CQ HOMELAND SECURITY Jan. 3, 2012 – 6:06 p.m.
Homeland Security Experts Weigh In: Where to Cut and Where to Spend
By Rob Margetta, CQ Staff
With the new year beginning, CQ has asked dozens of homeland security experts in the public, private and academic sectors to weigh in on the lessons of 2011 and what 2012 holds in store. In this second installment of a three-part series, respondents answered the question “In a tight budget environment, what homeland-related activities should Congress look at cutting in the coming year? What must be preserved, or see increased funding?”
This was a question that divided experts. While many agreed that cost-efficient spending is important, there was a wide range of answers about what should be a priority for either cuts or increased spending.
While the Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano said much of the homeland security grant money spent by the government has been wasted, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King, R-N.Y., said that when he voted for the fiscal 2012 omnibus spending package (PL 112-74), he wasn’t happy about language that cut grants. And while The U.S. Travel Association’s Geoff Freeman criticized the Transportation Security Administration’s rising budget, former Department of Homeland Security official Stewart Baker said he doesn’t want to see the agency’s funding stripped just because it is unpopular.
On Thursday, CQ will run opinions on how the government should restructure agencies that deal with responding to threats, both natural and man-made.
Jayson Ahern, principal at The Chertoff Group and former acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection:
During this austere budget environment, we need to take a serious look at the progress made and sensibly determine where further investments are needed — at the border and beyond. Since 2001, the U.S. has doubled the Border Patrol to more than 20,500 agents, built more than 650 miles of fence, and invested in additional technology and infrastructure to better detect and identify the illegal entry of people and goods at and between U.S. ports of entry. This effort has produced real results. Border statistics show that from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2011, apprehensions of illegal migrants dropped 53 percent to the lowest level in over 40 years.
With both Mexico and the U.S. facing national elections in 2012, it is important that we act now to ensure that we continue the momentum gained in our security efforts to date, and do not lose traction in the fight against these criminal enterprises. It requires our constant attention and vigilance as well as a renewed US-Mexico commitment to work together.
Stewart Baker, partner at Steptoe and Johnson LLP and former DHS assistant secretary for policy:
Many of the grant programs run by DHS were originally intended to give state and local governments a boost in technical and other capabilities to deal with threats that had never been on their radar screen before. After a decade of funding, and a few abuses, Congress has begun to reconsider these programs. That makes sense.
The budget assaults on offices like S&T and Policy are less wise, since we don’t have enough good long-term thinking about counterterrorism policy and technology. I’m also concerned that we’ll cut TSA simply because it’s such an unpopular agency with both left and right libertarian groups. But budget cuts will just mean delays and less security at airports unless TSA gets new authorities to use data about passengers to separate risky from less risky passengers.
Finally, we’re going to have to expand DHS’s funding to deal with cyberattacks, which pose an increasing threat to the country’s long-term security.
J. Duncan Campbell III, managing director at Ridge Global and former DHS chief of staff
Over the past 10 years, we have successfully begun to build a national preparedness capacity in our state and local communities. I say “begun” because this task is far from complete. Funding for state and local first responders needs to be sustained in order to maintain the preparedness posture that the general public has grown to expect since 9/11.
While our goal must be prevention, practically speaking, we will never be able to fully eliminate our vulnerability to attack. Furthermore, we know that we cannot prevent natural disasters from striking our local communities. Being able to respond and recover to disasters, whether man-made or natural, requires continued investment in equipment, training and exercising at the regional, state and local levels.
We rely on our first responders to keep us safe. In turn, we need to provide them with the funding necessary to do their jobs to protect us. A decrease in state and local preparedness funding, now, sends a very bad message to the state and local community and to the public at large.
James Jay Carafano, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Foreign Policy Studies:
Counterterrorism, border security, immigration and visa security services have to be protected. Homeland security grants have mostly been a waste and ought to be bill-payer. Coast Guard modernization has to be taken off life support. Its time to plus-up the Coast Guard’s modernization budget.
Frank Cilluffo, director of The George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute:
While undoubtedly there have been areas where homeland security spending has been inefficient and ought to be cut accordingly, generally speaking, I hope we learned from recent history and don’t repeat the same grave mistakes we made with the “peace dividend” cuts following the Cold War. This had a debilitating effect on our intelligence capacities and overall national security posture and took years to recover from. For example, on the counterterrorism front, now is the time to ramp up — not ease off — the gas pedal and exploit this unique window of counterterrorism opportunity while al Qaeda is back on its heels to consolidate recent gains.
Another crucial area where we simply cannot afford to under-invest is in the cyber domain — both in terms of offensive and defensive capabilities. U.S. government and industry have already suffered staggering losses in this area including massive amounts of highly valuable intellectual property. As countries continue to flex their computer network exploit and attack capabilities, we need to double down and get truly serious in this sector.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s reauthorization bill for the department provides an outline of DHS priorities.
Among other things, the bill makes several improvements to DHS’s acquisition programs that help the department avoid costly mistakes. There are too many examples of costly DHS contracts for which we have little or nothing to show for our investment, including the explosive trace detection “puffer” machines; SBInet, also known as the virtual fence; and the Transformation and Systems Consolidation, or TASC. We need to do better.
The bill requires that DHS find efficiencies in the field to cut overhead costs by five percent and eliminate redundant offices, grants, and youth preparedness programs and mascots. In addition, I want to see more training at FEMA on anti-fraud controls, improvements in how the agency buys information technology, and better measurement of grant performance.
As to priorities, we must enact cybersecurity legislation and head off an attack that could cripple our critical infrastructure and cause catastrophic harm.
Charles Dodd, executive director of the Nisrad Cyber Research Institute and CEO at Nicor Global:
The one area of the budget that I can say needs the biggest plus-up is cyber. If you’re cutting military spending, make sure you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There’s no area now that cybersecurity does not impact. Look at the Commerce Department — it received a very large sum of money to help it bolster cybersecurity, because it does touch transactional data, financial data, you name it. But there are several different missions. Homeland Security, for example, takes far more of a defensive posture, building better firewalls and security policy. But what if you’re CIA? If you’re NSA? Then your mission becomes to bring in the best talent for an offensive posture. And that takes a lot of research and money. Money has to be there to bolster offensive cyber capabilities. Because it we don’t have a strong deterrence ability, nation-states such as Russia and China and hacking groups will keep coming at us and get sensitive data out of our departments and contractors.
Clark Kent Ervin, consultant for the Aspen Institute’s Homeland Security Program and former DHS inspector general:
I think appropriators and DHS’s internal budget experts should focus on eliminating (or at least reducing) those functions that components perform that other agencies perform better or as well. For example, the Intelligence and Analysis unit should focus only on intelligence that DHS can collect and disseminate uniquely, like intelligence from the owners/operators of critical infrastructure and concerning threats to that infrastructure, and intelligence relating and from state and local constituents; the S&T unit should do only that research that is not duplicative of DoD’s, etc.
Geoff Freeman, chief operating officer at the U.S. Travel Association:
TSA’s one-size-fits-all approach to security is bankrupting the agency. Over the past six years, TSA’s budget has gone up 68 percent and the cost of screening per passenger has risen by over 200 percent. During the same time period, passenger levels have remained flat. This means that each year TSA is spending exponentially more money to screen the same amount of passengers. In the new year, Congress should require TSA to expand its trusted traveler program (PreCheck) so that less resources are devoted to screening those who pose little threat and existing resources can be used where they’re needed the most. Our surveys have shown that frequent travelers are also willing to pay for a trusted traveler program. This could raise much needed revenue for TSA and lessen the need for tax payer dollars from the general fund.
Tom Gann, vice president of government relations at McAfee:
Given the level of the national debt, it is entirely appropriate for Congress to review agency budgets and make tough decisions. The reality is that both the leadership of the intelligence community and the Defense Department have identified the risks from cybersecurity attacks as one of their top five concerns. That said, cybersecurity programs should still be reviewed for efficiencies, and strategies should be put in place to stretch scarce federal dollars as far as possible. One way that federal agencies can get the most return for their cybersecurity investments is to tip their spending decisions toward . . . commercial grade technologies that have been proven to work in a wide variety of environments, both in the public and private sectors. The benefit of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology is that the investment has already been made by private companies in their development and they work. COTS solutions can also be further customized to ensure that they work in unique, governmental settings.
Jessica R. Herrera-Flanigan, partner at The Monument Policy Group and former staff director and general counsel for the House Committee on Homeland Security:
Congress should start by eliminating duplicate programs and ensuring that homeland-related activities, at DHS or elsewhere, are efficiently and effectively run. Making all of the components leaner and better-running operations would go far. Congress should force the Department of Homeland Security to compile a multi-year funding plan that not only details what outlays are expected but how DHS will work with the private sector to ensure it receives the most long-term cost-effective and efficient technology and services.
Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee:
With recent passage of the 2012 appropriations bill, it is now clear that DHS will take a significant cut. While I voted for the omnibus spending package, I continue to have serious concerns about what I consider dangerous cuts in homeland security grant funding — particularly for the UASI, port security and mass transit security programs. As we move forward, I intend to work with Secretary Napolitano to ensure that the remaining homeland security grant funds are allocated based on risk to the cities/areas at greatest risk of terrorist attack.
I look forward to reviewing the president’s upcoming 2013 budget request, which I expect will include additional OMB-directed reductions. The committee will thoroughly review the president’s request to ensure that the finite resources are used effectively and efficiently to secure the homeland from terrorist attack.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:
Because the threat we face from terrorists, as well as natural disasters, has not diminished, the funds to prevent and respond those threats should not diminish much. The long-term budget outlook requires Congress to tighten its belt and reduce government funding, but I hope that much of the belt-tightening for the Department of Homeland Security can be done through increasing efficiencies and cutting administrative costs.
The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a $41 billion fiscal 2012 budget for the department. This is $2.2 billion less than the department asked for. Nevertheless, it is a fair and restrained budget that balances the fundamental need to protect the American people with the hard realities of the country’s unsustainable deficits.
Rick “Ozzie” Nelson, director of the Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program at The Center for Strategic and International Studies:
While the homeland security budget will soon suffer the first cut in its short history, this must be viewed as an opportunity to streamline the homeland security enterprise — an effort that must begin with a reform of the congressional oversight process. Without such reform, the effective prioritization of homeland security-related activities will remain elusive, preventing the elimination of duplicative missions and the building of needed capabilities. Since 9/11, a number of agencies have seen their missions expand, sometimes to the point that they overlap with those of other entities. For example, multiple agencies possess coastal maritime capabilities, yet the authorities regarding their use remain unclear, demanding congressional review. At the same time, the homeland security enterprise must identify and build capabilities to address growing challenges and opportunities, such as the opening of the Arctic. Without reform of homeland security-related congressional oversight, such forward-looking prioritization will prove difficult.
David Olive, principal at Catalyst Partners:
There will never be enough money to provide solutions for all of the vulnerabilities our nation faces. The tendency of Congress to fund “point solutions” rather than take a serious look at a “systems approach” hampers the ability of DHS stakeholders to make smart decisions about how to find the right balance in homeland security funding.
For example, I have not been shy about questioning the cost effectiveness of the CBP’s use of Predator UAVs because there are other, smaller (and cheaper) air platforms that more closely “fit” CBP and Border Patrol operations. I believe DHS could save millions of dollars and gain increased effectiveness by using air assets to “track and trace” illegal border crossers instead of using the Predator for a “persistent surveillance” mission — a mission that the Predator is not all that well suited to perform.
I question whether the funding for the current BioWatch program is being well spent and believe that if even 10 percent of that funding were to go toward prototyping new detection technology or creating new DNA-based vaccines which can be produced almost “on demand,” the cost savings would more than pay for the investments.
Marc Pearl, president and CEO of the Homeland Security and Defense Business Council:
We get nowhere by starting the discussion focusing on whether homeland security-related activities are cut or preserved. The approach to the homeland security environment — by the federal government and at the state and local area — must be centered on a long-range strategic assessment of the threat, and reasoned, thoughtful decisions based on the risk and our capabilities to respond. Once everyone tasked with and responsible for a strong homeland security/homeland defense effort — legislative and executive branch, state and local government and law enforcement officials, together with industry’s solution providers and customers — come together and can regularly discuss the real priorities on threats and risk, and identify the abilities needed to achieve mission success, we can better ascertain the need for the development, implementation and deployment of the best, most effective and efficient and smarter resources, technologies, products and services. The economic imperatives demand a forward-looking approach, based on lessons learned over the past decade that is less about dollars and more about building capabilities across all of the components.
Andrew Sachs, vice president of recovery services at Witt Associates
FEMA could and should significantly cut their overhead by rethinking their grant programs to states. Restructuring many of their programs so that they are administered by the states and less by FEMA would result in the ability to save significant money through staffing reductions and/or the lessening of the use of contract and reservist staff. To do this, the administration will need the time to pass new regulations and in some cases engage Congress, but I think budget realities will drive this evolution.
The Emergency Management Preparedness Grants program needs to be protected from budget cuts. These funds provide for the base capability at the state and local levels of government in all-hazards preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. Absent those funds, capabilities will drop dramatically, which will shift greater responsibility on the federal government for disasters. Pre-disaster mitigation funding should be protected. Mitigation is the one and only proven means of reducing the cost of disasters in our country. Funding for the president’s Disaster Relief Fund needs to be budgeted utilizing a more realistic approach, rather than consistently under-funding the DRF and seeking off-budget supplemental.
Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee:
While I recognize that there needs to be a tightening of the federal budget, first-responder grants are not the place to find the savings. That is why I spoke out against the drastic cuts to homeland security grant funding in the omnibus. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, Congress established these programs (the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, the Port Security Grant Program, and other targeted grant programs) to bolster capabilities at the state and local levels. The omnibus shortsightedly slashes more than $2 billion in this first-responder funding — down from $3.38 billion — thereby shifting the cost of maintain capabilities to local jurisdictions across the country that have budgetary crises of their own.”
Julie Myers Wood, president of ICS Consulting LLC and Immigration and Customs Solutions LLC, and former head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
Given the tight budget environment, Congress should look to ensure that homeland spending results in measurable results. We do not have the luxury of funding items that produce no results or, worse, reward poor providers. One area that could be targeted for reduction is grants that do not require specific metrics or outcomes.
For example, local prisons receive money for housing illegal aliens, called State Criminal Alien Assistance funding. They receive this funding regardless of whether they cooperate with immigration authorities on identifying and processing these same aliens. Cook County received over $2 million in fiscal 2011 from this program, even though it refuses to assist ICE in identifying the criminal aliens they house. This makes no sense.
The frequency and breadth of cyberattacks demonstrate that this is an area that must see increased funding and focus — both to increase government capacity to protect and defend against such attacks, and to help prepare the private sector to protect and respond.
Rob Margetta can be reached at rmargetta@cq.com
Source: CQ Homeland Security © 2012 CQ Roll Call All Rights Reserved.
