There is a great article in the Government Executive addressing the Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), currently run by Vayl Oxford. It discusses the unwillingness of congressional legislators to appropriate funds for a proposed network of nuclear detectors and research for next-generation detectors because of their concern that DNDO can't get the mission done. Mind you, the office is still on track to get about a 60 percent increase in funding, from $315 million in FY06 to about $500 million in FY07.
As officials often put it, the office is in charge of developing a nuclear detection "architecture," -- essentially a strategy for global deployment of nuclear detectors -- but responsibility for implementing that plan sprawls across a network of government agencies, including the FBI and the Defense, Energy, Justice and State departments.
However, some lawmakers have questioned the office's ability to coordinate the deployment of that plan. The Senate Appropriations Committee in June recommended withholding $80 million in "research, development and operations" from fiscal 2007 Homeland Security Department funding until an agreement is reached between all the agencies involved in nuclear detection regarding their responsibilities. The detection office itself is part of the Homeland Security Department.
The committee expressed concern that "DNDO lacks the ability to ensure these agencies will follow through with their role in this architecture." In addition, the committee recommended cutting more than $93 million from the president's $535 million budget request for the office.
That includes all fiscal 2007 funding -- more than $65 million -- for a grant program designed to put the nation's research universities to work on the problems of nuclear detection. The committee said the program too closely mirrored an existing initiative within Homeland Security's Science and Technology Office.
Lawmakers also cut $18 million from a program to enhance detection of shielded plutonium or uranium, due to earlier delays in the program's inception.
The committee also halved the office's $17 million nuclear forensic budget, noting that the FBI and the detection office jointly manage the nuclear attribution program. If the FBI shares management of the program, it should also contribute funding, the committee report recommends.
The DNDO is just one part of what I've noted as a fixation by the government on preparing for and responding to terrorist radiological dispersal devices and improvised nuclear devices (RDDs and INDs). With the loose accountability over radioactive isotopes and people quoting the "it's not a matter of if but when", there is a concern that sooner or later, there will be a "dirty bomb" incident. I'm not as convinced, mostly because terrorists aren't going to unconventional methods - yet - and statistically, there are still much greater threats from mother nature and accidents caused by people than intentional terrorist incidents.
Most notably, it's interesting to note a certain dynamic here. We have the DNDO getting a half billion dollars next year (and Oxford projects the office breaking a billion a year within five years) to establish some kind of a national network of radiological detectors and to maintain visibility of radiological hazards coming into the country. And it's not just DHS, the DOD is emphasizing the interdiction of radiological matter (see the 2006 QDR, pg 35). Besides the enormous difficulty of implementing such a vision (given the breadth and depth of the United States and all the federal, state and local agencies who would have to be involved), you have to ask yourself, how long can one sustain the costs of this burden when it becomes evident that terrorists aren't streaming toward America with nukes in their pockets?
I think that's bothering the Congress - they'd rather see the money go to stopping the terrorists before they enter the country rather than trying to interdict radiological hazards - thus the many questions and concerns by the legislators. But at the same time, no one is going to slash funding for DHS in an election year - just trim it back and ask for more reports. Pretty usual stuff, but again, can DNDO deliver on the mission they claim is so vital?
In other news, the New York Times continues to fend off anthrax hoaxes. You don't read about the hoaxes much - they don't get into the news unless someone gets hurt or someone famous is targeted. Again, just to note - it's not a question of when, but if. The norm is that terrorists use conventional means to scare people. Not saying that we don't need to be prepared, but the government needs to maintain a cost/benefit mentality rather than voters' emotions when developing measures to defeat terrorism (yeah, as I type that, I can't believe I said that last sentence. Whatta idea - Congress mandating logic over emotion in its lawmaking...).
Congrats on the Crooks and Liars mention. Good writing from an unusual perspective. Much appreciated. Keep up the good work and keep the faith.
Posted by: Blue Gal | 10 August 2006 at 02:41 PM
This has to be the most ridiculous expenditure" yet by Homeland Security!
Posted by: Machs | 10 August 2006 at 04:50 PM