Event: House HS Hearing with Janet Napolitano

The House Committee on Homeland Security will be having a full committee hearing on Wednesday Feb 25, with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano as a witness. I may have a chance to attend this hearing in person. If so, I’ll post a separate entry on it after the hearing.

Event:    House Homeland Security, Full Committee Hearing
Date:     Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Time:     10:00am
Location: 311 Canon House Office Building
Witness:  Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security
Register: Registration not needed, but you may want to arrive early to get a seat.

• Hearing information on House HS Committee web site

House passes law to improve sharing of threat information

From the Associated Press:

Legislation passed by the House Tuesday (H.R. 553) would require DHS to produce a declassified version of threat information for state and local first responders who don’t have the security clearance to view classified material.  The measure would also require portion marking, where certain classified parts of a document might be blacked out but the rest of the information would remain unclassified.

Steven Aftergood, a secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists, said the Harman bill sends an important message that classification should not be a barrier to keeping local officials informed about threats.  But he said the bill doesn’t cover the CIA or the Pentagon, the biggest sources of classified data. “This is not the systemic change that we need but it is an urgent part of the larger problem and I hope it will elevate classification reform in the administration agenda.”

The bill, which passed by a voice vote, passed the House in the last session of Congress but wasn’t taken up by the Senate.  The bill now goes to the Senate.  I’ll update this post as the bill status changes.

• Full story
• H.R. 553
• Transcript of committee vote

New bill calls for quarterly reports from DHS grant recipients

From Government Security News:

A bill that would require recipients of homeland security grants to file quarterly reports to Congress on precisely how they spent those funds has been filed by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and co-sponsored by five other congressmen.

The measure, H.R. 625, was introduced on Jan. 21 and referred to the House Homeland Security Committee. It is intended to provide greater transparency on how DHS grant monies are actually expended.

I’ll update this post when the status changes.

• Full story
• Full text of H.R. 625

Napolitano sails through confirmation hearing

Updated 01/16 21:00 EST

Janet Napolitano completed her confirmation before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Thursday without any real challenges, garnering praise and vows of support from every member of the committee, including both Republican members.  Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) said that he will move to have Napolitano confirmed by the full Senate as soon as possible after President-elect Obama’s inauguration next week, and said that seating Napolitano was “as important as seating the secretary of defense to the security of our country.”

When asked what her top priorities for DHS are, Napolitano gave three:

1. Create a unified vision and culture for the department.
   • Give the departments people and offices the sense that it’s a single agency rather than an agglomeration of organizations.
2. Bring together the “best and brightest” personnel.
   • She also touched on DHS’ low morale, and said she wanted to create “real career paths” that will allow people to rise in the ranks.
3. “Complete the work of the transition.”
   • Basically, complete the hand-offs, and get people up-to-speed and down to business quickly.

Some other areas emphasized during her testimony included interoperability, border security and immigration, and FEMA’s relationship with DHS.  She also said she was committed to ensuring that DHS communicate better with the public.

Regarding FEMA, both Lieberman and Susan Collins (R-ME), the ranking Republican member of the committee, urged Napolitano not to reorganize DHS and not to remove FEMA from DHS.  Napolitano hasn’t publicly taken a position on FEMA’s relationship wtih DHS, but she has reportedly been asking members of Congress for their views on it, and she pledged to actively study it.

Summary: She’ll get confirmed easily, possibly as early as January 21st.  She appears to have a good working relationship with the member of the committee, which may enable her to be more effective, at least as long as the honeymoon lasts.  Expect interoperability and border security to get increased focus and resources, and expect some changes in immigration enforcement.

• HSToday: Napolitano Sails Through Confirmation Hearing
• HSToday: Impressions of Napolitano
• Transcript: Napolitano’s opening statement at the hearing

DHS IG Report: DHS’ role in fusion centers

The DHS Office of Inspector General issued a report last week on “DHS’ Role in
State and Local Fusion Centers”.  The report was issued in response to a request from U.S. Representative Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

The report reviews successes and challenges in detail, and makes 7 recommendations.  The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (DHS I&A) is the organization in DHS responsible for fusion centers, and the report states that I&A agreed with all 7 recommendations, and “has proposed plans and taken action that, once fully implemented, will reduce a number of the deficiencies…identified.”

Here’s a summary of the recommendations:

1. Improve responses to Requests for Information, and identify designated points-of-contact between I&A and fusion centers for information needs.
2. Expand training courses, including adding additional course locations (not just Washington D.C.), and exploring online training.
3. Integrate all relevant I&A division roles and responsibilities into the fusion center program.
4. Review and increase assignments of DHS staff to fusion centers.
5. Develop measurable performance standards for the fusion center program, and justify continued costs.
6. Improve interconnectivity among the multiple unclassified and classified information systems used to share and obtain information from fusion centers.
7. Explore funding options and identify sufficient resources for the fusion center program.  This includes providing staff to the State and Local Program Office to oversee and manage the program.

Regardless of intent, whether or not any of these recommendations are implemented will ultimately come down to funding.  To this end, recommendations #4 (increase DHS staff assigned to fusion centers), #6 (improve interconnectivity among systems), and the 2nd half of #7 (providing staff to oversee and manage the program) are probably the least likely to be implemented in the near future.  But expect funds for some or all of these to be requested in the DHS FY2010 budget.

• Full report
• DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A)
• DHS Fusion Center Program

Executive order on lab biosecurity

President Bush issued an executive order last week establishing a working group to review biosecurity at U.S. labs and issue a report to the President within 180 days with “recommendations for any new legislation, regulations, guidance, or practices for security and personnel assurance” and “options for establishing oversight mechanisms.”  The order covers “federal and nonfederal facilities that conduct research on, manage clinical or environmental laboratory operations involving, or handle, store, or transport biological select agents and toxins.”

Insufficient biosecurity at U.S. labs was highlighted in the report from the Commission on the Prevention of  WMD Proliferation and Terrorism released last month.  In response to that report, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs indicated it may introduce legislation to strengthen lab security as well.

There is considerable overlap in purpose between the new working group and the Senate committee efforts, and the Commission has undoubtedly done some of the investigative work outlined in the executive order.  So the new working group may serve more as a platform to ensure executive branch agency cooperation and input into new legislation than as an actual investigative body.

• White House press release – Executive Order: Strengthening Laboratory Biosecurity in the United States
• Report: Commission on the Prevention of  WMD Proliferation and Terrorism
• Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee press release

DHS lessons learned from Mumbai attacks

DHS Under Secretary Charles Allen (DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis) testified last week before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, discussing both the lessons DHS learned from the November terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and the information sharing efforts of DHS with regard to the attacks.

Although committee testimony can sometimes be a bit dry, Allen’s testimony is relatively short and offers some insight into DHS policy direction, so you may want to read it.  Here are some highlights:

Prevention and Deterrence:

• Previously disrupted plots (and previously identified targets) may resurface.
  • Reducing security protection leaves attackers an opening, no matter how much time has passed since the intial threat.
• A determined and innovative adversary will make great efforts to find security vulnerabilities and exploit them.
  • Think like attackers to identify our weak points before they exploit them.
• Security must be unpredictable for the adversary, but predictably responsive to those it is meant to protect.
• Target knowledge was paramount to the effectiveness of the attack.
  • DHS is working on programs to help detect pre-attack surveillance.
• “Low tech” attacks can achieve terrorist strategic goals-and can be dramatically enhanced by technology enablers.
  • Note: The attackers may have used wireless devices from hostages to monitor and interfere with the response against them.

Response and Recovery

• Response to a similar terrorist attack in a major U.S. urban city would be complicated and difficult.
• A unified command system is of paramount importance if governments are to respond to terrorist attacks quickly and effectively.
• Public-private interactions are crucial and must be developed before an incident occurs.
• Threat Information must be quickly and accurately conveyed to the public.
  • But he stressed DHS has procedures and practices to balance this with the need to ensure attackers can’t use the information to further their attack goals.
• Training exercises that integrate lessons learned are critical.
  • Future national exercises will include Mumbai-style attacks.
• We must protect the attack sites to collect intelligence and evidence to identify the perpetrators.
  • Proper evidence collection must be incorporated into training, planning, and response.

Note: Several reports were cited in the testimony, almost all marked For Official Use Only (FOUO), so they’re not available to link to.  If you would like access to any of these reports, I suggest you either contact your local fusion center or information sharing center, or contact I&A directly (they may point you to a regional organization that can properly vet you as having legitimate need to see the document).

Final Note: Controlling Wireless Information

Use of wireless devices by attackers is already being targeted from a technology standpoint (The NYPD expressed interest in jamming or intercepting wireless signals at the same hearings).  I expect this to become a hot topic, and I expect it to be addressed from an infrastructure & policy standpoint as well (giving responders some measure of control of private wireless infrastructure during an attack).  A combination of both would be necessary to deny attackers information they could use without interfering with the wireless information responders need, so watch for some policy debate on this issue.

• Full transcript of Allen’s testimony
• DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis

FEMA’s relationship to DHS drawing attention and debate

One of the most important decisions President-elect Obama will face when his administration takes over DHS is whether to leave FEMA as a part of DHS, or remove it from DHS and make it a cabinet-level agency, as it was before DHS was formed.  Members of Congress, stakeholders, and prominent organizations are taking sides on the issue, but it’s not clear yet what stance the Obama administration will take.

[UPDATE 05/15: CQ Politics reports that on Wednesday 5/13, Secretary Napolitano stated that the Obama administration supports keeping FEMA within DHS; but one day later, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) said that he will continue his push to remove FEMA from DHS, despite opposition from the administration.  Give some credit to the dedicated folks at FEMA who’ve had to endure the uncertainty of this long-running debate, because apparently it’s not over yet.]

House: Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee wrote to President-elect Obama on Dec. 17 to demand the removal of FEMA from DHS, declaring that its placement in the larger agency impedes its ability to serve as a “quick response” agency.  In response, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Rep. wrote to Obama Dec. 19 strongly disagreeing with Oberstar, saying that FEMA should remain in DHS, but that Obama should appoint someone to lead FEMA who has a strong relationship with Obama.

Senate: Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Disaster Recovery Subcommittee, has stated that she doesn’t recommend removing FEMA from DHS at this point, but she’s open to the concept and wouldn’t resist it if the new administration made the decision to make the change.  Landrieu told Homeland Security Secretary-designate Janet Napolitano that “there were still some senators that felt strongly about it staying where it is, some that were kind of open to change and others that would really recommend that it be made independent”, and that “it should be open to discussion.”

Update 01/15/09: Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the ranking Republican member, urged Janet Napolitano at her confirmation hearing not to remove FEMA from DHS.

Bush Administration: The Bush administration made the decision to include FEMA in DHS, and still supports that decision.  Michael Chertoff has publicly stated that he opposes removing FEMA from DHS, and has cautioned his successor from making any major changes to DHS.

Obama Administration: The Obama administration has not taken a public stance on either side of the issue.  Senator Landrieu said Napolitano is “testing the waters” with Congress to find out how members of Congress feel about the issue.  Landrieu emphasized that Napolitano didn’t say removing FEMA from DHS is something the Obama team is considering.

Update 01/15/09: At Janet Napolitano’s confirmation hearing, she didn’t take a stance on either side of the issue, instead promising to actively look into the issue.  But her other testimony about FEMA indicated strong support both for FEMA and for increasing FEMA’s cooperation with the rest of DHS, regardless of where FEMA ends up.

Update 02/25/09: The DHS Inspector General weighed in with a report titled “FEMA: In or Out?“, in which the ID recommends keeping FEMA in DHS.

Other Organizations and Stakeholders: A month ago the International Association of Emergency Managers officially endorsed removing FEMA from DHS (Representatives Oberstar and Thompson publicly disagreed on the issue at that time as well).  In addition, the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, weighed in on December 4 with a memo supporting Thompson’s position to leave FEMA as part of DHS.  A number of other organizations and stakeholders have cautioned more generally against any major reorganizations at DHS, even though they may not have addressed FEMA specifically.

Update 01/08/2009: 3 fire service organizations – the IAFC (International Association of Fire Chiefs),  IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters), and Congressional Fire Services Institute – weigh in against removing FEMA from DHS.

• The IAFF is affiliated with the AFL-CIO (labor is expected to have some influence in the strongly Democratic Congress), and according to the IAFF web site, “The IAFF is one of the most active lobbying organizations in Washington; its Political Action Committee, FIREPAC, is among the top one percent of the more than 4,000 federal PACs in the country.”
• So expect these 3 organizations to carry some weight, and for Congress to resist if the Obama administration pushes to separate FEMA from DHS.

Potential Conflicts: In Oberstar’s letter to Obama he declared that his committee has jurisdiction over FEMA and that making FEMA independent would have strong support in Congress.  However, the overlapping nature of Congressional oversight of DHS makes it likely that other Congressional Committees, including the House Committee on Homeland Security that Thompson chairs, will lay some claim to FEMA oversight as well.

Expectations (My Take): Expect continued public discussion and debate, but expect Obama to take some time before making a decision.  And regardless of what his final decision is, don’t expect a change to FEMA any time soon.  Obama tends to be a consensus builder, and feelings are strong enough on this issue that even if Obama decides to remove FEMA from DHS, he’ll probably go slow, taking time to build a broader base of support for the change before implementing it.

UPDATE 12/24/08: It’s important to note that one of the reasons there is resistance to making FEMA independent of DHS again is that some important entanglements between FEMA and DHS have already been established in terms of politics, funding, and already enacted legislation (which was written to apply to DHS as a whole).  It could get pretty messy to separate them at this point.  For example, allocation of funds for the DHS Homeland Security Grants Program (HSGP) is performed by the FEMA Grants Directorate, and moving that function to DHS could cause confusion and funding changes all the way down to the state and local level.  So if FEMA is ultimately pulled out of DHS, expect some ripples and unintended consequences in unexpected areas.

Update 02/25/09: At this point, I’d say the momentum is clearly on the side of keeping FEMA in DHS, and I’m going to stop updating this post.  If this changes and the momentum seems to swing the other way, I’ll publish a new post.

• HSToday: Thompson, Oberstar Clash Over FEMA
• DHS IG Report “FEMA: In or Out?”
• Emergency Managers endorse removing FEMA from DHS
• Heritage Foundation: Cabinet-Level FEMA Not Needed
• U.S. Presidential Transition Weekly Report 12-12-08 – Includes Senator Mary Landrieu’s statements
• Napolitano sails through confirmation hearing
• Obama administration plan to keep FEMA in DHS, but Oberstar vows to continue fighting for removal

GAO faults agencies for lack of coordination on interoperability

According to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released on December 12, DHS, DOJ, and the Treasury Department are no longer coordinating with each other to develop a nationwide federal wireless communications service for use by first responders.  The report, requested by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-CT)  and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME), found the different departments are now working on individual interoperability projects rather than implementing the Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) program.

• Press release
• Full report
• IWN program overview

Expect changes in U.S. approach to cybersecurity

The U.S. approach to cybersecurity is likely to change significantly under the Obama administration.  Although it’s not clear yet exactly what priorities will be sacrificed to make room for the increased focus, or how the changes will all play out, here are some highlights of recent activities in this area:

• Reports: A recent report highlighted weaknesses in U.S. cybersecurity efforts, and recommended changes to U.S. cybersecurity leadership and policy, including the White House taking over the lead for cybersecurity efforts from DHS.
• Obama Administration: President-elect Obama’s statements during the campaign, and his relationships with the authors of the reports (several of whom are advisors to his campaign), suggest that he’ll probably appoint a “cybersecurity czar” at the White House to coordinate national cybersecurity efforts.  Speculation is rising about who he’ll appoint to the post.
• Congress: Key members of Congress have stated concerns about our lack of preparedness and inability to protect from and respond to cyber attacks.
  • Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), chair of the House Intelligence subcommittee on Technical Intelligence, says billions of dollars need to be invested by both government and the private sector.  Rep. Ruppersberger also supports appointment of a “cybersecurity czar” at the White House.
  • Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), chair of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Cybersecurity, said “We’re way behind where we need to be now.”  Rep. Langevin has also called for leadership of cybersecurity efforts to be removed from DHS, and for increases in our offensive cyber warfare capabilities to use as a deterrent (much as our offensive conventional and nuclear capabilities are used as a deterrents to conventional and WMD attacks).
• DHS: Although DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff agrees we have significant vulnerabilities, he cautions against changing leadershipof cybersecurity efforts at this stage.  But incoming Secretary Janet Napolitano may have a different view, especially if changes are supported by President-elect Obama.
• Front-Line Stakeholders: Many key participants in a recent cyberwar simulation exercise reported that we’re not prepared for a real cyberwar.
• Recent Precedents: Cyber attacks aimed at Estonia earliet this year, and aimed at Georgia during the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia in South Ossetia underscored both the likelihood and effectiveness of cyber-attacks during a conflict of any kind.  These attacks were effective, even though they are widely believed to have come from non-state actors (Russian sympathizers).

Summary:

With agreement about our vulnerability all the way from the front line to Congress and the White House, expect some major changes in both leadership and policy.  Increases in funding should also be expected, though whether funding comes as new expenditures or shifting of funding from other areas remains to be seen.

For more information:

• Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency
• Report: Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency
• Report offers warnings and recommendations for cybersecurity
• Chertoff urges caution on potential of new cybersecurity laws
• U.S. not ready for cyber attack
• U.S. urged to go on offensive in cyber war
• DHS Rebuttal: Getting the facts straight on cybersecurity