[an error occurred while processing this directive]

October 9, 2003

Role of Security Technology Working Group Examined

On September 30, the National Security Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee heard testimony from federal agencies and industry leaders regarding a little-known part of the government called the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). The hearing focused on the history and practices of this interagency group which invests in rapid prototyping technology to arm both the intelligence community and first responders in order to prevent terrorist attacks and minimize damage to citizens and infrastructure. The event also offered an opportunity to hear from the new kid on the block, the Department of Homeland Security, and how it fits into the 20-year old working group.

In his opening remarks, subcommittee chairman Christopher Shays (R-CT) noted that in the past Congress has found a lack of coordination in federal counterterrorism research and development (R&D). Even testimony as recent as March 2000 described duplication of effort in the field of bioterrorism between the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy and the Department of Justice. Shays lamented, “Now, to that already crowded field, add the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which Congress charged to act as both a developer and clearinghouse for innovative technologies.”

Enter TSWG, created in 1986 per a recommendation of a cabinet-level Task Force on Counterterrorism led by then Vice President George H.W. Bush. In his testimony before the subcommittee, Michael Jakub, director of Technical Programs in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at State, noted that the Task Force found that U.S. counterterrorism activities were “uncoordinated and unfocused.” Thus, TSWG was established within an existing program chaired by the State Department called the Interdepartmental Group on Terrorism. The pre-TSWG Interdepartmental Group was created by National Security Decision Directive 30 in 1982 and given responsibility for developing overall U.S. policy on counterterrorism.

The goal of the 1986 Task Force was to create a mechanism for coordinating a national R&D program across relevant agencies that would reduce duplication of effort and easily identify gaps in research that needed to be tackled by the federal government. Although R&D funding continues to be primarily sponsored by DOD, TSWG has grown over the years to include active participation of over 80 federal programs spread among eleven cabinet-level departments and eight independent agencies. The State Department continues to chair the TSWG Executive Committee and provide policy oversight while DOD executes and administers the program.

The R&D portfolio of TSWG is relatively small, only $180 million in fiscal year 2003 spread among nine program elements: Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures; Explosives Detection; Improvised Device Defeat; Infrastructure Protection; Investigative Support and Forensics; Personnel Protection; Physical Security; Surveillance, Collection and Operations Support; and Tactical Operations Support. The majority of federal funds go to Chem-Bio Countermeasures (23 percent), Physical Security (16 percent), and Personnel Protection (13 percent).

DHS, recently invited to participate in TSWG, was provided $75 million in its FY 2004 appropriations to support rapid prototyping research within the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA). This is a substantial increase from the $30 million initially requested by the administration, reflecting the serious interest that Congress has in this activity. According to Dr. David Bolka, the new HSARPA director, the agency expects to use the TSWG process “for the near term.” “As HSARPA matures, and the Systems Engineering and Development branch of the S&T Directorate stands up, we will assume the majority of rapid prototyping responsibility and will coordinate it internally,” he added.

It is Bolka’s last sentiments that worry members of Congress. Chairman Shays likened the current TSWG structure to a chair with legs of different sizes. He said, “I thought DHS would be the only agency evaluating proposals. …Why not just keep TSWG in the Department of Homeland Security?”

As Bolka silently sat by, Edward McCallum, Director of DOD’s Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, explained that homeland security technology needs cut across many sectors—from police to soldiers—and the tools that derive from TSWG can benefit this diverse constituency. He cited as an example a robot for retrieving and/or detonating bombs that is used by the Pentagon, the FBI and local bomb squads. He also emphasized that the current investment of $180 million does not preclude each department or agency from pursuing separate counterterrorism R&D programs.

Rep. John F. Tierney (D-MA) stated that first responders in his district are at a loss on where to go for the latest technology. And a clearly frustrated Shays asked, “How do you know proposals are vetted and weighed appropriately?”

McCallum attempted to reassure the chairman that TSWG would continue to utilize its well-established three-step process for evaluating technologies from concept phase to preparation of a full proposal. The idea is to quickly review and winnow down the large number of ideas that are submitted for developing counterterrorism technologies.

According to McCallum, only 0.5-1 percent of ideas that are initially submitted by companies at the concept-level move to the second stage of the review process. He further noted that “the success rate of proposals submitted [after the first two steps] is quite high: perhaps nine out of ten.”

The TSWG model of efficiency was generally viewed in a positive light by the majority of industry representatives at the hearing. According to Bruce deGrazia, chairman of the Homeland Security Industries Association, the TSWG process “produces significant time and cost savings” to companies that submit ideas. However, he stated that only 15 percent of their 400 industry members are even familiar with TSWG and recommended that the TSWG website be directly linked to the DHS website, and that DHS organize a series of educational seminars. •••