Dent: Homeland Security Funding Based on Risk

The following is a portion of my interview with LV Congressman Charlie Dent, originally conducted on August 14.

LVRamblings: As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, how do you explain our total lack of progress in securing our ports and industrial and energy infrastructure as well as countless other points of vulnerability?

Congressman Dent: "The only thing I would say, very respectfully, is that we have made progress on port security. In fact, in my first term, we passed a very significant piece of port security legislation. It was a bipartisan agreement worked largely between my friend and colleague, Dan Lungren of California, a former Attorney General and Jane Hartman, a Democrat from California, a very strong leader on the committee and on intelligence issues. We did pass some very significant port security legislation as well as chemical plant security.

"Speaking to the question more generally, homeland security funding must be based on risk. It is risk-based funding - that is threat, vulnerability, consequence of attack. That's what directs our funding, not so much political criteria but those three conditions. Threat. Vulnerability. Consequence of attack.

"And it is true, we have many more vulnerabilities than we have funds to fortify all of them. I'll give you an example. You mentioned energy security. To be very candid, a nuclear power plant is not very vulnerable."

LVRamblings: It's not very vulnerable?

Congressman Dent: "Well, if somebody wants to take a jumbo jet and crash it into a cooling tower, maybe you'll destroy the plane. I've seen the simulations. I've seen what they've done. They are designed to withstand major impacts, both the reactor and those cooling towers. They're not very vulnerable. You'd need an army to try to take over one of those. There is incredible security. You'd need a massive conspiracy from the inside.

"Energy infrastructure, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and since 9/11, there are some very strong security measures in place, for example in a nuclear power plant.

"There are a lot of other pieces of American infrastructure that I worry a great deal about. There are soft targets. You don't need to be particularly smart to figure out where those vulnerabilities are. A crowded mall at Christmas time. They're very vulnerable. And there are other sites that I'd rather not mention publicly but there are a lot of very vulnerable sites out there.

"The point is, you take your limited Homeland Security dollars and you place them where they will have the most impact, looking at those issues of threat, vulnerability and consequence of attack. How many people will be impacted or killed or properties damaged - that's what you're looking at. There are some rather complex methodologies we use to determine that. Much of that is classified so I can't talk a whole lot about it.

"The good news is that, despite all the challenges, we have not experienced a terrorist attack since 9/11 . . . "

LVRamblings: That's true, that's true . . .

Congressman Dent: "That is something we should never lose sight of. I recently sat on a hearing of the Homeland Security Committee with Jane Harmon and we brought in the leading expert on al-Qaeda, who wrote the book, Peter Bergen.

"He and another expert felt we had been pretty effective in disrupting al-Quaeda. He believes that al-Qaeda seems to be unravelling. His words, not mine. Leading expert.

"Are they still lethal? Absolutely. Do they have an intent to do harm? Absolutely.

"The real al-Quaeda threat is going to come to this country through Europe, through the VISA waiver program. The Jihadis movement has had a hard time recruiting in our country and that's a great thing. Many people come to this country - Christian, Muslim or Jew - to adopt the American dream. In Europe, they are more segregated, and al-Qaeda has the intent and can do the damage and one doesn't have to be particularly bright to buy fertilizer and fuel oil to stick it in the back of a truck and ignite it."