE Port Act (PL 109-347), which aims to improve maritime and cargo security through layered defenses. One of those layers has involved pushing the scanning and X-ray imaging of cargo away from U.S. ports to the points of departure overseas. Technological and logistical challenges, however, along with difficulties securing the cooperation of foreign governments, have slowed the process. Last week, Customs and Border Protection head Alan D. Bersin called for an alternative approach.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Patty Murray, D-Wash., responded to that call when they introduced their reauthorization bill, saying they want to drop the 2012 scanning deadline. The senators said the X-ray scanning technology that CBP has deployed, the reliability of which the agency has called into question, is not perfected. Their bill, as yet unnumbered, would eliminate the 100 percent requirement until Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano certifies that such security measures are effective.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, International, Maritime & Seaport Security, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Senate Panel to Discuss Afghanistan Amid Leak of War Documents

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Senate Panel to Discuss Afghanistan Amid Leak of War Documents – Homeland Security CQ

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday to discuss options for bringing about political reconciliation in Afghanistan.

The hearing is likely to be overshadowed, however, by a larger discussion on overall U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan following the release by WikiLeaks over the weekend of more than 92,000 pages of classified documents tracking the war in Afghanistan from January 2004 to December 2009. The New York Times reported that the documents suggest Pakistan’s spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, has provided support to the Afghan insurgency and has worked with al Qaeda to plan attacks against U.S. and NATO forces.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Intelligence, International, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Lip Service and the National Infrastructure Bank

Monday, July 26th, 2010

In 2008, when the then Obama Campaign issued its proposed vision for homeland security, it impressed a lot of people when it described the creation of a national infrastructure bank. This federally chartered structure would fund critical projects around the country by making the necessary investments in roads, bridges, utilities and more.

While not a new or novel idea, the fact that the then-Senator from Illinois’ campaign put the concept into his stated policy positions showed everyone that his team had done their homework in embracing a new and proactive tool to address the need to repair and invest in America’s infrastructures. With interest from Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the concept of the infrastructure bank would allow for a more responsive and attentive means in deciding which structures received funding.

As recent history has shown, many infrastructure projects around the country are funded by an increasingly political appropriations process that seems to reward States and Congressional Districts based more upon political power than actual need. One needs only look at the projects funded by the annual Appropriations bills of the House and Senate, as well as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation, to see who the real winners are. As a result, some of the infamous projects (such as Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” and any number of construction projects in the late Senator Robert Byrd’s home of West Virginia) were able to flourish.

Upon their taking ownership of the White House in January 2009, the new Obama Administration followed through on its suggested campaign policy idea by stating that establishing a national infrastructure bank was one of their priorities. In fact, it was posted right off the White House website and was one of the first items detailed by the new Administration when they took over.

Once again their words offered hope of forthcoming “change.” Giving even more rise to these aspirations, in the weeks before taking the Oath of Office and in the weeks after, the President talked boldly about making investments in America’s infrastructure as a means of getting hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work.

With senior Congressional champions for the infrastructure bank in the wings, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), two of the most senior Members of Congress, were ready to work with the Administration to make it happen.

With the economy in dire shape, the new Obama Administration signed off on a Recovery Act package full of plenty of spending but none of the real change to how infrastructure was funded.  To them, the money needed to get out to states and locals as soon as possible, so they used the same old means to fund projects around the country. Once again, the mechanisms of old that had funded projects for decades were once again flush with cash. In the year and a half since then, critics on both sides of the political aisle see a package that did not perform as promised or yield the results anyone wanted.

When the time came for the Obama Administration to put forward its own budget, much to the surprise of many, the national infrastructure bank was nowhere to be found. But there was still hope.

In a May 5 appearance at the Center for National Policy, Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), one of the most passionate Members of the House, encouraged the Administration to “act boldly” in fighting for the infrastructure bank. She asserted that throughout our country’s tough times, our Presidents think and act boldly, pointing to Lincoln’s decision to fund the railroad to reach the Pacific; FDR’s decision to build TVA and other projects during the Depression; Eisenhower’s decision to create a national interstate highway system; and Kennedy’s pledge to go to the moon. It was her hope that Obama would do the same when it came to creating the bank to invest in America’s national infrastructure.

It would seem that her hopes and those of many who want to see the national infrastructure bank become a reality are fleeting. Despite public pleas from some of the country’s leading voices on infrastructure investment issues (e.g., PA Gov. Ed Rendell, CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the US Chamber of Commerce and more), the infrastructure bank remains an idea whose time has not come.

Despite having windows of opportunity with the 2009 Recovery Act, last year’s budget cycle and even this year’s Appropriations process, the Obama Administration has failed to provide any leadership initiative or requisite details on making the bank a real 21st century tool for renewing and investing in America’s infrastructure. Even with Members of both political parties open to the idea and wanting to see how it would operate, the details for this concept seemed to be as vacuous as the leadership to make it happen.

This is a profound disappointment for those of us who champion critical infrastructure issues.  It’s an even greater disappointment when you consider the state of our infrastructure across this country. The ASCE Report Cards and other studies have been blistering in their assessments of America’s infrastructure, but for reasons that defy any sense of logic, the Administration and Congress continue to fund the very mechanisms that have failed to improve our infrastructure standing for the past quarter century.

A famous quote attributed to Einstein comes to mind, where insanity is defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The Obama Administration has had three exceptional opportunities to start a new page in how we fund our country’s infrastructure needs. Instead, they keep singing the same tune as their predecessors, as opposed to being the professed “change” they promised to voters. That is a measure in which no one can take pride or claim accomplishment.

Maybe in the new Congress, they will fulfill Rep. DeLauro’s vision and “act boldly.” Maybe they will also find the courage to change their tune and deliver the real leadership and necessary details this initiative really needs. Until they do, the only accurate term to describe their position on the infrastructure bank is “lip service” and that is never in short supply in Washington. I guess some things never “change.”

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Featured Feed, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

New TSA chief gets pressure on collective bargaining

Monday, July 26th, 2010

New TSA chief gets pressure on collective bargaining – GovExec

Now that the Transportation Security Administration chief has had about a month to settle into his job, unions and some lawmakers are starting to make more noise on collective bargaining rights for airport screeners.

On Thursday, National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley encouraged members of Congress to sign a letter asking TSA Administrator John Pistole to review agency policies and to “strongly consider providing comprehensive workplace and employment rights,” including veterans preference and whistleblower protection in addition to collective bargaining.

The letter, drafted by Reps. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., agued such rights would help address low morale and high rates of attrition, injury and discrimination complaints within the screener workforce. Thompson and Lowey’s 2009 Transportation Security Workforce Enhancement Act (H.R. 1881), which would allow Transportation Security officers to negotiate workplace conditions, has gathered nearly 150 co-sponsors.

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

Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System – ImmigrationProf Blog

A new report by Human Rights Watch, “Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System,” says that immigrants with mental disabilities are often unjustifiably detained for years on end, sometimes with no legal limits. The report documents case after case in which people with mental disabilities were prevented from making claims against deportation – including claims of US citizenship – because they were unable to represent themselves. Some of the people interviewed for the report did not know their own names, were delusional, could not tell time, or did not know that deportation meant removal from the United States.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Management & Administration | Comments

End the Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Here’s a piece I recently published in Roll Call about the disparity in sentences handed out for possessing powder versus crack cocaine.

End the Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

Elena Kagan’s nomination for the Supreme Court has once again reminded America that fairness and equal treatment are fundamental to the success of the rule of law. One of the most important criminal justice debates in recent history centers on the substantial difference in prison sentences for crack versus powdered cocaine possession, a disparity that has not only encouraged a misapplication of limited law enforcement resources, but more importantly, has been the source of unequal punishment for basically identical crimes.

In March, the Senate unanimously approved the Fair Sentencing Act, legislation that reduces the disparity in sentences for crack and powdered cocaine possession, from 100 to 1, to 18 to 1. Now it is up to the House to approve the bill and rectify a sentencing mandate that is simply unjust.

Skyrocketing crack use in the 1980s brought with it a rise in violent crime and pervasive fears about the highly addictive narcotic’s long-term impact on society. At the time, crack was believed to chemically induce violent action and was seen as a society-crushing epidemic. The consequences for possessing the narcotic were therefore made severe; Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, setting, among other things, stiff sentences for possessing crack.

But the amount of crack cocaine needed to trigger the five- and 10-year mandatory sentences is significantly less — 100 times less — than that for powder cocaine. Specifically, a conviction for possessing 5 grams of crack (equivalent to about the weight of two pennies) guarantees a five-year prison sentence. It takes 500 grams of powdered cocaine to trigger the same mandatory sentence.

I first came across this matter while a Member of Congress in the ’90s, serving on the House Judiciary Committee. In reviewing data on federal prosecutions and sentences from the 10 years since the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was enacted, it became apparent that the disparity between powdered and crack cocaine sentences was failing on two points.

First, it did not consistently lead to the prosecution of major drug traffickers and sellers; it led to increased prosecutions of small-time dealers and peripheral supporters, such as boyfriends or girlfriends.

Second, with a better understanding of crack — its chemical properties and effects on the body — it was becoming clear that the courts were giving different punishments for the same crime. Powdered and cooked cocaine are chemically the same. Further, crack does not inherently cause violence; rather, violence is a product of the drug trade and the historically violent trends in areas where crack is predominantly used and sold. Thus, giving substantially longer prison sentences for crack over powdered cocaine is as illogical as it is unfair.

While head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, I talked with front-line agents and drug task force officers who said the sentencing disparity was undermining community confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. This sense of inequity can have real impacts in the day-to-day fight against illegal narcotics; a perception of inequality makes it more difficult for agents to receive cooperation from informants and others. Yet another challenge resulting from the law — disparity harms rather than helps our federal anti-crime efforts.

This is not a partisan issue, though some have suggested that rectifying the disparity falls along party lines. Kagan has supported reducing the disparity for some time, though she second-guessed earlier efforts, believing such a reduction would not garner the needed Congressional Republican support. But this doesn’t hold across the board. There are Republicans who have supported rectifying the disparity for years (author case in point), including President Ronald Reagan, who proposed a 20-to-1 differential between the two forms of cocaine.

Now that Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) have led the Senate in passing legislation to reduce the sentencing disparity, the time has come to resolve this issue and provide citizens with fair justice. Approving the Fair Sentencing Act will support equal treatment for all under the law, a principle upon which our country is founded.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Management & Administration, Narcotics | 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:

John Pistole

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.

Arrivals&Departures, Air Cargo Week, 7/19

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

Congress Heal Thyself (yet again)

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

How many times must the story be told of the mal-effects from the mishmash of Congressional turf battles over the Department of Homeland Security before something is done? Today’s latest entry is a well-done NPR story (no, that isn’t redundant) entitled, “Who Oversees Homeland Security? Um, Who Doesn’t?”

It is past time for the Congressional leadership of both parties to act. If Congress really wants to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” from government programs, it can start in its own House (and Senate). Make it a campaign pledge for Members running for re-election that they will eliminate the overlapping, duplicative and outright idiotic oversight structure that Congress currently imposes on DHS.

The American people have no problem with Congress holding DHS accountable – they just don’t want the Department charged with protecting us from bad people and bad things to be held hostage by 108 Congressional committees and subcommittees. It is past time to correct this problem.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Science & Technology | 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

Nine States File Legal Briefs Declaring Support of Arizona Constitutional Authority

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Nine States File Legal Briefs Declaring Support of Arizona Constitutional Authority – Blogs for Borders

States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama’s administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law’s backers say Congress isn’t doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it’s the state’s duty to step up.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | 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

Unnecessary “Jurisdictional Turf Battles” Threaten to Derail WMD Bill

Friday, June 25th, 2010

Earlier this week, the House Homeland Security Committee marked up the WMD Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2010 in an effort to implement recommendations from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (the so-called Graham-Talent WMD Commission). There were a number of good stories about the Committee action, but the one that caught my eye was from Martin Matishak at Global Security Newswire.

Despite the clearly recognized threat of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, congressional leadership still had not recognized that its failure to defragment congressional oversight of homeland security matters is contributing to our lack of preparedness for when this attack occurs. Shame on them if they don’t pay attention to the warnings from Representatives Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) and Peter King (R-NY) at the time of the WMD bill markup. According to Matishak’s article:

Both Pascrell and King argued for quick passage of the bill.

“My concern is that … this legislation could be stuck in the same jurisdictional turf battles we have been fighting” since Congress created the Homeland Security Department and the legislative panels to oversee that agency in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Pascrell said before the vote.

“If we simply shelve this legislation because of jurisdictional turf battles then we prove the idea that we are no safer today than we were on Sept. 10, 2001,” he said.

The measure has already been referred to five other House panels, according to King. They include: Energy and Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“It’s just a glaring example of how the issue of homeland security is being bogged down in congressional bureaucracy,” the New York lawmaker said.

What I am afraid of, however, is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team in the House cannot be “shamed” into doing the right thing. One of the first public actions she took as Speaker was to push the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission – all but ONE, that is; the one that consolidated congressional oversight of homeland security issues. The House leadership has ignored the issue for far too long. Now we have another congressionally created Commission that has pointed out serious risks – and there is a probability that Congress will still do nothing about it.

If the United States suffers a WMD terrorist attack while Congress fiddles with “jurisdictional turf battles,” as Representative Pascrell warned, one would hope there is the same level of scrutiny over congressional malfeasance, as is the case with the BP Deepwater Horizon debacle. In that case, the message will no longer be, “Congress, Heal Thyself.” It will be “Congress, Blame Thyself.”

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, 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

“The US border has never been more secure”

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Before a packed audience at CSIS, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered what can only be described as a pointed and aggressive defense of the Obama Administration’s border security efforts. Declaring that “the US border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo,” her “tough talk” about border security comes at a very interesting time.

With the Obama Administration poised to challenge in court the recently enacted tough Arizona immigration law, the ongoing southwest border violence and recent charges by Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) regarding a recent Oval Office meeting with the President about when immigration reform might be tackled, the Obama Administration rolled out their most experienced border expert to take on its critics and declare what had been done.

While I’ve never seen her campaign for elective office, I got the sense from her delivery that she was very happy to put on her boxing gloves and take on all comers. It was in essence a campaign speech to declare what had been done on the Administration’s watch and to make sure they knew the President and his team deserved credit for it.

Pointedly saying, “the numbers tell a story and don’t lie,” the Secretary detailed increases in border patrol hiring and deployments, increases in enforcement and deportations, and in technology deployments. The numbers were impressive and they do tell a positive story, but sitting in the audience, I and a number of other attendees noted that many of the investments and numbers she heralded were initiated by her predecessor, Michael Chertoff and the previous Administration. I haven’t had time to do it, but it would be an interesting side-by-side comparison to put the end-of-term Chertoff accomplishments against the numbers professed at CSIS. I’m sure the numbers have improved, but they were already trending in the right direction. Fortunately the Obama Administration has kept them going that way.

I’m sure that sounds like political pettiness (especially from a former DHS political appointee, as I was), but for as quick as this Administration is to blame the Bush Administration for all that is wrong in the world, there are a number of things for which they also deserve credit. Doubling the size of the border patrol and other investments are part of that legacy. I realize it is not in Sec. Napolitano’s job description to burnish the legacy of her predecessor or the previous Administration but a significant portion of what she crowed about at CSIS she inherited, and it has made a difference. If that sounds defensive, it was supposed too. The “facts also tell a story.”

In sending out the Administration’s strongest and most experienced voice on the southwest border, the White House through DHS is essentially taking head-on the criticisms of the 24-7 punditry (e.g. Fox News, etc.); Congress; and states like Arizona that are looking to follow with their own tough illegal immigration measures. Declaring several times that border security “is the responsibility of the federal government” and “we can’t have 50 different policies” for immigration, “smart actions” were the only thing that could solve the on-going border security problems that plague our nation.

To reinforce that point, Chief Rob Davis of the San Jose Police Department emphasized the challenge and confusion that he and other police departments face. “Do you want us [police officers] out looking for murderers, rapists and other bad guys or arresting illegal immigrants?” Explaining that his police department was facing a potential force reduction of 8 percent because of ongoing budget problems in California, he stated that communities across America were going to have to make a choice of what they wanted policed when resources such as his were becoming increasingly limited. And having 50 different immigration enforcement policies was not a suitable answer.

His point couldn’t have been driven home any better, and his call for the nation to produce a comprehensive immigration bill was just what the Secretary wanted to hear. Applauding his public service as well as his statement, Secretary Napolitano offered that until that was done by Congress, our border problems would continue.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, Management & Administration, Smuggling | Comments

Arizona immigration law puts Democrats’ seats in peril

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Arizona law puts Democrats’ seats in peril – Scott Wong – POLITICO.com

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is imperiling a trio of centrist Arizona Democrats who are caught in powerful crosscurrents in their Republican-leaning House districts.

The leader of their party, President Barack Obama, has criticized the state law as “misguided,” and the Justice Department plans to challenge the law in court. On the other side are Republican challengers who are tapping into deep local frustration over the issue and portraying the junior Democrats as sympathetic to illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, liberal Democratic colleagues — including at least one in the Arizona congressional delegation — have called the law “racist” and urged economic boycotts of Arizona.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Watch Your Mouth – Words can be the Real WMDs

Friday, June 18th, 2010

As every person knows, words have consequences. They can raise someone up or tear them down. Depending on how they are used, words can change the meaning and significance of events. They can also ruin someone’s career, and the past days and weeks have given us example after example of just that.

In each of these instances, prominent people have essentially opened their respective mouths and inserted their feet with such speed that everyone around them is in a collective gasp of shock, saying, “What did you say?”

Important points can be instantly invalidated when the wrong words are used at the wrong moment, regardless of what the speaker intended with their comment. Each of the above mentioned cases proves that without a doubt, but it’s not just prominent people who say the wrong thing at the wrong time. For all the countless (and recent) examples of famous people saying something improper in front of live microphone (e.g., Vice President Biden’s F-bomb); a television camera (e.g., CA GOP candidate Carly Fiona opining on Sen. Boxer’s haircut) or some other public venue (e.g., NV GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle), everyone one of us has some episode in our lives that we would love to take back, when we opened our own mouths and promptly inserted both feet.

All of those examples and events certainly provide moments of public (or private) laughter and fodder for late-night comedians, but when the wrong words are used in moments of stress and crisis (e.g., Gulf oil spill, Afghanistan conflict), their consequences are graver.

Accomplished careers can be vaporized in an instant. With a perpetual 24-7 news cycle and social media replaying the gaffe forever more, the wrong words become in effect an epitaph that will forever haunt an individual (e.g. “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job,” “As of now, I am in control here in the White House,” and “Let them eat cake“).

None of this is fair but neither is life. It is a fact of life that in times of crisis, words can cause more harm to a situation than the event that originated the crisis. Making it worse is almost never the intent of the person who opens their mouth, but when operating in any highly toxic environment where crisis and stress are the unfortunate operative norm, what you say does matter in ways like never before.

That’s a fact that no one can be or should be cavalier about either. Everyone can fall victim to this situation, but words have consequences. They always have, and that’s why they can be the ultimate weapons of mass (and self) destruction.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

Water Systems – A Rising Rate to Lift Our Nation?

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Leaders at every level of government continue to ignore the obvious, and dare I say, “inconvenient” truth about water: We need to raise rates. Either that or get used to being thirsty, stock up on Pepto-Bismol, and get ready for a mean tutorial on what Cholera feels like.

Peter H. Gleick got it right in his Washington Post editorial. U.S. water systems are the best in the world, but the fight to maintain water quality may be lost if utilities remain hamstrung by requirements to under charge for services. Apparently, paying more than $0.01 per gallon is a mortal sin. Consider that the next time you plug $2.00 into a vending machine for a 20oz bottle of Aquafina.

According to the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress and the American Society of Civil Engineers, there is a respective spending shortfall of $298.1 billion for clean water systems and $220 billion for drinking water systems to replace their aging infrastructure over the next 20 years.  That’s a lot of money for a resource we cannot live without, but no one seems to be listening.

While much of this issue should be handled locally, Congress needs to help too.  Asking the public to accept paying higher water rates in return for Congress contributing additional dollars for investment in water systems is reasonable.  Dear Congress: Stop talking and toying with the idea of creating a water bank utilities could access to get the funds they need to save our water systems. Instead, try actually establishing one.

At a time when government has become more reactionary than proactive, we need our elected representatives at all levels to rise above the fray and act for the greater good. If water is life, and life is short, then we have a responsibility to act now – before the tap runs dry.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

« Older Entries
©2008 Adfero Group. All Rights Reserved.