Discussion includes the more influential historical events that seem to demand the organizational restructuring of top law enforcement agencies which currently reside beneath the auspices of Department of Homeland Security. Some of which are the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 attack on New York’s World Trade Center and the war on Iraq. Identify the short term goal and long range goals and objectives. Discuss the potential for meeting these objectives. The impact each directorate is making in terms of privatizing some elements of government. The reasons why initial privatization shifted from a cost-based focus to a security-oriented plan, to information sharing among agencies all intended to further the cause of securing America. A brief discussion pertaining to the private sector service providers regarding the infrastructure and physical security and a look at some of the oversight tools used in respect to the actual delivery of services. A probe into the types of contracts being awarded and the locations of the resources which will be entrusted to the private vendors by the government. These resources being federal courts, airports, weapons testing facilities and military installations to name a few. We will consider the pros, cons, critics and supporters of the new American procurement process and evaluate the bidding process. We will evaluate the effectiveness of the oversight and identify some major issues currently making news in respect to the Department of Homeland Security spending. Primarily the failure to pay income taxes by these same service providers to the government who has hired them, the legal loopholes of subcontracting, and the failure of IT purchases and the lack of inventory for the assests the government currently owns. An investigation of the current reforms and the compliance issues which are adhered or ignored. In addition, the ideas which are now laws, in respect to improving investigative abilities for law enforcement must be addressed as these are set to expire at the year’s end. It seems safe to suggest it not worthwhile to rewrite the Constitution if the purpose is to exchange liberty for leadership lip service with no real chance of meeting the identified objectives. A common complaint in the United States is that lawmakers have tightened and restricted laws but these tougher laws apply only to its own citizens and terrorists remain on the outskirts of the legal system, if this is true how can government make the Homeland safer simply by information sharing and flexible investigative techniques? Will these work in the long and short term and outside of catastrophe, how will citizens know when the Country’s security has been breached?

Acronym List

• FAR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
• DHS: Department of Homeland Security
• BTS: Border and Transportation Services
• EPR: Emergency Preparedness and Response
• S&T: Science and Technology
• IAIP: Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
• TSA: Transportation Safety Administration
• AMS: Acquisition Management System, part of TSA.
• ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union
• GSA: General Services Administration
• BAA: Broad agency announcements:
• CAS: Cost Accounting Standards:
• Chem.-Bio Biological Countermeasures:
• Counter-MANPADS Countermeasures for Man Portable Air Defense System:
• CPO: Chief Procurement Officer:
• DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency:
• DCAA: Defense Contract Audit Agency:
• DOD: Department of Defense
• IP: Intellectual property:
• R&D: Research and development

Introduction

History tends to reveal itself in a cyclical process. Perhaps by studying the past we can come to understand the Chinese proverb, “Recognize the possibilities which lie within a crisis”. By realizing the mistakes, mishaps and poor judgments that allowed certain events to unfold we can muster critical insight to answer more strategic questions for the future. By studying the past we learn what works, what doesn’t work and what has never been attempted in regard to crucial public policy. Security, unlike public policing, does not determine success or failure based on what actually happens or what crimes are committed. In the private sector of corporate security, success is based on what does not happen. Rather than, as in other industries, where profits and sales are direct identifiers of a job well done. It is not limited to countering attacks in the future, political mandates, or even to a terrorist orientation; instead the goal is preparedness for all types both natural and man-made disasters. A planned responsiveness in times of natural disaster as well as a fully trained military for quick and decisive response. It is clear the United States government hopes to provide a bit of all things to ensure prevention and protection of its citizens. Focusing on assessing harms and risks in the Homeland environment and then devising a plan of prevention, protection and immediate response. Internalizing one of the basic premises of the criminal justice system as using the past as a predictor of future actions, perhaps the same backwards glance will provide political insight for the future of our newest governmental entity, the Department of Homeland Security.

After the devastation of 9/11 when international terrorists attacked the Twin Towers in Manhattan, New York, it was learned that these individuals had lived in neighboring apartments and even learned to fly the jets in American flight schools. It was argued that the federal authorities needed better leverage in accordance with laws for investigative purposes to ensure that the same devastation never repeat itself on American soil. The Patriot Act was introduced and quickly signed into law. Later, the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003″, also known as the Patriot Act II, was signed into law (www.whitehouse.gov). Many, including the American Civil Liberties Union, believe the new laws have gone too far and are trampling the rights of American Citizens without the potential for actually making us safer in the process (www.aclu.org). These investigation friendly laws provide for more freedom in the investigative process in such segments as access to financial records and roving wire taps. The belief being based on an assumption that greater access for investigations and probing by federal authorities will result in a greater advantage for government law enforcement over criminals and terrorists. Currently, the government has just completed the “most massive organizational realignment since 1947” (www.dhs.gov). Will these strategic legal and political moves make for a safer America in the future? This is the question that seems to lack an answer. It is with this mindset that I begin presenting my findings in respect to the current restructuring in American government.

Identifying the Enemy

Since the end of the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union, many have failed to recognize a more sinister and growing threat lurking in the shadows. Two tragic events, the bombing of the Arthur Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the attack on the financial district in New York’s Manhattan that toppled the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center brought the realization into every American living room. Since these two events which killed 168 in Oklahoma City and more than 5000 in New York, the citizens of the United States recognized the world has changed right before our eyes. Giving new meaning to the echoes of anti-American sentiments heard expressed around the globe. It seems “they” are out to get “us” and obviously intending to do the damage in our own backyard. It is for this reason the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was established by executive order of President George W. Bush (www.whitehouse.gov/dhs).

Securing the Nation’s Homeland is not a new idea and in fact was a pre 9/11 bi-partisan conception constructed by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, a Clinton-era commission(House Government Reform Committee, 2005). This Commission was charged with researching and recommending changes in structure to the White House. In this report in the aftermath of 9/11, it is clear the U.S. Commission on National Security had issued prior warnings of pending attacks on American soil to a hearing impaired audience (House Government Reform Committee, 2005). Based on this assessment we imagine the work which lies ahead for the now optimized Department of Homeland Security as it works to further orient and integrate 22 agencies and divide them in accordance with five major “directorates” in the organizational framework(www.DHS.gov). According to the original Secretary, Tom Ridge, “the most comprehensive reorganization in the history of management in United States government” (DHS.gov).

In addition to this structural overhaul, there are a number of laws and executive orders which further support the cause of law enforcement. One such law is the Patriot Act. It is intended to expand investigative powers of federal agencies to grant greater access to banking records and other financial information in an effort to prevent terrorists from gaining possession of high powered weapons and weapons of mass destruction such as biological contaminants. While expanding the law enforcement privileges, one group argues the Bush administration has trampled the rights of citizens in the procedure (www.aclu.org). The most vocal opposition to this re-taking of liberties and freedoms is heard from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Declaring programs such as the Transportation Safety Administration’s “No-Fly List” as a direct assault on American civil liberties (www.aclu.org). Understandably, law enforcement needs flexibility to carry out some of the counter investigations and intelligence gathering but the ACLU believes they have “over-reached the comfort level” and are now “trampling on the Constitutional rights of American Citizens” (www.aclu.org). Other programs being scrutinized in respect to the Patriot Act are the “roving wire taps” which do not necessarily require a court order so there is little if any oversight regarding use by the officers. As a member of the ACLU, I happen to agree with the theory of “Erasing our America” (ACLU, 2004) as many of us, have for most of our lives believed, the Constitution was protected as were the rights it guaranteed to citizens. I shudder to think of the consequences of re-writing a Constitution that strictly states it must “not allow for a self expanding government”. And, “Is a government by the people and for the people” (Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, 1776). Reminding me of a quote from one of our famous forefathers that suggests, “Citizens should fight for the right to bear arms, preserving it at all costs; if for no other reason, than to defend against the tyranny that is our own government”.

Of course, the Bush administration proclaims the “Patriot Act a necessary tool” (www.whitehouse.gov). Yet, caution is urged here as this is the same administration who insisted Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” in an effort to convince the population we should agree to a second war with Iraq.

It seems clear in the aftermath; America didn’t do much better this second round than we did the first round. When all is said and done our current gas pump prices are a clear indicator of the truth. As a researcher for this project, I continue to ask myself why it is that America feels compelled to bomb a country only to fund nearly the entire rebuilding venture. (2004fy) I am certain there are many politicians who might ask the same or a similar question. Basically, it is a matter of dollars and cents rather than a “fight for democracy”. As proof, I submit for your consideration the following funding highlights from fiscal year 2004.

From 2002 to 2004, resources for the agencies and programs moving into DHS grew by more than 60 percent to $36.2 billion. During the same period, nearly 61,000 staff was added to protect the homeland. Highlights for 2004 include:

• About $500 million to assess the nation’s critical infrastructure (e.g., nuclear power plants, water facilities, telecommunications networks, and transportation systems) and to work to ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed;
• $350 million in new funding for vigorous research, development, test, and evaluation capabilities that have not existed for homeland security specific projects, such as nuclear and bioterrorism detection technologies;
• $373 million for border security and trade initiatives including technology investments along the border such as radiation detection and x-ray machines for inspecting cargo containers; and
• $3.5 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness to ensure that first responders are properly trained and equipped, of which $500 million is for assistance to firefighters, particularly for terrorist preparedness, and $500 million is for state and local law enforcement anti-terrorism activities.

 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/homeland.htm).

Where the funding is awarded directly reflects the changing climate in the American workforce. Privatizing numerous jobs and duties in an effort to embrace the Reagan administration directive of reducing the payroll numbers. Originally, intended as a method of saving the taxpayer dollars it is now being carried out without regard to spending per se. The strategic realigning of government now has created a paradox of sorts in providing services to its citizens with notable historically footnotes detrimental results. In a moment we will explore a number of these problems which have surfaced. Now, however, I think it is a good time to take a look at our newest government entity.

In respect to our highlighted funding above, it is clear the largest portion of the United States budget is as you might guess dedicated to protecting and securing the Homeland.

Five Major Directorates

The chart below identifies the five major directorates within the new Department of Homeland Security. Each has its own Secretary and initial purpose and problems. The colors are intended to reflect the hotter or more problematic of the directorates. The darker the color the more public issues which surround the directorate.

• Border and Transportation Security B T S
• Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection I A I P
• Science and Technology S & T
• Emergency Preparedness and Response E P R
• Office Of Management O O M
• Department of Homeland Security D H S

Collectively, we, as citizens, look to our government to protect us from that which we can only imagine but feel certain is there waiting to strike at the heartland once again. Taking it all for granted will likely not happen again in our lifetimes. With hope, we look to our leaders to assess the new threat to our America. However, to actually listen to our lawmakers is not exactly reassuring to me. For many the subject of personal safety is a great concern as each of us recognizes our world has grown more and more threatening with each new advance in technology. Although technology itself is not to blame neither is the organizational structure of government but a great deal of attention has gone into correcting what some would consider a severely flawed system especially in regard to information sharing and procuring, the two primary identifiable deficiencies in American government and law enforcement in particular (House Government Reform Committee, 2005).

Border and Transportation Security (BTS):

BTS is led by Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson, and is responsible for maintaining the security of our nation’s borders and transportation systems. The largest of the Directorates, it is home to agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration, the former U.S. Customs Service, the border security functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR):

This Directorate, which is headed up by Under Secretary Mike Brown, ensures that our nation is prepared for, and able to recover from, terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Science and Technology (S & T):

Under the direction of Under Secretary Dr. Charles McQueary, this Directorate coordinates the Department’s efforts in research and development, including preparing for and responding to the full range of terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction.

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP):

IAIP merges the capability to identify and assess a broad range of intelligence information concerning threats to the homeland under one roof, issue timely warnings, and take appropriate preventive and protective action.

Management:

The Under Secretary of Management, Janet Hale, is responsible for budget, management and personnel issues in the Department. (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=9&content=2973)

The focus of this paper is on debating whether the restructuring will bring-in a safer tomorrow for Americans. With restructuring, more and more private vendors are being hired and even the laws are being amended to facilitate the entry of private agencies and contractors. With this restructuring/consolidation exercise, a lot of vendors will come under the same umbrella of DHS and hence the exposure of these vendors to classified or sensitive information will increase as will their presence in all areas whether sensitive or insensitive. Thus more private agencies/vendors will be at the helm of America’s security. This raises the question on how safe it is to hand our security over to private agencies – ‘Will restructuring lead to a safer America?’ What are the private agencies being employed and the process being followed for induction of the private service providers? How well these different governmental agencies are doing in their quest to secure our Country and our people?

Historical Facts

Let us look at some the facts surrounding the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the attack on the financial district in New York’s Manhattan that toppled the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Bombing in Oklahoma City

At the time of bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, Teg Security of Santa Fe ( a private contracting company) provided security at the Alfred Murrah Federal Building.

– http://freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3d8e767823.htm

“The fact that responsible agency managers knew of the law but neither did they take action to comply with it nor reported non-compliance during past years’ Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) processes was in itself a breach of the FMFIA and a reportable condition. Moreover, the fact that such a large circle of management was aware of the non-compliance issue and did little to address it calls into question the general state of the management environment which permitted this to happen”

– (Testimony of Steven Bellew, Vice Chairman, Fraternal order of Police Federal Protective Service Labor Committee – http://epw.senate.gov/107th/bel_0928.htm)

9/11 Attack

“It was a government contractor who issued student visas to two Sept. 11 hijackers — and notified a Florida flight school of the issuance six months after they crashed their planes into the World Trade Center.”

– Linda Bilmes, an assistant secretary of commerce during the Clinton administration, teaches public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_usinc_lat_071804.htm)

These facts clearly bring to light the negligence shown by such private companies. So can we accept negligence on such sensitive an issue as national security? Learning from their past mistakes is what differentiates wise from insane. So, what do we deduce when we notice the sudden frenzy of increased spending on the contracting companies?

Do Contractors Respect Law?

Another important question with regards to contractors is – their respect for law. Do they endorse the American law system by following it in their mannerism and conduct or are they too playing hide and seek with the laws. Here is an excerpt from a recent Reuters’ report:

“Thousands of government contractors owe more than $3 billion in taxes.The Government Accountability Office said about 33,000 non-defense federal contractors have unpaid taxes for 2004 that include corporate and individual income taxes as well as unemployment and payroll taxes. The GAO said some companies with unpaid taxes had owners or officers who had been convicted or indicted for embezzlement, money laundering or other crimes”

–Reuteurs, 16 Jun ‘05, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050616/us_nm/taxes_contractors_dc)

This is a very unfortunate fact to note that the contractors themselves don’t have a clean slate of conduct. We can’t expect our fellow Americans to trust such people who themselves are law breakers. We cannot jeopardize the security of America by handing over our beloved country to these people.

Methodology for Hiring Private Vendors

The method of hiring the private vendors is as important as the quality of these vendors. Some astonishing facts came out of this investigation, as is quoted below:

“Two five-year contracts worth as much as $1 billion went to two small Alaska Native firms with little previous security experience. The firms, which operate under special contracting laws enabling them to avoid competitive bidding, subcontracted part of the work to two of the country’s largest security firms: Wackenhut Services Inc. and Vance Federal Security Services.”
— Army Turns to Private Guards By T. Christian Miller Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 12, 2004 (http://webserve.govst.edu/users/ghrank/Political/Not-So-Great%20Expectations/civilian.htm)

This clearly brings out the fact that there are big loop holes in the hiring process and some of the giant contractors take advantage of such loopholes to demonstrate monopolistic characteristics. Once the dependency on such contractors reaches a point where they cannot be done away with, the control over them goes for a toss and the possibility of them adapting a lackadaisical attitude increases manifold. Such a situation is very dangerous for national security and demands straightening of the hiring process so as to counter such monopolistic vendors.

It is difficult to understand the premise behind these special contracting laws which allow even the incompetent and inexperienced contractors in. It is these laws that are creating this atmosphere of monopoly. Moreover, are we looking to recruit just about anyone for providing us security without any consideration to their competency, their capability, etc?

Let us check some other facts from the article – ‘Trusting Companies with Government Secrets’ by Michael Fickes, Access Control & Security Systems,Feb 1, 2004 (http://govtsecurity.securitysolutions.com/ar/security_trusting_companies_government/index.htm)

“Generally, the government will require that any supplier whose work requires access to secure information obtain appropriate security clearances for individuals who will deal with that information. There are also rules that relate to facilities that store sensitive government data outside of government facilities during work on a contract. But beyond vetting individuals for security clearances, the government appears to have no overall system for determining whether a company as a whole can be trusted with a contract involving work that impinges on national security“

As quoted above, there seems no process for determining the trust-worthiness of the company as a whole. Is it sufficient to just ensure that the company provides individuals with security clearances? Here we are talking about the security of Americans and we don’t want a repetition of 9/11. The stakes are just too high for us to exercise a lenient approach on anything (or anyone) which is related to the security of America. There should be a process to judge the company on the basis of its value system, its training program and its capabilities as a whole.

As if this was not enough, we move on to another example – subcontracting at Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. TSA was originally in the Department of Transportation but was moved to the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003. The mission of the Transportation Security Administration’s Small Business Office is to support the Administration’s policies and programs to protect the Nation’s transportation systems by engaging small businesses that provide best-in-class service in the acquisition process.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Acquisition Management System (AMS) is non-regulatory in nature and establishes policy and guidance for acquiring the products and services needed for TSA to achieve its mission. It is intended to simplify, streamline and integrate the business arrangements (e.g. contracts, grants) used by TSA into a system that increases the quality, reduces the time and decreases the cost of delivering products and services to its customers. The Transportation Security Administration is exempt from use of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) for the acquisition of supplies and services. The TSA AMS uses as its basis, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acquisition Management System (AMS).

A non-regulatory system for acquisitions of products and services, which have a direct bearing on the security of America, seems an oddity. Again the focus seems to shifting more and more to decreasing time and cost. What about trust worthiness of the company? Is the focus getting lost in this era of fast paced staffing? Do we want America’s security to be ‘simple’ or do we want it to be ‘stringent’?

Let’s move on to another example of lost focus. Access Control and Security Systems magazine published an article by Michael Fickes on August 1, 2003 which was titled, “Uncle Sam wants private guards”. This is a summary of the information it contains:

“For the first time in 20 years, the U.S. Army is asking private security firms to provide new security services for domestic military facilities. Issued on June 27, an Army Contracting Agency (ACA) request for proposal (RFP) outlines a program that may employ 500 or more private security officers for $20-25 million.

The RFP follows a recent change in the law. Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the Department of Defense (DoD) has not been permitted to hire private security firms to provide guards for domestic military installations unless it was renewing contracts that began before Sept. 24, 1983. The 2003 Defense Authorization Act, signed last December, amends Title 10 to permit the use of private security for certain functions until December 2005″

– http://govtsecurity.securitysolutions.com/ar/security_uncle_sam_wants/index.htm

As if the current flexibility in laws was not enough, we have moved on to amend all possible laws to allow more contractors in. Are we acting in some sort of frenzy and just trying to shoot down anything that comes in the way of allowing more contractors-in? I hope we don’t end up changing the constitution completely in favor of private agencies. If it comes to that then maybe the revision of the constitution would be handed over to private agencies too.

Contracting/Subcontracting Opportunities

We have already discussed the funding for the agencies and programs moving into DHS. Let’s check few such opportunities in terms of the size of these opportunities and the work involved. The following information is a representative sample:

“Accenture Human Resource (HR) Services Contract i.e. Subcontracting opportunities with TSA Human Resource Services.

Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) i.e. Subcontracting opportunities with Cooperative Personnel Services.”

The above information has been taken from the website of TSA (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=84).

Sources listed above begin to reveal the numbers of millions of dollars which are at stake in the awarding of contracts, as is illustrated from the following details of the above stated opportunities:

“Accenture Human Resource (HR) Services Contract is a $214.8 million contract to provide on-going human resources services for personnel deployed throughout the country. This involves providing day-to-day servicing in all areas of human resources support.”

(Source: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=84&content=0900051980013466)

“CPS Recruiting and Hiring Contract is a $553.6 million contract to assist in the recruitment and hiring process by providing an automated Web-based system for the recruitment and placement of personnel. It involves, posting and capturing security screener job applications using an automated process that is managed nationally and recruits locally to find the most qualified candidates under the stringent standards of the Transportation Security Administration, establishing and managing multiple assessment centers and facilities for physical standards aptitude and English proficiency testing, managing candidate selection interviews and new employee processing.”

– (Source: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=84&content=090005198001346a)

These contracts total to 768.4 million from two areas under TSA and eventually end up getting subcontracted as is demonstrated by the excerpts above. Thus more and more levels of contractors are created and can lead to the controls getting lost. What we get finally is a multi-layered contracting structure and as we go down this structure we find that our risk quotient starts increasing and the controls get diminished. This is not what we aimed for – increased risk. Thus we end up nullifying our efforts of securing Americans and that too with increased cost (if that was focus).

“This year, the United States will spend $275 billion — more than 10% of the federal budget — buying goods and services from private contractors, often through contracts never fully opened to competitive bidding. Much of this work will be poorly managed and inadequately monitored, and yet private contractors have become indispensable to the workings of the government.

Nobody knows exactly how many contractors the government employs. Paul Light of the Brookings Institution estimates that the federal budget funds a “shadow government” of nearly 6 million contractors, about half of them in defense. That means contractors outnumber civil servants and military personnel by a ratio of 2 to 1.”
— Linda Bilmes

If we have such ratios of contractors to civil servants and military personnel then we have already contracted our nation to private parties and it’s just a matter of time before the contractors take charge of the country and declare themselves as the actual government. This isn’t a small issue and its consequences are rather frightening.

Also, given the awards are funded with taxpayer dollars, its difficult to understand why so little information is available in respect to the contracts. The only information going to public is the news reports of local newspapers which is just the tip of the iceberg.

Controls, Oversight and Commitment

An exercise as big as restructuring requires tight controls and oversight from the prime authorities. However, an interesting fact is highlighted in the excerpt provided below (from the article ‘Auditors: DHS procurement is a work in progress’):

“GAO also found that, in 2004, DHS awarded 35 percent of its prime contract dollars to small businesses, exceeding the small business goal of 23 percent,” Davis said.
The Virginia Republican added that the auditors also had found disturbing trends. “While an October 2004 directive delegates the responsibility to manage and oversee all DHS acquisition activities to the chief procurement officer, in practice there is little enforcement, and the directive exempts the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.” Davis said that the auditors hadn’t found any reasonable basis for the exemption. “Policy decisions such as this one will effectively shackle the CPO in integrating acquisition functions,” he said

– By Wilson P. Dizard III , GCN Staff (http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/35715-1.html)

This is really an astonishing fact. Even before we can talk about the controls and oversight employed by DHS, we find that DHS itself is violating the well defined directive. Statistically, the target of 23% was overshot by around 50% – (35-23)/23. This is a huge variation. What do we deduce from this? Either the directive itself was wrong in the first or DHS doesn’t believe in itself and continuously violates the directives which it lays for itself. This is a big concern for the nation. If the protecting authority itself is so irresponsible in its conduct, then what do we expect from the contractors employed by this authority? Such a violation demonstrates lack of commitment from DHS. If such is the case then we have a bigger problem at hand than what we thought initially.

In his article ‘A few steps forward, a few back ‘,William Jackson (GCN Staff) quotes Yoran, who was director of the Homeland Security Department’s National Cyber Security Division, “The government really doesn’t know what its IT assets are and is doing an inadequate job of certifying its systems and software for security.”
— 11/22/04, William Jackson (GCN Staff), A few steps forward, a few back, http://www.gcn.com/23_33/news/27966-1.html

This exposes another set of worrying aspects – ignorance and incompetence. If such levels of ignorance and incompetence are still existent within DHS then the cause of 9/11 is very clear and the possibilities of more 9/11 s occurring in the future cannot be ruled out. Knowledgeable and competent authority is the first thing we need. It is something which is core to security and nothing else can replace it. If such is the case with the core authority then contractors cannot be blamed for anything that happens to America.

Contractors vs. Civil Servants

It is important to note that contractors are motivated by different incentives as compared to civil servants. Whereas the contractors are driven by making money, civil servants or soldiers are all for the public interest. The current system relies on civil servants to manage contractors and hold them accountable. But do the civil servants have sufficient training and skills to play such a role? Doesn’t seem so, at least no such display of skills was noticeable in Iraq where a large number of contractors were employed.
Let us now check what value for money we get by employing contractors. Albeit a bit expensive, the contractors are believed to deliver with greater efficiency so as to offset the additional cost. Linda Bilmes presents an interesting fact – “As Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) has pointed out, non-Iraqi contractors charged $25 million to repaint 20 police stations — a job that the governor of Basra claims could have been done by local firms for $5 million.”

Five times more expensive!! So aren’t the taxpayers justified when they say that the taxes are increasing but the quality of life remains same (or maybe deteriorates). Moreover, these innocent beings are not even aware of such statistics. Some would term this as a tyranny and it probably is.

Conclusion

This research has tried to highlight the problems surrounding the restructuring process. The matter of fact is that there are various issues staring in our eye and demanding our attention even before we start looking at this restructuring exercise. There is a need to pause for a moment and evaluate the current situation. We have seen that contractors have no respect for law and are themselves law breakers too. The contractors, who are originally given the contract, hire incompetent sub-contractors for the same job, the end result being compromise with the security of America and Americans. The government just seems to be bending the laws left, right and center to accommodate more and more contractors. There are laws which allow the contractors to adopt monopolistic characteristics. Even looking at the core motive of contractors vs. the motive of civil servants, we find that the propelling forces are largely different and have an influence on their commitment to secure America from foreign threats. While one is driven by money, the other is driven by passion. Then the enforcement agencies themselves are incompetent and don’t respect even the directives which they themselves set. Quite a bit of information is withheld from the general public in the United States. Surrounding this lack of information is a lack of oversight for those in power. Restructuring seems more like frenzy of getting more and more contractors on board. If these employees are performing work crucial to the function of government, then we should integrate them more fully into the government workforce — with the same responsibilities and benefits as other government employees. Where will this frenzy end? Will it end with contracting of the post of the head of state? It’s about time that we gave it a thought.

References

• www.whitehouse.gov
• www.dhs.gov
• www.whitehouse.gov/dhs
• www.aclu.org
• “Erasing our America” (ACLU, 2004)
• House Government Reform Committee, 2005
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/homeland.htm
• http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=9&content=2973
• http://freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3d8e767823.htm
• Testimony of Steven Bellew, Vice Chairman, Fraternal order of Police Federal Protective Service Labor Committee – http://epw.senate.gov/107th/bel_0928.htm
• Linda Bilmes, an assistant secretary of commerce during the Clinton administration, teaches public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_usinc_lat_071804.htm
• Reuteurs, 16 Jun ‘05, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050616/us_nm/taxes_contractors_dc
• Trusting Companies with Government Secrets’ by Michael Fickes, Access Control & Security Systems,Feb 1, 2004 http://govtsecurity.securitysolutions.com/ar/security_trusting_companies_government/index.htm
• http://govtsecurity.securitysolutions.com/ar/security_uncle_sam_wants/index.htm
• http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=84
• http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=84&content=0900051980013466)
• http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=84&content=090005198001346a
• 11/22/04, William Jackson (GCN Staff), A few steps forward, a few back, http://www.gcn.com/23_33/news/27966-1.html
• Army Turns to Private Guards by T. Christian Miller Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 12, 2004 (http://webserve.govst.edu/users/ghrank/Political/Not-So-Great%20Expectations/civilian.htm)