Readers who also follow me on Twitter® (@pjcoyle) may have noticed an exchange
between me and @DwightFoley about
the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program extension. In
that exchange Foley pointed at a document in his possession that indicated that
the Trump Administration is proposing to eliminate the CFATS program. Foley
provided me with a copy of the document and I have at least tentatively
authenticated its authenticity (okay, it is real, it just has not yet been
officially released).
The document is “FY 2021 Budget in Brief”. It is a DHS
publication that outlines the DHS portion of the President’s FY 2021 budget. On
page 61 under the discussion on the Infrastructure Security program it states:
“Eliminates the Chemical Facilities
Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program funding while simultaneously
increasing funding significantly for the Protective Security Advisors (PSA)
program. This will allow CISA to provide voluntary support for chemical
production facilities without the unnecessary burden of regulatory
requirements, placing the chemical sector on par with all the other critical
infrastructure sectors for which CISA has oversight.”
Actually, the document includes cuts to a number of programs
in DHS and the elimination of a number of others. Having said that, it does not
really mean much because Presidential budget documents have been a mostly
meaningless exercise for a number of years now. Generally speaking Congress
ignores the President’s budget request in formulating its own.
The bigger question here is does this reflect a lack of
support for the CFATS program within the Administration. I do not think that
this is true at the highest levels in the Administration; the program is just
too small to really reach the level of awareness at that sort of level. There
are those, of course in the White House that generally object to any sort of
regulatory program, and those, if pressed, would probably object to the CFATS program
on purely philosophical grounds.
As far as I can tell (from public utterances anyway) there
is still general support for CFATS and the Infrastructure Security Compliance
Division within CISA. There has to be, however, some level of concern about the
lack of congressional action on the reauthorization of the program. Of course,
most of that type ‘action’ would be behind the scene in any case and at this
point I do not expect to see any action until April with the introduction of
another short-term reauthorization bill.
This is the thing that we have to keep in mind about this
program. It is a congressionally mandated and funded program. There is strong support
for the program on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol.
That support extends to both the oversight committees and the spending
committees. While the details of what the various parties want to see happen in
the program varies, there is strong support for continuing the program.
Does this mean that the program cannot be killed? Certainly
not. While there is a certain amount of inertial support for any governmental
program, any program can ultimately be killed by Congress. They seldom die from
lack of attention (funding exists at least until September 30th even
if the program ‘expires’ on April 18th). Rather federal programs are
usually killed by outright opponents of the program. At this point in time, I
have seen no sign of organized opposition to the CFATS program in the halls of
Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment