Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers
Legislation to establish a federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is
perhaps the largest piece of unfinished business that members of Congress left
behind as they made their way back home for the final campaign swing. Debate
has stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate over the question of workers’
rights for the estimated 170,000 employees who will be transferred into the
DHS. The massive new department — the first to be created since the Department
of Veterans Affairs in 1988 — would swallow up 22 existing agencies in
whole or in part, reshaping the federal government on an unprecedented scale
and carrying an annual price tag that could run as high as $42 billion. If the
labor dispute is resolved during a post-election (“lame duck”) session,
the department could be in business before the end of the year.
What will this governmental reorganization mean for the geosciences? Viewed
narrowly, the new department — with its mission to close gaps and vulnerabilities
in responding to terrorism and other homeland security threats — will have
little impact. With the notable exception of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), none of the principal geoscience-related agencies are among those
to be incorporated into the DHS, and its research programs seem likely to focus
primarily on technology development related to cybersecurity and bioterrorism.
Viewed broadly, however, the department, and the homeland security issue in
general, will have profound effects on the geosciences. And it should.
Geoscientists both in and out of government make significant contributions to
a secure homeland: enhancing energy security by developing and assessing resources,
running hydrologic monitoring networks critical to ensuring the security of
the water supply, developing geospatial databases that are in use for a wide
range of security-related purposes, and building a foundation for mitigating
losses from natural hazards. Agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are playing key roles,
but the administration may not recognize these agencies’ homeland security
contributions because they will remain external to DHS. Setting aside the likely
budget constraints imposed by the war on terrorism (and possibly on Iraq), the
impacts of DHS on the geosciences will largely depend on how well geoscientists
and geoscience agencies make the case for their relevance to this national challenge.
Our community has a great deal to contribute, but that can’t be our little
secret.
An all-hazards approach
In the legislation currently on the table, FEMA would form the core of the
new department’s Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response, joined
by a number of emergency preparedness offices taken from other departments.
The same directorate would also oversee medical supply stockpiles and public
health emergency response functions.
The geoscience stake in FEMA largely revolves around the agency’s floodplain
mapping, loss estimation modeling, pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities,
and role as the designated lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program. Once FEMA is buried within DHS, how will programs fare that may have
little to do with combating terrorism but everything to do with making people’s
homes more secure?
For years, USGS has struggled to carry out a national mission that extends beyond
the responsibilities of its parent department for public lands. Although congressional
supporters recognize that role, USGS has struggled to nurture the same recognition
of its broader role among the leadership of the Department of the Interior and
the White House Office of Management and Budget. Natural hazards programs within
DHS can avoid this same fate only if DHS leaders see the value in building the
nation’s resilience to all extreme events, whether natural or human-induced.
Such an all-hazards approach to security, if well coordinated with programs
at USGS, NOAA and other state and federal agencies, could revitalize the nation’s
commitment to natural hazard reduction.
There is some reason for optimism that the linkage can be made. The Senate Government
Affairs Committee’s case statement for the new department emphasizes the
importance of “preserving the critical non-homeland security work currently
being done by the agencies and offices that will be consolidated into it.”
The statement specifically mentions that FEMA “must still respond swiftly
to natural disasters — in fact, its work in helping communities prepare
for and recover from disasters will only be enhanced within the new department.”
Learning from disasters
One of the most promising opportunities for integrating geoscience expertise
into homeland security is not related to DHS at all. While the bill to create
the department languished, Congress passed another piece of legislation intended
to address problems with the World Trade Center investigation. On Oct. 1, President
Bush signed the National Construction Safety Team Act of 2002. House Science
Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
introduced the legislation after Science Committee hearings revealed significant
obstacles to investigators seeking to learn lessons for future building design.
This new law gives the National Institute of Standards and Technology authority
to conduct investigations in much the same way that the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) does for more typical airplane crashes. Although clearly
motivated by the terrorist attacks, the bill applies to all major building disasters,
including those caused by natural events. For some time, experts have been calling
for an NTSB-like approach to natural disasters. At the opening forum of the
Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus in July 2000, William Hooke, a senior policy
advisor to the American Meteorological Society and former NOAA official, urged
the senators to foster a national “learning by experience.” He noted
how different our response to natural disasters is from our response to airplane
crashes, where the NTSB investigates to ensure that lessons are learned because
“we don’t want this to ever happen again.” The emphasis after
natural disasters is still dominantly “rebuild it just as before,”
the result being repetitive losses (see Geotimes,
March 2001). The Construction Safety Team Act is a start toward an even
broader post-disaster assessment mandate with stronger interagency coordination
to look at ground motion, code performance, critical infrastructure and environmental
impacts.
Science for security
Largely due to the efforts of the House Science Committee, DHS will include
a Directorate of Science and Technology. Unlike the other directorates, however,
this one does not swallow up any large federal programs or agencies but rather
a collection of smaller ones. It is largely aimed at identifying research and
development needs related to homeland security, coordinating research within
the department and with other federal agencies, and advising the Secretary of
Homeland Security on science and technology issues.
As with other aspects of the department, much of the directorate’s focus
is on bioterrorism, and the legislation emphasizes research coordination with
the National Institutes of Health. The directorate would also work to improve
technology for cybersecurity, border security, interoperable emergency response
systems and intelligence analysis. These emphases reflect priorities established
by a National Research Council study and Boehlert’s own view that “like
the Cold War, the war on terrorism will be won as much in the laboratory as
on the battlefield.” Because this directorate will be the principal pipeline
for scientific input into homeland security, it is critical to ensure that geoscience
contributions external to the department are recognized. Effective intergovernmental
panels, particularly a reinvigorated White House National Science and Technology
Council, must be put in place for that to happen.
The Department of Homeland Security could be a major opportunity for the federal
government to adopt a broad approach to domestic security and a broad approach
to hazards, seeking to follow practices that will make the nation more resilient
to all threats. By broadening our notion of homeland security, we can broaden
the benefits to society.
|
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers |