U.S. Ports Can Detect Dirty Bomb, Hutchinson Says

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Security improvements made since Sept. 11, 2001, have given U.S. authorities confidence they can detect a “dirty bomb” arriving by sea, the lead federal official for the effort said yesterday (see GSN, March 23).

Homeland Security Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson told a packed National Press Club auditorium that U.S. ports are mostly compliant with sweeping new security measures that go into effect tomorrow around the world (see GSN, June 22).

Speaking as part of a panel convened at the club by George Mason University Law School’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Program, Hutchinson responded to general disagreement over who should pay for security enhancements by stressing the responsibilities of the private sector and the limits of government action (see GSN, April 13).

In response to questions about U.S. capability to fend off a radiological attack by sea, Hutchinson said, “I believe that we have the systems in place in order to detect that.”

“Is it possible for a radiological bomb to get through? … There always can be a means,” he added.

In a confidential memorandum last week, the FBI warned law-enforcement officials that terrorists could use small boats or floating objects such as inner tubes to deliver a bomb to U.S. shores. Hutchinson yesterday played down the warning.

“There has been historic reporting ― [I] wouldn’t relate it to anything current,” he said.

“We have to have creative minds” in planning for potential attacks, he added, calling the memorandum “a law-enforcement information package as to something that could be utilized” by terrorists. He said that using small craft would be difficult for terrorists and that no intelligence indicates they are now considering such attacks in the United States.

The Associated Press reported last week that only about 10 percent of world ports would by tomorrow’s deadline be in compliance with the new International Maritime Organization port-security code, which requires new screening measures to intercept suspicious and dangerous sea shipments.

U.S. and industry officials on yesterday’s panel highlighted progress they have made in port security since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but one Democratic panelist expressed doubt about the significance of the deadline.

Hutchinson described a heightened law-enforcement presence at U.S. ports, including an increase in the number of bomb-sniffing dogs, as well as new identification and background checks and wider use of surveillance cameras. Both he and U.S. Coast Guard port-security head Larry Hereth emphasized that the United States will systematically inspect ships coming from the many world ports that are not in compliance with the new code.

The most definitive effect of the code, according to several officials on the panel, is that as of tomorrow, proper documentation will be required for any ship to enter any U.S. port.

“If they don’t have a new international certificate, we will deny them entry,” said Hereth, port-security director in the Coast Guard Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection Directorate. Hereth added that the United States is helping noncompliant ports around the world to meet the new rules.

Local and industry officials echoed Hereth’s assurances about denial of entry to uncertified craft. Maryland Port Administration Executive Director Jim White said the new measures are a far cry from pre-9/11 practice.

“Prior to 9/11, if you had a friendly wave and you knew your way around a terminal, all you had to do was wave, and you were around 85 percent of the marine terminals in the United States,” White said.

Carl Bentzel, senior Democratic counsel for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, characterized tomorrow’s deadline as important only on paper. Bentzel said that at many ports, the deadline means only that a plan has been submitted. He added that much of the new system relies on cargo manifests provided by shippers themselves, leaving ports open to deliberate deceit.

“The next year or two years will be the most important time,” Bentzel said.

Much of the discussion was given over to panelists’ airing of disagreements over who ― the federal government, state and local governments or the private sector ― should pay for security improvements at U.S. ports.

The question is an important one, said Center for American Progress National Defense and Homeland Security Director Philip Crowley, because “largely speaking, port security right now is an unfunded requirement.”

President George W. Bush’s administration is requesting $46 million for port security in its fiscal 2005 budget proposal, while the Coast Guard has estimated more than $7 billion is needed over the next decade to implement new port-security requirements.

With many states and cities in financial turmoil, said Crowley, “Right now, the resources are not there.”

Maryland’s White said the Port of Baltimore has spent $4 million in recent years on security improvements, compared with a federal contribution of $10 million. He cast security spending as a drag on competitiveness for the port.

“The East Coast is so competitive that there’s no way the ports on the East Coast can absorb these costs. … The means just aren’t there to continue at that pace,” White said.

“The airports get a dollar, each port gets a nickel. It just doesn’t seem fair,” he added in a reference to large amounts of federal spending on air security in the wake of the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks.

Hutchinson called the comparison to airports “a little difficult to sustain,” saying that post-9/11 government spending initially focused on air security because the attacks were carried out by air.

“As we move to other modes of transportation ― rail is an issue ― you’ll see a little bit different solution package,” Hutchinson said. He added, though, that “if you’re going to enhance security, you have to have investment by the private sector.”

Heritage Foundation senior research fellow James Carafano sought to reverse White’s characterization of security spending as a liability for ports, saying the industry should make security part of its “business model,” as other sectors have done in the past with efforts such as environmental protection and workplace safety. Carafano called his approach more “sustainable” since it does “not depend on gobs of federal funds every year.”

The top priority for new federal spending, Carafano said, should be modernizing and expanding the Coast Guard.

“We have a Coast Guard that’s grossly underfunded and grossly undermanned for the mission that it has,” Carafano said.

The Coast Guard’s Hereth largely agreed. “The Coast Guard does need an improved resource picture,” he said, but “the trends are very positive” in recent budgets.

The General Accounting Office said in a report yesterday that delays appear to be arising in the Coast Guard’s 2-year-old modernization program, called Deepwater, but that “the degree to which the Deepwater program is on track … is difficult to determine, because the Coast Guard has not updated the schedule.”

The office recommended that the Coast Guard update its acquisition schedule more often to “allow Congress to base [budgetary] decisions on accurate information.”

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.