Tom Thompson, President of Analytics, Inc., in Seattle, complained back in October that the government spends more money every three days on the war in Iraq than it has provided over the past three years to secure U.S. ports. In more ways than one, that’s a pretty touchy subject and one that most people won’t discuss openly. Tom believes in telling it like it is, though, and his candor has encouraged others to question the illogical approach of those in the Department of Homeland Security and in Customs and Border Protection.

Bill DiBenedetto, the Managing Editor of PACIFIC SHIPPER, in his February 21st editorial, was just as candid as Mr. Thompson when he stated, “Spending upward of $ 140 million each day in Iraq while our seaports and other modes go begging is misguided and wrong”. That might sound like an off-the-wall opinion, but it isn’t. Bill was drawing upon the information released following an audit by the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general. Speaking of candor, these are some of the “misguided and wrong” moves revealed by the audit:

• Too little money was appropriated, much of it was not spent, and much of what was spent was spent for the wrong things. For example, the audit stated that more money was spent to protect Martha’s Vineyard than was spent on New York and Los Angeles.
• Although the Coast Guard estimated that it would take $ 5.4 billion over the next ten years to prevent terrorists from bringing in a weapon of mass destruction in one of the 6 million shipping containers imported every year, the U.S. security program has allocated less than $ 600 million since 2002, an amount far less than what is spent on airport security.
• While funds were misspent or misdirected to ports in St. Croix in the Virgin Islands and Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, the Port of New York, which handles 12 percent of U.S. cargo traffic received just 7 percent of the grants. It was also noted that Wyoming received $ 38 per person last year, compared with New York’s $ 5.50 per person.
• The inspector general found that the government “funded several hundred projects despite dubious marks by its evaluators against key criteria”. A grant of $ 180,000 for lighting went to a “small remote facility that receives less than 20 ships per year,” for improvements that an evaluation team found would have “minimal impact”.
• The audit also found that a disturbing amount of money went to private companies that operate ports, in some cases for projects that “appeared to be for a purpose other than security against an act of terrorism”.

Mr. Dinsmore, the Port of Seattle’s chief executive, stated a little while ago that there is no comprehensive plan covering container security, and if a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon escaped detection and was detonated, every U.S. port would be affected, global trade would come to a standstill, “and we don’t have the systems in place to get our seaports up and running again”.

Here’s the irony of it all. With almost 25,000 cargo containers arriving every day, containerized shipping is “uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attack” … said CBP Commissioner Robert Bonner.