The Next Hurrah: The Other Problem with Port Security

February 21, 2006

The Other Problem with Port Security

By DHinMI

Unless you've been in steerage on a cross-Atlantic voyage, you've probably heard that the Department of Homeland Security has awarded a contract to a company from the United Arab Emirates to oversee some functions as six major US ports (New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans). Just about everyone across the political spectrum is outraged that a country that was home to some of the 9-11 hijackers and provided an effective base for terrorist logistics and finance will, if the contract goes through, be in a position to undermine security in our already vulnerable ports.

Members of the administration, including Attorney General Abu Gonzales, have argued that the port deal will have no effect on port security. It appears that port security agencies such as police, customs and harbor patrol will not technically be effected by this deal. It is also true that 24 of the 25 largest ship terminals are operated by foreign companies, so the US has little direct control of what enters our ports. However, it's very disingenuous of the administration to portray the United Arab Emirates as “just another country” or OK because their government is an ally in the War on Terra. It's hard to imagine there wouldn't be an uproar if key function of customs, border security and drug enforcement were turned over to a company based in Columbia.

But there's another reason to be outraged about port security that has nothing directly to do with whether the companies operating shipping terminals are from the United Arab Emirate or the United States of America: The Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have not been properly funding port security:

Representatives of the nation’s public seaports oppose President Bush’s proposal to lump a dedicated grant program to improve port security into a larger funding pool.

Under Bush's fiscal 2007 spending plan, the Port Security Grant program, which was established in 2002, would be folded into the Targeted Infrastructure Protection (TIP) program within the Homeland Security Department’s new Preparedness Directorate.

Last year, Bush tried to consolidate the port security program into the larger grant program, but Congress rebuffed him and chose to keep the grant program separate. TIP was created to enhance security at port, railway, mass transit and other critical infrastructure facilities.

However, officials from the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), which represents 80 U.S. ports, said if the program is consolidated into a larger program, they would have to compete for funds against other transit systems, such as buses or rail...

[Some ports] have had to divert at least 15 percent of their capital budgets to security issues. This is straining their ability to handle ever-increasing cargo loads that are coming through their facilities, [a port official] said.

AAPA officials said the Coast Guard has estimated that port facilities would need to spend at least $5.4 billion in the next decade to improve security. Since 2002, the Port Security Grant program has allocated more than $708 million even though port officials have requested more than $3 billion.

They said there are few other sources they can get money from to help pay for security improvements.

Notice that there are at least two serious problems here. One, as with our oil refining capacity or the capacity of our electrical grids, our port infrastructure is on the verge of overload. But the deeper problem is that the Bush administration is more concerned with tax cuts that providing sufficient security to our critical, vulnerable and increasingly insufficient national infrastructure.

Bush tried to deflect the criticism of the port deal by claiming "I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world 'we'll treat you fairly."' Instead of arguing lamely that he's using the port deal to conduct a fair foreign policy, his first priority should be to keep Americans safe. His budget priorities show that our our safety isn't a Bush priority.

ubli

February 21, 2006 at 19:16 in Bush Administration, Bush/Republican Scandals, Congress, Contributor--DHinMI, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Republicans, State and Local Government, Terrorism | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d83428b50653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Other Problem with Port Security:

» The Sum Of All Fears from All Things Beautiful
Rescind Mr. President. Faith is a misplaced emotion in the long war on terror, and the assurance that U.S. ports will be secure when they are managed by a firm owned by a government in one of the most volatile parts of the world, is worthless. [Read More]

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

The Next Hurrah

February 21, 2006

The Other Problem with Port Security

TrackBack

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Post a comment

Recent Posts

Contributors

Categories

Archives

Where We Met

Links