Editorial: Homeland Security Report Card Not A Taker-Homer?

For all that it's worth, the report card issued to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by its own inspector general is not one to "take home to Daddy," some believe.

We must keep in mind, however, that no major terrorism event has taken place in the United States since September 11, 2001, and this business we call homeland security must be partly responsible.

The DHS inspector general recently issued an audit report indicating that "The Department of Homeland Security has given hundreds of millions of dollars to protect ports since September 11, 2001, without sufficiently directing the money to those that are most vulnerable…" reports the New York Times.

The audit statement said, "Wyoming has received four times as much anti-terrorism money per capita than has New York, according to a congressional report." (That statement, while perhaps true, can be very misleading. If you were to spend $100 for each of Wyoming's 494,000 people, that totals $49 million plus. If you spend the same amount for each of New York's 19 million plus, you come up with $1.9 billion. The devil is in the details. Maybe there's a defense installation in Wyoming that needs protection.)

The Times said that while 95 percent of all international commerce enters the United States through the nation's 360 public and private ports, nearly 80 percent of that trade moves through only 10 ports, with the biggest loads passing through Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York and Oakland.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) speaking at a news conference with Long Beach port officials, called for reforms and called the nation's ports the "soft underbelly" of homeland security.

The Los Angeles Times also followed up when the DHS funding practices came under fire. The Times wrote, "The [Office of Inspector General's] report criticized the department for awarding homeland security funding to as many applicants as possible—a practice that allowed several hundred projects to collect funds even when they received 'dubious scores' by local evaluators on the basis of key criteria such as vulnerability, raising questions about the project's merits."

Another congressional spokesperson criticized "sending money to Martha's Vineyard and the Virgin Islands instead of focusing efforts to secure our nation's largest ports.…" The procedure was described as a "shocking blunder."

What we may have brewing in the pot is a very large give-away program run amok. Just handing out money by the truckloads does not assure us of homeland security. Yet, we repeat that no major terrorism event has taken place in the United States since 9/11.

We aren't suggesting that homeland security officials be burned at the stake. After all, it is an immense, difficult program to manage. But it is so immensely important that the Bush administration should pay close attention to how money is spent.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) was among the first critics. He wrote to President Bush last September saying, "Your administration awarded port security grants in the states of Oklahoma, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Tennessee. While there may be some form of maritime facilities in those locations, I question whether, of the nation's 361 maritime ports, those locations are truly the front lines on the war on terror."

Most citizens of the United States are at least vaguely familiar with ocean shipping and might be expected to agree with him. Unfortunately, and the same seems true with Lautenberg, they are not aware of the important maritime activity on the nation's inland waterways.

Our first reaction is that homeland security money should be spent to protect nuclear facilities, chemical plants, tank farms, bustling ports and high-population centers where terrorist attacks could create true disaster. We believe the public thinks so, too. A first step in the overall homeland security effort must have included a prerequisite evaluation of sites and vulnerabilities. Wouldn't it seem natural to start at the "hottest" spots and work down?

The federal government, under any political party and over a long period of time, has had a way of "polluting" big programs. We cannot say yet that it has happened in this case. But the homeland security program seems "ripe for the picking." Can companies just hire experts who are good at writing grant applications and then sit back to watch the money roll in?

We suggest that the Bush administration step up scrutiny of DHS spending to weed out waste and to make sure money is spent properly.

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.)