Congress has now passed the final Department of Homeland Security (DHS) FY 2012 budget and it isn’t pretty for state and local homeland security grant programs. Congress appeared to split the difference by adopting the House’s method of turning multiple homeland security programs into a single block to be allocated by the Secretary, while providing more funding as per the Senate to this overall process.

In total, the budget provides $2,374,681,000 for all state and local grants of which $350 million will go for Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) and $675 million for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG). Both the EMPG and AFG are funded in separate budget accounts from the state and local homeland security grants, which are funded at $1,349,681,000. This includes $50 million for the border security grant Operation Stonegarden, no less than $100 million for “areas at the highest threat of terrorist attack” and 6.8% or $9,177,830 for FEMA management and administration leaving $958,822,170 for the rest.

The remaining $958,822,170 is funded as a block to cover the Urban Areas Security Initiative, (UASI), State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Transit Security Grant program (TSGP), Port Security Grant program (PSGP), Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), Citizen Corps program (CCP), etc. at the discretion of the Secretary. More on that below.

Why the Cuts?

The $1,108,822,170 in FY 2012 funding for Stonegarden, high threat areas and all the other homeland security grant programs represents a massive $846,177,830 cut from equivalent programs in FY 2011, which also saw major reductions compared to FY 2010. The basis for these cuts in the eyes of Congress is simple: A lack of quantifiable metrics that measure the additional capability produced by the grants and the perceived slow drawdown of grant funds by recipients. While both issues are surmountable, the federal, state and local homeland security community that benefits from these programs is getting low on time to do so. 

Threat versus Risk

Given the funding methodology used by Congress, grant recipients do not have a specific funding amount at this time except for the $50 million for Operation Stonegarden and the no less than $100 million for “areas at the highest threat of a terrorist attack.” While it is reasonable to assume this $100 million may serve as a baseline for the UASI program that is not assured given the ambiguity in the statutory language, which does not specify the UASI program for this funding.

The ambiguity is further complicated in the law’s exclusive use of the word “threat” as opposed to “risk” or the three elements of risk – threat, vulnerability and consequence. In this regard, the law seems to be at odds with itself whereby in the opening sentence of the state and local programs section it reads that grants “shall be distributed according to threat, vulnerability and consequence,” i.e., risk, but later reads that the $100 million carve out will be distributed based on “threat.” Is this simply a typo or something else? Why does this matter?

Threat is an element of risk but not the whole picture and it is risk that is used to allocate UASI funding. When accounting for threat in these matters, it is based largely on intelligence and actual plots aimed at specific cities or other targets and looks very closely at the likelihood of an attack accounting for both the intent and capability of the terrorists. A threat based analysis would not include the vulnerability of the specific target and other potential targets or the consequences of a successful attack against the target or other potential targets, which, if very low on both counts, would drive the overall risk score down. This is especially true since in year’s past under DHS’s risk based allocation formula, vulnerability and consequence have accounted for 70% of the grant allocation formula with threat accounting for 30%.

Regardless of how DHS interprets the meaning of “threat”, in the end, the Secretary could append the $100 million “threat” funding to any UASI allocation resulting in a slightly different allocation formula for the $100 million, but with it operating under the same grant guidance as the UASI’s “risk” based funding. The result is a distinction as to how funding is allocated to urban areas on the front end by DHS with no difference on how the funding is used by the urban areas on the back end.

Does Every Program Get Funded?

The short answer is probably not, but it is far from clear. The FY 2012 budget law opens with the following language on state and local homeland security grant programs:

“For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements and other activities, $1,349,681,000, which shall be distributed, according to threat, vulnerability and consequence, at the discretion of the Secretary based on the following authorities:”

The law goes on to list 12 different grant programs and their authorizing statutes relative to the term “authorities.” The answer to the question of whether each of the 12 programs listed must be funded turns on a few key issues - whether the “based on the following authorities” language is a requirement that every listed program be funded or whether it simply means once the Secretary makes up her mind on whether to fund a program she must do so pursuant to that program’s authorizing language. In addition, and related, whether the Secretary’s discretion under the law applies only to the use of risk data in distributing the funds among and within programs or whether it also applies to determining which programs actually get funded in the first place.

On both counts the law is vague and the Conference Report is silent.  However, it would seem clear that programs not listed among the 12, such as the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) cannot be funded in FY 2012 since there is no authority in the law for the Secretary to allocate funding to that program. 

Given the ambiguous nature of the language, the Secretary could probably go either way in her decision, but the broad interpretation of her discretion would be the more practical one. In fact, several of the 12 programs listed were not funded by Congress in FY 2011 (BZPP and IECGP) and it would seem odd to now require their funding at some minimum level in a year where overall funding has been further drastically cut.

Moreover, linking the words “shall be distributed” with “based on the following authorities” into a requirement for funding of all listed programs would undercut the Secretary’s discretion in allocating funding and stretch the meaning of the words when in fact Congress could have easily inserted language that required the Secretary to fund each listed program based on a risk analysis. Congress did not do that. Instead, it gave the Secretary discretion to be informed by risk, and when implemented, to be governed by the laws covering the execution of the programs that do get funded.  Specifically, the opening language first requires that the funding be distributed among grant recipients according to risk, but then caveats that requirement by granting the Secretary discretion over which programs may be funded, but then requires that if they are funded, the programs must be funded based upon the authorizing language in the law (“authorities) relative to that program.

This last point raises an interesting question relative to the SHSP program regardless of which interpretation is used. The SHSP is authorized pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 605 in which the statute has language referring to all states being eligible to apply for funding and a minimum level of funding for each state. Thus, if the Secretary opens the door and provides any funding under SHSP, will the Secretary have to apply a minimum level of funding to each state as a percentage of the total amount she decides to allocate to the SHSP program as required by 6 U.S.C. 605? The answer appears to be “yes” since the authority to allocate SHSP funding comes with that requirement.

What is clear is that even if every program listed must be funded, the Secretary has the discretion over how much to fund each program even if that discretion is augmented by a required risk analysis. Otherwise, Congress would have simply allocated funding per program itself. Therefore, in theory, the Secretary could fund any one program at $1 or $500 million so long as there was enough money to meet each program’s requirements, and the risk analysis was used to support the outcome.

There are likely many other brain twisters lurking in the law as Congress has fundamentally changed these programs and cut overall funding at the same time and left the tough decisions concerning what it means and how to implement it to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

What can be said about the 9/11 anniversary that hasn’t already been spoken? It seems every television channel imaginable has a 9/11 special or series leading up to the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in recorded history. From the perspective of one who witnessed the attacks first hand and helped build
the homeland security infrastructure of today, much has changed since that day and yet much remains the same.

Continue Reading

What can be said about the 9/11 anniversary that hasn’t already been spoken? It seems every television channel imaginable has a 9/11 special or series leading up to the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in recorded history. From the perspective of one who witnessed the attacks first hand and helped build the homeland security infrastructure of today, much has changed since that day and yet much remains the same.

Continue Reading

Sometimes one hopes to be wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to the FY 2012 homeland security budget, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security has proven me right insofar as the FY 2011 budget was the just beginning for cuts to state and local homeland security programs. While the Senate bill is an improvement over the House bill when it comes to state and local homeland security grants, that’s barely a compliment and more the equivalent to being named the world’s tallest Hobbit. You’re still very short.

The Senate bill provides $2.58 billion for state and local grants, $557 million above the FY 2012 House level and $525 million below the final FY 2011 budget. However, the 2012 Senate amount will actually be even less as it does not account for management and administration funding that FEMA will take off the top of this appropriation to pay FEMA staff and run the programs. For example, in FY 2011, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program was appropriated $706 million but only $663 million was actually awarded by FEMA to urban areas, which amounted to an additional 6% cut in available funding. The bill wisely rejects the House proposal to eliminate the Urban Area Security Initiative, Transit Security Grants and other programs and replace them with a block grant.

The Bill Summary

The State Homeland Security Grant Program receives $380 million. This is a $146 million cut from FY 2011.

Operation Stonegarden receives $50 million. This is a $5 million cut.

The Urban Area Security Initiative receives $400 million. This is a $306 million or 43% cut from FY 2011, and if approved by the full Congress would result in UASI being cut by more than 50% in two years, down from $887 million in FY 2010.

The Emergency Operations Center grant is funded at $15 million (no cut).

The Port Security Grant Program receives $200 million. This is a $50 million cut from FY 2011.

Transit Security Grant Program receives $200 million. This is a $50 million cut from FY 2011.

The bill provides $750 million for fire equipment and firefighter hiring. This is a $60 million cut from FY 2011.

Finally, the bill provides $350 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants, $11 million above the FY 2011 level.

No specific funding is provided for Citizens Corps, Driver’s License Security, Buffer Zone Protection Program, Metropolitan Medical Response System and Interoperable Emergency Communications grants. Activities previously funded under these programs are eligible in the funded programs.

While not a surety, the bill’s funding of UASI at $400 million sets the stage for all 20 tier II urban areas to be dropped from the UASI program in 2012. This will depend on whether DHS uses the same blunt force trauma approach to allocate funding in 2012 as it did in 2011. Recall in 2011, when UASI suffered an 18% cut, DHS cut the program’s  membership in half by removing 32 urban areas from it so as to hold harmless all 11 tier I urban areas in funding.

While it is mathematically impossible for all tier I urban areas to be spared cuts in 2012, to just minimize the cuts to those tier I urban areas DHS will have to take all tier II funding, which was $122 million or 18.6% of funding in 2011, and give that money to all 11 tier I urban areas. The bottom line is every urban area from New York to Charlotte is likely to see cuts or outright termination of funding in FY 2012 if these budget numbers remain unchanged.

What Happens Next?

What the Senate subcommittee did yesterday is not the final word. In fact, the funding numbers the subcommittee released could actually be the high water mark in state and local homeland security funding because the Senate must reconcile its budget with the House and the House was lower in grant funding by $557 million. Yes, things can get worse for these programs in the absence of aggressive outreach and education to members of Congress on what these cuts will do state and local homeland security preparedness. 

In the meantime, the full Senate Appropriations Committee must take up the bill and then the Senate as a whole before it goes into conference or some alternative before final passage. That leaves some, albeit little time to reverse this action. In the absence of a reversal, expect 2013 to be the last year many of these programs exist. For in FY 2012, five programs have already been slated for termination by both the House and Senate.

With fights over Medicare and Social Security getting most of the attention, both Congress and the White House have agreed to massive cuts in state and homeland security grants. However, this will likely not save money in the long run and will undermine security in the immediate future. Here's why.

The death of Usama bin Laden (UBL) is welcome news indeed. It proves that no matter how long it takes, no matter how difficult the task or how cantankerous our domestic politics may be, when it comes to America's mortal enemies, the United States will eventually exact justice. In the case of UBL, it was more of a reckoning.

With Friends Like These...

The painstaking work conducted by the CIA, the U.S. military and other members of the Intelligence Community of piecing together bits of information to present a clear intelligence picture on UBL's whereabouts and then carry out the operation to end him deserves much credit. However, it was UBL's whereabouts in Pakistan that leaves America with some uncomfortable questions it must ask.

For starters, how long was UBL at this compound in Abbottabad, a town with a major Pakistani army presence roughly 40 miles north of Islamabad? How is it possible the Pakistani government, particularly its intelligence arm, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, (ISI) did not know he was there? The Pakistanis have long played both sides when it comes to America and our war with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

All reports are that the U.S. did not tell the ISI about this mission beforehand, which, if true, speaks volumes to what we really think of them on such sensitive matters. It’s possible the Pakistanis were aware of and supported the operation, but for domestic political reasons don’t want to be associated with the mission for fear of rousing the Islamic radicals in their own country. Only time will tell, but hopefully this operation will push Pakistan further towards supporting American interests in the region and away from its longstanding duplicity when it comes to the U.S. and the Taliban and its more recent overtures toward China.

Risk to the Homeland

Some may hope that our killing UBL will allow us to pack up and leave Afghanistan and disassemble our domestic homeland security efforts. Unfortunately, neither is likely, and a rush to either outcome would leave America more vulnerable not less. In the short run, the death of UBL will actually raise the terror risk against the U.S. homeland. Not so much from organized groups, but from a lone wolf inspired by the death of UBL to carry out a conventional revenge attack not unlike the Fort Hood shooting or the LAX El Al ticket counter shooting in 2002. Whether, in the short run, al-Qaeda can muster an organized catastrophic attack in retaliation for UBL's demise seems unlikely, for if they could, they would have done it already regardless of UBL's death.

In the long run, UBL's killing will not end the war between the U.S. and radical Islamists as al-Qaeda has long been in the franchise business making it much more difficult to defeat as a single entity. However, it will demonstrate our seriousness to our enemies potentially weakening their own resolve over time to continue the fight. However, UBL's demise may even further inspire elements of al-Qaeda, particularly al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to attempt another catastrophic attack against the homeland since our enemies have a much different sense of time and are willing to wait years, even decades, to carry out attacks. Since al-Qaeda is no longer a single group all of these results are possible.

Regardless of the fact that our killing UBL will not end the war in Afghanistan tomorrow or end terror threats against the U.S. going forward, bin Laden’s death should send a clear message to all involved: The U.S. is no paper tiger, but rather, is patient, capable and willing at times to do what needs to be done to defend itself and defeat its enemies.     

It’s here. Well, the bill hasn’t passed and the President has not signed it into law, but the House and Senate have agreed upon the funding details for what remains of Federal FY 2011. In that agreement rests the funding numbers for the homeland security grant programs. While most of the programs survived, virtually all of the programs suffered cuts. Some suffered dramatic cuts. Here are the details:

Fire Fighter Assistance Grants - $810 million, which includes:
 $405 million for equipment
 $405 million for personnel
 
State Homeland Security Program - $725 million, which includes:
$55 million for Stonegarden
$45 million for Driver’s License Security
$10 million for Citizen Corps
$35 million for MMRS

Urban Areas Security Initiative - $725 million, which includes:
 $19 million for Non-Profit Security Grants

Transit Security Grant program - $250 million, which includes:
 $20 million for Amtrak
 $5 million for Over the Road Bus Security Grants

Port Security Grant Program - $250 million

Emergency Management Performance Grants - $340 million

Emergency Operations Center Grants - $15 million

Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants - $15 million

Grants that have been zeroed out (not funded) for FY 2011 are:

Buffer Zone Protection Program

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program

Only the Assistance to Firefighters and Emergency Management Performance Grants were  funded at the same level as in FY 2010.  Beyond BZPP and IECGP, the big loser for FY 2011 was clearly the SHSP, which is actually funded at $580 million in FY 2011 compared to $890 million in SHSP funding in FY 2010, when you account for several of the other grant programs that are now being counted as part of SHSP, but were stand alone programs in prior years. This $580 million includes the 25% for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities. The requirement that 25% of UASI funding go towards law enforcement terrorism prevention activities also applies in FY 2011.  The UASI program, while not the biggest loser among the grants, was by no means a winner in the process. The $162 million cut to UASI, compared to FY 2010 funding levels, will have a major impact on the program going forward as discussed below. 

None of the above listed funding numbers for FY 2011 include the 5.8% that FEMA will take off the top for Management and Administration of the grants. Therefore, the above funding numbers will actually go down even further. In addition, under the bill, FEMA has up to 25 days to release grant guidance for SHSP and UASI and the applicants can be given up to 90 days to apply. However, since the funds are one year money, meaning FEMA has to award the money to the States before September 30, 2011; FEMA will likely give the States 30 days to apply instead of the usual 90 days. 

The Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) amendment, which passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 1 and limited the UASI program to 25 cities, is not part of the final budget bill. However, with the large cut in UASI funding, it is now on DHS to decide how to distribute the remaining UASI funds. This will likely turn on how DHS decides to treat New York City. If DHS decides to hold New York harmless and fund the city at the same level as FY 2010, it will have to impose large cuts on the remaining UASI cities and/or trim the list by dropping certain cities. If DHS cuts New York in order to salvage the current list of UASI’s it will incur the wrath of New York similar to what happened in FY 2006 when the city saw a cut in its funding as compared to the previous fiscal year. This is no enviable task for DHS as it will be attacked no matter what it decides to do.

Finally, State and Urban Areas must do a better job of explaining the benefits of the SHSP and UASI programs in terms of how the programs reduce the nation’s risk to terrorism and other hazards by enhancing capabilities. This must be data driven and go beyond simply anecdotes of good things purchased. Congress must be given some performance measures and metrics to determine the value of its investment in State and local homeland security preparedness. As with the overall budget, the fights and cuts in Congress in FY 2011 are small compared to what is coming in FY 2012. Thus, cuts to homeland security grants could get even deeper and the time for States and Urban Areas to organize in order to salvage these programs is getting smaller as well. 

It was billed as a McCarthy era smear against an innocent religious minority and likened to an attack against all Muslims and a propaganda win for al-Qaeda, which would claim the event proves that America is at war with Islam. The incident spawning such wrath was House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King’s (R-NY) hearing on “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response.” Most of the criticism fluctuated between King’s use of the term “Muslim” in the hearing’s title and the focus on Muslim extremism as opposed to all forms of “violent extremism.”

Given the hysteria leading up to the hearing one might have expected Chairman King to appear in a white hood calling for the internment of all Muslims in America. In truth, when it came to Chairman King and most of the witnesses, the hearing was no different than numerous other hearings that have been held on the same topic. The witness list was conventional – the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, two Congressmen, the leader of a Muslim advocacy group, and the fathers of two American Muslim men who became radicalized and violent. Despite the attacks against Chairman King, he is not the first to use such language in his hearing’s title or focus on this topic.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Joe Lieberman (I-CT), held a hearing in March 2009 entitled “Violent Islamist Extremism: Al-Shabaab Recruitment in America,” which covered a specific sub-set of the larger Muslim radicalization issue in America that Chairman King focused on. The Obama Administration’s witness at the Senate hearing even used the hearing’s title in his testimony. There was little uproar at the time, and while Senator Lieberman has been attacked for his views on the need to confront radical Islamists, there was nothing even approaching the ferocity of the verbal assaults unleashed against Chairman King. 

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first witness and vocal critic of Chairman King’s hearing, and the only Muslim elected to Congress, culminated his testimony with a straw man argument as he described the death of New York paramedic Mohammed Salman Hamdani who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Congressman Ellison claimed Hamdani was originally smeared as a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks because he was a Muslim (the facts supporting this alleged smear are themselves questionable) and that Chairman King’s hearing was the moral equivalent of that smear, only the hearing smeared all Muslims in America. However, as Chairman King said in his opening statement:

I have repeatedly said the overwhelming majority of Muslim-Americans are outstanding Americans and make enormous contributions to our country. But there are realities we cannot ignore. For instance, a Pew Poll said that 15% of Muslim-American men between the age of 18 and 29 could support suicide bombings. This is the segment of the community al-Qaeda is attempting to recruit.

Despite disturbing findings in the 2007 Pew Research Center poll and contrary to Congressman Ellison, Chairman King’s hearing in no way suggested that all Muslims are terrorists or that all violent extremists are Muslims. Thus, to put forward the heroic acts of a Muslim paramedic who sacrificed his life on 9/11 to save others is irrelevant to a hearing focused on the real threat of some Muslims in America being susceptible to violent radicalization including the roughly 190 Muslims who have engaged in Islamist based terrorism inside the U.S. since 9/11. Such terrorism has ranged from attempted bombings of office buildings in Dallas, Times Square and Christmas celebrations in Portland, Oregon, etc.

The reason the House Committee needed to have the hearing and its title is because radical Islamists are the very reason the Committee exists. The House Homeland Security Committee, like the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counter Terrorism Center, the Director of National Intelligence, the Defense Department’s Homeland Defense and Northern Command structure, the FBI’s National Security Branch, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and predator drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere, were all borne out the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the ongoing threat posed by radical Islamists. These actions and agencies are not the result of the Columbine school shooting, anti-government right wing extremists, the mafia, the Ku Klux Klan, street gangs, neo-Nazis, or any other reason. Nor have any of these groups sought and received religious blessings and claimed it is their religious duty to acquire nuclear weapons and use them against the United States as has al-Qaeda.

When pressed, even Congressman Ellison has conceded the validity of holding hearings exclusively on Islamic radicalization in America as long as such hearings don’t refer specifically to Muslims or Islam in the hearing’s title. For example, Congressman Ellison said he would have no concern with a hearing on al-Qaeda in America. But this is exactly what Chairman King’s hearing was all about, and yet, because the hearing used the word Muslim in its title, Mr. Ellison and others fell off the deep end and questioned the legitimacy of the hearing’s content.

On the one hand it seems simple enough to accommodate Congressman Ellison and others who appear only to want the removal of the words Muslim or Islam in the title of any investigation into Muslim or Islamic inspired violence and to have such violence investigated in the larger context of “violent extremism.” However, to make such an accommodation would be akin to putting one’s head in the sand and pretending the threat posed by radical Islamists is entirely divorced from Islam and is of a type no different from conventional street gangs. It was this head in the sand approach that allowed Major Nidal Malik Hasan to run amok inside the U.S. Army for years talking about decapitating infidels while no one did anything to interdict him. Major Hasan’s radicalization ended in the murder of thirteen people at Fort Hood.

Congressman King has promised more hearings on Muslim radicalization in America. This is critically important as the United States tries to better understand a phenomenon which, if it consumed just one half of 1% of the estimated 1.5 million Muslims 18 or older in the U.S., could result in 7,500 violent radicals. Just nineteen men and their handlers killed nearly three thousand people in a matter of hours on 9/11. For that reason, Chairman King should call Muslims from across the U.S. to assist his Committee and the Nation in confronting this threat. For in the end, as was stated by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Muslim Forum for Democracy, and witness at the hearing; Muslims must be on the front lines in confronting and defeating those Muslims who would slaughter innocents in the name of Islam.

It is odd to be discussing the proposed Federal FY 2012 budget while the FY 2011 budget remains in limbo or what we in Washington call a CR (continuing resolution). Despite no FY 2011 budget, on Monday, the Obama Administration released its proposed FY 2012 budget of which roughly $3.8 billion is slated for state and local homeland security grants and programs. 

For 2012, the Obama Administration proposes cutting approximately $300 million from the FY 2010 grant budget (the last Congressionally enacted appropriation for DHS). While the cuts to the grants are real, the FY 2012 grant budget is a very reasonable proposal given the current state of the national debt and annual deficits. Some programs actually see an increase while others are slated for termination. The following is a summary of the key elements of the President’s FY 2012 proposed budget and what it means.

The Homeland Security Grant Program

The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) is the largest of the grants and consists of four independent grant programs: Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), and Citizen Corps Program (CCP). While UASI at $920 million, SHSP at $1 billion and CCP at $13 million are each slated for an increase in funding over FY 2010 actual appropriations, MMRS is put on the chopping block for termination with its program elements rolled into SHSP. The effects of zeroing out MMRS are several.

First, by zeroing out MMRS and rolling it into SHSP, the Administration could actually reduce the net increase of its proposed SHSP funding by $39 million, which has been the annual appropriation for MMRS for several years. That assumes that the States would actually spend $39 million on MMRS activities, which is something the States may or may not do under the President’s budget.

Second, in the past, MMRS has been a targeted grant insofar as the cities or MMRS jurisdictions were predetermined for funding and have developed MMRS committees and other infrastructure to manage the program. Whether these committees would stay in existence is impossible to know for sure, but most likely several would not as the funds would be managed by the States with no statutory requirement to fund the MMRS jurisdictions (DHS may have the authority to carve out funding administratively).

Third, the Obama Administration is not the first to try and zero out MMRS. For several years the Bush Administration tried to do the same thing only to have Congress reject the proposal and fund MMRS as a stand alone program. My money is on Congress stepping in and doing the same this year although it may be a closer call than in years past given the budget crisis.

While the Administration has proposed once again to end MMRS as a stand alone program, it has reversed itself on doing the same to the CCP. In the President’s proposed FY 2011 budget, CCP was slated for termination along with MMRS and several other programs. Not so in FY 2012 where CCP is set for a small increase. One suspects this is based on the priority FEMA and the Administration have now given to community preparedness and resiliency, which likely spared CCP from the guillotine during the Administration’s internal budget deliberations.

Infrastructure Protection Grants

Along with UASI and SHSP, the infrastructure protection grants – Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP), the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) and the Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) are the other big winners under the President’s proposed budget. For 2012, both TSGP and PSGP are funded at $300 million each (a $16 million increase for each program) with BZPP coming in at $50 million, a $2 million increase over prior years.

Border Security Grants

Operation Stonegarden, the program designed to fund state and local border security operations in coordination with the U.S. Border Patrol, is funded at $50 million, a $10 million cut from the FY 2010 actual appropriation. 

Firefighting Grants

At $670 million, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program takes a $106 million haircut compared to what it received in FY 2010.  However, the $670 million request for FY 2012 is a $60 million increase beyond what the Administration asked for in FY 2011 ($610 million) for the AFG program. The AFG is the third largest grant program among all the grants now managed by DHS.

Emergency Management Grants

The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) does well under the President’s proposal at $350 million, which is a $12 million increase over the FY 2010 actual appropriation. Given that EMPG itself was once on the chopping block several years ago it has come a long way and is now among the largest grants managed by DHS.

The Grant Graveyard

In addition to MMRS, the Administration is proposing to send several grants the way of the dodo bird. They are: the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP), the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP), Driver’s License Security or Real ID grants, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) grants, and a hand full of other smaller programs. All of these grants, except for the RCPGP, were also pegged for termination in the Administration’s FY 2011 proposed budget. As then, the Administration seeks to roll up the activities funded by these grants under the SHSP, which is set to receive an increase in funding. However, by rolling these programs into the SHSP, the Administration’s “increase” in funding for SHSP begins to drop in real terms as activities once funded under separate grants are now set to eat into the funding pie under SHSP on top of the previously funded SHSP activities. Assuming the President’s proposal comes to fruition, roughly $238 million in activities previously funded under the terminated grants will now fall under SHSP if those activities are to be funded at all.

While I agree with the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the EOC, Driver’s License/Real ID, IECGP and the other smaller programs, I have concerns with the decision to eliminate RCPGP and MMRS. Both RCPGP and MMRS require integrated planning and other activities that foster regional collaboration and capabilities that may otherwise not exist. In other words, it’s not simply a matter of rolling the activities allowable under each grant into SHSP, but rather, ensuring the funding and infrastructure created to manage the programs is sustained as well.

While sustainment of that infrastructure is possible by rolling the MMRS and RCPGP into SHSP, it is not clear from the Administration’s proposal that it will happen. As for the cost of keeping MMRS and RCPGP - $39 million for MMRS and $34 million for RCPGP – Congress could offset the costs by spreading a $73 million cut across EMPG, AFG, TSGP and PSGP, which would have little negative impact on any of those programs. That $73 million could be used to fund MMRS and RCPGP as stand alone grants or as carve outs in SHSP with clear direction in SHSP grant guidance to maintain the projects and infrastructure currently in place. 

Going Forward

While cutting nearly $300 million from FY 2010 actual spending, the FY 2012 proposed homeland security grant budget is reasonable and could have been a lot worse for States and localities. However, deeper cuts could be enacted, as the President’s numbers are simply the opening salvo in a long and twisted dance between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. A dance so twisted it’s still ongoing concerning the FY 2011 budget. The FY 2012 budget won’t be passed before October 1, 2011 (if it’s passed at all) and a lot can change between now and then as we gear up for the 2012 presidential election.

Finally, the following is a link to the Administration’s FY 2012 DHS proposed budget released on Monday. The grants are listed on page 537. 

It’s no secret the U.S. Government has been running its largest annual budget deficits in history, $1.5 trillion in FY 2011, all the while amassing over $14 trillion in total national debt. The new Congress, particularly the Republican controlled House of Representatives, is determined to significantly cut discretionary spending this fiscal year and beyond. How this will impact DHS homeland security grants to states and localities is unclear.

What is clear is that since the creation of the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) program and other DHS grants, states and localities have not done a particularly good job of educating Congress and the public on the significant benefits these programs provide to our nation’s security. This may result in the UASI program and other homeland security grants facing cuts in FY 2011 and 2012 as Washington attempts to right it wayward fiscal ship. Such a result is not preordained.

All federal grant programs have constituencies that benefit from such programs – law enforcement, fire service, emergency management, public health, transportation, etc. In most cases these constituencies are organized nationally for a number of reasons, not least of which to educate and advocate before Congress and the Administration on behalf of their programs.

For example, emergency managers, as part of the National Emergency Management Association and International Association of Emergency Managers, lobby hard for Emergency Management Performance Grants; the fire service through the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the International Association of Fire Fighters support the Assistance to Firefighter Grants; and law enforcement through the International Association of Chiefs of Police and National Sheriffs Association, among others, for Community Oriented Policing grants, etc. Not so when it comes to most homeland security grants. There is no nationally organized group representing homeland security directors at the State level and/or UASI managers at the local level.

Today, individual States and UASI jurisdictions often advocate on homeland security issues in a vacuum focusing on a specific member of their Congressional delegation or member of the Administration. This fragmented approach fails to present a unified national position on key issues. States and Urban Areas simply do not take advantage of the basic premise of “strength in numbers.” Thus, homeland security professionals lack the ability to adequately influence policy on a national scale in Washington, DC including, for example, fully funding the UASI program at authorized levels.

There may now be an opportunity to change this. Starting in 2005, several Urban Areas started an annual UASI conference to share information and best practices. The 2011 National UASI Conference is being held in San Francisco in June. Recently, the conference has organized as a non-profit under the Internal Revenue Code. This annual conference and the people it brings together serve as an excellent foundation to build a National Homeland Security Association (NHSA) focused on ensuring that the voices of the Urban Areas, States and other homeland security officials are heard in the federal policy and budget-making process.

A NHSA would provide a network for homeland security professionals to share best practices; coordinate on projects; respond to specific informational and analytical requests from the association’s members; serve as a clearinghouse for information about Congressional and Administration policy, funding and legislative developments; and serve as a liaison to the homeland security business community, etc.

At this moment, some States and UASI regions, such as California and the San Francisco Bay Area UASI, are trying to educate Congress and organize other UASI regions. As California and the Bay Area move to build momentum, it’s important for other UASI’s and States to support them. The cause of supporting the UASI program is not hard to sell. It’s simply a matter of educating policy makers, the media and the public at large on the benefits it and other homeland security grant programs provide, as opposed to the usual drumbeat in the media that the grant funds haven’t been spent fast enough.

The UASI and other homeland security grants have been invaluable in building not only local, regional and statewide capabilities and collaboration, but also national level resources to prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from threats and acts of terrorism and other catastrophic hazards. This includes intelligence fusion centers, critical infrastructure protection programs, urban search and rescue teams, regional planning, and statewide exercises involving local, state, tribal and federal participants. The grant programs have brought cities, counties, tribes, states and federal partners together in ways no other programs before or since have. Such benefits and capabilities simply would not exist without these grant programs and will dissipate without them.

Congress has tough decisions to make about where to cut the federal budget. As it makes those decisions, it needs to be accurately informed about which programs work and those that don’t. The House Republicans have said they do not want to impose across the board spending cuts, as such an approach wrongly treats all federal programs the same in terms of their value. With the UASI program and other homeland security grants, States and Urban Areas should have a sympathetic ear in Congress if the States and Urban Areas can speak with a compelling and unified voice. >