Budget wrangling shows DHS is no longer a sacred cow

Even though Congressional Republicans may eventually soften their proposed deep budget cuts for the Department of Homeland Security as they move forward with their belt-tightening crusade this summer, the reductions’ mere presence suggests lawmakers have crossed a divide in their thinking about the agency. 

With the nation facing ever-rising debt and tightening budgets, DHS is at a crossroads, according to analysts and lawmakers. On June 2, the U.S. House of Representatives, fueled largely by firebrand Republican lawmakers looking to severely reduce spending, passed a $42.3 billion homeland security appropriations bill that would cut the department’s funding by about 10 percent. 

DHS, the third-largest cabinet department behind the Department of Defense and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, has been the recipient of huge amounts of money in the last 10 years as it ramped up following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In fiscal 2011, it was budgeted almost $100 billion and spent about $66 billion. 

The money has fueled a wide array of programs, from thousands of advanced imaging scanners at airports, radiation detectors at seaports, information technology and research and development. Regional and local governments have depended on DHS grant money to bolster their emergency response capabilities. The department has always been about growth and expanding capabilities -- until now. 

In June, the House passed its DHS appropriations bill on a 231-188 vote, with support split largely along party lines, with Republicans in favor, but with some notable exceptions. 

The overall reduction, said Mike Balboni, a senior fellow at the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University in an interview with Government Security News, starkly illustrates fault lines that have been building for some time in Congress over the department. The complicated relationship some Republicans have with DHS and fiscal fervor were evident during the vote on the House appropriations bill, he said. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), voted against the proposed cuts, even though the majority of Republicans voted to approve them. 

DHS’s apparent success in preventing another catastrophic attack inside the U.S. may have contributed to the willingness to severely reduce funding, said Balboni. “There is a security divide. Plots are centered in major metropolitan areas, like New York and Washington. The middle of the country is not perceived to be as likely a target. The thinking among lawmakers from the middle of the country is ‘there’s no threat, why can’t we pare down?’,” said Balboni. 

The nebulous nature of potential terror threats, he said, has also contributed to a growing sense that the DHS budget can be reduced. “There aren’t any metrics that prove we’re safer,” he said. “Republicans put that front and center” in their arguments to reduce the department’s budget. The argument is “as we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, how can you prove we’re safer?” after all that money has been spent, Balboni asked. 

“It’s put up or shut up time,” he added. “DHS has to prove it’s spending the money wisely.” 

Ultimately, however, Balboni said, budget-cutting Republicans may have to relent on some of their more drastic cost-cutting proposals for DHS, or risk looking weak on national defense, which traditionally has been a key strength for them. With an election approaching and with the recent successful White House-led operation that killed Osama bin Laden, “Republicans can’t afford to be outflanked on security,” he observed. 

All that remains to be seen, however, as the budget process begins in earnest in the face of an approaching Aug. 2 deadline and potential weeks-long summer breaks for Congress in the interim. 

The Senate has begun assembling its version of the spending bill and is in the beginning stages of deliberation on what will go into it. Senators were reluctant to discuss strategy early in the process, but some have already shown they are reluctant to impose such drastic reductions on DHS. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) chair of the Senate Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee has been keen on defending cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which some estimates say could be short $2 billion to $4 billion in disaster recovery funding when the 2012 fiscal year begins on October 1. 

Some other senators and representatives have been scrambling to recover grant funding for local emergency responders and rail security, in light of the coming battles. 

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) fought to restore federal Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant funding for several upstate New York municipal fire departments. He told reporters in a June 17 conference call that he believed the funding levels under the House’s version of the homeland security appropriations bill might endanger public safety in those communities.

He had company across the aisle in trying to roll back some of the proposed cuts. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman King said the proposed cuts would unfairly impact the areas of the country that are the most often targeted by terrorists. In voting against the House appropriations bill in June, King said cuts weren’t acceptable in transit and port security in areas that have already proven to be terror targets.

In the end, what gets cut and what stays in the legislation, said Balboni, might come down to individual congressional districts and not party affiliation. “There is still a fear that the minute things change, we’ll be attacked,” he noted. That means budget-conscious congressmen representing major metropolitan districts might vote not to cut, while those in less-populous and less-targeted areas may vote for steeper reductions. In any event, “New York lawmakers are in a tough position,” Balboni concluded.