Homeland Security Watch

The DHS Office of Strategic Plans will host a briefing to describe the new DHS Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process and the forthcoming FY 2011-2015 Integrated Planning Guidance (IPG) that derives from it.

The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process is the Department of Defense internal methodology used to allocate resources to capabilities deemed necessary to accomplish the Department’s missions. One output of the PPBE process is the funding proposed to be included in the President’s Budget submitted to Congress. The PPBE process evolved from the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS), introduced by Defense Secretary McNamara in the early 1960’s into.

Over the past year, the DHS Office of Policy and the DHS Management Directorate have modified and adapted a DHS-centric version of the PPBE process. While the DOD PPBE focuses on providing Unified Combatant Commanders with appropriate forces, equipment, and support, the IPG converts DHS strategic goals, strategic objectives, and policies into guidance for DHS directorates, components, and staff offices to conduct their own “programming, budgeting, execution, investment, and acquisition phases.”

On Oct. 27, DHS officials from throughout the department will make presentations about the PPBE process and the Integrated Planning Guidance for FY 2011-2015. I hope to attend and will blog here on anything insightful that comes of the five-year budget window.

UPDATE – Looks like I won’t be attending that briefing on the 2011-2015 budget guidance for DHS as it is for DHS personnel only. Shucks.

In a meeting yesterday that comes as DHS kicks off its first National Cyber Security Awareness Month, Secretary Chertoff responded to a range of questions from a group of invited homeland security bloggers. The discussion focused on the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber security initiatives.

I asked about governance issues, budget priorities, and the gradual shift from passive defense to “active defense” in the Department’s role in dealing with cyber threats to the .gov environment.

Chertoff explained that “from our standpoint in the next year, the $350 million in the FY 09 appropriations for DHS cyber programs is actually slightly more than we requested. And what we’re doing is we’re building the basic infrastructure.”

That basic infrastructure includes the following:

• Deploying Einstein 2.0

• Equipment, personnel (recruiting over 100 programmers and operators of Einstein.)

• Additional space, leasing various utilities.

• DHS monetary contribution to support of the Cyber Security Center, which is in the process of standing up.

In the future, Chertoff references DHS plans to “get our control over the .gov domain.” He explained that “every 45 days we are reducing by half and consolidating the number of Internet connections [to the Internet from the federal computer networks.] According to the Secretary, DHS plans to consolidate federal Internet connections “from what started at as a thousand and we hope will be in the neighborhood of a hundred or two.”

This will enable more effective deployment of the DHS cyber security program called Einstein 2.0, which is designed to obtain “real time detection warning,” Chertoff said. The intention here would be to provide characterization of cyber intrusions or other threats as they occur so that an immediate response can be executed to counter the attack in some way. It is unclear if DHS also is responsible for the countermeasures.

I asked about another program he mentioned in a separate discussion that he called Einstein 3.0, which would be shifting us even further down the spectrum from defense to offense.

Chertoff responded by saying that “we are taking our Einstein 1.0, which is our current detection tool, we are now upgrading it to Einstein 2.0 and testing it out, and we’re also in the process of looking at turning it from a passive detection to an active detection device, active meaning that we would have the ability to actually stop an attack as opposed to merely warn about an attack.

Chertoff continued:

No, it’s still defense. It’s just a blocking capability. In other words, what 2.0 does is if I know malicious code is coming in, it enables me to give a real time warning. Someone described it the other day to me; it’s like a traffic cop sitting on the highway seeing people speed and he can immediately call in and say someone with license plate XYZ is speeding, and give warning down there.

3.0 would allow the traffic cop to make the arrest right on the spot.

It would be when you detected the attack, you would stop it cold.

I’ll update this post later today with more from the exchange. Other bloggers in attendance included I’ll update this post later today with more from the exchange. Other bloggers in attendance included Ben Bain with Federal Computer Week, Jeff Fox from ConsumerReports, Jena McNeill with the Heritage Foundation, Julian Sanchez from ArsTechnica, Jeff Stein from Congressional Quarterly, and John Solomon from In Case of Emergency Blog. Full transcript can be found here.

The House will consider a large spending bill to bridge fund the federal government through March 6 with $39.9 billion for Homeland Security, which $2.3 billion more than the president requested and represents about a six percent plus-up over FY 2008’s $37.7 billion enacted.

The Homeland Security Appropriations bill once again rejects the President’s proposal to cut $2 billion from the homeland security grant programs, including assistance for State and local law enforcement and other emergency responders to prevent, prepare for, and respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other emergencies.

Indeed, the bill includes $4.2 billion for First Responder and Port Security Grant Programs, $2 billion above the President’s request and $24 million above 2008. Substantial increases are also in CBP, Border Protection, ICE, maritime security, aviation security, cyber security, and FEMA management, among others.

The bill cuts funding in some areas, too. For example, US-VISIT is losing $90 million of its request until DHS can produce required expenditure plans. DNDO, alays a target of Congressional scrutiny, gets $50 million below the president’s request due to continued procurement delays.

The House Appropriators take an addition step to identify key policy concerns they have going forward. These include the following:

Oversight: Requires DHS submit plans on how it will implement: Deepwater; the Security Border Initiative; National Cyber Security Initiative; Next Generation Networks program; US-VISIT; and the Automated Commercial Environment.

Federal Protective Service: Requires at least 900 FPS police to protect Federal buildings and requires GAO to review FPS needs after GAO found staff cuts left federal buildings vulnerable to crimes and terrorist attacks.

Principal Federal Official (PFO) Positions: Limits the appointment of PFOs during declared disasters or emergencies to eliminate confusion that can occur when these positions overlap with FEMA’s responsibilities.

DHS Personnel System: Prohibits DHS from implementing a new personnel system.

National Applications Office: Prohibits DHS from using satellites for other than existing purposes until DHS submits and GAO reviews an explanation of its legality. GAO recently raised questions about the strength of internal controls for DHS’ proposed approach.

US-VISIT Air Exit Program: DHS is required to complete two pilot programs before proceeding with its biometric air exit plan.

The president didn’t make out too badly though. He secured over $303 million in earmarked funds as part of this stopgap funding. You can see all the earmarks here.

I’m in Sante Fe, New Mexico, this week with the Stimson Center’s Task Force on Leveraging National Laboratory S&T Assets for 21st Century Security. Today we’re at Los Alamos National Lab, tomorrow at Sandia National Lab. Blogging will be sporadic until I return.

The Senate’s version of the FY 2009 spending bill to fund DHS actually provides less funding for the Office of Policy than the Bush Administration requested. The Policy Office was created after Secretary Chertoff came to office as part of his Second Stage Review. Most everyone welcomed the move as only overdue. Today, the Policy Office is a cross-cutting entity operating out of the Office of the Secretary with portfolios such as Policy Development, Strategic Plans, International Relations, Immigration Statistics, and Private Sector engagement, and it houses the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

It is a critical Department function that may someday serve as vital a role as its counterpart at the Defense Department. Like DoD, DHS now creates a strategic assessment of its policies, plans, priorities, and goals for a four-year window. The Pentagon calls it the Quadrennial Defense Review, and DHS is now at work on its first ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. The QDR is an influential document that benefits from senior leadership buy-in, Congressional support, and sweat from across the Defense community. The QHSR is off to a rough start.

The FY08 appropriations act funded the QHSR with only $1,500,000. (An additional $150,000 was assigned to the CFO’s office to support the QHSR.) Nearly all of that funding is being spent on contractor support to help the Office of Policy write the QHSR. The current Senate FY09 bill takes DHS to task for this:

The [Senate] Committee [on Appropriations] is concerned that almost the entire request of $1,500,000 for the QHSR is for contractor support even though many of the functions intended for contractors are inherently governmental. Contracting out the job of long-term planning and goal setting undermines the mission and purpose of this Department. Requiring agencies to work together to develop long-term goals was one of the intended benefits of the creation of the Department. Therefore, funds for contractor support shall only be used for administrative and clerical tasks in support of the QHSR.

The Committee is right to be concerned about outsourcing such a critical initiative as the first QHSR. However, blame can be shared. The Defense Department QDR is funded at nearly 10x the amount given to DHS, and the Pentagon leadership is heavily invested in supporting the QDR drafting process with staff from across the services and the civilian leadership. The DHS Policy Office is being given a pittance to perform this QHSR the right way, but the Policy Office is also not supported by the DHS leadership sufficiently to gain the DHS-wide support necessary to staff it up.

In my meetings with Chertoff this year I’ve asked about the QHSR nearly every time. His response indicates a downplayed priority. It could be because the QHSR will benefit the next Administration more than the current one, but the process needs to be institutionalized and supported for the long-term success of the Department. Let’s hope that over the course of the appropriations negotiations we see an elevated profile – as well as higher funding – for the QHSR initiative.

David Price, Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, yesterday detailed five areas for DHS to focus its efforts. The presentation offered a glimpse into the thinking of the man overseeing the House’s spending plans for DHS. Today the full House Appropriations Committee marks up the $40 billion draft bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security in FY 2009. During Monday’s event, hosted by the Center for American Progress, Price offered criticism and counsel in the following areas:

Immigration: The next administration must make criminal illegal immigrants ICE’s top priority. The draft 2009 appropriations bill supports this, and would provide resources for a current ICE plan to identify such illegal immigrants in federal, state and local prisons and deport them after they have served their sentences. The legislation also devotes attention to the northern border, which Price called “more significant as a potential entry point for terrorists than the southern border.”

Price also calls for comprehensive immigration reform, saying the current administration seemed to be on that track, but “now seems to have turned 180 degrees toward an enforcement-only approach.” Rob Margetta at CQ Homeland Security also notes that it was Congress that failed to pass the reform bill.

Price recommended that if the next Administration makes immigration reform a higher priority and pursues it more effectively, such reform will “strengthen our economy, reaffirm the rule of law, and enhance homeland security, allowing DHS to focus more effectively on that small percentage of illegal immigrants that has the capacity and the intent to commit crimes and do us harm.”

Disaster and Emergency Response: FEMA’s capability to deal with large-scale natural disasters suffered when it was absorbed into DHS, and its relationships with state and local responders were better before Sept. 11, 2001, Price said. Price implied that the agency should be elevated to cabinet status or broken out of DHS in the next administration.

Price also asserted that FEMA shouldn’t be in the business of providing emergency housing in the Gulf Coast, but that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should be. Although the process has been occurring, it has been slow and lacking in direction, he said.

Management: DHS leadership needs to strike a better balance between providing overall policy guidance and leaving departmental components free to do the fine tuning, between nurturing the new homeland security missions of component agencies and maintaining their historic mission capabilities.

Price specifically called out the need to improve the Department’s financial system management, procurement management, and oversight. Price also noted the difficulty in staffing up faced by new agencies at DHS, as well as the heavy dependence on contractors for critical management functions. Price stated that 72 percent of the career executives at DHS left the Department between 2003 and 2007, compared to an average of 46 percent among all other Federal Departments.

72%? Seems hard to believe, but it may be the case given the morale challenges there. This is the management train wreck that could hobble any good idea in the Department.

Technology and Privacy: Price said DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate has made progress in aligning its work better with the needs of component agencies, but added that the department must be cautious of rushing into technology investments without considering privacy implications or real-world effectiveness.

He cited Secure Flight, which was delayed for years, as well as CBP’s SBINet as examples of programs where attention to privacy protections and technology viability was insufficient at the outset.

“New technologies are not something we should naively bank on,” Price said. “Too often they just don’t work as advertised, as we have seen at our southern border, or they may be premature or have costs that exceed their benefits.”

Grants and Risk Analysis: Price noted that most of the Department’s grants are allocated using risk formulas, but that DHS “has struggled both to develop credible formulas with measurable components and to apply the formulas objectively and consistently.” This has prevented Congress from measuring how or whether grant investments are reducing risk.

This leads to a dual challenge, Price explained: spending is high for daunting threats deemed so perilous that we cannot afford not to spend more money; while at other times, funding is inadequately low because it is difficult to know that the funding is having the desired affect.

Price believes that first responder grants fall into the second category, but that robust investments must continue in first responder equipment and training, port security upgrades, and transit security precautions. However, Price is not satisfied that these grants are being made wisely. The fiscal 2008 appropriations bill commissioned the National Academies of Science with assessing DHS’s risk assessment system, and the next secretary should use that data to guide investments, he said. Both the House and the Senate bills for FY09 DHS spending double the president’s request for first responder grants.

Following the House spending measure marked up last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday approved $41.3 billion in Homeland Security spending. The Senate version provides DHS $40.1 billion in discretionary spending and $1.2 billion in mandatory funds, amounting to an increase of $2.5 billion more than the Bush requested. This is an initial read-out on the bill; more to come later.

The Senate bill also allocates $318.5 million for cyber security, which represents $108 million more than fiscal 2008 and about $25 million more than White House requested.

The Coast Guard would receive $9.2 billion, $145 million more than the president’s request.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would receive $7.4 billion under the Senate Appropriations proposal, about $2.1 billion more than Bush requested.

In addition to increasing funds for first responders, the bill appropriates $11.2 billion, about $381 million more than in fiscal 2008 and $254 million more than the president’s budget request, to Customs and Border Protection. Specific line items include:
• $442.4 million to hire an additional 2,200 Border Patrol agents, bringing the total to 20,019 by the end of fiscal 2009.
• $775 million for border fencing, infrastructure and related technology.
• $403.2 million for construction of Border Patrol facilities and repairs to land border ports of entry.
• $528 million for aerial and marine operations and procurement.

CQ Homeland Security notes that Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she would probably introduce an amendment to the bill requiring DHS verify both the arrival and departure of foreign visitors under the Visa Waiver Program.

Last week, Chris Strohm at GovExec reported in a story that House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. David Price, intends to give priority to cybersecurity in homeland spending bill.

DHS has requested nearly $300 million for its role in the Cyber Security Initiative. Price has said that his panel’s legislation is on pace to be the first spending bill to move through the House. He believes most spending bills will make it through the House before the August recess but then face “formidable” obstacles in the Senate and with the White House. More likely than not, he said, Congress will have to pass an omnibus appropriations bill before a new administration comes into office.

By last Wednesday, Price’s Committee had concluded its mark-up of the DHS appropriations bill. As chairman, Price described the thrust behind his Committee’s treatment of the President’s budget request as corrective.

“The first objective guiding the allocation of funding in the bill was to correct known funding deficiencies and shortfalls, which were substantial,” according to his statement

The Subcommittee mark reverses the President’s proposal to cut funding for first responder and port grant programs by $2 billion, or 49 percent. The mark also plusses up funding for border agents, explosive detection, and the following changes:

• $950 million for State Homeland Security grants, the same as last year, and $750 million above the President’s proposed funding level

• $850 million for Urban Area Security Initiative grants, $30 million above last year and $25 million more than the President requested

• $400 million for Transit Security Grants, the same as last year, and $225 million more than the President’s budget request

• $800 million for Fire Grants, $50 million more than last year, and $500 million more than what the President proposed

• $315 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants, $15 million more than last year, and a $115 million increase above the President’s budget

• $400 million for port security grants, the same as last year, and $190 million above the President’s budget

The President proposed no dedicated funding for other programs of interest to the Committee, which restored funding for the following

• $50 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System

• $50 million for REAL ID grants

• $50 million for Interoperable Communications Grants

• $35 million for Emergency Operations Centers

• $60 million for Operation Stonegarden

The Subcommittee mark also reduces or funding in some areas. For example, funding for an air exit component of US-VISIT will wait until completion of at least two pilot tests, one involving the Department’s current proposal, which would rely on the airlines to collect biometric data at check-in counters, and a second pilot in which DHS would be responsible for capturing exit biometrics at departure gates.

The bill also withholds $1.4 billion for the Secure Border Initiative, the Deepwater program and the Cyber Security initiative until further planning for these programs is in place.

UPDATE:
Rep. David Price (D - NC), Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, will speak on June 23 at the Center for American Progress about the DHS appropriations bill. At the event, Price is also expected to comment on steps the next administration “should take to restructure and reform” DHS, according to the invitation. Please see details below about the event on the 23rd.

Chairman Price will be introduced by Scott Lilly, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

When: Monday, June 23, 2008, 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM

Cost: Admission is free.

Where: Center for American Progress Action Fund
1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

Map & Directions
Nearest Metro: Blue/Orange Line to McPherson Square or Red Line to Metro Center

RSVP for this Event here.

Ever wonder why the perception that every step forward in securing the homeland is two steps back in strengthening commerce? Take a look at the fiscal year 2009 budget. The $37.6 billion requested by DHS is focused on five objectives:
- Protect our Nation from Dangerous People
- Protect our Nation from Dangerous Goods
- Protect Critical Infrastructure
- Build a Nimble, Effective Emergency Response System and a Culture of Preparedness
- Strengthen and Unify DHS Operations and Management

Based on the details in the budget request, success in three of these categories can be measured rather bluntly:
- An increase, possibly followed by a decrease, in arrests or denied entries
- An increase, possibly followed by a decrease, in “no-load” orders for shipments from overseas
- An increase in high tech equipment and more staff for regulatory offices

Building a culture of preparedness and investing in more unified DHS management functions are goals worth pursuing. However, the bulk of the budget request is dedicated to a lop-sided investment in the guns, guards, and gates paradigm that favors a narrow focus on keeping threats at bay, as opposed to reducing overall risk through a more strategic approach that considers the broader mission.

In the seven years since 9/11 and the five years since DHS opened its doors, we have learned that securing the homeland includes a broader concept than what is offered in this Administration’s final DHS budget request. The mission of DHS is not only to reduce the threat of terrorism and bolster the nation’s ability to respond to attacks and disasters. The Department has an implicit mission that includes making the country a better place — with a stronger economy — at the same time. For example:

Protecting our nation from dangerous people is not the only goal in managing the flow of people. The priority ought to be on doing so through solutions that also enhance the commercial viability of enabling the flow of legitimate travelers while better targeting threats in a more surgical manner. Success in this mission would measure not only the number of arrests or denied entries, but also the veracity of information gathered, the integrity of the privacy protections in place, and the overall through-put of people entering and exiting the U.S. to support our trade and travel economy.

Protecting our nation from dangerous goods is not the only goal in managing the flow of cargo and their conveyances around the globe. The priority ought to be on distributing authorities among our trading partners within an effective governance framework - empowered by effective technology - that assures an even application of preventive measures that increasingly facilitate the movement of legitimate goods to better support our nation’s competitiveness. Success in this mission would measure not only the number of alarms tripped by suspicious cargo en route to the U.S., but also the accuracy of the information shared within a flexible system that enables a more exact understanding of where weaknesses reside in the system so as to better shore up vulnerabilities and better localize disruptions and attacks in order to limit the overall impact on trade.

The next Administration cannot reboot the whole HLS system and start over. However, the importance of taking a new strategic reassessment of where the billions of dollars go and how we measure success in these investments will be a vital initial move by the next team.

DHS just put the full FY09 congressional budget justification online.  At 3,574 pages, this is a rare amount of detail for DHS to make available. It offers a unique perspective for understanding the Department’s priorities and plans.

You can access the entire document here. I hope to dig into this and highlight worthwhile findings here over the next few days.

President Bush’s FY 2009 federal budget is the largest in history at $3 trillion. The government-wide homeland security portion of that represents a 10.7% plus-up compared to 2008. Within DHS, spending will increase by 7.6 percent from FY08.

 

Customs and Border Protection is the biggest slice with $9.5 billion in discretionary spending. The largest account by far is SBInet. With $775 million of the pie, SBInet is a technology investment intended to create a net-centric border security capability. Indeed, the budget request for SBInet only includes 15 full time staff equivalents. The second largest ticket for CBP actually is people. $442 million is requested for staffing up the army of Border Patrol agents.

The Coast Guard claims $7.8 billion in discretionary spending for FY09. About $1.1 billion of this is for fleet modernization under the Integrated Deepwater Systems program. $44 million is dedicated to Maritime Domain Awareness support through such programs as Nationwide Automatic Identification System, Maritime Awareness Global Network (MAGNet) 2.0, and Command 21.

With a budget request of just above $7 billion, TSA comes in at a hardy third. Another Administration document explains that almost $6 billion will go toward aviation security systems, but this also includes a four-year surcharge in the passenger security fee of $0.50 “per enplanement” with the potential to increase to $1.00 per one-way trip. The budget anticipates $426 million to be collected and deposited in an “Aviation Security Capital Fund.” As part of the remainder, Behavioral Detection Officers, the Aviation Direct Access Screening Program, and Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) and Canine Explosive Detection (K-9) teams comprise $125 million in new dollars.

For more on the budget breakdown among DHS component agencies, see the Administration’s Budget in Brief, from which the table below is drawn.

No you didn’t. The Homeland Security appropriations bill started out four years ago as a pork free piece of legislation (no special projects for legislators using federal funds).  By last year’s passage of the FY2007 bill, pork had taken hold, albeit modestly compared to other bills. This time, the FY08 appropriations bill that went to the Senate yesterday from the House includes significantly more pork than there has ever been in the bill. (See last year’s in-depth analysis by Christian Beckner.)

The FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant program, which has never been earmarked before, is bogged down with 96 earmarks totaling $51.3 million. Earmarks are found in everything from Coast Alteration of Bridges ($19 million) to research projects totaling $150 million, which includes a $27 million research institute courtesy Reps Alexander, Corchran, and Corker. There is also $20 million for interoperable communications for Mississippi, even though the total of unearmarked grants for interoperable communications in the bill is only $50 million.

No time to write more now, but see the full list “projects” is on pages 102-110 of the joint explanatory statement. Earmarks are rarely defensible, but always expected. The Homeland Security bill had been a haven from this kind of selfish spending. Some, like the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, may be worth it. Let’s hope the Senate gives this bill the scrutiny that forces these projects to be defended.

General Eisenhower is often quoted for having said that, “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” In a way, that’s the underlying motto to the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review, which was mandated by Congress in the Military Force Structure Review Act of 1996. The new 9/11 Bill establishes a similar process for DHS called the “Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.”

The QDR is a “comprehensive examination of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the Unites States,” according to the 1996 Act. That boils down to a four-year strategic assessment of the current threats facing the U.S. and its interests, a top-level strategy for how the Defense Department will address those threats, and a preliminary justification for near- and long-term investments. DOD has a way of connecting that document with other planning mechanisms, including the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, Unified Command Plan, Strategic Planning Guidance, Transformation Planning Guidance, and Joint Operational Concepts, to name a few. Imagine if the Department of Homeland Security generated or linked strategies like this. It might lead to what the Defense Department would call an overarching framework, something that is difficult to pin down in the HLS domain.

Section 1606 of HR1 establishes the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. The main purpose according to the legislation is to conduct:

“a comprehensive examination of interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the homeland security program and policies of the United States with a view toward determining and expressing the homeland security strategy of the United States and establishing a homeland security program for the 20 years following that examination.”

That reads a lot like the Military Force Structure Review Act. It also reflects the insightful analysis offered by a veteran of four QDR’s, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense The Quadrennial Defense Review: A Model for the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.”

Now the President and Co-Founder of the Center for a New American Security, Michele Flournoy suggests a list of commonalities between DHS and DOD that might allow the former to benefit greatly from a so-called QHSR. She says that both Departments are:

• charged with missions that are vital to the health and welfare of the nation “ protecting the American people and our way of life is a mission in which we cannot fail;

• facing persistent and resourceful enemies;

• large, complex bureaucracies comprised of a number of diverse and (in some cases, previously independent) organizations with their own cultures, traditions, and ways of doing business;

• responsible for spending billions of taxpayer dollars as efficiently and effectively as possible;

• perennially in the position of having more programs to pay for than budget; and

• trying to balance near-term demands against long-term investments.

Hard to argue with that. The authors of the QHSR will be challenged by a constant pressure to seek reform through reorganization. This is misplaced energy in large part. The focus for a QHSR should certainly seek to address the bullets above, but also the important questions of how we clearly define the threat posed by terrorism, as well as natural disasters in the context of securing the homeland; how do we define the capabilities necessary in such a way that we can craft an actionable investment strategy; how do we plan to spread this responsibility more effectively across the Executive Branch agencies; and what is the strategy for engaging allies in the process of defining the threat and our shared interests in defeating it?

The language in the Bill ends by stating that “the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall provide to Congress and make publicly available on the Internet a detailed resource plan specifying the estimated budget and number of staff members that will be required for preparation of the initial quadrennial homeland security review.” According to the Bill, the first QHSR would commence in 2008, just when the next QDR process begins.

Update 7/25: Turns out the people who worked up the International Supply Chain Security Strategy considered how that plan relates to other existing ones in a way similar to how DOD does so with the QDR as I mentioned above. This is from the new supply chain strategy document:

Sincere apologies for the absence.  Just coming up for air and noticed a new release from the Government Accountability Office taking DHS to task on yet another front.  This time the S&T Directorate is in its crosshairs.  Seems the full-speed-ahead approach taken by Under Secretary (ADM) Cohen left some knotty little details undone.  According to GAO:

The S&T fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan, including related documentation and other information provided by program officials, did not fully satisfy the conditions set forth in the Appropriations Act.

Minor detail.  

The current trajectory of S&T spending — accounting notwithstanding, apparently — represents a good start toward energizing what has been a difficult mission space to manage.  This deck used by U/S Cohen at a presentation hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science provides a quick overview of the solutions they’re aiming for.  (You can also see this post about a Congressional hearing in March at which both U/S Cohen and I testified.)  Take a look at the org chart in particular and you’ll notice the “Human Factors” division, which is led by Sharla Rausch. I’ve met her a few times and I believe she might have the most interesting portfolio of the group.

While a good portion of it deals with understanding the process of radicalization as a spectrum from sympathetic to operational, she also takes a look at leadership challenges for the stressed decision maker at the federal, state, or local level during a crisis in order to identify best practices and to support technology that can in turn support the decision maker.  We did some work at CSP on crisis leadership in partnership with Sweden’s version of DHS late last year.  Dr. Rausch attended and discussed some of her team’s interests.  I’ll be curious to see any developments on that front. 

Update 6/26: CQ’s Rob Margetta ran a piece today about the GAO report with a more technical run-down of its findings.  He notes also that U/S Cohen will testify tomorrow before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology about the Directorate’s strategic plans.

Three interesting questions for the record followed the March hearing before the House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.  They may reflect wider sentiment among those providing oversight of federal efforts to reduce the threat of smuggled nuclear weapons.  I believe they are public now, so here’s the first one from Chairman Wu:

1.   In your opinion, what are the benefits of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office’s Securing the Cities Initiative? Is this type of project likely to be successful in preventing the unlawful transport and detonation of nuclear or radiological devices in the US? Do you believe that the requested funding level of $30 million for FY 2008 is appropriate?

The DNDO’s Securing the Cities Initiative (STC) reflects an investment in an important part of a layered defense.  While efforts to secure sources of nuclear material in troubled areas like the former Soviet states remain critical, in addition to interdiction operations like the Proliferation Security Initiative, efforts like STC help close an important gap in today’s detection mission. 

Because even the most effective global effort to stop illicit movement of dangerous nuclear material will be less than 100% successful, it is wise to consider domestic detection efforts in major cities.  A perpetrator may be able to obtain nuclear material and evade detection overseas, en route, and across the U.S. border, which is known to be porous in parts.  If this occurs, it is likely that intelligence communities will have some warning and be able to provide law enforcement and other authorities with valuable information to aid an apprehension.  An STC effort would greatly help augment intelligence and law enforcement officials by providing added warning and more accurate information about the location of nuclear material.

The scenario of nuclear material smuggled across U.S. borders, while dangerously possible, is perhaps as likely as nuclear material obtained from within the United States for use against a major U.S. city.  Dangerous source material for a dirty bomb can be found in unsecured commercial locations or universities where nuclear material is located for legitimate uses.  If a perpetrator steals this material, STC capabilities provide a better ability to locate and isolate the material.

Whether or not STC will be successful is difficult to say at this stage, but some precedence already exists that indicates such an effort could indeed be effective.  The Department of Defense (DOD) already deploys their own version of STC focused exclusively on protecting bases within the U.S.  Detectors are in place surrounding the bases to detect a potential nuclear threat in vicinity of the base.  Ongoing R&D for these programs is focused on increasing the ability to detect source material moving at greater speeds along public roads that lead to these bases.  The potential for cooperation between DNDO and DOD should be pursued for mutual benefit.

Lastly, DNDO’s budget request for STC deserves attention.  The nation’s investment in STC should reflect a commitment to thinking creatively and responsibly about the threat of nuclear terrorism in America’s cities.  The nearly $11 billion to be spent on missile defense this next year places the STC budget in perspective.  With an overall DNDO budget of approximately $550 million, dedicating $30 million to Securing the Cities seems appropriate.  At this early stage, a healthier investment like this would help identify more promising routes to success while weeding out potential dead-ends.  STC is equal parts R&D and strategy.  These early months will require a dedication of brain power that must be hired as well.

Whatever the fate of this war supplemental, it is hard to accept the argument that all of the domestic spending included is out-of-scope.  The House-Senate agreement (HR 1591) provides about $2.25 billion in funds directed at homeland security needs.  The original request included zero homeland dollars. Below is a comparison chart provided by CQ Homeland Security that the Congress released showing the breakdown of funds.

Congressional comparison chart of Emergency Supp

Among the highlights:

• $978 million for aviation security
• $458.5 million for border and container security
• $652.5 million for security grants to ports, transit systems and states.
• $115 million for the Secure Freight Initiative and SAFE Ports Act. 
• $325 million for rail and transit security
• $223.5 million the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to acquire and deploy a fleet of next generation Radiation Portal Monitors.

I’m in Berlin for the next few days courtesy Aspen Institute.  In the meantime, please offer your thoughts on the war supplemental. 

If the Iraq supplemental bill (HR1591) becomes law, Congress will have added $400 million to the DNDO bank for purchasing radiation portal monitors to be placed at weak points along the borders.  This is in addition to the FY08 request in which DNDO’s overall budget is ~$500mil. 

In the meantime, DHS moves forward with another outlay to accelerate the research side of the equation.  Balancing the immediate needs for deployable technology and long-term needs for more effective nuclear defense capabilities is a difficult objective.  Observers usually prefer that investments show a near-term payoff ($400mil for more RPMs that show up on the border within months), but the real payoff in which game-changing capabilities reduce the likelihood of an attack while supporting the other nuclear non-proliferation imperatives takes years.

This is today’s press release from DHS:

DHS AWARDS $8.8 MILLION FOR EXPLORATORY RESEARCH IN ADVANCED NUCLEAR DETECTION TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) announced ten contract awards today totaling $8.8 million to nine companies that will perform exploratory research in advanced nuclear detection technology.  The Exploratory Research Program is designed to transform nuclear detection technology by funding aggressive research and development that is unconstrained by pre-existing user expectations and initial technical risks.

The nine companies selected are: Alliant Techsystems Incorporated, Mission Research Division; Canberra; EIC Laboratories, Incorporated; General Electric Global Research Center (two awards); Physical Optics Corporation; Radiation Monitoring Devices, Incorporated; Rapiscan Systems Corporation; Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC); and Westinghouse Electric Company.

Each contract consists of multiple phases, including an advanced technology demonstration, before potentially transitioning to a systems development and acquisition program.  Successful technologies will be deployed to provide port-of-entry (POE) and non-POE radiological and nuclear detection capability.

Earlier this year, DHS announced the award of Exploratory Research Cooperative Agreements with Academia totaling approximately $3.1 million to make significant advances in basic nuclear detection technology.  Seven universities were awarded cooperative agreements: California Institute of Technology, Florida Institute of Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, State University of New York at Stony Brook, University of Michigan, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and Washington University. 

###

This was released tonight by DHS. 

Press Office

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

 

Press Release

February 16, 2007

Contact: DHS Press Office (202) 282-8010

NSF Press Office (703) 292-7730

DHS FORMS PARTNERSHIP WITH NSF FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ON DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION

 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) recently issued a potential $58 million, over five years, in grant opportunities for colleges and universities that will focus on detection systems, individual sensors or other research relevant to the detection of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, radiation dispersal devices and related threats.  The program is called the Academic Research Initiative and will foster frontier research and build the nation’s intellectual capital in nuclear sciences.

“This Academic Research Initiative is a critical element in building the Nation’s intellectual capital in nuclear detection capability,” said DNDO Director, Vayl S. Oxford.  “Continued advances in science and technology are a key element in the long-term effort to protect the Nation against nuclear attacks.”

Proposals submitted to NSF through the Fastlane electronic system, or through Grants.gov, will be reviewed through NSF’s merit-based process using panels of peer reviewers and experts recruited jointly by NSF and DNDO.  Seven NSF units will be participating in the effort including five directorates and two additional offices.  Spanning multiple academic disciplines, this broad expertise will form a comprehensive platform for fundamental research on domestic nuclear detection.”

The National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. With an annual budget of about $5.58 billion, NSF is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America’s colleges and universities. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 1,700 universities and institutions.

The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is a jointly staffed office established to improve the nation’s capability to detect and report unauthorized attempts to import, possess, store, develop, or transport nuclear or radiological material for use against the Nation, and to further enhance this capability over time.

###

The House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation holds a hearing March 8 at 10:00 a.m. on the Department’s R&D efforts related to nuc and bio terrorism.  Look for more about outreach to the academic community then.

This month the Congressional Research Service issued a new report on the concept of “risk” in Homeland Security.  The importance of assessing, mitigating, and otherwise calculating risk in the effort to protect the homeland is easy to appreciate.  But claw back the terminology and talking points, and it becomes less clear just how risk can be assessed – much less calculated – when it comes to the evolving threats of terrorism.  Terrorism offers neither the trend lines nor the depth of historical data (thank goodness) needed to design a reliable methodology that risk assessment demands in other cases, such as hurricanes or car accidents.   

Does that mean it’s a useless tool?  Secretary Chertoff brought a welcomed new rationale to homeland security investments when he was nominated by suggesting that politics needn’t drive the way we protect vulnerable components of the country.  He argued that HLS leadership should “base its work on priorities driven by risk.”  Eventually adopting a phrase coined by the HSAC WME Task Force, he began suggesting that DHS efforts should “buy down the risk:”  Investments, in other words, should be targeted in ways that bring about the greatest possible return by gauging the likelihood and potential severity of terrorist threats to the homeland.  According to CRS, that’s easier said than done.  While this may have occurred to many of us during the years since Secretary Chertoff first committed the Department to this rationale, few have been able to bring this kind of clarity to the real challenges of applying risk to protecting against (or actively combating) terrorism.

While this new study draws attention to the important issue of how to apply the nearly $12 billion spent under the federal Homeland Security Grant Program, its worth considering how risk assessments may be used (or eventually required) for determining other HLS investments.  For example, look for renewed attention by Congress on WMD-related initiatives.  Long-lead items such as research and development for better defenses against bio- or nuclear terrorism involve significant uncertainty because scientific research may lead to dead-ends before arriving at a new solution.  It will be important for Congress to consider how risk assessments could determine if WMD attacks are deemed sufficiently likely to warrant the level of commitment called for in some of these areas (see post from 2/6/07).  I’ll dedicate another post soon to this important question.  In the meantime, the CRS study is entitled “The Department of Homeland Security’s Risk Assessment Methodology: Evolution, Issues, and Options for Congress,” and can be found here. 

Consider this a placeholder post today.   I’ll take on a piece at a time of the newly released DHS budget in an effort to highlight selected sections and provide background details.  Some of the budget lines will face very little scrutiny in the Congress and the press.  Areas likely to get a lot of attention include the S&T budgets and technology acquisitions, monies directed toward mass transit security, and funds for some newly created offices or initiatives, among other things, that we can discuss here soon. 

Naturally, the budget calls for steep increases for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, reflecting a sense of urgency, demonstrated progress, and distance to the goal line.  The following is a selection of highlights from this fact sheet about the FY08 DHS budget focused on combating the threat of smuggled nuclear weapons: 

FINAL NOTE: I’m slated to testify before a subcommittee of the House Science Committee in March on the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.  More details to come about that and other related Congressional oversight efforts.  I’ll be sure to post the testimony here.

In late December the Congressional Research Service released an excellent, detailed synopsis of homeland security grants over the past four years:

RL33770: Department of Homeland Security Grants to State and Local Governments: FY2003 to FY2006. December 22, 2006

The first one-third of the report describes each of the relevant grant programs (e.g. State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative) and how their rules and conditions have evolved over the past four years. The last two-thirds of the report contain forty pages of statistics on the disbursement of homeland security grants over this time period, an invaluable set of statistics for researchers that I don’t think have been collated in one place until now. By using these statistics, it’s possible to make appropriate comparisons of grant allocations between states and/or from year-to-year, as inputs into statistically-sound policy analyses of the grant programs.

The Department of Homeland Security is holding a press conference today to release a report (which you can download here) that describes FY07 allocations for five homeland security grant programs:

• State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)- $509.3 million
• Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)- $363.8 million
• Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)- $746.9 million
• Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)- $32.0 million
• Citizen Corps Program (CCP)- $14.6 million

As noted yesterday, the most newsworthy dimension of is the selection of cities for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program. Baton Rouge, Louisville, Omaha, and Toledo were dropped from the list, and El Paso, Norfolk, Providence, and Tucson were added to it. Local newspapers in those cities are already beginning to react to these decisions - see, for example, the contrasting pieces in the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Providence Journal.

Also new this year, DHS makes the point of fencing off 55% of UASI funding for six “Tier 1″ cities/regions: New York/New Jersey, the National Capital Region, Chicago, Los Angeles/Long Beach, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Houston. However, this is unlikely to lead to an increase that compensates for the decreased FY 2006 allocations given to NYC and DC. In FY 2006, these six regions already received 53.9% of total UASI funding; an increase of 1% of funding, distributed among these six regions, is approx. $7 million, probably not enough to address NYC and DC’s needs and desires. Therefore, the only way to really increase funding for NYC and DC in FY 2007 will be to cut funding for Chicago, LA, Houston and San Francisco. If this math holds, we’re likely to see a repeat of the FY 2006 UASI allocation imbroglio.

Of better news for the “Tier 1″ cities, DHS makes a change that allows these six cities to spend up to 25% of their allocation “toward current state and local personnel dedicated exclusively to counterterrorism field operations.” This is a welcome change, and one that is particularly valuable to New York City, given its sustained investment in a first-rate counterterrorism unit at the NYPD.

For more detailed information, you can read the overview document that I posted here. And look for the Office of Grants & Training to release more detailed grant guidance on the FY 2007 HSGP shortly.

Update (1/5): This page on the Grants & Training contains voluminous information on the FY2007 grant programs, most notably this 98-page grant guidance document and this guide for fusion center investments.

Update (1/6): Here’s the transcript of the press conference.

CQ Homeland Security has a story today (by subscription only) that previews the impending decisions about which cities to incldue for eligibility in the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI):

The Department of Homeland Security is close to releasing a list of 46 high-risk urban areas eligible for $770 million worth of funding in 2007 — including the Las Vegas and San Diego regions that in 2006 were at risk of losing their high-threat funding eligibility.

This year, six high-risk areas are grouped in a top tier and are eligible for about half of the total Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) pot of funding: the National Capital Region, the San Francisco Bay area, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles/Long Beach and New York City/Northern New Jersey.

Dropped from the UASI list this year are Omaha, Neb., Toledo, Ohio, Louisville, Ky., and Baton Rouge, La., areas, according to sources. Added to the list are Tucson, Ariz., Providence, R.I., Norfolk, Va., and El Paso, Texas.

I argued in a post last month that Las Vegas and San Diego had an “ironclad case” for continued participation in the UASI program, and I think that DHS is making the correct decision in keeping them around. The decision to drop the four cities listed above is also appropriate. The one decision that I don’t immediately understand is the inclusion of the four new cities - Tucson, Providence, Norfolk and El Paso. Tucson and El Paso have legitimate border security needs, but these are perhaps better addressed by programs other than the UASI grants. Norfolk is the most important military port on the Atlantic, but DOD force protection resources should somewhat mitigate the need for UASI funds. And I can’t quite figure out why to include Providence, unless as part of a “greater Boston area” regional allocation similar to the SF Bay Area grouping.

Overall though, this looks to be a vast improvement on the FY 2006 list. More analysis to follow when the list is officially released.

In my analysis yesterday of the implications of the elections on the Congressional homeland security agenda, I ignored one key part of the picture: the impact on the relevant DHS appropriations subcommittees.

The ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security is currently Robert Byrd. In the 110th Congress, he’ll be the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, but in his prior stints as Committee Chair in the 101st, 102nd, and 107th Congresses he has also served concurrently as a chair of a subcommittee, so presumably he’ll continue to maintain control over the Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security in the 110th as well.

The ranking member on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security is currently Martin Olav Sabo. But Sabo is retiring at the end of this Congress, so obviously won’t be chairing the subcommittee in the new Congress. A story in the News & Observer newspaper in Raleigh, NC indicates that the new subcommittee chairman will be their local member of Congress, David Price. The article provides some interesting context on his likely philosophy and approach to the leadership role:

Price plays down the significance of his new post to North Carolina research and business interests. Sure, he could write a congressional appropriations report to highlight some local science project or new technology coming out of Research Triangle Park.

“But basically it’s about setting programmatic priorities for the whole country,” Price said. More money for rail security? For port security? For aviation security?

“You can’t do everything,” Price said.

….Consider the recently passed Secure Border Act, which would build 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Price called it “bumper-sticker legislation.”

The new fence is just an authorization, with no money attached. Price’s committee would have to pay for the thing.

Asked about funding the fence, Price paused to consider.

“I don’t know,” he said.

For now, Price hopes Congress will come up with what he would consider a better approach to securing the border.

Price has a few of his own priorities. He wants strong funding for disaster preparedness and emergency responders. And he wants to examine spending in the homeland security bureaucracy.

His dismissal of the idea of using the position as a platform for pork-barrel spending and his serious ruminations signal to me that he’s likely to be a very good steward of the nation’s homeland security resources in this role. For more info on Price, his bio is available here.

In a post last week, I linked to a document on the Government Printing Office website that contained the full congressional justifications for the FY 2007 DHS budget request. In that post, I mentioned that it contained a wealth of information for DHS-watchers about the Department. On that note, I went through the document to research one topic that I haven’t seen analyzed previously: the average salaries within each of the constituent parts of DHS, which can be estimated by analyzing the “Permanent Positions by Grade” charts that are found throughout the document. You can see the full results of that analysis in this Excel spreadsheet, which computes average salaries for FY 2006. Some key findings:

1. The average salary of the 177,844 DHS employees included on the spreadsheet was $56,334 in FY 2006.
2. The average salary of a civilian (i.e. non-military Coast Guard) General Service (GS) or GS-equivalent civilian employee (e.g. TSA, which has a different pay-band system) was $56,319. And the average salary of a civilian Executive Service (ES) or ES-equivalent employee at DHS was $151,376 in FY 2006.
3. Within both categories (ES and GS) there is a lot of variation among agencies and sub-agencies in terms of average pay. Part of this is due to natural variations in the years of experience and skill requirements of employees, and/or is abnormal due to a small sample size, but it’s difficult to tell if it’s all attributable to these differences. The highest paying-components of DHS in the analysis (ES+GS) are as follows:
• US-VISIT, $151,197 average salary (115 employees).
• Office of the Undersecretary for Preparedness, $131,360 (85 employees).
• Infrastructure Protection and Information Security, $118,425 (445 employees)
• FEMA, Disaster Relief Account, $115,781 (25 employees).
• DHS Chief Information Officer, $112,590 (78 employees).
• US Coast Guard, Acquisition Account (Civilian), $112,311 (345 employees).

And the lowest-paying accounts are as follows:

• TSA, Aviation Security, $36,387 (51,275 employees).
• ICE, Immigration User Fee Account, $39,050 (275 employees).
• ICE, Breached Bond Detention Fund, $41,084 (63 employees).
• CBP, Puerto Rico Account, $51,098 (654 employees).
• US Coast Guard Military, $54,715 (39,764 employees).
• Customs and Border Protection, $59,852 (34,319 employees).

You can see the full analysis by downloading the spreadsheet which contains the complete analysis. Note that the Federal Air Marshal Service is not included within the scope of this analysis, because statistics on its workforce are classified.

This weekend I noticed that the full congressional justifications for the FY 2007 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security were available online at the Government Printing Office website, on a page for Senate appropriations documents. It’s an invaluable resource for DHS-watchers, 2933 pages in length, detailing the budget requests and strategic plans for all of the different parts of DHS, as of February 2006. I’m not sure when it was posted online, but kudos to the Senate appropriators for releasing it as a public document. Warning, for those who are trying to download it: the file is 122 megabytes in size.

I’ve been meaning to write about the final DHS appropriations bill for FY 2007 for the last couple of weeks, but it’s taken me a while to digest the 200-page final conference report. There are a number of important provisions in the bill that are worthy of close examination, such as the chemical security language, the extension of the deadline to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and the bill language that reorganizes FEMA and creates a new Office of Emergency Communications to coordinate DHS activities in this area such as SAFECOM and the Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) program.

Also interspersed amid the final bill and conference report are a number of provisions that exude the faint smell of bacon. Compared to other bills, DHS appropriations remains fairly clean in terms of pork barrel spending and other special interest language. But it’s a slippery slope from a clean bill to a dirty one, and that’s why it’s important to be vigilant about the inclusion of pork barrel language in DHS appropriations. I’ve identified the following pork barrel items in the final bill:

Page 31: Sec. 534 of the bill says that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider the Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission in Mississippi eligible under the Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance Program for all costs incurred for dredging from navigation channel in Little Lake, Louisiana, sediment deposited as a result of Hurricane George in 1998.” This might be an appropriate use of FEMA funds, but professionals at FEMA should decide this, not members of Congress.

Page 32: Sec. 541 of the bill says “Notwithstanding the requirements of section (404)(b)(2)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the Army Corps of Engineers may use Lot 19, Block 1 of the Meadowview Acres Addition and Lot 8 ,Block 5 of the Meadowview Acres Addition in Augusta, Kansas for building portions of the flood-control levee.” For some context on this matter, see this FEMA document from 1999. I’m not sure what the exact dispute is, but this section seems like unnecessary congressional micromanagement to me. Augusta is located in the district of House Appropriator Todd Tiahrt.

Page 32: Sec. 542 of the bill says “Notwithstanding any time limitation established for a grant awarded under title I, chapter 6, Public Law 106-31, in the item relating to Federal Emergency Management Agency - Disaster Assistance for Unmet Needs, the City of Cuero, Texas, may use funds received under such grant programs until September 30, 2007.” Cuero had floods in 1998, 2002, and 2004, which they’re evidently they’re still spending disaster relief money from that event. Again, if they deserve the money consistent with FEMA regulations then that’s fine, but I don’t see the rationale for congressional intervention here.

Page 53: Sec. 511 of Title V of the bill requires that “Each federal agency and department with critical infrastructure responsibilities under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, or any successor to such directive, shall establish a formal relationship, including an agreement regarding information sharing, between the elements of such agency or department and the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, through the Department.” The NISAC is a center at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico (the home state of Senate Appropriator Pete Domenici) that does simulation and modeling work on homeland security issues; the center gained notoriety following their report prior to Hurricane Katrina that accurately predicted its consequences (a report that I’d still like to see, btw.) The NISAC has done solid work, from every that I’ve heard, but this mandate for all federal agencies with CIP responsibilities to work with them seems overly aggressive, and feels like a strong-armed attempt to round up new work for the Center.

Page 121-22: The manager’s statement contains a section entitled “National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage (NCCIPS), which includes $53 million of funding in FY 2007 for the migration of key DHS data centers to a primary facility at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi (the home state of Senate Appropriations chairman Thad Cochran) and a secondary facility at a site to be determined. While it makes sense to have backup data centers for mission-critical DHS capabilities, the site selection on this program should have been “fair and open” for both sites, not just the secondary one. Stennis suffered roof and water damage during Hurricane Katrina - is it really the best place for a back-up site for critical IT assets?

This section of the bill also prohibits the transfer of data center assets from the Coast Guard’s Operations Systems Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia - the home state of Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd.

Page 134: This page notes that “the conferees direct ICE to submit a report on the costs and need for establishing sub-offices in Colorado Springs and Greeley, Colorado.” This Denver Post story notes that Senate Appropriations Committee member Wayne Allard attached this item. It should be up to professionals at ICE to determine the agency’s allocations of resources by geography, and not amendments of this ilk.

Page 156: The section on the “National Domestic Preparedness Consortium” does not mention any explicit earmarks, but as I noted last week, DHS seems to think that a large share of this money is earmarked for “New Mexico Technology.”

Page 157: The “Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium” received $12 million in the final bill. Money in this program has been allocated disproportionately in the past to universities in the state of Kentucky, home to House Appropriations Subcommitee Chairman Hal Rogers. This program seems unnecessarily duplicative of other programs.

Page 159: The conferees note that they “support the budget request for the Protective Security Analysis Center.” This is a program at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, touted by House Appropriations Committee member Zach Wamp as a project that will “use information about the thousands of manufacturing plants, monuments, bridges, schools and other structures and facilities in our country to help Department of Homeland Security officials assess the risk that any of them will be destroyed or damaged by either natural or man-made hazards.” There are a lot of other projects at DHS that serve this purpose, and this isn’t something that has been requested by DHS or openly debated in Congress. Therefore it smells suspicious to me.

Page 169-170: The section here on “New Technologies” contains an odd list of issues that the appropriators recommend that DHS S&T research, including “singl