Transcripts For CSPAN3 Private-Public Partnerships And Homeland Security 20141127

The biggest thing it had to do with the project was where would the interstate go. The engineers worked with the possibility for a long time of running the interstate over the top of the dam. That would have required a larger dam, of course. But all of this is con verveg at the same time. The interstate planners are making their plans for which path the interstate is going to ta take. The decision to run it through Summit County the final decision wasnt made until 1960. By that time, denvers engineering of the dam had moved on. So they ended up running it along the base of the dam rather than on it. It did have some affect. Like i said, by the time the interstate was designated, it was no longer really an issue. It was essentially a water project. Yes. I think we have time for one more question. Which one of you wants to ask the question . Flip a coin. I wanted to know your guesstimate on Vacation Land of the huge traffic jams we see now on 70. How is that going to impact our economy and the things you have been talking about . Well, im an academic. I like to pick on the premises of questions sometimes. What i would say is the fact that so much of the debate over interstate 70 has revolved around not so much the Environmental Issues but about congestion, about the question of how for recreational enthusiasts it takes too long to get up there or to get back or for business interests, it might start to harm their business if people are deterred by how nasty and congested it has become. I think it speaks to the limited the limits of environmental consciousness i was making the case for. You miss a lot of other ways of looking at the issue. Which way that would go, i have no idea. I got asked that question in the afternoon version of this talk. I quoted the famous saying that a historian is a profit looking backwards. Historians are useless for projecting the future. It seems like when they expanded the twolane tunnel just east of idaho springs, that the strongest Political Support stands for doing some widening here or there. But as to whether that might change, whether there might be a paradigm shift toward rail or a new way of viewing the problem i raise the issue of things like as environmental conditions change, if oil becomes less cheap, if climate changes were radically transforms the regulational industry both s things, we might be forced to change. In terms of what the future holds for interstate 70, thats the mushy answer i will give you. I would like to thank dr. William philpott one more time. [ applause ] i know you all have more questions for him. I wish we had more time. The lecture can go keep going o. Step on up. He would be happy to answer your question individually. Otherwise, stop by the gift shop on your way out. Im here to answer questions as well. We will see you next month at our rocky flats lecture. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you. [ applause ] campaign 2014 has one outstanding race to be decided. Louisiana senate. Democratic incouple bakincouple landrieu is up. Watch that live at 8 00 eastern on cspan2. Here is a look at some of the political ads running in the state. Im Mary Landrieu. I approved this message. On may 31, bill cassidy gave a speech that was nearly inh incoherent. His record is clear, voting to cut Social Security benefits. To pay for a tax break for millionaires like himself. Will it be a senate that a senate for this . Thank you. Before the end of the year, were going to take whatever lawful actions that i can take. Thats obama promising executive amnesty for millions here illegally. We must stop obama. As your senator, i will fight his plan. Your tax dollars should benefit you, not those here illegally. Remember, Mary Landrieu, obama, 97 . I will stand up to obama. Im bill cassidy. I approved this message. Every morning i say a prayer for my kids. I just want them to be happy and to do their best. Bill cassidy is a doctor. But he still voted in congress to cut 86 million from louisiana schools to pay for a tax break for millionaires like himself. I dont know what kind of doctor would do that to my kids. Im Mary Landrieu and a proved this message because louisianas children should never pay the price for a millionaires tax cut. Im bill cassidy. I approved this message. A few words from Mary Landrieu. On obamacare. If i had to vote for the bill again, i would vote for it tomorrow. On voting with barak obama 97 of the time. Im very happen my to see the president defend what i think is really an extraordinary record. If you dare disagree with her . If they like it they can unelect us. Now you know what to do on election day. This thanksgiving week, cspan is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. Watch the interviews thursday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. I was elected in 1980, came in in 81. If you look at my newsletters, theres no mention of human rights and religious freedom. Congressmen tony hall who was from ohio who was my best friend from congress, we have been in a group together for 32 years, he asked me to go to ethiopia during the famine. I went up. I got the appropriations and asked if i could go to im own y ethiopia. It was very bad. I got in a camp run by world vision. The embassy didnt want me to spend the night. I said, i want to spend a night. A guy said, if you spend the night i will spend the night. Right next to his camp was a camp run by mother theresa. We spent the night in a hut. It rained the next day and the plane couldnt back. It was a life changing experience. We saw in the morning people died. We saw things that just that trip in 85 tony took me to romania. Bulldozing churches. I saw people persecuted for their faith. Those two trips are bookends, human rights, the poor, the hungry and religious freedom. Since that time also on thursday, thanksgiving day, we will take an American History tour of various native american tribes. Thats at 10 00 a. M. Following washington journal. At 1 30, attend aer sa ceremon Supreme Court justices at 8 30 p. M. Eastern. Thats this thanksgiving week on cspan. For our complete schedule go to cspan. Org. A portion of the american bar Associations Annual Homeland Security conference with senior government officials and others discussing Public Private partnerships. This is about an hour. Good morning. This is the panel on Public Private partnerships for security and resilience. I just want to tell you a little bit about how this panel came to be. We on the Standing Committee on law and National Security began hearing questions from lawyers about Information Exchange between the government and the private sector about how to handle intelligence sharing. We began hearing all the problems and questions from the private sector, about tort liability and the difficulty in finding out who was in charge. And on the government side, about the difficulties dealing with the federal Advisory Commission act and how it didnt always provide the right vehicle for dealing with private sector. And in general, conversations about what the quid pro quo was. And at the same time, there was a strategic discussion going on about 9 11, about preparedness of the private structure and Infrastructure Protection. And after katrina, a wide recognition of the dependency on the private sector for reopening the economy. After sandy, a number of questions about how funding could flow from the federal government to it the private sector. Of course, an ongoing conversation about Cyber Security and the private sector role in dealing with most of the threats. So out of that came the working group on Public Private partnerships. And we reached out to the Homeland Security section of the Administrative Law committee. With help and support many others, we got going. I have to say that what really lit a fire under us was the qhsr, the most recent qhsr, which calls for a new framework for sprtrengthening Mission Execution through Public Private partnerships. So were hoping to produce a book that will be useful to the lawyers in this room both in government and in the private sector that compiles the lawyers that govern those relations such as they are today, that looks at all the executive orders that are relevant and that also provides a set of models. So when you get asked a question as a lawyer, you can look at the various models for dealing with that question. And well identify where there are the Unanswered Questions and the problems Going Forward. Im sure we will be reaching out to many of you in this room as we complete this project. Its a Bar Association project. Its always team work. To see what whether your primary concerns have been addressed. We have a wonderful panel today with three really not only expert thinkers about the subject but the originating minds in many respects. Were going to introduce all i will introduce each as they begin to speak. Our first speaker appropriately is allen cone. He is currently the assistant secretary for strategy planning analysis and risk in the dhs office of policy which makes him the number two in that office. A very busy man. Were honored to have him here. One thing i wanted to say about him in this context is that before he went to law school, he was an emt in new york. While he was in law school, he t continued works as a disaster assistant employee and as a planning officer. He has a really handson feel for issues at the local level and the da to day issues that are faced in the Public Private relationship. He join eed the government in 2006. I met him when he led the first Homeland Security review for dhs. So he has a very rich and textured understanding of the back and forth. He will give us the framework under which dhs is operating today. Thanks for the opportunity to sit on this panel, especially with colleagues who i have worked a lot with and who we have done a lot of good Work Together. As susan noted, we just completed the second Homeland Security review. This is the congressionally mandated review of Homeland Security that we conduct every four years. The first review, which we conducted in 2009 and released in 2010 was really aimed at answering the question of what is Homeland Security. Laying out a vision, mission arizoai areas and hopefully some of you if not most of you are familiar with that. In the Second Review we didnt look to repeat the same exercise. But instead, looked to conduct a more focused and collaborative strategy planning and an littic activity consistent with setting johnsons emphasis on enhancing unity of effort within our department and across all of the participants in Homeland Security activities. So in addition to identifying a number of riskbased priorities for Homeland Security Going Forward based on the strategic environment, based on trends and challenges, one of the things that we did identify and highlight in the second quad renial review was the question of Public Private partnerships. Why did we single that out given the range of Different Things that a Homeland Security review could focus on . Well, for a number of reasons. First, todays Homeland Security challenges dont observe traditional organizational or political boundaries. You need look no further than the headlines of todays paper or those of the last several weeks. Biological challenges, Cyber Security, climate change. These are not things that respect neat, physical organizational boundaries and put stress on organizations of all types. Second, there are clear interdependencies between the public and private sectors such as in the Global Supply change. What that means is that catastrophic events in one part of the world can cause ripple affects across business and government globally. Third, in rapidly evolving domains like the arctic, partnerships can enhance security while promoting and spoeri supporting open markets. In addition, partnerships can be an answer to increasing resource constraints, physical environment not only at the federal level but across state, local, territorial and tribal governments, most of the private sector nongovernmental organizations, all of the organizations face increasing fiscal pressures, reasons why we should look as to how we can best Work Together with one another. Both leveraging the ways that we have looked at Public Private partnership before and enning news ways that we can engage in partnership. For all of you who have been following Homeland Security since the inception of the department and before with all of its various strands, you know Public Private partnerships are not a new concept in Homeland Security. Perhaps best known partnership in Homeland Security is the national Public Private partnership to advance security and resilience of Critical Infrastructure thats set forth in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan with our Sector Coordinating Councils and government coordinating councils. Its not the only type of Public Private partnership in Homeland Security. Relationships and agreements with airlines and shippers and multinational corporations, with respect to the movement of goods and people across our borders. The Community Initiative for National Preparedness and Emergency Management. The port relationships, coast guard maintains with a variety of entities that operate in our port environments. There are a number of examples of successful Public Private Partnership Models across Homeland Security. One of the things that we wanted to do in the Second Review was to try to best leverage and cross supply the lessons that we have learned in each of those circumstances to look at are there ways we can generalize len s lessons from the experiences, look at the range of private Public Partnerships and distill something, government, industry, nongovernment organizations, look at different challenges and see if Public Private partnerships of one type or another would be appropriate for addressing that challenge. So there are two things that we sought to develop. One was a checklist, a way to think through Public Private partnerships. The second was a set of arc types. Arc types that generalize things that we use currently or that are used in other types of governmental activities outside of the security and resilience area but where the lessons can be applied in the hole lay eied security area. The checklist we developed has eight elements. Its just its a way of walking through looking at a challenge and examining whether Public Private partnerships are a way, a better way, perhaps the best way to address the challenge. First, to identify the critical factors that might impact the issue and the partnership. The capabilities necessary, the authorities that are at issue. What expertise is necessary . Whats the range of stakeholders, the scope and scale of the problem . Second is to determine the Value Proposition, pursuing a partnership versus alternatives, whether thats independent action by the private sector, independent action by the government. The Value Proposition both for the government and for nongovernmental entities participating in the activity. And then next two are what we see as the crux of the challenge. Can we define the outcomes that the parties are trying to achieve, particularly the shared outcomes that were trying to achieve . Because when we identify the shared outcome, again, that links to that question of the Value Proposition for governmental and nongovernmental entities. As important as the outcomes are where what interests are at play and where do they align. Governmental and nongovernmental interests will not necessarily be the same. Government has interests in enhancing security and resilience. Industry has interests in increasing profitability, brand recognition, market share. Burt that doesnt mean the interests cant align in the service outcomes. Defining the outcomes and identifying where the interests align are key elements. Identify the range of challenges, opportunities, risks and potential barriers to partnering. Then identifying the partnership. Identifying relevant stakeholders and Decision Makers and determining how to measure success. Thats a way to think about the question. We talked a little bit about outcomes. Shared outcomes, aligning interests. The third piece is what is whats the best arcitype for aligning the interests. This is where we looked at models for infrastructure environment. Can we take all of the examples that we have and generalize them into basic types of partnership . So in the second in the report on the Second Review, i identified five groups of partnership. The first is probably the best known and most well used, which is partnerships for information and data sharing. This is where parties across public and private sectors share relevant and timely information that may be useful to both parties with the up tension the parties go and use that information for mutually supportive ends but the core is the sharing of the information. Most if not all partnerships rest on that base of sharing of the information. But there are other types as well. The second type is coordination. This is where a Partnership Aligns policies, objectives, messages, relevant activities among a group of partners to produce clarity and consensus. But its based on independent action just independent action with a greater degree of coordination. The third is operational linkages. This is where in addition to the information sharing and in addition to the alignment of policies and objectives, this is where we begin to take systems, procedures and routines of each of the individual partners and link them, bring them together in such a way that certain types of operational activities take place together. Fourth is coinvestment. And as its name implies, this is where not only information is shared, outcomes are coordinating, activities are linked but where each party invests funding towards a common end, a specific project, a specific goal. And then fifth, is coproduction. This is where this is where the public and private sectors come together to develop and produce in essence a product or an outcome of security and resilience that neither could produce independently together and that is of value to each party. So thinking about Public Private partnerships in that way helps us not only think about the ways that we engage in public pry vart partnership today and the range of problems that we apply Public Private partnerships to but gifrn gives us a way to thi about and allows us toss think about, can we apply a model of Public Private partnership to this problem . Would it represent a better or perhaps the best way to address the problem . Let me stop there. Hand it back to susan. Thank you, allen. Its been a very stimulating report. It has helped us begin thinking about Public Private partnerships. Our next speaker is kiersten nelson. Shes also really impressive because of her range of experience relevant to this problem. She did start out as a practicing lawyer in corporate transactional law. She created and managed the office of legislative policy and Government Affairs at the transportation security administration. We know shes a really good communicator and able to think about peoples problems and problem solving. She was then special assistant to the president for prevention preparedness and response on the whitehouse Homeland Security council. Anyone who can handle the pressures and demands of that office definitely hats off to them from me. She is currently president of consulting, she advise officials and private sector officials on the development and execution of preparedness strategies, policies, plans, tools and tabletop exercises. Shes right in the heart of the kinds of issues that our group is dealing with. She is also the chair of the World Economic forums Global Agenda Council on risk and resilience. And developed and is leading a Global Initiative on the role of big data in increasing security and resilience. Shes a key member of the Standing Committee on law and National Security working group. And we have asked her to focus today on models for Public Private partnerships. We are just beginning to try to derive the models from the plethora of organizations that exist today to digest them into accessible models for practicing lawyers. Of course, we started with one vision of the models, which is the things that allen has told us about, the five that dhs has found to be very useful. I think kiersten will give us another perspective on what the models and ways of thinks about Public Private partnerships in security and resilience is. Thanks, susan. I just want to thank the aba. This is a very important topic. It can seem very dry. But it is also an emerging and evolving area. Its where we are headed as a community in terms of being able to increase our Community Security and resilience. The ho the homeland perspective is different than what we have seen. If the look other the last 200 years, and concept of Public Private partnerships is not new. What perhaps is new is the way in which we use them. The concept of ppp is not new. Traditionally over the last 200 years it has been a contractual relationship in the United States. You can see that if you look at Infrastructure Projects, whether transportation or in the water sector, certainly for funding issues the state and local level that has been a very traditional way to raise funds to work on public works. President obama Just Announced a new Infrastructure Project which demonstrates the continued use of Public Private partnerships in the traditional way. In fact, the recent statistics that i saw are over half of city public works are provided through Public Private partnerships. Its a very traditional way to do that. The challenge that we have in homeland, we have different barriers. Allen mentioned some of them. We perhaps also on the good side have different incentives. But we need to be a bit more flexible perhaps and a bit more creative in terms of how we organize around and construct a Public Private partnership. You will see some public pry vart partnerships in the homeland area that are reminiscent of the past. They are contractual based. Its very clear roles and responsibilities, liability indemnification, insurance. But many others are focused on a concept of operations. Its partners coming together. Its plan the plan is what guides the partnership. We see that in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. We see that in the National Response framework when you look at a support function, which is a colead between the federal Emergency Management and the american red cross. Thats not a traditional contract. Its based on a plan that describes rules and responsibilities and operational linkages. I just want to refresh a little bit of what allen said. I think it gives us a good perspective in terms of thinking about the models. As an entity, you first sort of make that decision if you can independently effectively and efficiently address whatever issue it is that you have. Once you decide that you cant due to capability or capacity, could be resources, could be authorities, you then look for those partners to jointly address the issue. Once you have done that, you then have to be very aware of the environmental factors, some of which allen mentioned, that could serve as barriers. When you look to construct your Public Private partnership, you have to be very cognizant of the barriers. Just to highlight some of the ones that allen said, he talked about the nature of the threat. Interdependency, supply change. He mentioned resource constraints. In homeland the private sector plays a Critical Role in terms of being the primary provider of goods and services, particularly on the infrastructure side. Theres a need for Partnership Based on that. Of course, theres differing expertise. We seat the department of Homeland Security more and more looking to the private sector, particularly in Cyber Security, with a recognition that the private sector has the ability to be more cutting edge perhaps in some areas in terms of tools and services that can be provided to increase our community resilience. The barriers some of which we are addressing in the work that susan mentioned i want to stress here, many of the barriers it turns out are perceived. Theres a lot of education that needs to be done in Public Private partnerships in this area. But we have talked about liability. We have talked about insurance concerns. Indemnification. Theres some legal restrictions with respect to sharing information, whether thats pii or it could be the rules that sue mentioned. In some states and localities theres license issues. Is this constitute a business and is a business license required. Term limit on contracting which can limit its ability to move forward. This concept that the federal government or state and local government due to the public good do not negotiate contracts but solicit contracts and theres a very specialized way in which that acquisition process occurs. When you look at public pry vart partnerships that flies in the face of the concept of the flexibility that might be needed open the private sector side. There are in some states and localitities, theres no authorization in law for private parties to collect service fees. So if you are private partner is providing a service as part of your public pry vart partnership, theres a funding mechanism problem of how to transfer funds to make it all work. At a higher more cultural perspective, theres the competitive nature of business. We still hear from many businesses that they are hesitant to provide Additional Information to a public partner because they are afraid it will reduce their competitive ability to compete with their peers. The Protection Information we talked about. Theres misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities. What is inherently governmental versus private. How can we construct that together in this context . Cultural, theres a lot of cultural misperceptions. I hear Public Private pau partnerships are too bureaucratic. We dont trust the government. We dont do it that way. Its not a traditional cultural way in which a certain issue has been addressed. Theres a belief that partnerships somehow demonstrates weakness. If you are a fortune 100 company, what does that say if you decide to address something through a partnership . That clearly is a misperception. On the other hand, its an education of the investors. Finally, theres this belief that Public Private partnerships are inflexible and they cant be changed over time. Theres no way to help them evolve. Again, all these are important to consider as you construct your partnership. Once you have determined its necessary. How do you proceed in allen talked about the checklist that was developed during qhsr. In the implementation of the executive order on Cyber Security and the president ial policy directive on Critical Infrastructure security and resilience, dhs has done work on what are the successful what are the criteria that success public pry vart partnerships share . Thats a good place to look as you are looking to create. As allen said, you start with the purpose. You start with the outcome. What is is it what is the issue that you are trying to resolve . That first and foremost will lead you to the construct that will work. Allen walked through some of the arc types. I would encourage you to think through after you identify the outcomes and purpose who you want to be involved and where it will be located, if it involves federal partners, state and local partners, if theres a funding issue, if theres a particular liability issue. So if you look at models that exist today, we have ones that are based almost purely on purpose. Thats some of the perhaps its an example of the information sharing p3s that allen mentioned whether Fusion Centers or information sharing and nal sis centers. Theres also sectorbased public pry vart partnerships. We see those throughout the National Infrastructure. You could mix a sector and a purpose. Thats specialized. You can have a particular Information Sharing Analysis Center for a sector like the Financial Service isac. There are sectors based plus regional locality constructs. An example would be chicago first, which was started really around the Financial Sector in chicago but is now expanded to include other types of infrastructure concerns. Regional, so we have the Pacific Northwest economic region. For those of you who arent familiar with that, they do much more than their name might imply. They focus on Homeland Security issues at large both on the preparedness side and response and recovery side. Theres purpose based public pry vart partnerships that are implemented locally. An example of that might be infraguard. Its a parter inship with the federal bureau of investigation. But its implemented at a local level through chapters. Thats a slight mix on how do a federal level public pry vart partnership and bring it down into a community so it could be tailerrd to the needs. Another example of that is d. C. s Homeland Security Emergency Management agencies. Business Emergency Management operation center. Its a new entity. But that focuses on working with the private sector at a local level and having that Public Private partnership be around emergency response. Theres Capacity Building as a purpose or as a unique construct. We have the dhs loaned executive program as an example there. Theres also an example in virginia, the department of Emergency Management has a private sector liaison program. Theres research. This is an interesting area, because you will see dls today looks very differently at the cooperative research and Development Agreements that they utilize. You will see dhs more and more focusing on specific areas that a private sector entity is interested in. In the Financial Services sector, some focus very specifically on teralines and information sharing and how can the Financial Services sector help dhs understand and tailer raw intel into a operational way that the Financial Sector can immediately use it . Incutel is an example. Im sure you are familiar with that helps the cia and other agencies have the cutting edge tools. The focus there is using the Research Capability of the private sector to help the Public Sector stay on top and on the cutting edge of what they need. We also find very specific legal carve outs in Public Private partnerships such as the safety act. Theres another panel speaking about the safety act. Its an interesting way in which one company can work under legal construct or regulatory construct with the department of home land security to protect itself from liability in doing x, y and z and providing tools that are related to the homeland. We also have more and more voluntary standards. You might remember the ps prep effort from a few years ago. We also recently have had the National Institute of standards and Technology Issue the first Cyber Security framework. Various people have spoken about that yesterday. If you participated in those sessions. But its a great example of a very loose Public Private partnership. It was all voluntary. Theres no contract, no formal roles and responsibilities. But it was the private sector in the form of nonprofits, individuals, entities, advising and helping the government to create something for the use of the private sector. And finally, we see more and more Public Private partnerships in the form of sharing resources. So you all might remember the aid matrix. Another recent example is the United Nations has launched the humanitarian Data Exchange that provides governmentowned data out to the community for purposes of humanitarian missions. It provides analysis tools that are available. The information mimics there is from the private sector. Its for the private sector as well as emergency providers throughout the world. So i think susan will ask us after this kind of where we see this all going. So i will talk a bit more then about that. But i did want to just say that to sum it up that in homeland what we see is the need for a lot more flexibility and again thats due to what allen described, the highlight of which is the evolving nature of the threat. We also see a lot of different times of parter ins, from Venture Capital firms through to specific entities through to organizations of entities interfacing with the government through to perhaps more and more individuals, which has not been a traditional role. The public in terms of the public has not traditionally been involved in public pry vart partnerships other than as funders perhaps through other mechanisms. Now we see individuals participating in activities to increase community resilience. I will turn it back over to susan. I think that was a really good preview of the types of models were going to try to provide for the legal community. Of course, when we do it, we will also have very concrete examples. We will try to put it in terms of the kinds of questions that lawyers are asked by their clients at the state, local as well as those dealing with the federal government. Our third speaker is here to kind of bring us down to earth. From the abostraction of the models to the working relationship between the public and private sector. Colonel Robert Stefan is the executive director of griffin scientific. His career in government began with a 24year air force career where he commanded two elite air force special tactic squadrons and worked on contingency programs across the world of troubl trouble. And had a very distinguished air force career. He moved into the homelandcaree. He moved into the Homeland Security arena, to the protection of critical resources. He was the assistant secretary for Infrastructure Protection at the u. S. Department of Homeland Security. And in that capacity, he had a very formative role in the documents the planning documents that still guide the community today. The first National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the identification and cataloguing on the nations Critical Infrastructure and resources. Today hes involved in private sector incident management planning, training, and exercises. Along with working with the federal, state, and local governments. His focus is Business Continuity and resiliency. Hes been very involved in training and exercise activities all around the country, from san diego to philadelphia and in between. Table top exercise programs at various levels within the private industry. And im very eager to hear from him what his perspective from the ground is. Thank you, susan and thank you all for inviting me here today to spend time with you. Im a little intimidated. Im a bit at a disadvantage being the only nonattorney represented on the panel in a room of distinguished legal professionals. Two things i have to say about that. One, did i have two classes in law at the u. S. Air force academy. I got as, so im banking on those to pull me through somewhat today. And my son is entering his senior year in law school and we have this banter back and forth about legal issues a lot. He bounces a lot of things off me. So im going to release him into your collective custody next may 10th. Were looking forward to that, but theres a sad aspect to it because im going to be replaced as the most iconic figure in his life by someone like joe whitley, eminent legal scholar. So well see how that crash on impact goes. But anxious to have a lawyer in the family. And hes told me no more lawyer jokes after may 10th. Publicprivate partnership, the bottom line, in my job at dhs, responsibilities for coordinating a lot. But the Directive Authority to make protective actions happen anywhere with respect to any of the critical assets, or systems, including my own office space, was very minimal. So it was all about Publicprivate Partnerships. I frequently use statistics. 85 of this challenge, ownership of Critical Infrastructure about 10 in the hands of sedatate an local government officials and only about 5 in terms of ownership and authority. In all to make this work in a constantly changing and threat and hazard environment, that publicprivate sector piece is critical. It that cant be worked out, you wont have anything. So some important notes there. To further set the context for the challenges before i talk about where we are now and where were going in the little bit of the road ahead. You have to understand this publicprivate sector thing has become a buzz word, but its not a monolithic entity. Theres no such thingas a single Publicprivate Partnership. This partnership, it operates at various levels across various levels of government, various levels of the private sector, from the facility level all the way up to the corporate level, from the white house, all the way down to local municipal and county government. And all of those things, viewed in a very different way sometimes, depending on what were talking about. As weve evolved over time, beginning with the clinton administration, through the bush administration, now into the second obama administration, this thing has morphed metastasized very quickly in some areas, not so quickly in others. Its made up of organizations and individuals. Those individuals and organizations have distinct personalities, interests, bureaucratic politics, authorities, capacities, resources, buddy networks. I wish all that could be checked at the door when were talking about Publicprivate Partnerships, but absolutely none of it is, and you have to deal with all of those things when youre trying to get in this business of establishing an effective, efficient set of Publicprivate Partnerships to do Something Like protect the nations Critical Infrastructure. Would caution you all that Publicprivate Partnerships are not an end state. Theyre a road to an end state. That end state is a safer, more secure, and a prepared america, in an all hazards, all threat, 21st century, global risk environment. Thats a mouthful of words there, but very important words. Again, its a journey to get to an end state. A very important road of many things that have to come together to do this thing called Homeland Security, homeland defense. It has to operate in all threats, all hazards context, and has to demonstrate flexibility to go from one thing to another. Here are some examples. We have rogue nation states out there that dont necessarily respect the rules of International Law or established international norms. We have International Terrorists of varying types and categories. The most dangerous of which has emerged recently as isis in syria and iraq. Domestic violent extremists, disaffected employees, malicious insiders with a grievance against somebody or something. Ever more catastrophic disasters, ever more consequential disasters. Mother nature capable of throwing us in harms way. Technological failures, industrial accidents, Hazardous Material releases, things that we have to deal with now, through this Publicprivate Partnership. Cyber attacks, global pandemics to include ebola and other things, climate change, space weather impacts on earth. Display chain disruptions, materials in the hands of the enemies of the United States. Those are all things that impact the publicprivate Sector Partnerships. Has to be able to morph and adapt to the very specific issues associated with each one of those things. We cant develop a publicprivate Sector Partnership by issue area. Weve got to develop things that can be flexible, mobile, adaptable and agile to deal with this world in which we live which is ever more crazy. I think Public Private partnerships are really good in that they take us beyond something that is important, a baseline in Critical Infrastructures that didnt exist prior to september 11th, which pride a baseline for security and Emergency Preparedness in many infrastructure sectors. However, if thats all you do, thats a minimalist approach which is even more effective than having somebody doing something because they fear they will incur a penalty if they do not, is to have somebody doing something for the National Good because its the right thing to do and because they elected to do so voluntarily. Thats more powerful and it gets more into the nooks and crannies than any regulation can. And using this voluntary publicprivate Sector Partnership approach, when the world around us changes dynamically, regulations dont change so dynamically. Takes years to go from one to another, or make modifications that would allow a regulation to respond to the world around it. Publicprivate Sector Partnerships, if theyre the rind kind and agile and flexible and they build themselves that way, they can turn on a dime, depending on the issue, and thats much more effective to get at emergent and dynamic threats that we face today. Finally, we must always remember that publicprivate Sector Partnerships, in my world, critical struct protection, are really in addition to regulation, where we apply those wonderful, state, local and federal ordinances, statutes, directives, whatever it might be, processes and systems, products, techniques, technology, whatever it might be, those are the vehicles to apply a lot of good stuff developed at Different Levels of the overall Publicprivate Partnership Community Around the country. So a bit of context for why this is so critical. But some of the things you have to think about as youre trying to apply the concept of Publicprivate Partnerships to an area in Homeland Security, for example critical struct security and resiliency. Before i drive the car forward, sometimes i take a look in the Rearview Mirror to see where i came from. If you take a look, imagine if you will, a world in which hardly any private sector individual had a National Level security clearance. Imagine if you will, a world in which there were no technical systems or platforms through which the public and private sectors could change meaningful operational and intelligence related data. Imagine if you will a world in which the legal context was designed to make informationsharing a very open type of enterprise. A Legal Framework in which it was very difficult because of antitrust considerations for the private sector to meet together as an entity to address Common Security issues, and because of faka, very difficult to hold more than one meeting between government at a certain level and a certain industry group. So thats not a makebelieve world. Thats the world we had on september 10th, 2001. And thats the world we had to operate on september 11th and 12th, 2001, and for years beyond that. Many of you in this room worked tirelessly to address, help us address in the right way, the proper way, the Legal Frameworks that served as impediments at the time to the formation and establishment of really effective and efficient publicprivate Sector Partnerships. Its not yet a perfect world. It never will be, but a applaud the efforts of you involved in the process moving those forward. Because without a change in those, this publicprivate sector thing would be a buzz word that people would put in the paper and magazines, but it wouldnt have any meaning, because it wouldnt exist in my world of Critical Infrastructure protection. Thats always something that i have to remember. President clinton, starting with pe63, put an organizing framework in place, a conceptual framework. The first sector liaison, on the private sector side, we started with eight critical stru infrastructure sectors. We did have something to hit the ground running with in the immediate aftermath of september 11th. Then the bush administration, the People Associated with that, in and out of government, and now in obama 1 and 2, have continued on that very important work to get the public and private sectors engaged with one another, in policy development, where theres appropriate, and legally acceptable. In Plan Development and implementation. In technology development, application and implementation, informationsharing, so on and so forth. Again, not that the universe is 100 rosy in any of those categories, but man, when you get in that car now and attempt to drive it, the wheels are on it. The wheels werent on the car 11, 12 years ago. Its an important milestone. I dont think any other nation on the planet and ive looked at a lot of them, have achieved this level of an integrated team that operated again, at various levels according to various premises to deal with a common set of threats and hazards. So were about the best there is and im not saying it because i was a part of it. Go take a look on the internet and look at other peoples Infrastructure Protection plans to the extent they have them at the National Level, youll be amazed the scarcity of that kind of information. Moving forward and then well go back to a group discussion, i think here. I think that the publicprivate Sector Partnership piece does need more refinement. In some cases, it needs a major kick in the tires. The department of Homeland Security doing a great job to manage this enterprise across a lot of very complicating circumstances. I would have to say theres room for roommate there. We need more focused attention and resources on joint publicprivate sector catastrophic Disaster Preparedness planning and Risk Assessment across the United States of america. The department of Homeland Security, fema specifically has the ability to condition grant funding, with support from congress from time to time, to make sure were focusing on analyzing risks jointly between the public and private sector. Start with urban cities and the top 10 or 12 have remained constant over the last decade. Do you know there hasnt been a single joint publicprivate sector assessment done anywhere in any of those top 10 cities . Bits and fragments of pieces of sectors have been done. Specific facilities have been done. Specific assets have been done. You go to new york and chicago i was there last week on a project. Theres not an integrated set of analysis yet that leads us down the rabbit hole of infrastructure dependencies and interdependencies that are commonly known guy the public and private sector sides of the relationship. We got to get better than that. Because if were not using that grant money in that kind of area, that means were building plans on a lot of data that either doesnt exist, or that is insufficient. And were building plans hoping they will work, as opposed to being backed up by credible data. Again, lots of great work has been done in individual silos, individual pieces of the puzzle across the country, but we need some leadership to bring that all together to make sure were informing our planning processes with good, solid, crosscutting interdependencies and dependencies analysis that will also allow us to do adaptive planning when were in the middle of a crisis to figure out second, third order cascading effects that we didnt necessarily tackle so well during sandy. Also, i think over time, a really big issue has become, i remember the early days of the Sector Coordinating Councils on the private side of the partnership, heavily populated with ceos, shakers and movers. Ive seen that level of attention and input into that set of processes diminish. Now we have some Great Security officers, ctos, cios, involved in those councils, but they dont own the money. If they dont own the money, they can only do so much. A big exception to this is the electricity sector. Huge effort to ramp up that level of Senior Management engagement. Theres four dozen ceos, i believe, that are engaged in that process. Thats what we need. The shakers and the movers of