Improved Security at Ports Urged

Describing the nation’s ports as the “soft underbelly” of homeland security, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday urged immediate reforms to strengthen counterterrorism laws and assure that funds go to coastal facilities at highest risk of attack.

“We sit in the middle of a large urban area where a dirty bomb ... or something smuggled inside a container could do enormous damage,” Feinstein, flanked by Long Beach and Los Angeles port officials, said during a news conference at the Port of Long Beach.

Noting that the two ports handle more than 40% of the nation’s cargo, Feinstein warned that an attack at either facility could prove devastating, not just to Southern California, but to the nation’s economy.

Recently, Feinstein and several other senators reintroduced legislation that would tighten existing laws and create new sanctions for criminal activity at ports and aboard vessels. The bill, among other things, would create a new crime of failing to obey Coast Guard orders at sea. It would also increase penalties for terrorists who dump hazardous materials or place floating mines or other weapons in port waters. Such acts would be punishable by life imprisonment or execution, if the hazardous materials or weapons cause deaths.

Also, Feinstein and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced legislation that would require the Department of Homeland Security to allocate security grants on the basis of risk rather than political or geographic considerations. Under the bill, allocations would be linked to three basic considerations: a port’s physical vulnerability, the consequences of an attack and the actual threat as assessed by intelligence officials.

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security’s funding practices came under fire in a report issued by its own Office of Inspector General.

The 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.

Those projects included millions of dollars for small security boats, lighting systems, fencing and closed-circuit television systems that the Department of Homeland Security funded even though some grant officials questioned their need.

The inspector general’s report also identified three dozen ports that were funded even though they were not on a government list of strategic or controlled ports considered most vital to national security.

“Sending money to Martha’s Vineyard and the Virgin Islands instead of focusing our efforts to secure our nation’s largest ports is a shocking blunder by the Department of Homeland Security,” Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) said Tuesday.

“While helping to install video surveillance systems at hotel [marinas] and other low-risk areas, the department has left bustling hubs like Los Angeles/Long Beach, Oakland and New York more vulnerable to a terrorist attack,” said Harman, ranking member of the House Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence. Added Harman: “This backward approach to funding -- distributing money as widely as possible and ignoring potential targets -- is not only foolish, it’s dangerous.”

The inspector general’s report also found that recipients of more than $515 million in grants between June 2002 and December 2003 had spent just $107 million -- or one dollar in five -- as of last September. “As a result,” the inspector general found, “the majority of projects have not been completed and the program has not yet achieved its intended results ... of actual improvements to port security.”

In an interview Tuesday, one of the Department of Homeland Security’s top officials took issue with some findings in the audit, including criticism of how many ports received funding for security. “If only the strategic ports would have been funded, then there would have been an inspector general’s study saying, ‘You left a gap and the other ports have not had their security addressed sufficiently,’ ” said Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security at the department.

At the same time, Hutchinson agreed with the audit’s findings that funds are not being spent as quickly as needed for security measures at ports.

“That is a concern for us,” said Hutchinson, who will leave office next week. “Not only do we, the department, need to work hard in making sure the money is spent, but those recipients need to make sure the money is spent ... in a timely manner.”