| New risk-based approach considered for US homeland security funding
A major issue addressed by the legislation is the fact that, under current funding programs, grants are primarily distributed with political considerations in mind. There is little or no consideration given to vulnerabilities, threats, and consequences to population or critical infrastructures. Congress and the Administration distribute the majority of grants based on rigid and arbitrary formulas established after September 11, 2001. Members of both the House and Senate are grinding through legislation to reshape funding priorities, justifications, and conditions for homeland security. The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004 (HR 3266) and its companion bill in the Senate (S. 930) restructure funding authorisation for terrorism preparedness, response, and recovery. Lawmakers have sold both bills as "first responder" legislation. Thus, both bills have been largely ignored within the critical infrastructure community. However, these proposals merge response and critical infrastructure issues in distinct areas. • Considering risk to critical infrastructure sectors: The House legislation prioritises funding to states and localities where the risk is greatest. Risk to the "critical infrastructures" is a principal element in calculating funding priorities and needs. The legislation defines "critical infrastructure sectors" to include the 13 sectors that are named in Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7, such as Banking and Finance, Chemical Industries, Postal and Shipping, and Information and Telecommunications Networks. If adopted, Congress and the Administration will apportion terrorism grants based on risks to critical infrastructures in a given region, state, or local community. • Setting 'Minimum Essential Capabilities': The bills condition all future funding on national criteria for preparedness, response, and recovery. The legislative proposals empower and require the Department of Homeland Security to set "essential capabilities" that communities must meet. These expectations explicitly include "protecting critical infrastructure" as well as "enhancing response and mitigation" where attacks occur. Presumably, the Administration would have to adopt regulations outlining critical infrastructure risk assessment and measurement, if the law is passed. • Allowing for operating expenses, not just capital investments: The proposed bill in the House specifies acceptable uses for grants, which include not only capital investments, but also operating expenses, including purchasing or upgrading equipment, conducting exercises and training for preparedness or prevention, developing response plans, deploying mechanisms for information sharing and systems architecture, reimbursing costs from changes to the threat alert levels, and creating systems for handling classified information and enhancing operations centres. Training and education are also acceptable charges. • Solving communications convergence:
This past week, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) announced that he
is close to finalising a bill to mandate development of a national
"information sharing network." Timed to coincide with
the 9/11 In the House, Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Jim Turner (D-Texas) have introduced a similar bill, the Connect First Responders Act. The proposal authorises $5 billion during the next five years to resolve telecommunications interoperability problems. The bill also creates a new office in DHS to focus solely on communications interoperability issues. Source: Zeichner Risk Assessment Newsletter. To subscribe to this weekly newsletter, click here.
•Date:
25th May 2004 •Region: N.America •Type:
Article •Topic: Terrorism
|
