GovernmentExecutive.com

The Government Accountability Office on Wednesday issued the preliminary findings of an investigation into the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, pinning most of the blame for problems at the federal level squarely on the Homeland Security Department.

The department fired back late Wednesday, calling the report "premature and unprofessional" and saying GAO did not contact DHS staff for comment.

"Apart from its obvious errors, it displays a significant misunderstanding of core aspects of the Katrina response that could have easily been corrected in the most basic conversations with DHS leaders," department spokesman Russ Knocke said in a statement.

The government's response to the hurricane was hobbled by a leadership vacuum and the failure to use a federal plan for catastrophic incidents, according to preliminary findings issued by Comptroller General David Walker.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not designate someone in advance of the hurricane to be clearly in charge and lead the overall federal response, Walker said during a press conference.

"Furthermore, events unfolded both before and immediately after the landfall of Hurricane Katrina that made it clear that governmental entities did not act decisively or quickly enough to determine the catastrophic nature of the incident," Walker said.

Although Chertoff designated the hurricane an incident of national significance the day after landfall, he did not activate a part of the National Response Plan that specifically deals with handling catastrophes, Walker said. Government Executive first reported in October that DHS did not use the catastrophic plan.

"As a result, the federal posture generally was to wait for the affected states to request assistance," Walker said.

"In the absence of timely and decisive action and clear leadership responsibility and accountability, there were multiple chains of command, a myriad of approaches and processes for requesting and providing assistance, and confusion about who should be advised of requests and what resources would be provided within specific time frames," Walker concluded.

He told Government Executive after the press conference that he believes using the catastrophic plan would have improved the government's response. He also said he plans to meet with DHS Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson in the coming weeks, and will give the department a chance to comment on upcoming reports.

Knocke said Bush made emergency declarations the weekend before the hurricane hit, which activated the National Response Plan and gave the Federal Emergency Management Agency full authority to coordinate federal activity.

"Further, the preliminary report falsely implies inaction by DHS and FEMA before landfall," Knocke added. "In fact, the clear record shows that state officials expressed satisfaction with the federal government's asset pre-positioning and other pre-hurricane assistance during a video teleconference the Sunday prior to landfall."

The day after the storm hit, Chertoff formally appointed FEMA director Michael Brown as the principal federal official in charge of federal operations. DHS said Brown had been acting in that capacity prior to landfall.

Brown was later removed from that position, however, under mounting criticism, and eventually resigned as FEMA director.

Walker told reporters after the press conference that "it's debatable" whether DHS had competent people handling the hurricane response.

Knocke said the catastrophic plan did not apply to the hurricane. "A cursory phone call to DHS would have revealed that the catastrophic annex is designed for 'no-notice' or 'short-notice' events, where no personnel or supplies have been pre-positioned, which was clearly not the case in Katrina," he said.

The department recognizes, however, that Katrina revealed problems in national response capabilities and demonstrated the need for more comprehensive federal, state and local planning for catastrophic events, Knocke added.

"DHS will announce a comprehensive strategy to improve the nation's capability to manage catastrophic incidents in the very near future," he said.

COMMENTS

• Did anyone notice that Michael Chertoff implicitly conceded that he had not properly used the "catastrophic incident" powers available to DHS in Katrina, under the National Response Plan? This directly contradicts the doubletalk from DHS-mouthpiece Russ Knocke a few weeks ago. My question for Russ Knocke: When are you going to admit that you lied? Or does the truth not matter to Bush apparatchiks? Sad for our Country Posted February 14, 2006 10:54 PM
• I feel that the making of the Department of Homeland Security was a huge mistake. And it is true that Michael Chertoff is selfish and does not care about the departments under DHS. All he sees is the all mighty buck and he does not want to share. He also does not want to share any responsibility. FEMA was terrific when it was an entity unto itself. Coming under DHS was a huge mistake. But, as you can see, DHS has control over all this money and resources and they do not know how to handle any of it. They are pointing fingers at everyone but themselves, and they are the people who are at fault. I have been in the government long enough to know that greed is a terrible thing and does not accomplish anything but makes people angry, and I am angry at Michael Chertoff and all of his minions for thinking they are infallible. They have disrupted the government so badly. I feel this DHS thing should be relooked at -- it is a huge waste of the taxpayers dollars and time and energy -- the 22 agencies should go back to operating the way they were before the merger. GovExec.com reader Posted February 8, 2006 1:10 PM
• DHS really has its hands full of criticism from government agencies responsible for evaluating and reporting on its sorry state. The last DHS IG was not re-appointed due to his constant criticisms of DHS, the current DHS IG will inevitably be let go due to his criticisms and anti-"company line" findings (such as the report about the necessity of merging ICE with CBP). The GAO has also been critical of the shortcomings of DHS, DHS employees are overwhelmingly critical of the department and every media outlet in the country has had nothing but a negative outlook of this sham department. Yet in response to every criticism, DHS and its component agencies always seem to have some type of argumentative response about how the findings of the study in question are "anecdotal," "premature," "biased," or otherwise "inaccurate." Boy, everyone must really be out to get DHS. With all of these studies and findings that are always critical of DHS, there must be a wrongful conspiracy by these watchdog agencies to harm an otherwise flawless department, right? It really stinks when the groups responsible for fairly evaluating DHS refuse to lie and actually do their job with honesty and integrity, doesn't it Secretary Chertoff? If DHS management had its way, honesty and integrity would have no place in the organization. Of course, none of this matters anyway, seeing as DHS management doesn't have to worry about any possibility of Congress doing anything about it. They've already shown just how much action they're willing to take -- none. The bottom line is that Chertoff is going to do what Chertoff wants to do, period. He and the rest of DHS management are just that much smarter and better than everyone else, and without exception, anything or anyone that is not in 100 percent full support of the agenda of DHS is simply wrong. My question is this: Exactly how much of a debacle does DHS have to become before Congress will even entertain the idea of stepping in? GovExec.com reader Posted February 6, 2006 9:35 PM