U.S. SECURITY STILL THREATENED BY PORK & POLITICS

By Diane M. Grassi

It is now nearly four years after September 11, 2001 and billions and billions of dollars have been spent on domestic security. It includes $4.5 billion on screening devices to protect our homeland, $2.2 billion for first-responders in all fifty states and U.S. territories and a new FBI database software security system costing $170 million which has been totally scrapped. In addition the airport screeners solely hired by the federal government in the aftermath of 9/11 have proven no more effective than those working for private screening contractors according to the Government Accountability Agency in a report issued in May 2005. With a total of $15 billion spent on airport security alone since 2001, one might say that we have better deterrents in place. But due to injudicious decisions by our government which led to overspending on ineffective equipment and management systems we are again behind the curve in protecting ourselves.

The evident rush to judgment in spending included radiation monitors at ports and borders that cannot detect differences between radioactivity emitted by a nuclear bomb or naturally occurring radiation such as that from everyday material in the form of cat litter or ceramic tile. Air-monitoring equipment in major cities protects only minimally because of a shortage of detectors as well as not being properly calibrated or installed. The U.S. Postal Service machines only test a small percentage of mail for anthrax or about 20% of all mail which comes from blue post boxes only, while no precautions are in place to test mail for any other biological agents. Passenger screening equipment at airports has resulted in no better detection of passengers trying to carry a weapon or bomb aboard an airplane. In addition, all cargo loaded onto commercial aircraft is still not being screened at all.

The Transportation Security Administration bought 1,344 machines costing over $1 million each to search for explosives in checked bags at airports, but items such as shampoo bottles which share the same density as certain explosives can set off machines. The result has been false alarms for 15% -30% of all checked bags and has called for the hiring of more screeners. At busy times, due to time restraints and the screening machines not integrated with the baggage conveyor systems, bags are sometimes loaded onto planes without proper examination, according to former and current screeners. And although equipment to screen passengers and their carry-on bags includes nearly 5,000 new metal detectors, x-ray machines and trace-explosive detectors a handgun can still slip through because screeners rely on two dimensional x-ray machines rather than newer three-dimensional models.

In addition to sporadic false-positive or non-detected passenger items at airports the GAO report found that the federally hired airport screeners have not improved at all in detection of weapons or bombs since 2003. Among the findings were that screeners were not receiving the basic legislatively required remedial training or the required amount of recurrent training. Also, workers have become complacent, given the addition of new x-ray and metal detector equipment. And while the airlines have been given the choice since November 2004 to again hire private screeners with federal government oversight, none of the major airports have signed on due to liability which the government would not cover.

Lest you think lawmakers on Capitol Hill are not doing their jobs, much hand wringing and postulating has been going on concerning two proposed bills, one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate concerning funding for first-responders. After suggestions in the 9/11 Commission Report, H.R. 1544 was introduced by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) of the House Homeland Security Committee and S. 21 was put forth by the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee Chair, Susan Collins (R-ME), in April 2005.

At issue is changing the formula currently required for funding states’ first-responders in rural areas versus urban areas. Initially provided funding through the U.S. Patriot Act after 9/11, those first in defense of security have become fodder for pork barrel justice as funding was not based upon risk but .75 per cent was judiciously divided among all fifty states and U.S. territories with the balance provided in the form of grants.

Unlike other spending bills which are usually partisan in nature, this has become the debate of the little states hanging tough against the big states. Collins has suggested a formula in which each state would receive .55 per cent of homeland security grant funding. Larger states could receive a higher percentage or up to 3% based upon population and population density. The Homeland Security Secretary would allocate the remaining funds on the basis of risk. No less than 10 amendments are expected to be added to S.21.

In H.R. 1544, emphasis is increased on threat vulnerability with .25 per cent for each state with the remaining funds available in grants based on assessment of risk and need with incentives for states to expeditiously distribute funding directly to those departments in need. The present dole has allowed states and cities to spend subsidies on anything and everything giving their states non-discretionary funding. And with New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco receiving the least per capita funding in Homeland Security allocations, sparsely populated states such as Wyoming, South Dakota and Montana have bought things for their police and fire departments that they at one time could only dream about.

So the pork barrel has been rolled out once again and the rush to spend is alive and well. But have we not learned anything in the past four years? It should not be business as usual while lives are at stake and especially while we are heavily invested in the war in Iraq, leaving little leeway for error. It is quite disturbing that as people remove their shoes and belts at airports there are many remaining flaws in the security systems at airports and on planes, at ports and at the borders. It does little to quell New York City residents’ fears that they are least protected should first responders be called into action, as they wish they were living in some rural state.

But with a proposed additional $7 billion to be spent on domestic security equipment and an additional $2.9 billion already proposed for first-responders in 2006, at least another $250 million will be needed to recreate a new FBI database security system. Additional spending figures are not yet publicly available for ramped up security at our ports, nuclear facilities, railways and waterways. But any formula which includes big states versus little states, Republicans versus Democrats, the White House versus the Congress or the FBI versus the CIA will only lead to our own self-destruction.

Our security is only as good as our weakest link. We can no longer tolerate window dressing in place of security with teeth which includes bolstering protection at our borders and meaningful immigration reform. Since 9/11 we have been preached to time and time again that we now live in a different world. When will all of our government factions start acting like it? Rushed and more expensive legislation is not the answer. Our government must become more creative in drafting more meaningful legislation while striving for fiscal responsibility. We expect our lawmakers to protect the American people’s interests and lives first, and count on them to readdress the changing world in which we live. And as such, political correctness and politics as usual no longer have a place in the War on Terrorism.