Editorial: If National Security Is A Key Concern, Why Cut Funding?

That is what Congressman Frank A. LoBiondo, Ranking Member of the House Coast Guard & Maritime Security Subcommittee, is wondering. LoBiondo (R-N.J.) recently blasted the Obama administration’s FY 2011 budget proposal, which he said “…would severely undercut the Coast Guard’s capabilities to patrol and protect the nation’s ports and maritime transportation system and give terrorists an opportunity to exploit this weakness.”

If national interest means anything, national security ranks next to jobs at the top of the list. Obama’s feet are being held to the griddle over several security-related issues, including the Mirandizing of the so-called Christmas Bomber. Under such a barrage of criticism, it is strange that our commander in chief would place a burr under LoBiondo’s saddle and further hobble the Coast Guard.

It was only a couple years ago that improving national security was so much in vogue. Everyone working in transportation had to be vetted and obtain Transportation Worker Identification Cards (TWIC) just to enter their place of employment. Gates at some locks and dams were closed to visitors, and photographers who ventured close to riverside installations were often questioned by authorities. Even towboat crews were put under the microscope.

According to one report—one which has been widely circulated—the budget proposal would cut the Coast Guard’s operating budget for 2011 by 2 percent, which would cut the operations force by 773 personnel. The equipment/asset acquisitions budget would be cut by 10 percent.

The move, the report said, “…would eliminate five maritime safety and security teams (MSST), including the team stationed at the Port of New York/New Jersey, the nation’s second-largest port. Safety and security teams are responsible for boarding suspect vessels, conducting anti-terrorism activities, patrolling critical infrastructure, escorting potentially hazardous cargo (i.e. liquid natural gas vessels, liquid propane gas vessels, etc.) and responding to unanticipated events such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, etc. LoBiondo co-authored the 2002 Maritime Transportation Security Act that created the MSSTs in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The report, distributed by BigNews.biz, said the 2011 budget proposal also calls for the Coast Guard to mothball five HH-65 Dolphin helicopters in the Great Lakes region. The helicopters underwent repowering three years ago, which extended their useful life for another decade. To fill the gap in Great Lakes region security, the Coast Guard would have to move two H-60 helicopters out of Virginia, where they are dedicated to anti-terrorism efforts, and two H-60 Jayhawk helicopters from the Bahamas, where they are dedicated to the international drug interdiction mission, the report added.

Obviously we don’t claim to be specialists in national security, but we have to assume LoBiondo knows of what he speaks. “Rather than giving the Coast Guard the support and resources it needs to succeed in its myriad missions, the Obama administration is intent on letting some of the core missions of the Service fall by the wayside,” he said. Calling it “unacceptable,” he said he would “fight to restore these resources.”

Having been thrust into the Department of Homeland Security has added much responsibility to Coast Guard’s role. It is complicated enough as it is without fuzzying up the mission with budget restraints that don’t seem practical.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)