Security vs. Bureaucracy

omeland Security Director Tom Ridge should consider the advice of British author Agatha Christie, who once observed: "Where large sums of money are concerned, it is advisable to trust nobody." Not surprisingly, Ridge, who recently announced the Bush administration's proposal to spend $38 billion next year on programs aimed at making Americans safer from terrorists, has become one of the most sought-after people in Washington. Members of Congress, senior agency officials, governors, mayors and federal contractors all want a chance to influence Ridge and his staff as they go about the gargantuan task of shoring up domestic security.

It will take more than money to significantly improve security, however. Declining state resources, key leadership vacancies at federal agencies and a poor track record of working effectively with state and local officials all will hinder the administration's efforts to bolster defenses against terrorism. What's more, when it comes to managing the flow of people and goods across U.S. borders, no single federal organization is responsible for security. Instead, multiple agencies with sometimes conflicting missions control separate aspects of what many consider to be the single most important factor in protecting the nation from terrorism at home.

Six months into his tenure as the first White House chief of homeland security, Ridge is crafting a national strategy that will establish a protocol for federal, state and local agencies to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks. The strategy will be a multi-year blueprint for organizing, equipping, staffing and funding the myriad organizations across government-from the CIA to county health departments-that contribute to domestic security. Besides providing a plan for sharing critical data across agencies and among federal, state and local governments, the strategy will establish lines of accountability and, wherever possible, standards for measuring preparedness to carry out specific missions, according to a senior adviser to Ridge.

The strategy, which will be unveiled this summer, is likely to call for the reorganization of federal agencies responsible for controlling the flow of goods and people across U.S. borders-the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service and Coast Guard-agencies that now are in separate departments. While the extent of any reorganization is not yet clear, according to another member of Ridge's staff, "What's very clear is there are going to be some changes. Right now there is no accountability on the border. Nobody is in charge."

Even in the absence of a national strategy for homeland security, the Bush administration's 2003 budget adds funds for beefing up security at federal facilities, for staffing and operating the new Transportation Security Administration that Congress created last December, and for boosting efforts in four key areas:

• Improved border controls.
• Training and equipment for firefighters, police and emergency workers who will likely be the first to respond to an attack.
• Defenses against biological terrorism.
• Better communications technology.

By now, Ridge knows what he's up against in trying to effectively leverage future spending. In a February speech to members of the National Association of Manufacturers, he compared the process of investing in homeland security to the government's effort to upgrade its information technology infrastructure. "This is a country that invests $50 billion every year in IT," Ridge said. "And I don't think anybody that has dealt with the federal government thinks you're getting $50 billion worth of IT value."

It will fall to Ridge to make sure the country gets $38 billion worth of security out of the president's 2003 budget. Given the challenges, even in areas where there is widespread consensus, it won't be easy.

Managing The Border

Perhaps the most difficult challenge facing Ridge is securing the 7,500-mile land border with Canada and Mexico and the hundreds of seaports and airports through which goods and people come into the country. It is physically impossible to inspect the 500 million people, 11 million trucks, 2 million rail cars and 51,000 ships that enter the country or call at U.S. ports every year. Agencies that control the flow of goods and people face competing demands: keep out the bad stuff and bad people-drugs, weapons, criminals and terrorists-and quickly usher in the commodities and visitors that fuel the American economy.

Lines of authority along the border are often chaotic, since no single agency is in charge of border management. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is responsible for tracking people; the Customs Service facilitates commerce while keeping out contraband; the Coast Guard secures the coastline and seaports. Other agencies are involved as well, although to a lesser extent: The Agriculture Department inspects plants and food for disease and contaminants; the State Department issues visas to foreigners who want to enter the country; and the Commerce Department ensures that certain technologies aren't exported to nations that might use them to build weapons. While federal personnel work together cooperatively at many ports, the agencies maintain separate information databases and have distinct missions, cultures and workforces.

Frank Hoffman, a security expert, says current border management efforts are comparable to running a military campaign where the military services are in different Cabinet departments. "Imagine the Air Force and the Army insisting they should not be in the same department," says Hoffman, former aide to the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, headed by former Sens. Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. That agencies have been resisting a major reorganization of responsibilities is no surprise, but Hoffman and others believe it is essential. Ridge has indicated he may propose a major overhaul of federal border management, but the 2003 budget gives no hint of that. While the budget provides funding for the INS and Customs to hire more inspectors and field better technology, the changes are not dramatic. In addition, the Coast Guard actually would lose almost $200 million in funding for drug interdiction programs-programs that directly support efforts to root out terrorists and weapons smuggling, says one Coast Guard analyst. Compounding efforts to improve border security is the remote nature of many land crossing points. Some ports of entry are huge, operating around the clock, but others are tiny and isolated, open only for certain hours and staffed by just one or two agents. Doug Doan, vice president of New Technology Management Inc., a small technology services firm in Reston, Va., has been working with Customs over the last three years to develop an integrated communications infrastructure to improve security along the Arizona- Mexico border. The isolation of some of the border stations makes security particularly complex, especially where high-speed communications aren't accessible, says Doan, whose company is testing new wireless technologies to facilitate communications in remote locations. "We've installed automatic alarms and alerts to make that guy out there part of the national security apparatus. Reports are coming from him, and he's getting information sent to him. He's on the team. The goal is to give him all the information the government has on that particular person standing in front of him right now."

The key is to build collaborative relationships with other agencies. "There's no single government entity, at either the state, local or regional level that has all of the pieces," Doan says.

Defending Against Disease

If proof was needed that government officials at all levels aren't prepared for biological terrorism, the anthrax outbreak last fall provided ample evidence.

Dr. Carol Sharrett, health director at the Fairfax County Health Department in Virginia, said her agency had to rely on overtaxed fax machines to collect information updates from the Virginia Department of Health and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after the department's e-mail system crashed last fall during the anthrax outbreak. "This resulted in delays and omissions in receiving vital information," she told the House Government Reform Committee in December.

While the Fairfax County Health Department has Internet capabilities-unlike many county health departments-it cannot connect with local, state and federal data systems, send and receive confidential health information via secure electronic systems, or broadcast emergency health alerts.

Additionally, a lack of guidance from the CDC led to inconsistent patient care and unnecessary stress during the anthrax outbreak. "Local medical providers and laboratory and hospital emergency staff were all clamoring for information," Sharrett told the panel. "Although CDC staff were working at D.C. General and the other area hospitals, which were treating anthrax patients, their focus was primarily an epidemiological investigation. As a result, the release of information to the state and local health departments was slow, often with relevant information being first reported on Fox Channel 5 or CNN," she said.

The Bush administration has asked for $5.9 billion-an increase of $4.5 billion-to improve public health infrastructure, boost communications and research new vaccines, medicines and diagnostic tests.

The funding boost is critical, says Mohammad Akhter, executive director of the American Public Health Association. "This is very significant, but it's just a down payment. It will take several years before we get to the point where we have the right resources in place," he says. Akhter advocates a regional approach to disease surveillance that electronically links hospitals, ambulances, laboratories and clinics to health departments, providing immediate warnings of the outbreak of disease.

According to a study by the National Association of City and County Officials, only one-quarter of public health departments are trained and equipped to cope with incidents of bioterrorism. About half are in the process of getting prepared, and the remaining quarter lack the personnel and resources to even plan for an incident. Many health departments lack even the most basic resources, such as full-time staff and Internet access. Cities and towns with populations under 50,000 tend to be the least prepared, which is why developing a regional approach to disease surveillance is key to creating an effective monitoring system across the country, says Akhter.

Akhter is concerned that there is no national strategy upon which accountability can be based. "Nobody has really put down how [health departments] are going to be measured. This is a very short period of time to spend a lot of money and it's not clear how that is going to work. Some people are concerned that after the federal money runs out, they will be left footing a bill for which they won't be prepared," he says.

Even more troubling to health care advocates is the fact that critical jobs at federal health and research agencies have been allowed to remain unfilled. The top job at the National Institutes of Health was vacant for nearly two years before reports in early March indicated that the Bush administration would soon announce a nominee. Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration has been without a director for well over a year. In February, CDC Director Jeffrey Koplan announced his plans to retire May 1, just two weeks after the term of Surgeon General David Satcher expired.

"We are doubling the budget in NIH. There are very important and tough decisions to be made in research and drug development, and we have a leadership vacuum," Akhter says. The administration has indicated it will fill the positions soon, although given how long some of the jobs have been vacant, some wonder how serious the White House is about filling them.

Aiding Front-line Forces

Under the Bush homeland security budget, the 2 million men and women who fill the ranks of the fire departments, law enforcement agencies and emergency medical teams across the country would be eligible for $3.5 billion-a tenfold increase-in federal funds to pay for training, equipment, planning and exercises designed to prepare them for the aftermath of a terrorist attack involving nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The First Responder Initiative, which is to be administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, would bolster existing federal programs.

For several years now, the Justice, Defense and Health and Human Services departments have provided equipment and training to such front-line personnel. But the efforts have been widely criticized for being duplicative, confusing and, in some cases, irrelevant, says Amy Smithson, an expert on terrorism preparedness at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington think tank. The federal programs, most of which stemmed from legislation following the 1995 nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway system, were well-intended but poorly coordinated, failing to provide a uniform approach for training and equipping personnel.

Smithson found that grant programs to fund the purchase of equipment had varying timelines and requirements, different goals and conflicting views on priorities for responding to particular events. At one point, federal agencies offered roughly 90 different terrorism preparedness courses, she says. Only a small fraction of federal funds disbursed under such programs ever made it to local responders-most funds were consumed by the federal agencies or by consultants the agencies hired to administer the programs. Smithson's overall assessment of existing federal programs: "a fractured mess."

To untangle that mess, the administration is seeking congressional approval to move the central federal response effort, the Domestic Preparedness Program, from the Justice Department to FEMA, which would create a streamlined plan to distribute funds as soon as possible to local officials. The Justice Department would retain jurisdiction over law enforcement relationships with state and local forces, but FEMA would handle all programs pertaining to training and purchasing equipment for responding to terrorist attacks. Local fire departments and law enforcement units would apply for funding through their state homeland security directors-all 50 states now have such directors. It would be up to the states to develop statewide or regional security plans that ensure common standards and compatible communications technology.

In addition to scrutinizing state security plans, FEMA would ensure that at least 75 percent of funding under the program reaches local jurisdictions. "It is not our intent to fund state bureaucracies. We will require that the funds be spent to train and equip the people on the front lines," says an aide to Ridge. It will be up to FEMA to set standards for emergency response, and then conduct periodic training exercises to test local responders' ability to meet the standards.

"On the surface, the administration is saying the right things," says Smithson. But as a longtime observer of federal involvement in state and local emergency response efforts, she is not optimistic that a FEMA-administered program will be significantly better than previous programs. "Instead of having the federal government do this, whether it be the Army, the Justice Department or FEMA, the training should be done with the institutionalization of professional standards in local police and fire academies, in medical and nursing colleges, in the universities that instruct our microbiologists and public health officials, and in the colleges that train our paramedics," she says.

"This is a very convoluted process. Each discipline and each part of the response puzzle has a different governing body," Smithson says. Until those governing bodies are promoting appropriate professional standards and holding members accountable, local response capabilities will remain fractured.

While local responders would receive substantially more federal funding under the administration's budget, some officials fear those funds could be offset by cuts in state or local funding presently committed to local emergency personnel. At least 40 states are now experiencing budget shortfalls, according to a recent study by Mark M. Zandi of Economy.com, an economic research firm. Zandi found that total state tax revenues are expected to decline by 3.8 percent this year, due to the ongoing effects of the economic downturn and rising unemployment in some areas. At the same time, states are increasing homeland security spending and facing rising costs in Medicaid and welfare programs.

As a result, the total budget shortfall for states will be nearly $40 billion in 2003, Zandi predicts, forcing most to tap reserve funds and cut their budgets. In addition, other aspects of the administration's budget proposal could hurt homeland security funding for states. The budget calls for an $8.6 billion cut to the Highway Trust Fund, which prompted protests from state governors who fear the loss of highway funds will result in lost jobs and further hurt their economies. Also, the administration's proposed economic stimulus package, if passed into law in its current form, would lower or repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax, which would result in lower tax revenues for many states that piggyback on the federal tax structure, Zandi found.

Hoffman says there is a real concern that federal spending on training and equipment for local responders will be offset by cuts elsewhere. "If we're not careful, we'll just end up shifting the funding burden to the federal government," he says.

Sharing Data

A great deal of attention has been paid to how little U.S. officials seemed to know about the hijackers who crashed passenger jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field last September. Perhaps more telling is how much information officials did have about the hijackers. Consider the public record of what various agencies knew about just one of the hijackers: In January 2000, the State Department issued a visa to Mohamed Atta, who was then living in Germany. Five months later, the CIA learned Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. A few days after that encounter, Immigration and Naturalization Service officials documented Atta's entry into the United States. In September 2000, the SunTrust Bank in Florida filed a suspicious transaction report with the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network after Atta received a wire transfer of nearly $70,000 from a bank in the United Arab Emirates. Three months later, alarmed officials at the Miami airport contacted the Federal Aviation Administration when Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who turned out to be another of the Sept. 11 hijackers, left a stalled airplane on a runway there. Last April, Atta flew to Prague, where the CIA learned he again met with an Iraqi intelligence agent. After his return to Florida that month, Atta was arrested by the Florida State Police for driving without a license. When he failed to show up for a court appearance weeks later, police issued a warrant for Atta's arrest but never acted on it.

State and federal officials had what would turn out to be important information about some of the other hijackers as well, but without a meaningful way to share and interpret the data they collected, it held little practical value. Overcoming the lack of a coordinated plan for sharing information between federal, state and local officials and the private sector is the fundamental challenge facing the Office of Homeland Security, says Thomas Siebel, chairman of the technology firm Siebel Systems Inc. While the technology exists to integrate existing databases, Siebel says, the bureaucratic hurdles are tremendous.

Linking the 14 federal watch lists of people suspected of involvement in terrorism or other crimes is a top priority of the administration, says the senior aide to Ridge. While the technological challenges aren't negligible, law enforcement agencies have legitimate concerns about sharing information, from a fear of compromising sources to restrictions on disseminating classified information. "It's an issue we're working very hard," says the aide.

Another top priority will be to fund an INS program designed to track the entry and exit of foreign visitors. The entry-exit visa system has been in the works for years, but funding has been marginal. Before Sept. 11, the program was funded at $17 million; supplemental funding after the attacks provided INS with another $13 million. The administration's 2003 budget would boost the program to $380 million. Cybersecurity-protecting critical information networks-also would get greater attention in the 2003 budget, with funding to boost security across government going to Energy, Defense, the National Science Foundation, Commerce, Justice and the General Services Administration.

Citing the $50 billion total federal investment in information technology, the senior official to Ridge notes: "We're not constrained by resources. We're constrained by a lack of compatibility and coordination."