Focusing Port Security Where the Threats Are

Focusing Port Security Where the Threats Are
March 30, 2005

Port security funding should be targeted like a laser beam on the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. But a recent report by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general shows that critical port security grants are going to places like the Virgin Islands, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard instead of to places where the risk is highest.

That's why I believe our nation must move to a system where the grants follow the threat and are disbursed based on risk and threat – not on geographic or political factors.

In this post-Cold War world of asymmetric threat, there are two fundamental ideas that apply to efforts to make our nation more secure against a terrorist attack.

The first is that combating the terrorist threat requires risk analysis. Even with the best intelligence, we will never know exactly how, when or where terrorists will strike next. The best we can do is to try to assess the threats and then combat it in the most effective way possible.

The second is that our resources are not infinite. The sum total of money, time and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited.

Together, these two ideas define the task for our nation. We must accurately assess the risks of possible terrorist attacks, measure the vulnerability of the possible targets, and then spend our resources based on that assessment.

Congress created the Department of Homeland Security three years ago in an effort to create an institution that could perform this task – with the "capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings and take preventive and protective action."

I believe that while progress has been made, there is much to do to secure our homeland. The 9/11 commission agreed, finding that "nothing has been harder for officials ... than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources." The commission concluded that "Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities."

Despite these recommendations, scarce resources are being allocated based on factors unrelated to real security.

For instance, we have retained a "small state minimum" designed to ensure that every state gets a significant portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability. As a result, a state such as Wyoming gets $27.80 per capita in funding, while New York and California get $15.54 and $8.05 respectively.

So what can be done?

First, Congress must pass legislation to ensure that resources are divided using a risk-based formula. I am working with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to draft legislation to require the Department of Homeland Security to use risk-based analysis to allocate homeland security resources.
Second, the Department of Homeland Security must not only allocate grants based on risk, but also improve the intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessment functions of the Department.
Third, we need to follow through on last year's intelligence reform efforts, since the product of the intelligence community – analysis of the plans, intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups – is the key element in an effective risk analysis.

Changing the system so that grants are allocated primarily on risk will not be an easy task. There are many who will oppose such efforts. But our nation's safety is at stake. It is time to put aside the business-as-usual mentality and get to work.