Comments on: How much has the U.S. spent on port security? http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:26:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Homeland Security Watch » Blog Archive » DHS on total port security spending: $10 billion http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/comment-page-1/#comment-324 Homeland Security Watch » Blog Archive » DHS on total port security spending: $10 billion Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:37:31 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=415#comment-324 [...] This is generally consistent with my estimate last week of total port security spending since 9/11, in which I estimated a total of $6.13 billion from the start of FY 2002 (Oct. 1, 2002) to the midpoint of the current fiscal year (FY 2006), given the fact that my estimate excludes 18 future months from the timetable of the DHS statistic. And my estimate has more spending in the earlier years (FY 2002 to FY 2004) and less spending than the totals suggested above for FY 2006 and FY 2007. [...] [...] This is generally consistent with my estimate last week of total port security spending since 9/11, in which I estimated a total of $6.13 billion from the start of FY 2002 (Oct. 1, 2002) to the midpoint of the current fiscal year (FY 2006), given the fact that my estimate excludes 18 future months from the timetable of the DHS statistic. And my estimate has more spending in the earlier years (FY 2002 to FY 2004) and less spending than the totals suggested above for FY 2006 and FY 2007. [...]

]]> By: Gerry http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/comment-page-1/#comment-310 Gerry Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:01:16 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=415#comment-310 Here you go..... DHS OIG report on USCG mission performance The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a report on FY 2003 mission performance by the U.S. Coast Guard. While the agency is performing at a very high level, the OIG identified three major barriers to further improvements: (1) lack of a comprehensive performance management system; (2) growing workload; and (3) deteriorating readiness condition of its aged cutter and aircraft fleet. OIG-04-43 (10/12/04). http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_04_43-10122004.pdf DHS Appropriations Act The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (H.R. 4567) has been posted on the Internet. As indicated in the Summary reported yesterday, funding for the Department and its various agencies has been slightly increased. Among other things, the Coast Guard is provided with monies to hire additional personnel to review and examine security plans and procedures. The enrolled bill is being sent to the President for signature. (10/12/04). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h4567enr.txt.pdf Here you go…..

DHS OIG report on USCG mission performance

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a report on FY 2003 mission performance by the U.S. Coast Guard. While the agency is performing at a very high level, the OIG identified three major barriers to further improvements: (1) lack of a comprehensive performance management system; (2) growing workload; and (3) deteriorating readiness condition of its aged cutter and aircraft fleet. OIG-04-43 (10/12/04).
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_04_43-10122004.pdf

DHS Appropriations Act

The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (H.R. 4567) has been posted on the Internet. As indicated in the Summary reported yesterday, funding for the Department and its various agencies has been slightly increased. Among other things, the Coast Guard is provided with monies to hire additional personnel to review and examine security plans and procedures. The enrolled bill is being sent to the President for signature. (10/12/04).

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h4567enr.txt.pdf

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/comment-page-1/#comment-301 William R. Cumming Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:56:15 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=415#comment-301 It would be interesting to see whether actual appropriations and obligations for the USCG "Deepwater" program of replacement of obsolete plans and ships has suffered in direct relationship to "Port Security"! Has Peter been robbed to pay Paul when both are critically needed. It would be interesting to see whether actual appropriations and obligations for the USCG “Deepwater” program of replacement of obsolete plans and ships has suffered in direct relationship to “Port Security”! Has Peter been robbed to pay Paul when both are critically needed.

]]> By: Gerry http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/comment-page-1/#comment-299 Gerry Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:35:44 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=415#comment-299 Let me clarify this.... "But port security grants are NOT the totality of port security spending. The “ports, waterways, and coastal security” budget line item within the Coast Guard’s budget has totaled nearly $5 billion since FY 2003. ($1.25 billion in FY 2003, $1.26 billion in FY 2004, $1.21 billion in FY 2005 and $1.26 billion in FY 2006.) There is no similar estimate available for FY 2002, but it’s likely similar - I’ll estimate $1.1 billion. Not all of this is for port security per se, but a large share of it is" The bulk of USCG funding $5 Billion is directed at its operational expenses to cover all of its port security missions worldwide. This includes interdiction, port state control operations, vessel M&R, new builds, facilities including detection equipment which is a hugh chunk of change...and personnel... The figure of $630 million is the actual expendure for day-to-day port security operations covering US Ports.... It is estimated that the USCG needs somewhere around 12.5 Billion to do the job properly..... Let me clarify this….

“But port security grants are NOT the totality of port security spending. The “ports, waterways, and coastal security” budget line item within the Coast Guard’s budget has totaled nearly $5 billion since FY 2003. ($1.25 billion in FY 2003, $1.26 billion in FY 2004, $1.21 billion in FY 2005 and $1.26 billion in FY 2006.) There is no similar estimate available for FY 2002, but it’s likely similar – I’ll estimate $1.1 billion. Not all of this is for port security per se, but a large share of it is”

The bulk of USCG funding $5 Billion is directed at its operational expenses to cover all of its port security missions worldwide. This includes interdiction, port state control operations, vessel M&R, new builds, facilities including detection equipment which is a hugh chunk of change…and personnel… The figure of $630 million is the actual expendure for day-to-day port security operations covering US Ports….

It is estimated that the USCG needs somewhere around 12.5 Billion to do the job properly…..

]]> By: Gerry http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/comment-page-1/#comment-295 Gerry Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:20:46 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=415#comment-295 Nice site.... The P&O issues is smoke. We all know P&O does not control port security. The Port Aurthorities and DHS does. The UAE ownership is also a red herring. Big deal! I could care less who owns what. I do care about what passes through though... We have spent some 18 to 21 billion on AP Security and its marginal at best while we have only spent around 500 to 800 million et.el on port security. The Coast Guard is so under funded that they are having a hell of a time matching resources with money and missions. The FBI does not keep crime statistics categorized by whether they occur in seaports, as opposed to the general community. Thus, there is almost no way to determine whether crime on the waterfront is up or down. Port Security...... And Pete King is doing what? Drawing a line in the sand with Bush over P&O? Believe me I am not a happy camper with this administration at this point especially about Iraq while we gave and still give Iran a free pass.......but on this issue of P&O Bush is correct. Pete King and Sue Collins need to stop the duckspeak and fix the problems.... Chuck Schumer needs to get a life......Joe "Rambo" Lieberman needs to walk the walk and Bernie Thompson needs to wake up! The RNC and DNC need to stop playing politics with national security. The President? Needs to get a new set of advisors and Staffers....then he needs to take out the ear wax..... Nice site….

The P&O issues is smoke. We all know P&O does not control port security. The Port Aurthorities and DHS does. The UAE ownership is also a red herring. Big deal! I could care less who owns what. I do care about what passes through though…

We have spent some 18 to 21 billion on AP Security and its marginal at best while we have only spent around 500 to 800 million et.el on port security. The Coast Guard is so under funded that they are having a hell of a time matching resources with money and missions. The FBI does not keep crime statistics categorized by whether they occur in seaports, as opposed to the general community. Thus, there is almost no way to determine whether crime on the waterfront is up or down. Port Security……

And Pete King is doing what? Drawing a line in the sand with Bush over P&O? Believe me I am not a happy camper with this administration at this point especially about Iraq while we gave and still give Iran a free pass…….but on this issue of P&O Bush is correct.

Pete King and Sue Collins need to stop the duckspeak and fix the problems…. Chuck Schumer needs to get a life……Joe “Rambo” Lieberman needs to walk the walk and Bernie Thompson needs to wake up! The RNC and DNC need to stop playing politics with national security.

The President? Needs to get a new set of advisors and Staffers….then he needs to take out the ear wax…..

]]> By: Howard Shatz http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/comment-page-1/#comment-292 Howard Shatz Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:34:14 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=415#comment-292 Hi Christian, On grants alone, I count the following. 1. Five rounds of port security grants: $631.8 million. 2. One round of Urban Area Security Initiative grants for ports (May 2003): $75 million. 3. Three rounds of Operation Safe Commerce: $72.1 million Total: $778.9 million in grants. I believe there has been extra grant money for ports (albeit modest amounts) funneled through state governments. For example, California gave $4.95 million in grants in FY 2005 using Federal UASI money, if my details are correct. I haven't tried to total Federal Budget allocations for operations, as you have done. Hi Christian,

On grants alone, I count the following.
1. Five rounds of port security grants: $631.8 million.
2. One round of Urban Area Security Initiative grants for ports (May 2003): $75 million.
3. Three rounds of Operation Safe Commerce: $72.1 million

Total: $778.9 million in grants.

I believe there has been extra grant money for ports (albeit modest amounts) funneled through state governments. For example, California gave $4.95 million in grants in FY 2005 using Federal UASI money, if my details are correct.

I haven’t tried to total Federal Budget allocations for operations, as you have done.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/02/23/how-much-has-the-us-spent-on-port-security/comment-page-1/#comment-288 William R. Cumming Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:26:38 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=415#comment-288 How should federal expenditures for the security of an industry be viewed for both fiscal and economic analysis? Is this a direct subsidy or should it be fully recovered by user fees? It is interesting to note that virtually no informed analysis exists of who the hidden beneficiaries of Homeland Security spending are! Stanley Surrey developed the concept of tax expenditures for the tax world perhaps this should be done here. Surrey's notion was that even exemptions and credits were in fact expenditures. With all the arguments about efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs, functions, and activities it is interesting that no one is really interested in determining whom or what organizations are the beneficiaries. How should federal expenditures for the security of an industry be viewed for both fiscal and economic analysis? Is this a direct subsidy or should it be fully recovered by user fees? It is interesting to note that virtually no informed analysis exists of who the hidden beneficiaries of Homeland Security spending are! Stanley Surrey developed the concept of tax expenditures for the tax world perhaps this should be done here. Surrey’s notion was that even exemptions and credits were in fact expenditures. With all the arguments about efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs, functions, and activities it is interesting that no one is really interested in determining whom or what organizations are the beneficiaries.

]]>