Aff strategy Sheet
Download 0.67 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Inherency—PSGS Waiver Process Slow The cost-share waiver process is slow and inefficient—reforms are needed GAO 2011
- Inherency – PSGP doesn’t solve b/c of Risk Assessment Port Security Grants don’t solve – wrong focus and lack of risk assessment De Rugy
- Inherency—PSGP General Port Security Grants are ineffective now—they do not focus on key ports and need more money
- Port Security Grant Program will become less effective, but it is key to Port Security. Wanio 2012—Port Director and CEO, Tampa Port Authority, AAPA rep
- Inherency—Generic Current policies are contradictory and impossible for developing countries to meet Laite 10—Georgetown University
- Even though some progress has been made, there are still gaps in the system Harrald 05
- Inherency—Scanning The current scanning program is inefficient and cannot protect ports Terreri 09—World Trade
- Inherency—CTPAT Fails The current CTPAT program is not enough and has significant problems Terreri 09—World Trade
- Inherency—Data and Security Inadequate Current security measures and data inadequate to assess smuggling risk Sadovaya, 2012—PhD Student
- Cooperation between suppliers and importers gives a better assessment to securitize Weihao 12
- Inherency – Need to review procedures and data
According to FEMA officials, the delays caused by inefficient review processes have been amplified by FEMA’s reliance on an antiquated data management system. As we reported in our June 2009 report on the Transit Security Grant Program, FEMA did not have a mechanism for systematically collecting data on the status of individual grant projects through the review process.48 For example, although FEMA has systems to track the financial information related to its grants programs, these systems did not allow FEMA to track the status of grant reviews, such as EHP reviews. According to FEMA, the data management system used to manage the Transit Security Grant Program is also used to manage the PSGP and no changes have been made to the system since our 2009 report. As such, GPD officials reported that each PSGP program analyst maintained separate spreadsheets that tracked the grants for which they were responsible. Using numerous data systems and spreadsheets resulted in inefficiencies and, in some cases, lost data, as program analysts had to search across systems for information or were reliant on systems––such as the Homeland Security Information Network––that lost application information.49 The overall result was a data system that did not provide information in a timely manner and that could not be used effectively to manage the grant lifecycle. Inherency—PSGS Waiver Process Slow The cost-share waiver process is slow and inefficient—reforms are needed GAO 2011 (“PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM: Risk Model, Grant Management, and Effectiveness Measures Could Be Strengthened” United States Government Accountability Office 11/11 Fiduciary agents reported that the lengthy cost-share waiver process— used by applicants seeking an exemption from the required cost-share— further exacerbated the impact of the cost-share requirement under the PSGP. Grant applicants unable to meet the cost-share requirement are eligible to apply for a waiver. The waiver approval process requires 22 steps—which include approval by leadership within FEMA’s GPD, approval by FEMA’s Administrator, and finally, approval by the Secretary of Homeland Security.41 According to statute, the Secretary can grant a waiver of the cost-share requirement if she determines that a proposed project is meritorious but cannot be undertaken without additional federal support.42 However, 5 of the 11 fiduciary agents we interviewed told us that they had concerns with the cost-waiver request process—including with the length of time required for a decision. For example, one fiduciary agent—who oversaw a cost-waiver application that took about 7 months to be approved—told us that the cost-waiver request process was timeconsuming and confusing. According to FEMA officials, an unknown portion of this 7-month approval process was spent ensuring that the fiduciary agent had submitted all of the required documentation and thus, the actual approval time once the request was finalized was less than 7 months. The cost-share requirement was waived for all applicants under the ARRA, fiscal year 2010, and fiscal year 2011 grant cycles. However, grant applicants may continue to submit cost-share waiver requests for new projects to be funded under the fiscal year 2007 supplemental, fiscal year 2008, and fiscal year 2009 grant cycles—which were cost-share years—if money in their port area remains unused from those years. As shown earlier in table 8, about $110 million in PSGP funds awarded to Group I port areas from fiscal year 2007 through 2009—years in which the cost-share was required—remains unused. As port areas solicit projects for these unused funds, some applicants may submit cost-share waiver requests as well. For example, one fiduciary agent from a Group 1 port area reported that her port area recently completed the field-review process to identify projects to fund using their unused fiscal year 2009 grant monies. As a result, the port area submitted 10 projects to FEMA for approval in October 2011, of which 8 projects include a cost-share waiver request. Although FEMA has taken steps to improve the cost-waiver process, it continues to be lengthy and additional efforts may help expedite these reviews. In July 2009, FEMA issued an information bulletin to clarify the process that grantees should follow when submitting cost-share waiver requests.43 Since the issuance of this information bulletin, FEMA has received a total of 31 cost-share waiver requests—of which, 22 were approved.44 In November 2009, following a Fiduciary Agent Workshop, FEMA released written responses to questions posed at the workshop. In this document, FEMA stated that a decision on a waiver request could be expected approximately 30 days after all documentation was provided to FEMA in accordance with the process outlined in the July 2009 information bulletin. However, according to FEMA records, for cost-share waivers reviewed since December 2009 DHS took—on average—126 days to approve a request once all of the required information had been received. Approval time lines ranged between 55 days and 268 days for these waiver requests. Of the 126 days, on average, it took 74 days from the date requests were considered complete to achieve approval by GPD’s leadership. It took an additional 52 days, on average, to complete the remaining 11 steps of the waiver process—including approval at the Administrator of FEMA level and the Secretary of Homeland Security level. According to DHS, due diligence requires both component and department level clearances, including secretarial clearance, in order to responsibly award funding. This process ensures that PSGP projects meet program goals and objectives. However, FEMA records show that no approval recommendations from GPD leadership were overturned as a result of the additional 52 days, on average, of required review. Further, only 1 of the 31 waiver requests submitted since the July 2009 information bulletin was issued has been denied—and it was denied at the GPD level. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that “pertinent information should be identified, captured, and distributed in a form and time frame that permits people to perform their duties efficiently.”45 FEMA officials told us that FEMA has taken internal actions to improve the review process such as meeting with other key offices involved in the waiver process in the spring of 2011 to discuss and standardize information requirements for the waiver package. FEMA officials reported that they believe that this effort has helped improve some aspects of the process, but further action may be required to streamline the process. Additionally, fiduciary agents remain wary of the cost-waiver request process. For example, one fiduciary agent told us that its field review team—including the COTP—would be unlikely to recommend a project for funding if that project relies on a cost-share waiver. Another fiduciary agent told us that there is little interest in the fiscal year 2009 funds due in part to the lengthy waiver review process. Without a more efficient review process, certain grant applicants that cannot fund the cost-match requirement may not receive grant funds to implement their projects, or may not even apply for funds. Evaluating the waiver review process could help to ensure that the process is completed in a timely manner. Inherency – PSGP doesn’t solve b/c of Risk Assessment Port Security Grants don’t solve – wrong focus and lack of risk assessment De Rugy 2005 PhD in Economics and Senior Fellow at the Mercatus Denter at George Mason University [Veronique de Rugy, “Is Port Security Spending Making Us Safer”, September 7, 2005, http://directory.cip.management.dal.ca/publications/Is%20Port%20Security%20Spending%20Making%20Us%20Safer.pdf June 22, 2012] In FY2006, President Bush requested a budget of $2.03 billion for port security out of a $50 billion budget for homeland security activities government wide. However, on homeland security issue, the important question is not how much money is spent but rather whether the money is allocated toward the most cost-effective programs. In other words, is America getting the maximum level of benefit in exchange for the spending? This paper reviews some homeland security port programs. First, it takes a look at the economics of port security spending. Second, it examines how the federal government, mainly through DHS, responds to the two main terrorist threats faced by ports: (1) direct threats on the ports themselves and (2) indirect threats via the transport of dangerous material through ports for use in terrorist plots elsewhere in the country. Third, it analyzes whether DHS is achieving its port security objectives and then whether this spending is conducive to improving port security and security in the United States. Finally, this paper will look whether this allocation demonstrates good prioritizing within homeland security This paper will show that port security spending appears to occur without risk and cost-benefit analysis, leading to large array of misallocated of spending. For instance, a close look reveals that within port security spending per se possibly less money is appropriated to the highest priorities such as preventing nuclear devices from blowing up in our ports than to nuclear detection on site (when it would already be too late). Also, much of the appropriated money is allocated to ineffective programs or low priority goals such as the Port Security Grant Program or Radiation Portal Monitors. But this prioritizing seems also to be lacking within Department of Homeland Security’s budget. Allocating money efficiently means that the money appropriated must be spent based on risk analysis. To be most effective, the money should first go to programs preventing devastating terrorist attacks, i.e., intelligence programs. And if experts are correct about the probability of a nuclear attack in our country then the federal government should make protection of stockpiles of fissile materials a priority. Within maritime security, funds should also fund the highest priorities first, like keeping nuclear weapons and terrorists outside of our ports. Finally, if funds are spent on ports to upgrade security then the money should go first and foremost to critical national ports and terminals—the areas of highest consequence with the greatest vulnerability to terrorist attack—rather than spending a little money in every port. Severely damaging one of these critical ports could not only cause injuries, death, and property damage, but could also disrupt the flow of basic goods into and out of the country. Spending a little money everywhere ensures that we protect nowhere adequately. Inherency—PSGP General Port Security Grants are ineffective now—they do not focus on key ports and need more money Thibault et al, 2006—Marc Thibault is a researcher, Homeland Security Institute [Mary R Brooks is William A. Black Chair of Commerce, Dalhousie University, Mary Brooks was on a Fulbright Fellowship at George Mason University, Kenneth J Button is professor of public policy and director, Center for Transportation Policy and Logistics, George Mason University; George Mason Center for Infrastructure Protections and Homeland Security, The Response of the U.S. Maritime Industry to the New Container Security Initiatives, Transportation Journal, pgs. 5-15, Winter 2006, Proquest 6/19/12] Establishment of maritime security funding mechanisms. The senior port officials and terminal security officers interviewed indicated that the U.S. government should establish a long-term maritime security funding mechanism. Most of the port individuals interviewed indicated that market conditions prevented them from passing on the costs of meeting the new maritime security requirements to their customers. Some of the officials suggested the U.S. government impose a user fee on all of the firms participating in container trade. They felt that the shipping industry was bearing the new security costs while the general public was receiving the security benefits. User fees would not only provide a dedicated maritime security-funding source, but it would also spread the cost more. Senior port officials and maritime terminal security officers also expressed concern over how the U.S. government disbursed its port security grants. They felt the U.S. government did not distribute the grants based on a port's vulnerabilities, as determined by risk analysis that accounted for the consequences of a terrorist attack. One port official, however, stated that it is important to increase the security at all ports. Therefore, the official recommended the U.S. government establish two categories for security grants: one for large ports and another for small ports. Port Security Grant Program will become less effective, but it is key to Port Security. Wanio 2012—Port Director and CEO, Tampa Port Authority, AAPA rep—(Richard Wanio, April 26, 2012, April 26, 2012 House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications Hearing “Ensuring the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Transparency of Homeland Security Grants (Part II), Access Date: 6/25/12, http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony-Wainio.pdf ) The plan to consolidate the Port Security Grant Program into one National Preparedness Grant Program ultimately administered by each individual state is extremely counterproductive. History has proven that interaction and oversight by the local U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port assured that funds were being distributed in a manner that best benefitted each geographic area. The U.S. Coast Guard has the training, expertise and systems in place to assess risk, threat and vulnerability; and apply this information to grant submissions. Through no fault of their own, most states do not possess this capability. Further, as state homeland grant funding diminishes, states might be tempted to stretch the intent of the port security grants to meet needs that may not be the most productive use of funds targeting the safety and security of the maritime transportation system. While we understand that DHS has developed some improvements to their original grants model for the National Preparedness Grant program, we believe Congress should determine the funding level for the Port Security Grant program, rather than DHS. This year, Congress allowed DHS to allocate the funds and the Port Security Grant program was decreased by 59 percent to one of the lowest funding levels on record ($97.5 million). These international maritime borders need to be a high priority. We are also concerned that Secretary Napolitano will only fund the highest risk ports. We must provide protection for all ports in order to avoid a soft underbelly of underprotected ports that terrorists could target. Inherency—Generic Current policies are contradictory and impossible for developing countries to meet Laite 10—Georgetown University [Parker Stone, “Maritime Trade Security: Promoter of Terrorism?,” Thesis, 5/10, http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553351/laiteParker.pdf?sequence=1, 6/20/12] The Heritage Foundation has also voiced its concern with the seemingly contradictory objectives of the U.S. National Security Strategy. On the one hand, the strategy calls for “encouraging economic development through free markets and free trade and enhancing the capacity of developing nations to compete in a global economy.”36 On the other hand, “the United States is also rightly promoting international security regimes designed to prevent terrorists from attacking or exploiting global trade networks.”37 Heritage points out that while meeting C-TPAT requirements many not be difficult for rich nations, they are for developing countries that lack adequate financing, developed infrastructure and healthy human capitol programs.38 Even though some progress has been made, there are still gaps in the system Harrald 05 [John R, “Sea Trade and Security: an Assessment of the Post-9/11 Reaction,” Web, Fall 05, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/pqrl/docview/220702986/1376BF5C74E6A8F9B1B/5?accountid=14667, 6/19/12] Although Flynn and others have pointed out that investment in domestic security in general and maritime security in particular is still dwarfed by investment in conventional national security (i.e., defense) and aviation security, significant progress has been made in the four years since 11 September 2001.28 International and national actions have created a maritime security framework in this relatively short period of time and have reduced the risk that maritime trade will be used as a pathway for terror. However, significant gaps and unresolved conflicts remain. This section summarizes current and planned initiatives and discusses their intended impact. Inherency—Scanning The current scanning program is inefficient and cannot protect ports Terreri 09—World Trade [April, “The Current State of Port Security,” Web, 10/09, World Trade, Proquest, 6/20/12] Radiation-portal scanning of incoming containers at the Port of NY & NJ is now at 99 percent. But Rooney is concerned about the monitors' limitations to detect certain materials. "We are also concerned that the scanning process doesn't happen until the container is moved to the outbound lane and ready to go over the road," she says. The average dwell time for a container at the port is five to seven days. "We don't want to have a potential threat sitting on our docks for seven days. We need to make this a business proposition by, for example, embedding radiation detection on the spreader bars of material handling equipment overseas so a container with a threat isn't loaded on a U.S.-bound ship.” Inherency—CTPAT Fails The current CTPAT program is not enough and has significant problems Terreri 09—World Trade [April, “The Current State of Port Security,” Web, 10/09, World Trade, Proquest, 6/20/12] On the other hand, Rooney feels shippers receive benefits for multiple trade routes when only a small percentage of [their affiliates] have actually been inspected, verified, and validated by CBP. "C-TPAT is a volunteer system based on trust with potential benefits from a score reduction. We are concerned about risk decisions being made on the entire supply chain of a shipper when only a small percentage of [those involved along that supply chain] have actually been verified and inspected," she says.Then there is the question of benefits promised under programs like C-TPAT. "One of these benefits should include speedier handling, but this has not materialized for many NAM members," reports Donnelly. "They haven't constructed enough green lanes at some land borders. This is a problem because companies invested in these additional costs to meet the standards for C-TPAT and comparable programs." Inherency—Data and Security Inadequate Current security measures and data inadequate to assess smuggling risk Sadovaya, 2012—PhD Student (PhD Student at Nanyang Technological University” Maritime Security Requirements for Shipping Companies and Ports: Implementation, Importance and Effectiveness PDF May 27, 2012http://www.icms.polyu.edu.hk/ifspa2012/Papers/M05.pdf 6/19/12) For the issue of effectiveness, interviewees were asked to indicate whether they found a specific security requirement effective in respect to security and other organizational performance. Security and other organizational performance were studied separately, to find out what other observed impacts of the implementation of security requirements were, apart from security improvement. For security matter, it is worth mentioning that some of the interviewed organizations consider security only as anti-piracy and anti-terrorism measures. It could be explained by the type of organizations. For example, security incidents such as pilferage or smuggling are not frequently observed onboard tankers. Besides, the possibility of the piracy or terrorist attacks is so small that some organizations do not have any statistics. Because of these facts, some interviewees could not give clear answer for the question about security improvement. However, they provided their evaluation of security effectiveness based on the crisis and incident exercises, conducted in their organization, as well as on the general company security culture. Among measures which were not considered as effective for security improvement, interviewees identified the following requirements: to install SSAS, IAS, to display SIN, to keep records of activities and CSR, and to obtain ISSC. However, all respondents agreed that the mentioned requirements can be useful for other purposes, such as post incident investigation, customs clearance, and navigation. Other requirements from the list were considered as effective. However, respondents admitted that some of them did not enhance security inside the organization but could help to improve public security, and they were implemented mostly because of their mandatory nature. Cooperation between suppliers and importers gives a better assessment to securitize Weihao 12 Ph.D Candidate (Weihao Yin is at Virginia TechReserach Assistant at Virginia Tech A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR MARITIME SECURITY INSPECTION UNDER U.S. SECURITY PROTOCOLS 12 PDF http://www.trforum.org/forum/downloads/2012_22_Maritime_Security_Inspection.pdf) When it comes to the problem of limited information source of current system, the targeting work should absorb information from various sources expanded to the whole supply chain. Willis, H.H. and D.S. Ortiz (2004) characterized the supply chain system according to unique properties of different layers, which are transaction layer, logistics layer and oversight layer. In a typical manufactured product-based business, parties of supply chain system are suppliers and sub-suppliers. This transaction layer connects participants to each other legally through 6 contracts, informationally through product specifications, financially through transaction records, and physically through the actual product or good. The logistics layer, or delivery system, physically moves the products from the point-of-origin to the point-of-consumption at the right time. The container transportation system is especially important when certain products or raw materials come overseas. However, moving a container through this container transport chain in itself is a complex process and involves many actors and stakeholders, thus making it difficult to assure that each link would be secure. These parties, as NCBFAA (2002) identified, include port authorities; government officials; administrators; terminal operators; stevedores; cargo handlers; inspectors; tallymen; surveyors; NVOCCs; container leasing companies; equipment repairers; shipping agents and employees; warehousemen; truckers; domestic carriers including railroads, manufacturers, suppliers, resellers, shippers, consolidators, freight forwarders, customs brokers, transportation intermediaries, delivery agents, and the like; and of course, international ocean carriers, i.e., container shipping companies. An oversight layer, consisting of customs organizations, law enforcement, and national and international bodies, oversees the contracting for and movement of goods. The parties of this layer may include: USCG (U.S. Coast Guard), who ensure maritime safety, FTC (Federal Trade Commission), who guarantees market-players’ compliance with trade law, and CBP, holding responsibility for port security. Additionally, the interaction between these three layers should also be noted. For example, a supplier may contract with a carrier to transport cargoes to its customers while in this process, the oversight layer sets the rules under which the lower layers operate. Figure 3 depicts their relationships. Figure 3 Interactions between the Various Layers of the Supply Chain (Willis and Ortiz, 2004) Despite its intricacy, also it is necessary to fully utilize the information of this complicated system. As was mentioned before, the ATS mainly depends on the manifest data which are usually insufficient in thoroughly assessing the vulnerability and threat level of containers. The whole supply chain should be taken into consideration before evaluating the threat level of a container. More specifically, information about the transport operators such as ocean carriers, logistics service providers (e.g., third-party logistics providers and freight 7 forwarders), and other actors such as suppliers and importers plus a set of documents involving the whole process should accompany the movement of containers from the point of origin to the point of destination should also be included in order to carry out a thorough and more accurate assessment. Although it is quite a daunting task to get specific data on suppliers and importers, it is believed that by doing so, a more accurate assessment of the threat level could be achieved. Inherency – Need to review procedures and data Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.67 Mb. Share with your friends:
|