The House-Senate conference committee?s decision to strip $648 million of port security funding out of emergency appropriations legislation is an extremely discouraging development. Opponents of the additional spending argued that the budgetary requirements for the war in Iraq , Afghanistan , and hurricane Katrina relief efforts trumped the needs for the additional spending on port security. Proponents of the funding argued that more money was needed to increase important port security measures. Moreover, proponents of the additional spending argued that the funding cutback also sent the wrong message at a time when port authorities nationwide are struggling to cover the costs of implementing the federally directed transportation workers identity card program .
The extra $648 million would have been used to support a number of important port security operations. In particular, the extra funding would have enabled the hiring of new supply chain specialists for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program (C-TPAT) as well as the hiring of new overseas inspectors for the Container Security Initiative. Additionally, the extra funding would have enabled the purchase of additional non-intrusive inspection equipment and radiation portal monitors for installation at seaports.
While the Department of Homeland Security?s (DHS) appropriations bill set aside $4.2 billion for port security improvements and operations, opponents of the funding cut argue that the baseline DHS funding is not enough. For example, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash) said that DHS?s funding ?was not enough, that is why we asked for more.?
The cut in emergency funding for increased security is puzzling for two reasons. First, Congress?s response to the proposed purchase of major US port operations by Dubai Ports World (DPW) seemed to indicate that lawmakers were finally paying attention to the issue of port security . Commenting on a House Appropriations Committee amendment designed to block the controversial Dubai Ports World takeover of selected American port operations, Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif) commented, ?This is a national issue. This is a national security bill. We want to make sure that the security of our ports is in America’s hands.? However, it now appears that the response to the proposed Dubai World Ports deal was merely political posturing on behalf of opportunistic politicians, both Democrat and Republican alike.
Second, the gaps in port security remain one of the most obvious vulnerabilities in our homeland security posture . Most experts agree that the threat of weapon(s) of mass destruction (WMD) smuggled into the country via a cargo container ship remains one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities facing our nation. Noted port security expert Stephen Flynn stated before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation on August 25, 2004, ?maritime transportation is one of our nation?s most serious vulnerabilities, and we are simply not doing enough to respond to the terrorist threat to this critical sector.? Not surprisingly, more than one year later before the same subcommittee Flynn testified, ?my conclusion is that the security measures that are currently in place do not provide an effective deterrent for a determined terrorist organization intent on exploiting or targeting the maritime transportation system to strike at the United States .?
Terrorist groups, particularly those inspired by Al Qaeda?s brand of salafi jihadist ideology, tend to seek the path of least resistance when choosing targets to attack. As 9/11 demonstrated these groups have proven themselves particularly adept at patiently studying our security posture and exploiting our vulnerabilities. As a result, it is difficult to understand why the obvious vulnerabilities in our port security posture have not received the attention that they deserve.