Homeland Security Focus Areas

Science and Technology

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - TECHNOLOGY

July 18, 2003 - 7:38 p.m.
Hunting bin Laden with Mouse Clicks and Software
By Jim McGee and Amy Menefee, CQ Staff Writers

Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks nearly two years ago, American intelligence has spent millions of dollars looking for the magic bullet: Software that could "connect the dots" of random bits of information in massive databases to identify - and break up - another terrorist plot.
Technology, both Congress and the Bush administration agreed, could trump the terrorists' low tech cunning and stealth.
"The Nation's advantage in science and technology is a key to securing the homeland," said the July 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security.
But the prediction was optimistic.
Interviews with experts in intelligence analysis, and a review of current government research and development proposals, suggest that, nearly two years after the al Qaeda attacks, the software that most federal agencies have come to rely on cannot replace the engine of good intelligence analysis - the human mind.
The November 2002 law creating the Department of Homeland Security directed the new agency to use "data-mining and other advanced analytical tools, in order to access, receive, and analyze data" to prevent new attacks.
Since then, intelligence agencies have been snapping up software packages, such as Analyst Notebook, by a company called i2, Inc., that are tailored to the needs of intelligence analysts.
"It helps them connect the dots" said i2 marketing official Bo Odea, who says the company's sales have increased dramatically since the 9/11 attacks.
But Douglas Harris, chief scientist and founder of Anacapa Sciences Institute, a leading private trainer used by federal and state agencies to train analysts, says the real key to better analysis is - better analysts.
"We do have computer techniques that greatly aid the analyst, but there is a mind-set even among analysts who should know better that if you take all this information and put it in and press a button, the answer is going to come out," he said.
"It doesn't work that way."
Despite rapid progress in technology that gathers, stores, searches and shares vast amounts of data, and similar advances in visualization software that enables analysts to organize and distill information on their desktop computers, experts in intelligence analysis contend there have been no significant breakthroughs in the state-of-the-art that existed prior to 9/11.
Mind Over Matter
"The greatest tool analysts can have is their minds," said Marilyn Peterson, author of a leading text on intelligence analysis and a practicing analyst with the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice.
"All of the computers in the world, and all of the software in the world, can make it [data] more organized, can make it prettier," she said. "But they are not going to analyze the data."
Peterson has run classes for state and federal agencies at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia.
When she needs to develop visual aids, such as link diagrams, timelines or flowcharts, to graphically illustrates her findings, she said, she turns to Analyst Notebook. Otherwise, Peterson said, she uses off-the-shelf programs such as Microsoft Access and Excel.
More specialized software, she said, adds little to her ability to work through complex analytical problems.
"I don't need a million dollars worth of software," said Peterson, who now is helping the National White Collar Crime Center write a manual for analyzing financial information.
"Contractors who are out there saying 'Buy my product and you will be able to have the data analyzed for you,' usually are incorrect," she said.
The problem is not new, even at agencies, like the CIA, that have access to the very best analytical technology.
Several months before the 9/11 attack, ex-CIA official Bruce Berkowitz spent a year as scholar-in-residence at the CIA's Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis to study how analysts use the software on their desktop computers.
Because the al Qaeda hijackers struck during his study, Berkowitz was able to observe analysts at the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence (DI) under the stress of war and in the middle of an effort to recoup from a devastating intelligence failure.
He was impressed with the analysts, he recalled in an interview, but appalled at the technology they were expected to use.
"Despite what one sees on TV, there is not much 'gee wiz' software at the typical DI analyst's desk," Berkowitz wrote in a article later published by the Center for the Study of Intelligence.
"A few analysts use some specialized tools for sorting and displaying data (e.g., terrorist networks), and analysts who cover the more technical accounts use computerized models (e.g., analyzing the performance of foreign weapons). But these are the exceptions."
The Race is On
Taking root in legislation, national strategies and budget requests, the notion that technology will save the day has fostered a national race in and outside the government to develop cutting-edge software applications to catch terrorist killers.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency, a joint project of the U.S. intelligence community, is sponsoring several lines of research that might someday produce software that thinks and reasons like an analyst. In the immediate future, though, it is unrealistic to expect software to make a significant difference, the experts say.
Exaggerated expectations of what intelligence software can deliver, Harris and others contend, ignore a fundamental reality of the analytic craft: that success depends on the use of various structured methods to test assumptions and conclusions - methods that are designed to help analysts overcome the all-too human tendency to be guided by preconceptions and mind-sets.
"It is much more art than science," said Richards J. Heuer, a former CIA analyst and author of the Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. The analysts' challenge is heightened by the sheer explosion of information, he said.
"You are looking for things that are changing, for new problems that are arising," he said. "So you are constantly dealing with information that is quite incomplete and ambiguous, and usually with a situation that is in the process of changing. If it were not incomplete and ambiguous, it really wouldn't be an intelligence problem.
"And when you have to make judgments based on incomplete information," Heuer continued, "the only way you can do that is to fill in a lot of blanks yourself, how things normally work in that country.
"This doesn't come from a lot of factual data. It comes from assumptions you are making about how things work. So the mind-set you start with plays a really major role in your judgment."
Casting a Wider Net
Over the years, Analyst Notebook and two other leading products, Watson, by Xanalys, and Visual Links by Visual Analytics, Inc., have added features that search large amounts of text or absorb data from multiple databases.
Yet even the companies acknowledge the software's limits: the capabilities of the user. Some analysts are good, some are not. The best are uncanny.
During his study of CIA analysts, Berkowitz said the best ones had the day-to-day ability to digest an endless flow of new information and had an "entrepreneurial" zeal for finding new sources and inventing new ways to look at old problems.
The critical factor, he said, was "a network that lives inside the brain of these analysts about their subject."

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - PLAYERS

July 17, 2003 - 10:45 a.m.
A Bright and Funny Scientist Takes Over the Propeller Heads at Homeland Security
By Caitlin Harrington, CQ Staff Writer

Jane Alexander, an energetic physicist from Tennessee, walked down a chlorine-smelling hallway last May to her new job in the Department of Homeland Security.
Her assignment was as high tech as high tech can get: head of the new department's Advanced Research Projects Agency - the people paid to think about new gizmos way over the horizon.
"Xan," as everybody calls her - short for Alexander - was greeted by whitewashed, cinder block walls, one desk, no phone, no computer, no window.
She smiles for a visitor when she recounts the moment: It was a long way from her expansive digs with couches and a window at the Pentagon, where she held a similar position.
"I walked in, and I thought, 'Wow, they really don't like this agency very much," she said, laughing.
Indeed, Alexander's office wasn't even in the "NAC," as Homeland Security people call it, the Nebraska Avenue Complex inside an old Navy communications base in far Northwest, residential Washington, D.C., where the Homeland Security Department headquarters opened its doors last March 1. It was borrowed space downtown at the General Services Administration building on Seventh Street SW.
It turned out, though, that her closet-sized government-issue office was not a wit bigger than her boss's, Charles McQueary, the DHS undersecretary for Science and Technology.
"The difference is, he has a window," cracked the 45-year-old Stanford and MIT graduate, technically the "acting" director of the propeller heads section of Homeland Security until a permanent director is appointed.
HSARPA (pronounced H-SARPA), as the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency is called, is the $350 million catalyst for the invention of new homeland security-related equipment, tactics and technology.
Day by day, private companies pitch wild ideas, ambitious designs, and even a few pedestrian fixes to Alexander's agency to win contracts with DHS.
Eventually, she'll have about 50 brainiacs working for her. Today she has two.
They'll likely be people like Xan Alexander was not so long ago. Back in the summer of 1989 she was a recently-minted Ph.D. looking for a job. A friend from her internship at Bell Labs tipped her to the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA.
They invented the Internet. And Stealth bombers.
The Place to Be
"You gotta come to DARPA, you gotta come. This is a really exciting thing," her pal said.
She did.
Her first big project, then a mystery, was nanoelectronics - cell-sized computer chips now a staple of undergraduate engineering programs.
"DARPA was about showing you what's possible," said Alexander. "To do the revolutionary - change the rules."
She had a blast.
By the fall of 1998, she was deputy director of the whole shop at DARPA.
Then one day in early 2000, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army's just-retired chief of staff, told Alexander and her boss, former DARPA director Frank Fernandez, that he had a problem.
In fact, the whole army had a problem, the former tank commander said. It was the M-1 tank. At 80 tons each, they were too heavy to put many on a plane.
Shinseki asked DARPA for a solution.
"We sat there and said, "hard problem, right?" Alexander recalls. "And so we went back and forth and brainstormed for a while."
On a large white board, she and a team of big thinkers imagined new ways they could bring other Pentagon toys into the equation: satellites, computers, smart bombs, and the command and control centers.
The solution? Let the other toys share the burden. Soldiers could use the surveillance tools to find and kill the bad guys first so that tons of protective armor on an M-I were not necessary. The bottom line was that each tank could shed more than 20 per cent of its weight in armor.
Like everything else in the Pentagon, the plan became an acronym: C4ISR, or command control, communications, computation, intelligence, surveillance reconnaissance.
Shinseki liked it.
But that was the easy part. The next step was persuading the big hitters like Lockheed and SAIC to shred the old designs, run the numbers and lay down the groundwork for the army's future combat system which, at the time, was still just a bunch of drawings and concept maps on Alexander's white board.
Big, big stuff.
Moving on Up
Soon enough, Alexander was a senior executive in the civil service and a hot property in the military industrial complex.
At the Pentagon, she was one of the go-to troubleshooters, oblivious to politics, who knew how to pull all the levers.
"She helped me a heck of a lot getting initiatives going at DARPA," said Fernandez, her former Defense Department boss.
"She was very, very smart, very aggressive, very good at solving problems, and everything I needed as a deputy.... She understands how to get things done."
In due course, the physics wizard was recruited for other jobs with bigger paychecks and cooler titles, like the time "a national lab," as she puts it, dangled the post of associate director.
Not for her. She remembers the walk-through.
"I find myself walking around the lab saying, 'This is really neat science, but then this other voice would say, 'But what's it good for?' And I realized how much I'd changed," she said. "My interest had shifted... I wanted to make things that made a difference, not just that were interesting technically, not just scientifically interesting."
Nowadays, she's doing the recruiting down in her relatively dingy GSA quarters. By last Friday, she had filled two jobs, which come with free tickets to the cutting-edge of counterterrorism and the right to work in a cramped cubicle.
Two down, 48 to go.
"I'm on the phone half the day," she says.
"Some of the people laugh when I tell them the salaries." But chatting away in her emerald green suit with gold brocade trim, Alexander still bubbles with enthusiasm for public service.
"What I find interesting in a job is a mission that matters - homeland security matters. As a citizen, I want this place to work," she said.
"One of the great things about DHS," she says, "is everybody's really trying to do the right thing. People in general are not turf conscious. And they're all trying to cooperate."
The Back Story:
Alexander grew up in Knoxville, and now lives in Falls Church, Virginia. She has one niece and three nephews, but she travels far too much to have any pets, she says.
During her tenure at the Pentagon, she often flew to London on business and frequently stayed an extra day to see a show. In her new post, she says, she hopes to venture over to some major ports and check out the border crossings in San Diego.
On her own time, the affable southerner loves visiting Louisiana to sample the Cajun and Creole cooking of New Orleans, where she attended the Grace Elizabeth King Senior High School for Girls for two years. She also likes visiting Scotland, the ancestral home.
It was Alexander's two great-aunts in Tennessee who turned her onto science by giving her a microscope when she was six. She liked it so much they sent her another toy - this time, a telescope. In the eighth grade she moved to New Orleans.
Alexander's mother, a computer scientist, also encouraged her daughter's precocious ness, working math problems with her young daughter during long car rides to visit family. Her father, an official with the Boy Scouts of America, spent 18 months in Mississippi in the 1960s integrating the young troop units.
In her free time, the natural-born physicist turns to mystery novels, crossword puzzles and studying her family's geneology. She also likes looking for other "Xans."
"I collect them," she says, recalling the first time she encountered an eponymous youngster when she was five. "I was at daycamp and they were doing the roll. They said "Xan" and two of us answered, and we were like, 'What?' And what's funny," she laughs, "is he was a boy."
Alexander received the Department of Defense Distinguished Medal for Civil Service in 2001, and the Arthur S. Fleming Award honoring the top ten federal employees under age 40 in 1994.

University Advocates Say Proposed Changes at Pentagon Could Work Against Basic Research
By ANNE MARIE BORREGO

mailto:annemarie.borrego@chronicle.com

Legislation moving through both houses of Congress would change the way the Defense Department administers some basic-research programs, a prospect that many university officials and lobbyists fear could change the mission of these programs.
The proposed changes, known collectively as "devolution," would move funds for the research programs from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the individual military services, which would administer the programs as they see fit.
"Once the money goes down to the services, the fear is that they will reprogram it to meet their own interests, which will be near-term -- and it won't go to basic research," says Robert J. Trew, former director of the secretary's research office, who is head of the electrical- and computer-engineering department at North Carolina State University.
Of particular interest is University Research Initiatives, a basic-research program that accounts for $242.7-million, or about 17 percent, of the $1.42-billion that the Defense Department received for basic research in the 2003 fiscal year. Created by Congress in the mid-1980s, the program was designed to finance large-scale, multidisciplinary projects, most of them at universities.
Currently, the Air Force, Army, and Navy send proposals to a committee in the Office of the Secretary for decisions on which ones to finance, creating competition among the individual services. Once approved, the services then request proposals from outside researchers. "We controlled the process," Mr. Trew says. "By doing that, you can defend the program."
Otherwise, the services could use the money as they see fit, which many higher-education officials expect would translate into more applied research. Much of such research is beyond many universities' areas of expertise, and, some say, potentially harmful to the flow of basic research.
"When it comes to trying to decide between tanks and boats and ammunition, and programs that might produce results in 20 years, that's pretty tough," says Elaine McCusker, co-chairwoman of the Coalition for National Security Research, a group that represents colleges and universities. Moving the programs to the individual services could "relieve them" of making those tough decisions, she says. "We feel that [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] has a better macro view and a better chance at supporting basic, long-term research."
The Defense Department's interest in handing these programs over to the individual armed services is consistent with a movement within the Pentagon to streamline its operations. A department spokesman said in an e-mail message that a Basic Research Advisory Group will help select the research topics to make sure the majority of those selected will meet scientific and technological needs of all the service units.
Research advocates, already concerned with the Defense Department portfolio's sharp tilt toward applied research -- just 12.6 percent of the $11.23-billion science-and-technology budget went to basic research -- warn that devolution could further narrow the pipeline of new discoveries.
"The basic-research dollars are under pressure," Mr. Trew says. "Even though the DOD budget is soaring, it's applied -- spy stuff. ... If you don't put the money into basic research, eventually the pipeline goes dry."
Three university advocacy groups -- the American Association of Universities, the Coalition for National Security Research, and the American Society for Engineering Education -- have written letters expressing their concern to members of the Armed Services Committees and Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are in the process of allocating research dollars for the 2004 fiscal year. So far, both Appropriations Committees and the House Armed Services Committee have allocated money for the University Research Initiatives program, as well as other programs, through the individual armed services, leaving basic-research advocates with just one potential ally in Congress -- the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Even as that Senate committee approved the 2004 Defense Authorization Bill, it issued a report saying it remained "concerned about the devolution of numerous research, development, test, and evaluation programs" from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the military services and other defense components.
The report points to the failure of attempts to devolve the Medical Free Electron Laser Program and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute from the secretary's office. Both were transferred to the National Institutes of Health. "Despite assurances that the programs would continue their previous activities, the budgets of both programs were zeroed," the report says, and the programs were later returned to the Department of Defense with no funding at all.
The department revived the two programs in 2003, but the Senate committee found that they had been "impacted by discontinuity in important defense medical research activities, affecting numerous university, industry and government research personnel."
Research advocates hope that the Senate Armed Services Committee will have some sway with its counterparts in the House, perhaps creating measures that would keep the basic-research programs as close to their original missions as possible. If that effort fails, the advocates say they will track the projects and return to Congress next year to plead their case once more.

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

July 11, 2003 - 6:39 p.m.
Congress Demands Research on Passenger Jet Missile Defense
By Jeremy Torobin, CQ Staff Writer

Although the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have been cool to the idea of fitting commercial jets with technology to evade shoulder-fired missiles, the Homeland Security spending bills under consideration by both the Senate and House include $60 million to research the feasibility of various countermeasures.
The idea that terrorists might shoot down a passenger jet with a shoulder-launched missile exploded into the realm of possibilities when an Israeli charter jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya was targeted by just such a weapon last November.
That missile missed its target, but it made a sobering point - all the baggage screening in the world can't stop a determined terrorist equipped with a cheap, easy-to-conceal missile from dropping a packed airliner as it approaches or leaves an airport.
Several lawmakers in the United States, including Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., immediately began pushing to outfit every U.S.-flagged passenger jet with missile evading technologies.
Despite lingering White House and airline industry doubts about how to pay for the potentially multibillion-dollar venture, Congress ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April to prepare a cost estimate for developing and testing prototype technologies.
That report reached the appropriators in late May. In it, DHS said the research effort would cost about $60 million in fiscal 2004.
But the Bush administration never specifically asked Congress for the money and indicated it didn't want money earmarked for the program, citing concerns about budget flexibility.
"We believed that we had sufficient funds in our budget already to be able to potentially issue the [research and development] contracts as well as do research to determine if, in fact, there's a viable technology that could be deployed on commercial aircraft to deter shoulder-fired missiles," DHS spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Friday.
Neither DHS nor the White House, however, has expressed explicit opposition to the inclusion of the funding in both versions of the spending bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the bill on July 10. The House passed its version of HR 2555 on June 24.
The real question, however, is whether the administration is willing to spend taxpayer money to equip every passenger jet in the country with missile-evading technology if the DHS contractors demonstrate that a viable defense actually exists.
"We're looking at such things as overall effectiveness in relation to costs," Roehrkasse said.
The May report, obtained by CQ Homeland Security last month, identified infrared jamming devices as the most promising technology.
One or two contracts would be awarded for "development and demonstration" of the infrared technology, but other concepts also would be considered, the report said.
Infrared devices, made by Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE, a British defense contractor, give off light that jams the missiles' guidance systems and are particularly effective against the older models of missiles that terrorists are most likely to find on the global black market.
Versions of the technology already are deployed on military aircraft and on some government planes and corporate jets.
Roehrkasse argued the administration already "has taken aggressive measures to counter this threat on a whole number of fronts, specifically conducting airport vulnerability assessments and [ordering] some airports to take specific security measures, as well as making progress overseas with our international partners . . . to set laws that make it difficult to obtain these weapons as well as to trade them."
The leaders of the seven most industrialized nations and Russia agreed last month on a plan to restrict sales of the ubiquitous lightweight missiles.
In the United States, an interagency task force including DHS, the National Security Council, the White House Office of Homeland Security, the Pentagon, the CIA and the FBI began looking into options for defeating the missile threat - including technological countermeasures - after last fall's incident in Kenya.
But the real drivers on the issue were the Democratic lawmakers, who in the past few months won the crucial support of key House Republicans - including Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John L. Mica of Florida and, more importantly, Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers of Kentucky.

Bethesda Residents Fear New NIH Lab Would Be Terror Target
By Avram Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2003; Page B02

A plan by the National Institutes of Health to build a $186 million bio-defense laboratory near a busy Bethesda intersection is provoking concern among some neighbors who worry that terrorists could attack the facility and release deadly microorganisms in the area.
Scientists want to use the labs near the corner of Rockville Pike and West Cedar Lane to study pathogens that cause anthrax, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), West Nile encephalitis, drug-resistant tuberculosis and other potentially lethal diseases that can be contracted through inhalation.
Local officials are powerless to block the project because NIH is an arm of the federal government and not subject to local zoning controls. Under an agreement with NIH, however, local planners are entitled to review the proposal and recommend changes before construction begins in November. Last night, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission held an informal public forum, and some neighbors said they fear the project poses a needless risk because terrorists might be tempted to assault the building with a truck bomb, small arms fire or rocket-propelled grenades. They also wondered about the effect of infected animals getting loose.
"The site is just too inviting,'' said Tom Robertson, of the Parkwood Residents Association, adding that anthrax contamination could result from an attack. "Terrorists might try to put NIH out of business.''
Commission planners are raising questions about whether the facility is necessary when similar labs exist around the region -- including high-security labs that NIH is building at Fort Detrick in Frederick County.
"We are looking at the wisdom of locating it in this highly populated area near a Metro station inside the [Capital] Beltway," Marilyn Clemens, a commission planner reviewing the project, said in an interview. "We question this location when the exact same kind of research is going on in Frederick."
Jack Costello, who represents the nearby Bethesda Parkview Citizens Association, said NIH leaders are overconfident about safety.
"They don't seem to understand that the world has changed," he said in an interview. "What might have been an acceptable condition before 9/11 becomes now rather tenuous when it's not the employees of NIH who represent the major threat -- but the people outside. Why would you even consider putting such a threat in a highly populated area right on a major artery when there are other options?"
NIH leaders say they have the funding in hand and that the facilities are essential to expanding the government's capacity to protect the public against bio-terrorism.
NIH plans to construct Building 33, a 160,000-square-foot structure, in the northeast corner of the sprawling campus, about 400 feet from Rockville Pike. The building would house 25 lead scientists and 240 workers in labs rated at bio-safety level 3 (BSL-3) -- a category requiring trained workers wearing personal protective gear to use special physical containment devices to handle pathogens.
BSL-3 labs are equipped with double-door access, negative pressure ventilation systems to keep organisms inside, and special seals on walls, windows and doors.
The project will include an adjacent, six-story parking garage for 1,250 cars to replace the surface parking lost to Building 33.
Some neighbors are concerned that NIH's open door to thousands of foreign scientists is an invitation to trouble. The campus receives thousands of international scientists and visitors every year.
Other BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs have existed on the NIH campus for years without problems, said Tom Kindt, director of the intramural research division at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. BSL-4 labs are those that handle pathogens for which there are no known treatments, such as Ebola, and they have the highest level of precautions.
Security has been tightened considerably since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and, if necessary, he said, Building 33 will use entry systems that rely on a retina scan or a thumbprint. The campus soon will be ringed with a wrought-iron fence, he said.
Kindt, who did not attend the meeting last night, suggested that neighbors are motivated in part by concern that property values will be affected by their proximity to a bio-defense facility.
"They worry that the perception will be that others will say they don't want to buy there," he said, adding that bio-terrorism concerns and emerging infections mean that the campus probably will always be studying the pathogens that are least understood and pose the greatest risks.
"I'd like to say this isn't a trend, but my instinct tells me that emerging diseases are a fact of life," Kindt said. "We're going to have to learn to deal with them. The best defense is good diagnostics, drugs and vaccines."

From the "Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security Daily," 8 July"

Remote Control to Keep Planes Away From No-Fly Zones

A University of California scientist may have a way to keep airplanes out of restricted airspace. The system, dubbed “Soft Walls” by its inventor, uses global positioning satellites, databases of no-fly zones, and auto-pilot systems to steer aircraft away from restricted airspace by remote control. Resistance would increase if a hijacker or confused pilot struggled against the shift. “The idea is to give the pilot as much control of the aircraft as possible consistent with the fact that the pilot would not be allowed to enter a no-fly zone,” Edward Lee, a professor at University of California at Berkeley, said in an interview. Lee first proposed the system to Pentagon officials after the Sept. 11 attacks. Now, aviation experts at NASA are reviewing his plans. - Caitlin Harrington
• Text of the ACLU report

Arizona Strain of Plague DNA Sequenced, Research Team Announced

A team of Arizona scientists announced on 1 July that it has mapped the complete DNA sequence of Arizona plague, a type of the highly infectious disease that is spread in the southwest by prairie dogs and other animals. The achievement by scientists from the Translational Genomics (TGen) Research Institute in Phoenix, Northern Arizona University and Arizona State University could lead to a greater understanding of the disease throughout the world, the team said, adding a new weapon in the fight against terrorism. The mapping of plague in Arizona prairie dogs showed genetic differences from two other strains previously isolated by research teams at the Sanger Center in England and the University of Wisconsin. Likewise, this discovery can be used to help other researchers in identifying still other strains of plague bacteria. These kinds of genetic differences helped to identify the strain of anthrax that was used in the terrorist attacks in 2001, Jeff Touchman, an ASU and TGen scientist, told the Associated Press.

ANALYSIS: Used as a biological weapon since the Middle Ages, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have identified plague bacteria as a top agent for use in bioterrorism attacks. The microbial forensic tracking allowed by the "DNA fingerprinting" of plague strains from the Arizona team's discovery "should help to deter bioterrorism, but certainly will aid in the identification of bioterrorism perpetrators," said Dr. Paul Keim, a NAU microbiology professor who led the research team.

DHS Grants for Interoperability Demonstration Projects Available Soon

Grant money to fund interoperability communications demonstration projects should be available in July, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response Michael Brown said during recent testimony before the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, according to the 23 June edition of Homeland Security Reporter. The grants will be awarded from a $54 million allocation by Congress to help make sure that emergency personnel across agencies and jurisdictions will be able to talk to each other during a crisis. The grants will be used "to identify the best demonstration projects across the states for interoperability studies so we can create and put in place those standards," he told the committee. State and local governments will compete for the projects that are to be between six months and a year long. How the projects will be awarded was not disclosed.

ANALYSIS: Emergency response and public safety personnel have been struggling with the daunting task of making more interoperable communications between the fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical communities, particularly since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Part of the challenge is the expense of the technologies and equipment needed to solve the problems. DHS is advocating the use of commercial-off-the-shelf, COTS, systems to provide solutions that can be fielded faster and cheaper. DHS' Science and Technology Directorate and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will be key evaluators of the project demonstrations, having signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in May 2003 to form a closer working relationship between the two agencies, including developing interoperability standards for first responders.

Two Airports to Initiate Security Technologies Program in National Pilot

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has identified the first two airports, out the of 20 that have been selected, to initiate a national pilot program for testing new technologies that would prevent security breaches in sensitive areas like the tarmac and baggage areas, according to the Bradenton Herald. The Airport Access Control Pilot Program, which was mandated as part of federal transportation legislation in 2001, will initially be implemented at the Southwest Florida International Airport (SWFIA) and Washington-Dulles International Airport, according to press reports. The pilot program will test new security technologies, like biometrics, in various areas vulnerable to tampering, including airport runways, air cargo facilities, and secure general aviation areas, according to Florida's Herald Tribune. The pilot program will also evaluate the cost effectiveness of the new technologies, a SWFIA statement said.

ANALYSIS: The airports reportedly are still waiting to hear from the TSA which security technology systems will be tested in each airport. It is not surprising that TSA has not released that information since the statement issued by SWFIA pre-empted an official announcement by the TSA, the Bradenton Herald reported. SWFIA airport director Robert Ball said he expects a team of security agency officials and equipment manufacturers to visit the airport in the next five months to evaluate which technologies are best suited to the airport, according to the Herald Tribune. The pilot program is expected to last between three to six months.

Germ research gets urgent
By Tom Ramstack
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 9, 2003

Continuing bioterrorism scares are breathing new life into obscure scientific projects as the nation gropes for a way to defend itself from deadly microbes.
The sudden interest in microbiology is fueled by revelations such as the discovery of a mobile bioterrorism laboratory that traveled Iraqi highways.
A few thousand miles away, a South African court is revealing details of an apartheid-era contingency plan to use anthrax on black communities.
The U.S. government is waging an uphill battle against the tiny and nearly untraceable microbes of bioterrorism.
"If you can brew beer, you can make a bug," FBI spokesman Bill Carter said, recalling a warning from an FBI scientist on manufactured viruses.
The elusiveness of the bacteria spores and microscopic viruses is turning bioterrorism research into big business. Companies that focused on cures for cancer and Alzheimer's disease are finding bigger profits in vaccines, antidotes and other bug-fighting tools.
But the bioterrorism scare also is creating new fears for researchers, both in terms of safety and criminal liability.

Good for business
Concerns about bioterrorism are resulting in the kind of device Army scientists demonstrated at a recent biodefense conference in Baltimore.
The handheld "microarray" system tests white blood cells to detect viruses within 36 hours of exposure, sometimes even before victims know they are sick.
The device is supposed to be an early warning system against biological bombs. It was developed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research for the malaria soldiers might encounter in other countries.
"In many cases the products of that research apply to public health," said Chuck Dasey, spokesman for the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.
The Army plans to refine the system to detect anthrax, smallpox and other diseases.
Before the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Silver Spring researchers worked largely in isolation to develop cures for malaria, hepatitis, dengue fever and common battle injuries.
The terrorist attacks, anthrax in letters a month later and the risks of a biochemical war unleashed on the United States refocused their attention.
Now, the military and its private contractors in the biotechnology industry have decided that what's good for business is good for the country.
"It appears that private investments in bioterrorism research are believed to be more likely to bring near-term payback," said Sau Lan Tang Staats, chief executive officer of Phoenix Science & Technology Inc.
The Elkton, Md., company produces disposable equipment for biotechnology research.
Before the attacks, the company had difficulty finding financial backers and customers. Now its equipment is being tested by the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, which houses a biochemical defense laboratory in Northeast Maryland.
In addition, the Maryland Technology Development Corp., a public-private venture that encourages technology business in Maryland, is interested in investing $50,000 in the company.
Gaithersburg biotech company GenVec Inc. is using malaria vaccine technology it developed with the Navy to work on a SARS vaccine. SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, is a virus that started in China in November and has been spreading around the world.
Chief Executive Paul Fischer said similar technology could be a safeguard against bioterrorism.
"The core technology is essentially the same," Mr. Fischer said. "That same kind of technology could be available in the future for these unknown events."
Cell Works Inc. in Baltimore wants to develop a blood test for anthrax, similar to a system for cancer cells it produces.
"It's something that companies like ours can incorporate into our diagnostic technology," Vice President Peter Rheinstein said.
Biodefense projects "create new technologies, the spin-offs of which can be commercialized into some pretty good things," he said.
Biotech companies along the Interstate-270 corridor in Montgomery and Frederick counties also have turned their attention toward defense projects:
•Human Genome Sciences Inc. of Rockville is developing a drug that may prevent and fight anthrax by bolstering the body's defenses against the germ. It says it expects to begin clinical trials later this year.
•The Department of Defense has hired DynPort Vaccine Co. of Frederick to research as many as 17 vaccines, including a next-generation version for anthrax.
•Igen International of Gaithersburg makes five field diagnostic tests for biological agents. The company's biodefense-related sales jumped to about $2 million in the final quarter of 2002, after the Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick asked Igen to custom-make the tests.
•It's just a matter of time before the Institute of Genomic Research, a Rockville research firm, makes a contribution to bioterrorism defense. The company already has published its research to read the anthrax genome. Understanding the genome was a first step toward new drugs and vaccines.
However, other companies are having trouble cashing in on bioterrorism.
One of them is Columbia-based Cylex Inc., which has won FDA approval for its test to screen immune-system function for organ transplants. It wants the government to buy the system to screen out immune-compromised people likely to be sickened by a smallpox vaccine. So far, the government has not expressed an interest.

BioShield ups the ante
A debate in Congress over President Bush's proposed Project BioShield is ensuring that more companies will vie for government money.
Mr. Bush proposed the huge project to protect the nation from bioterrorism during his State of the Union address.
The House and Senate agree BioShield is needed, but not on the amount to spend.
Mr. Bush wants no cap on funding, preferring instead to spend whatever is needed for specific projects. The House and Senate proposals run between $5 billion and $5.6 billion over the next 10 years.
With such large sums available, the direction microbiology research companies will follow for the next decade is clear.
"They tend to follow what can be funded," said Steve Fritz, president of the Maryland Technology Development Corp. "What would have been done instead, I can't say."
Needless to say, BioShield is popular with microbiologists.
"I think the BioShield legislation is clearly an effort to streamline the process of acquisition for getting the drugs and vaccines we are going to need," said Tom Inglesby, deputy director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies. "I think the administration should be commended for this."
BioShield is merely an addition to the biodefense effort already operating in overdrive since the anthrax letters started circulating in October 2001.
The National Institutes of Health's bioterrorism budget increased 500 percent this year to $1.3 billion.
"I don't believe there was bioterrorism in the NIH budget prior to 9-11," spokesman Don Rabolvsky said.
Some scientists say the new bioterrorism research adds to other advances in biology rather than diverting from more traditional projects.
"A rising tide raises all ships," said Gillian Woollett, vice president of science and regulatory affairs at the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group.

Opportunity beckons
The bigger budgets are lifting hopes for scientific breakthroughs.
"Most scientists who work in the area of infectious disease feel that the new funding will not only benefit the needs of the Homeland Security Department but also basic science in better understanding host-pathogen relationships, expedite much-needed new human and animal therapies and delivery systems for vaccines," said Jennie Hunter-Cevera, president of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute.
Bioterrorism threats are making projects possible that would have been ludicrous only a few years ago.
For example, a crop duster released a mixture of grain alcohol, clay dust and water and polyethylene glycol over central Oklahoma March 24. The Army and the Environmental Protection Agency were testing whether radar could detect a bioterrorist attack.
Ultimately, they hope to develop computer technology for a nationwide bioterrorism detection program. The EPA has done similar tests in Maryland, Utah and Florida since 2001.
At least three sophisticated national laboratories will be built with federal money.
The most dangerous research is done at government Biosafety Level 4 labs, also known as BSL-4. NIH operates one of them in Bethesda, and another at the U.S. Army's Medical Research Institute on Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Md.
Much of NIH's budget increase for this year will be spent to build more BSL-4 labs.
Scientists wearing airtight suits will use them to handle the world's deadliest germs.
Therein lies the risk.

Scared of new rules
Congress responded to the October 2001 anthrax scare by passing the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, known as the Biopreparedness Act.
Anthrax-laced letters shut down the Hart Senate Office Building and killed postal workers at the Brentwood mail distribution center. Other anthrax letters arrived at media organizations and private homes in New York, Florida and Connecticut.
The Biopreparedness Act created new restrictions on who can handle dangerous microbes, which ones they can handle and how and where they can be used. In addition, industry must follow stricter procedures to prevent contamination of food and water supplies.
Businesses and academia are confused and upset by the government intervention, which is common for many new regulations.
The Food and Drug Administration used the Bioterrorism Act to require the $500 billion food-processing industry to register facilities and give prior notice of any imports companies accept. The agency also increased its inspections of foods that could be contaminated with anthrax or other toxins.
The new regulations "would pose a significant burden to industry in terms of both cost and operational facilities," the National Food Processors Association said.
Other provisions of the Biopreparedness Act impose criminal penalties on unauthorized handling of organisms and chemicals, some of which are commonly used in academic research.
"There certainly is fear in the microbiology community," said Ronald Atlas, president of the American Society of Microbiology.
The FBI is checking the backgrounds of researchers, while potential criminal penalties for mishandling microbes are having a "chilling impact on life-science research," Mr. Atlas said.
In addition, foreign scholars are excluded from some projects.
"A significant number of visa applications have been declined," Mr. Atlas said.

Cures from deadly sources
He has testified to Congress that medical treatments depend on access to potentially deadly cultures. Natural disease creates more risk than bioterrorism.
Among the prohibited items are viruses for Ebola, yellow fever and Marburg, the anthrax virus, and toxins for botulinum and ricin.
All of the agents can cause serious illness. Until now, thousands of laboratories used them for research.
"So many university labs in the past have worked with these agents and never reported them since it was not really required, nor did federal agencies such as CDC or the USDA have enough staff to actually go out and do checks on a regular basis," said Mrs. Hunter-Cevera of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute.
"Industry has organized central culture depositories where everything is inventoried, monitored and documented. Academia will now have to catch up to industry standards."
However, biologists warn that the legal restrictions limit the experimentation that could result in new drugs or chemicals.
Botulism, for example, would be a deadly scourge if it spread unaltered through food and water supplies. With chemical modifications, it is used as a key ingredient in botox, the material used in cosmetic surgery to eliminate wrinkles.
E-coli, an organism sometimes found in rancid meat or contaminated water, is being studied as a cure for cancer.
A University of Connecticut graduate student was charged with violating the Patriot Act after FBI agents found anthrax vials stored in his laboratory freezer. A professor verified the student obtained the specimens from a malfunctioning storage freezer, which he was cleaning out.

The Patriot Act
The Patriot Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly a month after the September 11 attacks, consolidated federal law-enforcement authority to investigate and detain persons with suspected terrorist links.
Although the Connecticut graduate student said he did not realize he was doing anything illegal, he accepted a plea bargain that will require community service and visits to a probation officer.
In another incident, infectious disease researcher Thomas Butler at Texas Tech University was arrested in January. He had lied to cover up the fact he failed to properly document destruction of vials of plague bacteria.

Report Calls for More Research, Coordination to Improve Atmospheric NBC Event Response Capabilities

The House Government Reform Committee on 2 June is expected to release a new National Research Council report that calls for a nationally coordinated effort to develop new modeling approaches and examine existing models for tracking the dispersion of hazardous agents, such as those released in a terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, and nuclear materials. The 114-page report, "Tracking and Predicting the Atmospheric Dispersion of Hazardous Releases: Implications for Homeland Security," produced by the Council's Committee on the Atmospheric Dispersion of Hazardous Material Releases, also calls for the creation of "a fully operational dispersion tracking and forecasting system in at least one large urban area with the ability to provide immediate model forecasts on a full-time basis," a National Academies report brief said. The report, which did not provide a comprehensive assessment or comparative analysis of existing dispersion models used by federal agencies and researchers, concluded that "these models may not fully meet the needs of responders in an actual emergency," the brief said. The report also recommended that a single federal point-of-contact be established (such as a 1-800 phone number) that can be used to connect emergency responders across the country to appropriate dispersion modeling centers for immediate assistance, according to the brief.

ANALYSIS: The National Research Council report underscores what earlier studies and simulation exercises have concluded: there needs to be more research and greater coordination if state and local governments are going to respond effectively to a release of hazardous agents in an urban environment. A Commerce Department study last year concluded that too many federal agencies offer too many models, designed for too many purposes, with too little regard for how a mayor or governor could use them in an emergency, according to a Newsbytes report. The recently concluded TOPOFF 2 homeland security counter-terror exercise, which included a live simulation of a radiological weapon detonation in Seattle, assumed that it would take authorities more than an hour to learn that 4,000 people lived or worked in the most intensely radiated area, according to Newsbytes.

Center Receives Proposals for Homeland Technologies

The Center for Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CCAT), a public-private consortium that funds cutting-edge research projects announced recently that it received a "record number of replies-more than 100-to its most recent request for proposals" soliciting homeland security and defense technologies, Government Computer News reports. According to Technology Daily, "most applications submitted during the month-long solicitation, which closed May 15, were for emergency 'first responder' technologies such as wireless communications devices, global positioning systems for tracking, and training software." Other applications submitted involved "explosive detection technologies, chemical and biological detection systems, border-intrusion sensors, encryption decoding devices, and language-translation systems." CCAT will announce the winners by mid-July, and will provide them with "product-development funding, marketing assessments, business planning and strategic consulting services," TD reported.

ANALYSIS: The CCAT, funded by the Department of Defense, is "a public-private collaborate partnership between academia, industry, and government...[that] intends to bridge the gap that exists between the generators of technology, the Department of Defense, and the commercial marketplace." According to GCN, CCAT chairman Lou Kelly said "he and center staff have met with officials of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate," and were told that DHS is "working on projects that can be brought out very quickly," as opposed to the technologies funded by CCAT, which are in early development.

May 29, 2003
Public-private partnership weighs homeland security technology ideas
From National Journal's Technology Daily

The Center for Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CCAT), a public-private research and development partnership funded by the Defense Department, announced Thursday that it has received more than 100 responses to its recent solicitation for innovative technologies related to defense and homeland security.
Most applications submitted during the month-long solicitation, which closed May 15, were for emergency "first responder" technologies such as wireless communications devices, global positioning systems for tracking, and training software.
Other popular categories included explosive-detection technologies, chemical and biological detection systems, border-intrusion sensors, encryption decoding devices, and language-translation systems.
The center plans to announce the winners by mid-July. Awards include product-development funding, marketing assessments, business planning and strategic consulting services.
"There is an increasing and urgent need for an organization like CCAT to assist in the development of promising homeland security- and defense-related technologies to the marketplace," CCAT Chairman Lou Kelly said Thursday.

The problem-solver
Charles McQueary puts his engineering know-how to work for homeland security

BY Judi Hasson
May 26, 2003

Charles McQueary looks at life through the prism of an engineer. Every problem has an answer, he says - even the most difficult ones.

And it's a good thing that McQueary, a former executive at General Dynamics Advanced Technology Systems and Bell Laboratories, is an optimist - because he's embarking on the toughest job of his long career.

As undersecretary for the Homeland Security Department's Science and Technology Directorate, he must identify and develop technologies to fight terrorism and manage the millions of dollars tapped for research and development (R&D).

"We're still working on the plan," he said in an interview from his sparsely decorated office, into which he had recently moved. "It will take quite a bit of time to understand what capacities exist."

But McQueary, who has a doctorate in engineering mechanics, is moving at warp speed to make it happen. Not a day goes by when he isn't talking to people in the sciences and building bridges with private industry and the academic community to find new ideas. He's not interested in the latest gadgets and gizmos a company may have. He's seeking bigger and broader solutions to problems that may still be unidentified.

McQueary likens his task to putting a man on the moon - a government/private-sector partnership that made history in 1969 when astronaut Neil Armstrong declared, "The Eagle has landed."

These days, McQueary is often on the road talking about what he hopes to accomplish. He recently attended a seminar sponsored by four prestigious Pennsylvania universities - Carnegie Mellon, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania State University - that are working together to develop technologies to fight terrorism.

At an April meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, McQueary told the gathering that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "didn't make us more vulnerable, but made us more aware of our vulnerabilities."

Testifying before Congress last month, he said, "The most important mission for the Science and Technology Directorate is to develop and deploy cutting-edge technologies and new capabilities so that the dedicated men and women who serve to secure our homeland can perform their jobs more effectively and efficiently - they are my customers."

So, if Joe Q. Contractor has a good idea, how does he get it in front of McQueary?

"Well, Joe has already called," McQueary replied.

But not to worry, there are other ways to get his attention. The Science and Technology Directorate recently launched a Web site that includes an e-mail address (science.technology@dhs.gov) for vendors to submit their ideas. The messages are sent to the right deputy, and sometimes McQueary himself responds.

Some of them are "top-notch ideas. Others, we're simply not interested in," McQueary said.

But he is more than just a booster for scientific initiatives. With a proposed budget of more than $800 million for R&D in fiscal 2004, McQueary is in charge of developing the strategies and policies to use the money efficiently to detect deadly attacks before they happen.

His top priority is bioterrorism because a small amount of material can cause great damage, he said.

Challenge is nothing new for McQueary, a retired defense industry executive who cut his teeth in the telecommunications world and led efforts to lay thousands of miles of fiber-optic cables for both military and commercial use as a director for Bell Labs.

For many years, it was highly classified work in difficult-to-accomplish programs. But now people use fiber optics in everyday life, and the Defense Department uses it as an integral part of its communications network, he said.

In 1997, McQueary became president of General Dynamics Advanced Technology Systems. He thought it would be his last job, but then Sept. 11 spurred the urgency to throw up a protective screen around the United States. Since then, he has been tapped to harness the nation's know-how and encourage R&D.

McQueary promised at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would work closely with other federal agencies, not to mention state and local governments, to create a "disciplined and efficient systems engineering process that delivers the appropriate homeland security capabilities as efficiently as possible, when and where they are needed."

The business world is happy he is there. Ralph Wyndrum, who worked with McQueary at Bell Labs and is vice president for technology policy at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, said McQueary has excellent management skills.

"He is an exquisitely good manager, really talented," Wyndrum said. "His breadth of knowledge is considerable - engineering, physics, all the things he will need for his new job."

May 21, 2003

Decision on homeland security centers draws interest on Hill

By William New, National Journal's Technology Daily

Members of Congress have not failed to see the opportunities inherent for their districts in the mandate the Homeland Security Department has to create "centers of excellence" for security.

The mandate in the law that created the department last year states that there must be at least one such center, but Charles McQueary, Homeland Security undersecretary for science and technology, told a House subcommittee on Wednesday that he is "sure it will be more than one."

Several members asked about the process for selecting universities and touted the universities in their districts. McQueary said the decision had not been made yet. He said he is consulting with the National Science Foundation and with key university and science associations for their recommendations. He assured one member seeking consideration for historically minority universities that "consideration will be given to all schools."

McQueary also said a memorandum of understanding with the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology on the development of security technology standards should be announced Thursday.

McQueary reiterated that his directorate's focus for the coming months will be on determining what technologies already exist. He said it is more important to find good technologies quickly than to wait to find perfect ones over time.

In response to a question from subcommittee ranking Democrat Zoe Lofgren, whose northern California jurisdiction includes many technology firms, McQueary said he has three goals for making it easier for tech companies to get their products reviewed. The first is the so-called broad agency announcement issued last week by the interagency Technical Support Working Group listing dozens of technologies being sought for homeland security.

A second approach is to collect e-mailed technology proposals at science.technology@dhs.gov, where McQueary said he now has received about 500 inquiries. And third, where he identifies promising near-term technologies, he will invite officials with those companies in for meetings.

McQueary said he inherited the work being done by the Energy Department on detection technologies, including six workers and the ability to work with the national laboratories. He also said his office is working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop software programs for analyzing when biological incidents have occurred.

Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon gave the same list of issues to McQueary that he presented to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Tuesday. They include creating an integrated emergency communications system, providing spectrum for emergency communications, improving the process of transferring technology from the military to emergency responders, and finding new ways to encourage universities to train cyber-security specialists.

McQueary made the remarks before the House Homeland Security Cybersecurity, Science and Research and Development Subcommittee chaired by Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. Thornberry and other members highlighted the importance of cyber security and detection devices.

"We've got to be just as fast and just as aggressive, not just in pursuing this enemy but in pursuing new technologies that will help keep our cities and towns more secure," Thornberry said.

Spy Plan Faces Critical Deadline
By Ryan Singel
02:00 AM May. 19, 2003 PT

As college students across the country rush to finish their final papers, the Pentagon is preparing to turn in its final report on the Total Information Awareness project in hopes of getting a passing grade from Congress.
More than a college transcript is at stake for the program, however. Its continued existence likely will turn on the report's reception.
The report, which is due Tuesday, must outline the project's privacy implications and detail the scope of the system intended to catch terrorists by combing through Americans' travel records and credit card purchases.
In January, the Senate unanimously approved a spending bill amendment which ordered the Pentagon, the CIA and the Justice Department to report on the project to Congress. Failure to do so would cost the program its future funding.
The amendment, introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), survived House-Senate negotiations. President Bush signed the bill Feb. 20, making Tuesday the report's deadline.
Wyden warned the Senate on March 13 not to attempt to undo the oversight requirements.
"The TIA technology will give the federal government the capability to operate the most massive domestic surveillance program in the history of our country," putting the financial, medical and other details of Americans' private lives in the hands of tens of thousands of bureaucrats, he said. "The American people have the right to know if the federal government intends to deploy this technology against them, when it will do so and how, and Congress should preserve its oversight over the program."
Privacy groups say they aren't sure what to expect from the report, mainly because of the secretive nature of the agencies involved.
They don't even know how or to whom the report will be delivered. Typically reports to Congress are delivered to the president of the Senate.
However, this question is complicated by another question -- namely, whether the report will be classified or not.
Last week, an ideologically diverse coalition of privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/, the Free Congress Foundation http://www.freecongress.org/, the American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org/ and Americans for Tax Reform http://www.atr.org/, sent letters to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency http://www.DARPA.mil/, the CIA and the Justice Department asking that the report be made public and that it be posted on the agencies' websites.
The groups have not yet received any official response to the letters. However, DARPA, which heads the Pentagon effort to develop the system, has indicated that at least some of the report will be available to the public.
"We anticipate making the report public after it has been provided to Congress," said Jan Walker, a DARPA spokeswoman.
Many people and some news accounts assumed that Wyden's amendment had terminated the controversial program.
However, while the amendment did stipulate that the Total Information Awareness project could not investigate Americans without the approval of Congress, it did not prohibit further research.
Statements of work and award letters obtained from DARPA by the Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.epic.org/ show that DARPA has awarded 26 contracts to private companies and universities which will provide components of the system.
One of the largest contracts -- worth more than $19 million -- was awarded to Hicks & Associates http://www.hicksandassociates.com/, a consulting firm that will be responsible for testing the system and coordinating the integration of the system's components. The system underwent its first test in February, but the test reports are not publicly available, according to Walker.
Privacy advocates expect Tuesday's report to lead to another round of public and congressional debate.
"I hope this report is the start of a fruitful dialogue about the implications of this technology for privacy, civil liberties and due process," said Lara Flint, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology http://www.cdt.org/.
"The concern is that the proposal will be reduced to a palatable pill that we can swallow and then later it will expand," said Jay Stanley, communications director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program.
"The report is likely to create more angst in Congress," said Chris Hoofnagle, an attorney at EPIC. Hoofnagle said he thinks the report is likely to trigger more legislation, such as a general ban on government data-mining programs.
But DARPA has taken steps in the last few months to address the program's critics.
In February, the agency appointed an internal oversight committee and an external advisory board to oversee the program. In April, the Palo Alto Research Center http://www.parc.xerox.com/ signed a $3.5 million contract with the agency to build a privacy appliance that would keep databases from exposing undue amounts of personal information.
DARPA director Tony Tether said in congressional testimony May 6 that the program would search only through disparate databases to find out more about connections to a specific suspect or to answer questions such as, "Are there foreign visitors to the United States who are staying in urban areas, buying large amounts of fertilizer and renting trucks?"
DARPA also reframed the program's mission in its 2003 strategic plan: "Terrorists must engage in certain transactions to coordinate and conduct attacks against Americans, and these transactions leave signatures (form patterns) that may be detectable. For this research, the TIA project will only use data that is legally obtainable and usable by the U.S. government."
Those limitations don't mollify Flint, who said the Patriot Act grants the government wide powers to access records for terrorism investigations.
"There are few limits to what the government can obtain legally," she said. "They can get medical records, travel records, phone records, Internet transactional records and credit reports."
"DARPA thinks people have misunderstood the program. Dr. Tether is saying what we are really doing is this," said Flint. "But we haven't misunderstood. It's the 'this' that we have been worried about."

Company Developing Radiation Sickness Drug

San Diego-based Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals, Inc. recently announced "positive preliminary results from a study in non-human primates that demonstrated its immune regulating hormone HE2100 is providing significant protection from the acute life threatening effects of whole-body radiation exposure." The drug acts to reduce the occurrence of neutropenia, which is "a severe loss of neutrophils, or key white blood cells-which results in a high risk of infection, hospitalization and potential death," the company said. Study results "indicate that when HE2100 is given 24 hours before or 2 to 4 hours after radiation exposure, a statistically significant reduction in the occurrence of severe neutropenia is observed as compared to control animals not receiving the drug." Dwight R. Stickney, MD, Medical Director at Hollis-Eden, said the study data "mean that in a scenario of a nuclear event, such as a dirty bomb or nuclear accident, where tens of thousands of people are potentially exposed to high levels of radiation, HE2100 may offer a cost-effective treatment that could significantly improve the chance of survival and reduce the necessity of hospitalization at a time when medical facilities would be overwhelmed."

ANALYSIS: Hollis-Eden is "co-developing HE2100 with an agency within the U.S. Department of Defense," the company said, and "expects to apply for approval of HE2100 for radioprotection in 2004." The company said there "may be strong interest by government agencies" in stockpiling HE2100 if it is "successfully developed" and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Although the drug has clear homeland security applications, the Washington Post reported that Hollis-Eden "is pursuing the drug's development through the U.S. military, as it has for several years, rather than switching to the Department of Homeland Security."

DHS to Launch Cyber Security Center

During testimony before the House Science Committee on 14 May, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) undersecretary for science and technology Charles McQueary announced the creation of a DHS Research and Development Cyber security Center that "will provide a DHS focus for activities and leverage the many cybersecurity efforts underway in the defense and intelligence, academic and private laboratory communities." The center will be tasked with: "Coordinating and developing strategic research programs and creating testing and evaluation programs to address specific gaps in U.S. cybersecurity capabilities; Providing communication and coordination among public and private organizations and fostering national and international cooperation in creating a 'defensible' cyber infrastructure; Supporting the operational needs of the DHS Information Analysis & Infrastructure Protection Directorate with regard to vulnerability assessments and cybersecurity tools; and Cooperating with NSF and universities to create educational programs and curricula for "creating the next generation of scientists and engineers," HLSDaily reported.

ANALYSIS: The new cybersecurity center will be a joint effort of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, along with academic institutions and private corporations. "We see this as critical to coordinate the resources and efforts across the government R&D community to accelerate technical capabilities that address DHS priorities," McQueary said. Department of Homeland Security spokesman David Wray told Federal Computer Week that "there is no date yet for the start-up of the cybersecurity center."

May 8, 2003

Homeland security contracting expected to pick up

By Molly M. Peterson, National Journal's Technology Daily

Companies looking to do business with the Homeland Security Department are likely to see procurement opportunities increase next year, technology experts from industry and government said on Thursday.

"I think you'll see, toward the end of [2003] and into [2004], a lot more investments happening," Jim Flyzik, who served as Tom Ridge's senior adviser for information technology in the White House Office of Homeland Security, said during a conference sponsored by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.

Flyzik, a former Treasury Department chief information officer who is now a partner in a consulting firm for companies that contract with the government, said homeland security officials are using most of the department's current budget for "planning purposes," such as mapping how to integrate the financial and human resources systems of the 22 component agencies.

"Operation and maintenance programs are moving forward, modernization efforts in the individual entities continue to move forward, and new investments under $500,000 are moving forward without an Investment Review Board review," Flyzik said.

But he likened the new department to a "holding company" that has a long way to go in merging functions. "So what you have going is the evolution of [turning] a holding company into a corporation," Flyzik said. "How do you turn 22 entities into one cohesive department?"

For companies hoping for lucrative contracts with the department, figuring out where to focus their homeland security resources is like "walking through a minefield," according to Steven Carrier, vice president of Northrop Grumman's information technology division.

"It's a very confusing landscape right now," he said, adding that the department is similar to a "huge startup company" that is still finding its way. "But we see it improving. They've probably come further than anybody thought they would, but it's still very difficult to address the department in its current state."

Carrier said following the homeland security "money trail" also is difficult, particularly for companies looking to do business with state and local agencies receiving federal grants.

But one potential focus for contractors is the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), according to retired Lt. Gen. Peter Kind, who was a special adviser to Ridge in the Office of Homeland Security. Kind said HSARPA expects to release a "broad agency announcement" soliciting innovative ideas "within a matter of weeks."

"That's going to outline the [fiscal 2003] funds available ... and it's going to be written in a broad context, so your ideas could fit into that," Kind said. "This is a major way to provide funding and focus and bring out the best that America has to offer ... and get it applied into the system."

Flyzik said HSARPA is likely to have a nearer-term focus than the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), on which it was modeled. "They really want to focus on ... technologies that are going to be available in the next maybe six months to a year, as opposed to some of the traditional DARPA things, which are longer term," he said.

Navy show draws new anti-terrorism and maritime security technologies

The Annual Sea Air Space Exposition in Washington was held on April 15-17. Recent shows have featured some smaller firms and non-traditional defense contractors hoping to win contracts from the Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, or anti-terrorism/force procurement officials in the Navy or Marine Corps. This year was no exception: the words "homeland security" were on virtually every exhibit.
The poster child for the emerging homeland security industry at this year's show was the firm Ion Track. Last year, the privately held company exhibited in a corner, sporting a card table and a few folding metal chairs. Ion Track came to this year's show as GE Ion Track and had an array of detection equipment on display. The firm makes vapor tracers that can detect trace amount of narcotics and explosives, and TSA reportedly certified the $100,000 walk-though unit for airport security applications. Ion Track claims the underlying technology also has great potential for screening the millions of cargo containers that enter the United States each year.
Larger contractors like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin marketed robotics and unmanned systems as auxiliary equipment to major acquisition programs like the Coast Guard's Deepwater and the Navy's developmental Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Pleasure craft builder Boston Whaler touted a version of its 15-foot Whaler as an "Unmanned Surface Vessel" - a waterborne sentry deployable off the deck of larger ships in foreign ports, or by port security officers in U.S. ports and waterways. Maine's Technology Systems, Inc. (TSI), promoted a 7.5-foot underwater autonomous vehicle that runs on solar power and can carry sensors to detect intrusions at a controlled port or in the security zone immediately adjacent to a warship or high-interest vessel, such as an LNG tanker. Major advantages of the TSI model are its low cost, its stealthy operation below surface, and its ability to operate in a particular locale indefinitely.
Deepwater cutters and the LCS are expected to use UAVs to replace some manned helicopters, and contractors at the SAS Exposition sought to meet this need as well. General Atomics had on display its new "GNAT System," which is a smaller, propeller-driven UAV that operates at medium altitudes. It is described by Bell as long-range and long-endurance (40+ hours), and is capable of ground surveillance and of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) release detection. Bell Helicopter's other major offering, which has been selected for prototyping by the Coast Guard, is a tilt-rotor UAV and about one-third the size of the next generation Predator and can operate autonomously from the decks of ships for about 8 hours. It can carry a small weapons payload and a suite of surveillance sensors.

April 30, 2003
New Devices to Recognize Bodily Features on Entry Into the U.S.
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, April 29 - Domestic-security agencies will begin this year to use computer equipment that recognizes fingerprints and other features to verify the identities of foreign visitors as they enter and depart the United States, Bush administration officials said today.

They said the new security measures, which may also include the use of computerized facial-recognition machinery, are intended to block the entry of terrorists into the United States and to verify that foreign visitors leave on schedule.

Such biometric technology had been mandated by Congress for use beginning late next year in an entry and exit system for foreign visitors as a result of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. But in a speech today, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the department had decided to move up the time frame, with some of the body-recognition equipment in place by the end of this year.

Department officials said that while the department had still not worked out many of the details of its biometrics program, it was likely that some computerized fingerprint and facial-recognition equipment would be installed at some international airports, border crossings and seaports within several months.

In some cases, they said, the machinery would be used to verify the identities of visitors who had provided fingerprints as part of their visa applications to enter the United States. In other cases, they said, visitors may be asked to provide fingerprints as they arrive in the United States - information that would then be used to verify their departures.

In a speech marking the first 100 days of his new department, Mr. Ridge announced the creation of the new entry and exit system, to be known as U.S. Visit, an acronym for the Visitor and Immigrant Status Indication Technology system.

He said the system, which replaces several other programs to monitor immigrants that have been criticized by immigration and civil-liberties groups, would create an "electronic check-in, check-out system for people who come to the United States to work or to study or to visit."

"We want to keep terrorists out without compromising the welcoming mat," Mr. Ridge said. "While the new visitor system will make it more difficult to enter the United States illegally, it will expedite the process for people who are entering the country lawfully."

Another senior department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the department would first install fingerprint-recognition equipment, since it was already widely available in law enforcement agencies, and "we'll be working to implement the other standards, such as facial recognition."

He said the decision to move up use of the body-recognition equipment was not prompted by intelligence data suggesting an imminent threat. "It's that the secretary is committed to making this happen as quickly as possible," he said. "This is one of his top priorities."

In his remarks today to the National Press Club, Mr. Ridge said that the United States was "absolutely" safer from terrorist attack because Saddam Hussein had been forced from power and that his department could take credit for "solid, productive and measurable progress" in defending the nation from the possibility of terrorist strikes.

"With the demise of Saddam Hussein and his regime, we are considerably safer," he said, repeating the administration's assertion that the former Iraqi government had worked closely with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. "We've disarmed the dictator and his supporters," Mr. Ridge said, cautioning, however, that there "is still a real and daily threat to this country."

After months of delay, the White House announced that it had named an Air Force general and former C.I.A. official to take over from Mr. Ridge as the White House domestic security adviser, the post Mr. Ridge left in January to become the first secretary of homeland security.

The new homeland security adviser, Gen. John Gordon of the Air Force, is currently a presidential national security adviser for counterterrorism. His new White House post does not need Senate confirmation.

April 28, 2003 - 10:00 p.m.

The Little BombStuffer that Could: From Taxpayers to the Public, Homeland Technologies Emerge

By Jim McGee CQ Staff Writer

When investigators at Boston's Logan Airport finally hauled Richard Reid off the jumbo jet he tried to blow up with his shoes last December, two members of the Massachusetts State Police Department's bomb squad got the call.

Sgt. David Thompson and Sgt. Edward Anderson were accustomed to dealing with the unexpected, especially when it came to what detectives in their nerve-wracking specialty call an "improvised explosive device."

The shoe part was new. Every homemade bomb is slightly different, but these bombs took the cake. Reid had managed to secret explosive devices in his soles.

Ten years ago, Thompson and Anderson probably would have arranged to drop the shoes into a heavy lead-sided bomb disposal unit and blow them up in a safe space far away.

Such an approach removed the threat, but it also tended to destroy forensic evidence that might be gathered from the bomb parts.

Instead of the old method, this time Thompson and Anderson went to work with a PAN - a Percussion-Actuated Nonelectric Disrupter - a remote controlled system that uses classified technology to identify the internal components of a bomb and disrupt the electrical process that triggers an explosion.

Working like surgeons excising a cancer, the two detectives used the odd-looking device to diffuse the shoebomb, leaving intact plenty of evidence to use in the prosecution of Reid.

Exactly how the PAN disrupter works is a secret, but the device is one of the proudest new entries from the Sandia National Laboratory, a Cold War-era institution that has found a new font of federal funding by developing counter-terrorism technologies tailored to the mission of homeland security.

The journey of the special PAN technology from a classified research program at a Department of Energy lab in Albuquerque, N.M., to the product used by hundreds of police departments marks the path that other new defense-related technologies are likely to take in the years ahead.

"We really do whatever the needs of the country are," said Sandia spokesman Chris Miller. "And more and more, there is a need for homeland security technologies."

On a Roll

Queued up in the Sandia technology pipeline are detection systems that will sniff out the presence of chemical, biological or nuclear emissions from terrorist attacks, according to Kevin McMahon, manager of the lab staff that steers previously secret technologies into licensed commercial products.

Sandia National Laboratory was born in 1947 as a public-private partnership designed to harness the management and research expertise of large technology-related firms to the federal government's mission of developing bigger and more precise nuclear weapons.

Sandia Corp., first managed by ATT Corp. and now Lockheed Martin, was the first private firm to manage the lab for DOE. For years, it concentrated mostly on high-end engineering research for nuclear weapons, while two other DOE national labs - at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, in Berkeley, Calif. - focused on the physics of weapons of mass destruction.

One event broadened Sandia's focus beyond nuclear devices: The 1972 Olympics when terrorists seized a group of Israeli athletes.

"We began considering how to help protect the country against terrorist attacks after we saw what happened at Munich," McMahon said.

Onto Anthrax

The shift in focus was gradual, but it paid off after the post-9/11 anthrax attacks that skyrocketed the nation's anxiety about terrorism. In the 1990s, Sandia researchers developed a formula for a foam or mist that could decontaminate large machinery or buildings befouled by chemical, biological or radiological attacks.

Sandia and its corporate managers are not allowed to develop products themselves. Instead, they license new technology to individual firms who are then encouraged to expand on the invention's uses.

In 1999, Sandia negotiated licenses with two companies, Modec, Inc., of Denver, Colo., and EnviroFoam Technologies, Inc. of Huntsville, Ala.

As a result, after anthrax-laced envelopes made the Hart Senate Office Building uninhabitable, EnviroFoam was able to deliver large quantities of its decontaminating foam to clean the halls and offices on Capitol Hill, while Modec got the call to tackle the offices of the two media organizations that got anthrax-laced letters, the New York Post and ABC News.

In 1993, the defense firm Martin Marietta won a bid to manage Sandia, and was subsequently acquired by Lockheed Corp., the present steward, now known as Lockheed-Martin.

Cherry Picking

The PAN bomb disrupter began in the mind of a Sandia engineer named Chris Cherry.

"Shock physics" he calls his specialty. "I design tools to defuse bombs."

Cherry started the work that led to the PAN technology 10 years ago at the suggestion of the FBI, he said. The Bureau offered to invest research and development funds into a new bomb disrupter. The result was an long, barrel-shaped device that can be used from a remote distance to apply pressure on vulnerable parts of a bomb.

"We can control the energy so well, we can generally defeat the bomb within from going off," he said.

Once he perfected the PAN technology, Sandia licensed Cherry's company, as well as Ideal Products, Inc., of Lexington, Ky., to develop it.

Among bomb squad technicians, news of the new system's value spread quickly.

In 1996, the FBI summoned Cherry himself to a remote hillside in Montana after they raided the cabin of Theodore Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber," where he used his device to dismantle one of the bomber's fiendishly clever devices.

From an initial research and development investment of "a couple hundreds of thousand dollars," Cherry said, there are now over 2,000 of the devices in use by local, state and federal agencies, and military units, and he has gone on to develop other systems that use other technologies.

The larger purpose of licensing firms to use Sandia technology is to encourage their entrepreneurial instincts.

Ideal Products, Inc., has developed various versions of the PAN detector, which it has sold to police departments, federal agencies and even military units.

Earlier this week, the FBI issued an announcement that it would purchase from Ideal Products, as the sole source provider, what the company calls its VIP Gander Surveillance System.

The FBI notice said the device has "optical capabilities to assist its user and is designed to assist Andros Robotic devices."

Add-ons include a black and white camera, a mounting device that fits a Remotec remote controlled vehicle and "a target assessment device to allow user to differentiate from dangerous and non-dangerous material..."

As for Cherry, his current focus is on chemical and biological devices..

"We try to stay ahead of the threat," Cherry said.

U.S. may use drones to patrol Mexico border
The Arizona Republic
April 25th, 2003

They've proved their worth by scouting hostile territory in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, firing lethal missiles in the war on terrorism, and flying round-the-clock reconnaissance.

Before long, unmanned aircraft, or drones, may be patrolling the nation's borders to protect against intruders of any type.

"I am extremely supportive of the idea," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., a member of the newly created Homeland Security Committee and chairman of a subcommittee that will have a major say in what kinds of equipment will be pressed into service.

Until the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, most security measures along the U.S.-Mexico border were aimed at two categories of people: drug smugglers and countless undocumented migrants seeking work in the United States. After the attacks, terrorists became the most serious focus.

Shadegg said two recent visits to the Mexican border underscored for him that "we don't have anything approaching control of that border."

Less than half a mile from border stations, fences are riddled with holes large enough to drive vehicles through, he said, and beyond there, fencing often is missing.

Support for putting electronic eyes in the sky is building in Congress, Shadegg said.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wrote President Bush this month saying the case for nonmilitary use of unmanned aerial vehicles is "compelling," but he emphasized that privacy concerns also must be addressed.

Rapid advancements in the range, endurance and reliability of drones have endeared them to the military in the past decade.

Various models have been built, at least experimentally, to carry heavy payloads, stay in the air for days, soar at altitudes of 100,000 feet, sneak under radar, cross the Pacific nonstop, or explore concealed military depots, all the while beaming back startlingly detailed photos, video, infrared and radar images to controllers.

The most widely known craft is the Predator, used by U.S. forces, NATO and U.N. peacekeepers since first being put into action in Bosnia in 1995.

The Predator, many generations removed from hobbyists' model airplanes, is a super-sophisticated system that costs an average of $4.5 million, counting both the aircraft and a truckload worth of control equipment.

Spy Agency Finds Secrecy a Hard Habit to Break

At an unprecedented, unclassified meeting with the nation's top microbiologists in January, CIA officials mapped out a strategy for openly cooperating with outside scientists to combat bioterrorism. The scientific community was impressed - national security agencies traditionally steer clear of unclassified collaboration. As a token of their sincerity, CIA officials said they'd even publish an unclassified summary of the meeting. That overture, coming from an agency and an administration known for its penchant for secrecy, further gratified the participants. Then reality set in, according to a little noticed account in the current issue of The Scientist magazine. In early April, the Agency said it would circulate only a classified summary of the unclassified meeting. The reversal set off a firestorm of criticism from the scientists who had attended the meeting and the CIA quickly backpedaled, stating it would consider publishing some sort of unclassified version for the meeting attendees. The brouhaha comes on the heels of a March 25 presidential order permitting government officials to reclassify information that has already been declassified and postpones the declassification of millions of historically valuable documents. It also eliminates an instruction to stamp-happy classifiers during the Clinton administration which advised, "When in doubt, do not classify." It did, however, preserve several Clinton-era policies that resulted in the declassification of millions of documents, analysts say. "The new Bush policy is less onerous than the administration's critics had feared," wrote Steven Aftergood, editor of Secrecy News, "but it is nonetheless far short of what is needed to clear the air in an administration that is all too addicted to keeping secrets."-Chris Logan

(Homeland Security Daily, 18 April 2003)

Homeland Security Dept.'s Research-Division Leader Outlines Budget Priorities
By ANNE MARIE BORREGO, Washington

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security plans to offer fellowships to graduate students, Under Secretary Charles E. McQueary told members of a House of Representatives committee at a hearing on Thursday. This was Mr. McQueary's first appearance before Congress, and university advocates have been watching for signs of how those in academe could play a role in the research-and-development efforts of the new agency.
Mr. McQueary, who was confirmed this week as head of the department's science-and-technology division, provided the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security with a detailed budget request for the 2004 fiscal year. Mr. McQueary's unit will administer the bulk of the department's research-and-development funds to both universities and corporations. Included in his request is $10-million for homeland-security fellowships and university programs.
"The vast scope of the science and technology needed to address homeland security, coupled with declining enrollments in specific areas such as nuclear science and technologies and radiochemistry, are leading to a lack of qualified applicants for relevant research and development," Mr. McQueary told panel members. He said the fellowship program would support "strategic partnerships" with academe "to provide support for qualified students and faculty."
Mr. McQueary added that, as authorized by Congress, the department will establish university centers to aid in the homeland-security research-and-development effort. However, he did not provide details on how those centers would be chosen or how much money each would receive.
Rep. Martin O. Sabo, the senior Democrat on the subcommittee, asked why Congress should support a homeland-security fellowship program that is relatively small, when similar programs at other agencies are much larger.
Mr. McQueary, a former defense contractor who received a fellowship from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration early in his career, said the department wanted to see how heavy demand was for the program and, if necessary, would return to the subcommittee seeking a larger amount in the future. Since the appropriations process for the 2004 fiscal year will not end until after the 2003-4 academic year has begun, the fellowships program would probably not be in place until the following year.
Much of the science-and-technology division's efforts have focused on assessing the government's current homeland-security capabilities and determining the breadth of existing federally financed research projects relevant to homeland security that are administered by other agencies, like the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy. Once his division has examined those projects and capabilities, its job will be to "fill in the holes," Mr. McQueary said.
To that end, Mr. McQueary detailed how the agency would spend its requested $803-million research, development, testing, evaluation, and demonstrations budget. The new department requested $365-million for biological countermeasures, $137-million for radiological and nuclear countermeasures, $90-million for threat and vulnerability tests and assessment, and $55-million for chemical countermeasures.
The department plans to spend about 10 percent of its total research-and-development budget on basic research, the type most commonly conducted by universities.

April 6, 2003
Domestic Security: The Line Starts Here
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON

ONLY three months in town, and Charles E. McQueary has found himself just about the most popular man in wartime Washington. Powerful lobbyists and corporate executives track down his new telephone number and call him unannounced; strangers buttonhole him in the halls of Congress, hoping for a few precious minutes of his time.
Dr. McQueary, a former executive of General Dynamics and Bell Laboratories, is the newly confirmed undersecretary for science and technology in the Department of Homeland Security. In that job, he will influence how the giant new agency and the rest of the federal government spend tens of billions of dollars on technology to defend American soil from terrorist attacks.
A genial, Texas-born engineering Ph.D., Dr. McQueary is now the government's chief contact with the scientists, technicians and entrepreneurs who are searching for ways to help their companies profit from the public's understandable fixation with keeping their families and communities safe from terrorism - a threat that probably has grown as a result of the war with Iraq.
Dr. McQueary got a taste of his newfound celebrity when, seconds after he finished testifying at his Senate confirmation hearing last month, he was approached in the hearing room by an entrepreneur who wanted to promote data-mining software that might help in the government's hunt for terrorists.
"I gave him an e-mail address," said Dr. McQueary, who has established a special e-mail account for dealing with the sudden crush of lobbyists, corporate executives and hand-to-mouth entrepreneurs who want to pitch their domestic-security wares. science.technology@dhs.gov
"Through my whole professional career, I always answered my own telephone, but it's rapidly getting to the point where that's not feasible anymore,"