Lobbying for Better Homeland Security
Lobbying is often a dirty word, but there are organizations, trade associations, and other special interests that have a legitimate goal of improving public policy (at least their view of it) and do not necessarily have the goal of lining the pockets of big businesses. Every idea needs an advocate or it will be left behind. Curently homeland security doesn’t have a good advocate.
Congress recently passed (and the president signed) the Cromnibus which provided full year funding for the entire government except the Department of Homeland Security. Instead (with two exceptions) DHS, and the $4 Billion in new homeland security priorities that were slated to be funded, will sit in limbo for another 2 and 1/2 months. A little less than $50 million a day will be held back because Republican members of Congress don’t like the President’s executive action on immigration. Their frustration may be valid, however, the Cromnibus doesn’t delay the implementation of the immigration actions. Homeland security has been held back simply as a bargaining chip. Come February 27, Congress will have to decide whether to fund homeland security.
To stop the implementation of the immigration actions, Congress would need to pass a law specifically prohibiting funding for them. The need for a specific prohibition is because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded by user fees, and doesn’t rely on individual appropriations to keep running. The Cromnibus doesn’t stop the immigration actions because the Republican congressional leadership was concerned that if the House attached that prohibition to the must-pass appropriations bill, the Senate would not pass it. Or, if the Senate did pass it, the President would veto it, and Republicans could be blamed for shutting down the government. Instead, because DHS contains the agencies that will implement the executive actions, they decided to only fund DHS (at the previous year’s levels) through February, with the goal of stopping the executive action before then.
Unfortunately, the current situation sets up the possibility that a bill will be sent to the White House that will only fund DHS if the executive actions on immigration are stopped. These executive actions may come to be known as a signature accomplishment of President Obama, and as such will not be jettisoned without a fight. It is possible that the executive actions could be stopped as part of some larger agreement,on tax rates or some other priority but its unlikely. Homeland security funding has been held out as the major bargaining chip.
If the DHS appropriations bill (with a prohibition on funding for the executive actions) is sent to the President and vetoed (or is stalled in the Senate), then there would be a homeland security shutdown. During the shutdown in 2013, DHS estimated that 86% of its employees were exempt from the shutdown. While front line Border Patrol agents, Coast Guard officers and enlisted personnel, immigration enforcement officers, TSA Officers and CBP Officers at the airports will be required to work during a shutdown, they won’t get another paycheck until the shutdown is over, putting a real strain on homeland security families. Headquarters employees, administrative staff, including those working on large contracts for major acquisitions, must stop working during a shutdown, stoping important work that supports those frontline officers and hurting families that support homeland security.
Maybe DHS can deal with these effects for a couple of weeks or more, but probably not much longer. Despite the glamor you might think exists from working at an airport and checking carry-ons for dangerous items or chasing migrants in the dessert, homeland security work is often difficult. If it doesn’t pay, its down-right brutal. Additionally, after a few weeks stopping contracts that support intelligence analysis or IT projects, security will begin to be impacted, as will long term savings and efficiencies.
Who cares about homeland security? While there are a handful of think tanks, media outlets and organizations focused in whole or in part on (most notably the National Governors Association Homeland Security and Public Safety Division). There is a National Homeland Security Association, but its only purpose currently is to organize the annual National Homeland Security Conference HS professionals from major metropolitan areas. There are also a couple industry groups that care about the funds flowing to government contractors. But there is no specific independent group that can tell Congress to stop playing around with the nation’s homeland security.
There are a few models for powerful lobbying organizations and trade associations. Organizations like the National Association of Relators, the National Rifle Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, NARAL Pro Choice, and major employee unions operate on a somewhat similar basis when it comes to interacting with Congress. They each take a different mix of contributions from individuals, small businesses, and large corporations and have differing methods for determining their priorities, but in general they provide valuable advice to their members on changing laws, and help to mold legislation through direct lobbying, grassroots organizing, taking positions on bills and scoring them, and drafting alternative language.
Homeland security has a potentially huge coalition of organizations and individuals that could band together to form a similarly formidable association. Members may come from the fire services, emergency management and law enforcement, DHS employees and their unions, state and local agencies seeking $2 billion per year in grant funds, business interests, and government contractors. There could be an advisory committee that includes families who have lost loved ones to terrorism, or other experts in homeland security. This organization could have put pressure on Congress to fund more or all of DHS in the Omnibus appropriations bill. It can be a voice to help shape and push through legislation that will improve homeland security, and hold DHS and the states accountable for providing better security to the American people. Most of all, the organization could make it untenable to treat DHS as a political football.
