|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Lack of Security Clearances Hinders Information-Sharing on Threats at U.S. Ports, GAO Says By Joe Fiorill WASHINGTON — Nonfederal port officials’ lack of required security clearances is hampering the sharing of information on weapons of mass destruction and other threats, potentially putting the United States at greater risk from an attack, the Government Accountability Office said yesterday (see GSN, March 23). A new report from the audit office indicates Coast Guard coordination of port security communications among federal, state, local and private institutions has improved through the establishment of regional maritime security committees and Joint Operations Command Centers, both of which include federal and nonfederal members. The Coast Guard program through which nonfederal officials may seek clearance to view classified information such as that collected by federal intelligence agencies is facing obstacles, however, the auditor said. For nonfederal officials to receive information “in a more timely fashion,” the Coast Guard should begin formally tracking data on issuance of security clearances and should do more to inform nonfederal agencies about the clearance application process, the office said. The Homeland Security Department and Coast Guard agreed with the appraisal. “The major barrier hindering information-sharing has been the lack of federal security clearances for nonfederal members of committees or centers,” the report reads. The office said that only 28 of 359 regional committee members who needed clearance had submitted paperwork at the time of the study. As a result, the Coast Guard last month instructed its field offices to seek out nonfederal entities that need clearances. The lack of clearances could lead to poor sharing of vital information on weapons of mass destruction arriving in ports, the office said. “Cargo containers ... are a potential conduit for terrorists to smuggle weapons of mass destruction or other dangerous materials into the country,” it said. To address the matter, Representatives Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) and Tom Davis (R-Va.) are seeking to amend the fiscal 2006 Homeland Security authorization bill to set up an “assistance for security clearance desk” to aid state, local and private committee members. Transportation Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) also introduced port legislation yesterday, proposing a trust fund for security improvements that would be drawn from new fees on importers. The bill would establish new U.S. customs standards for cargo inspections at foreign ports and would require that shippers of certain materials give authorities 24 hours’ notice before loading ships at the ports. It also seeks to aid the resumption of sea commerce following any attack, by streamlining port clearance for shippers with security plans, as well as to expand the presence of the Joint Operations Command Centers and to make port security grants more risk-based. GAO Homeland Security Chief Sees “Challenges” in Port ProtectionThe audit office’s top antiterrorism specialist yesterday told a Senate committee that U.S. ports “are vulnerable on many fronts” and face “challenges” in efforts to reduce vulnerabilities, to secure cargo and to increase “maritime domain awareness” — “a sufficiently informed view of maritime activities by stakeholders involved in security to quickly identify and respond to emergencies, unusual patterns or events and matters of particular interest.” “Considerable” effort has been put forth to improve security, including by assessing potential targets, developing vessel and port security plans, placing U.S. customs inspectors at overseas ports and increasing Coast Guard resources, GAO Homeland Security and Justice Issues Director Margaret Wrightson told the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. “The efforts we have reviewed over the past three years, many of which were quickly implemented to address pressing security needs, have encountered challenges that could significantly affect their success,” Wrightson said. In particular, she said, some agencies have embarked on new programs without sufficient strategic and personnel planning; coordination between the public and private sectors has at times been difficult; and demand for federal grants has outpaced supply amid dwindling port revenue and growing security costs. “Thus far, seaport security actions and homeland security activities in general lack performance measures to define what these activities are intended to achieve and measure progress toward these goals,” Wrightson added. “The future focus in applying resources and efforts also needs to incorporate an approach to identify and manage risk — that is, on assessing critical infrastructure, determining what is most at risk and applying sound measures.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
