Chicago Tribune

(KRT)

WASHINGTON — As controversy rages over whether a Dubai company should run U.S. ports, many of America's other critical facilities remain vulnerable to terrorists more than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Government Accountability Office last week cited the need for improved security at chemical facilities, particularly in urban areas, and said the government needed more power to require it.

Ports have many security problems that go beyond who runs them, numerous experts say. Nuclear plants, trains, subways, shopping centers and other critical infrastructure, such as companies and utilities that provide water, gasoline and food are potential targets with a number of weak points.

Though aviation security has been dramatically improved, experts say that cargo and the backgrounds of those who service airplanes need to be screened more closely. Computer systems are considered subject to cyber-attack. Border security should be strengthened.

And, on ports, Richard Falkenrath of the Brookings Institution said the problem is not so much about what company operates them as about the need for greater security of boats and buildings surrounding them.

Having a company from the United Arab Emirates in charge of six U.S. port facilities "is very low on the list" of security concerns, he said, adding that he is more worried that a nuclear weapon could be sneaked through despite current safeguards.

"A port is where chemical, energy and oil facilities all come together with a large number of people, with quite limited security on the water," Falkenrath said.

The dispute over whether the UAE firm, Dubai Ports World, should manage the U.S. ports tended to divert public attention from many of these vulnerabilities as members of both major political parties criticized the deal in congressional testimony last week. But the Sept. 11 commission three months ago gave poor grades to numerous government efforts to enhance security, prompting criticism from many Democrats.

To Timothy Roemer, a member of the commission and a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, Washington is lagging in efforts to strengthen security at a large number of sites that could be terrorist targets.

"It's a government failure, of both Congress and the White House," he said, adding that both parties have to share the blame. "It is failure across the board ... The current government seems to be obsessed with the 9-11 attacks and largely ignoring post-9-11 targets."

Nonetheless, Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that although many challenges remain, "we are much safer than we used to be." That is the response often made by the Bush administration as it fends off Democratic critics.

President Bush has bolstered the homeland security budget and invested in new technologies to detect terrorist threats. But at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the president's budget did not provide enough money for the Coast Guard, which is assigned to policing ports and protecting coastal chemical facilities.

In response to criticism, the administration is beginning to focus efforts on areas it considers most vulnerable, to put limited funds to the most effective use. It is a so-called risk-based approach to security recommended by the Sept. 11 commission.

"We need to be proportional and more realistic," Linder said. "I believe we have to reduce the threats, but we can't eliminate them. There is just not enough money to do everything."

Linder is candid about his fears — dams being blown up, terrorists sneaking onto airplanes with plastic explosives, a nuclear device entering the United States at a remote point and then detonating in a city or a biological attack. While critical of Democrats for politicizing the security issue, he conceded that the U.S. could be over-emphasizing airline security at the expense of other potential dangers.

"We're still looking for box cutters, not for biological events," he said, referring to weapons the Sept. 11 terrorists used to take charge of four airplanes.

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., also a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said that the United States is safer than it was before Sept. 11 and credited the president's actions, including passage of the USA Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement officials increased investigative authority and surveillance.

But Shays added, "You can be sure that al-Qaida is going around the country to see how vulnerable we are." He said the terrorist group is likely taking an inventory of "every road, bridge, every tunnel" and other places that could be vulnerable to attack.

The port controversy also provided fresh evidence that the nation's security problems have become increasingly politicized, a contrast to the national and bipartisan unity that prevailed after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The assessment of how safe the nation is often depends on which party is talking. Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee released a report last week giving low grades to the administration's record on keeping domestic infrastructure secure. Chemical plant security received a C-minus, according to their report, and port security between a C-minus and D-plus. Surface transportation security got a C-minus, security of critical infrastructure a D-minus.

"In so many of these critical areas, we have barely scratched the surface (in improving security)," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the panel.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

The GAO report said federal and state governments, along with the industry, have taken steps to improve security at chemical plants, but "recent studies and media exposes have raised doubts about security at some plants."

The watchdog agency recommended that the Homeland Security Department be given power to mandate security improvements at chemical plants, but legislation to that effect has stalled in Congress over whether the industry should meet tougher environmental standards.

Chris VandenHeuvel, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said the organization is optimistic that bipartisan legislation — without the environmental provisions — will pass this year.

Maurice McBride, director of security for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said that its members have voluntarily tightened security and, he believes, are positioned to fend off any attacks.

———

(c) 2006, Chicago Tribune.

Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.