Homeland Security: Hurry Up and Wait

The "fast-track" process created by Congress to pass legislation creating a new federal cabinet-level department of homeland security is working. Reason: The threat is real and both parties in Congress read the polls.

But after the DHS ribbon cutting, the process of actually securing the homeland may move to the slow lane. Making things work is the hard part, especially as the "politics of speed" yields to the realities of institution-building, bureaucratic politics and the political friction that results from addressing tough issues like strategy development, federal-state relations, civil liberties and intelligence and revenue sharing that are now being swept under the rug. Despite the urgency of "winning the war" on terrorism, patience will be the virtue of the day for those dealing with the new federal bureaucracy. Some reasons:

New departments require time in the incubator. We can learn a lot from the slow-motion experience of what happened when Congress set up new departments after WW II -- e.g., the Department of Defense (DoD) in the 1940s, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) in the 1950s and the Departments of Energy and Education in the 1970s. The long, slow process of setting up new systems and procedures (especially personnel, financial controls and procurement), selecting and confirming presidential appointees and establishing a new pecking order is likely to be repeated as DHS comes to life. In addition, Congress will have to reorganize its own structures and procedures for appropriation and oversight, a process that will take time and a lot of head-knocking as decades of carefully tended turf gets plowed up.

Potent political forces will be unleashed. Powerful political forces will combine to slow things down. Three examples:

First, institutional politics are heating up. Last Wednesday, Robert Byrd, one of the Senate's most influential leaders, gave a fiery speech on the Senate floor warning his colleagues not to give a "blank check" to the executive branch in the name of homeland security. It's an old theme with this powerful Senate war horse. It won't go away.

Second, potent lobbies are waiting to carve up the budget. The new department will have a $37 billion budget during its first year, including $21 billion earmarked for state and local governments for technology, training and readiness. Because state and local governments are among the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill, they may get even more. Within the state and local orbit, police, fire and emergency medical services have the most clout and are likely to get the lion's share of the money. Given the large deficits at the state and local level, these governments are likely to do a slow walk until the federal money starts flowing.

Third, despite important civil liberties issues, the voices of civil liberties groups have been muted by the steamroller behind DHS. That will not continue. Issues related to privacy, the erosion of civil liberties, a new assault on federalism and states' rights -- including fears of a "national police force" -- will surely spark a reaction among those most committed to the maintenance of an open society. Indeed, a coalition between ACLU-type civil libertarians on the left and Madisonian conservatives on the right could exercise considerable political muscle.

Homeland security requires massive federal procurement. Nearly all new security-related technologies -- "smart" ID cards; visas with biometric data; networked micro-telesensors to sniff chemical, biological or radiological materials or detect bombs or other harmful materials; and some advanced encryption technologies -- are produced by the private sector. But the public sector, responsible for ensuring the public's health and safety, is the user. The purchase, acquisition and deployment of these James Bond-esque devices require money and a government procurement process. This will take time. Specifically, DHS will need to develop relationships and protocols for dealing with the General Services Administration (GSA), which oversees government purchases, and a "procurement supplement" to guide DHS purchases.

Homeland security requires partnerships. Though many compare DHS to the Department of Defense, homeland security is largely a state and local matter. Because DHS will include state and local governments in joint planning, DHS will require intergovernmental partnerships and is more likely to resemble the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) than DoD. Because DHS will also use private sector suppliers to perform most of its work,, it will need to forge key public-private partnerships -- just like FHWA uses private sector contractors to build highways and DoD uses the private defense contractors to build weapons systems.

First responders will be reshuffled. Unlike national defense, where first responders are the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, first responders in homeland security are local law enforcement, police, fire fighters, and emergency medical technicians. Homeland security also involves protecting local assets -- airports, bridges, water supplies and other critical infrastructure, much of which, like power plants, pipelines and telecommunications networks, is owned and operated by the private sector. Result: DHS must enlist the cooperation and negotiate the support of state and local authorities and the private sector. That will take time.

State and local governments forced to "wait and see" mode. DHS legislation is likely to contain more than $21 billion of federal money for cost-sharing with other federal agencies and grants-in-aid to police, fire and other "front-line troops" in state and local governments. Much of this will be doled out on the basis of 90/10 and 80/20 cost-sharing formulas like those used in the Interstate Highway program. Result: Cash-strapped local elected officials will be reluctant to initiate major procurements with their own money when "free" federal money is just around the corner.

Also, like the FHWA, feds will set design standards for equipment and technology while state and local governments provide people and supervise deployment and operations. Until federal standards are created -- and this will take time -- making investments now for technology that may not be in compliance when federal standards are established is risky business. Sound fiscal management considerations will lead some state and local officials to wait for federal standards rather than risk installing a non-compliant security system.

Small and mid-sized high-tech businesses will need to learn new rules. Homeland security technology suppliers will be dominated by large corporations -- especially existing defense contractors -- who have the political savvy and bench strength to build and maintain the wide range of political relationships that are required to do business with a huge bureaucracy. Small and mid-sized enterprises, where most of the new security-related technologies are produced, will have to figure out a way to partner with the big guys to play in the game -- or remain on the sidelines, another casualty of antiquated federal procurement practices.

In short, there's a rocky road ahead for the DHS -- and none of the above touches on the urgent need to develop a strategy and blueprint that will actually improve homeland security, which, after all, is the mission of the new agency. Threats to our domestic security are real, and the consequences of failure are tragic, as we learned on 9-11. It's important for America's leaders at every level to place the need for speed and effectiveness above partisan bickering and to balance the need for improved security with the requirements of an open society and the Bill of Rights.