Aff strategy Sheet

In recent years, we, the Congress, the President, the Secretary of Practices Associated with Homeland Security, and others have endorsed risk management as a way to direct finite resources to areas that are most at risk of terrorist attack. Risk management is a continuous process that includes the assessment of threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences to determine what actions should be taken to reduce one or more of these elements of risk. One way in which DHS has applied risk management principles to the PSGP is through the use of a risk model to assess the relative risk posed to ports throughout the nation and to help determine PSGP eligibility and funding levels. The PSGP risk methodology is similar to the methodology used to determine funding eligibility for other DHS state and local grant programs. The model consists of three variables: threat (the relative likelihood of an attack occurring), vulnerability (the relative exposure to an attack), and consequence (the relative expected impact of an attack). Data for each of these variables are collected from offices and components throughout DHS, as well as from other data sources, and then, using the model, each port is ranked against one another and assigned a relative risk score. At the recommendation of the Coast Guard, DHS considers some ports as a single cluster—known as a port area—due to geographic proximity, shared risk, and a common waterway. Based on risk, each port area is placed into one of three funding groups— Group I, Group II, or Group III.11 Ports not identified in Group I, II, or III are eligible to apply for funding as part of the “All Other Port Areas” Group.12 Figure 2 below shows the location of port areas for groups I and II—the two highest risk groups that receive the bulk of grant funding.

"1.4 billion dollars remains ready for us, unspent, in protecting America's ports," a statement from his Washington, D.C., office says. "This means the Obama Administration has failed to allocate $1.4 billion into port security. That, along with the fact that Congressional Democrats failed to pass a budget last year, should be our focus, and should be of major concern for the American people." Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz blasted Republicans' proposed 2011 budget Monday, saying one of the many cuts would crimp security at Port Everglades and in ports across the country. Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, said a two-thirds slicing of the national Port Security Grant Program would translate to a loss of $1.5 million for Port Everglades. Those grants are not used for day-to-day security, but pay for new projects and technology. Standing in the port in front of a foreign cargo ship, with heavy trucks roaring by, she said "a tight web of security" at the nation's ports is essential to the safety of the community, and also to the economy. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Port Everglades security has been beefed up substantially. "Why would we go backwards?" she asked. Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti, a Republican, joined her, saying the port is Broward County's economic engine, and that "if the port fails, the country fails."

The Port Security Grant program continues to be a very valuable program for ports, which serve as partners with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to harden security at U.S. ports and protect our homeland. Funding/Eligibility – AAPA urges Congress to con-tinue to authorize and appropriate $400 million for the program. AAPA is concerned that last year’s drastic cuts to state homeland security grants, including the port security grant program, will threaten the ability of our nation to maintain our current capacity or expand it. For FY 2012, Congress combined all grants, cut them by 40 percent and gave DHS the authority to determine the final funding level. DHS subsequently cut the Port Security Grants further by decreasing the level of funding by 59 percent from last year’s funding level. It is currently at a level that is less than 75 percent of the authorized amount. DHS is also considering a move to merge all grant programs into one program to fund all critical infrastructure segments and transfer distribution to the states, a move which AAPA strongly opposes. Port Security is a federal responsibility and it should remain at the federal level. AAPA priorities are: 1) Ensure that all ports should continue to be eligible for these grants to avoid a soft underbelly that leaves this country vulnerable to terrorist threats. 2) Grant funding for Port Security should be a separate line item and controlled at the federal level. 3) Port Security funding should be at the authorized level of $400 million. Cost-share Waiver – The 25 percent cost-share for public agencies is a significant economic disincentive to make security enhancements and implement re-gional maritime security plans. In these tight economic times, the cost-share is an even greater problem as ports are cutting back in all areas to address economic shortfalls. The Port Security Grant program is one of the few DHS grant programs that requires a cost-share. Transit grants and state homeland security grants, for example, are exempt from cost-share requirements. For DHS-granted waivers, the focus should be on speeding up the decisionmaking process by delegating to FEMA the authority to make cost-share waivers.