Defense of the Homeland Comes With Hefty Price Tag
Congress is daunted by the sheer size of the task of
protectingpotential targets.
By RICHARD SIMON, Times Staff Writer
latimes.com
WASHINGTON -- First came nuclear power plants.
Then, Congress turned its attention to dams, the electricity grid, oil
pipelines, transit lines, drinking water systems and sewage treatment
plants.
In the coming weeks, the spotlight shifts to national monuments and
sports venues.
For Congress in the post-Sept. 11 era, anything and everything that
could be a target of a terrorist attack is grist for public
hand-wringing and private worry.
But lawmakers concede that the sheer size of the task leaves them
awe-struck.
More monumental than the effort to prevent a Y2K computer meltdown at
the turn of the 21st century, the new danger could pose shearing
dilemmas for lawmakers, particularly local officials who may find
themselves having to choose between school textbooks and firefighter gas
masks.
"Every department and agency is coming to us telling us that they need a
lot more money because of the extra security precautions they have to
take," Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House
subcommittee on water resources and environment, said during a hearing
last week on the safety of water supplies.
Defense of the homeland could cost $1.5 trillion over the next five
years, according to one estimate circulating on Capitol Hill.
In one proposal alone, lawmakers are looking at more than $1 billion to
protect government computers from cyber-attack and $30 million to
safeguard the national monuments in Washington.
Almost every day, new measures are introduced to safeguard the nation.
On Friday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers urged President Bush to
provide funding for assessing the vulnerability of water supplies. And
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) proposed spending more than $1 billion next
year to guard against agro-terrorism, an effort to protect the nation's
food supply. This week, Republican leaders on the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee will introduce a bill that seeks to beef up
aviation security but also deals with other modes of transportation.
Bills moving through Congress also would increase the penalties for
attempted sabotage at nuclear power plants. Now, saboteurs could get a
maximum $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison. Under the new bills, the
fine would go to a maximum of $1 million and a life sentence without
parole.
Government agencies and industry groups are seeking money for a wide
range of security measures, from high-tech biometric systems that would
identify port workers with access to secure areas using such techniques
as retinal scans, to the decidedly low-tech, such as more bomb-sniffing
dogs at Amtrak stations.
There are proposals for everything from hand-held explosive detection
devices to truck-size X-ray machines that scan cargo containers. Transit
agencies want to install chemical-biological-radiological detection
systems. Utilities want the government to be an "insurance backstop" in
terrorist attacks. Operators of
power plants, refineries and oil pipelines want U.S. authorities to
conduct background checks of applicants for sensitive jobs.
The highway lobby is pushing for $5 billion in spending for roads and
bridges, largely intended as an economic stimulus. But the lobbyists
also point out that more and better roads would provide the added
benefit of improved escape and emergency routes in case of further
attacks.
"'Whenever you look at any kind of military campaign, one of the first
things that are attacked are the infrastructure of the enemy," said
William D. Fay, president and chief executive of the American Highway
Users Alliance. "We've got to be pretty vigilant about our entire
infrastructure, whether it's water mains, subways, highways or bridges."
Not all of the proposals cost money. Industry-sought legislation moving
through Congress would limit public access to certain information, such
as the location of pipelines. "I can't imagine that the public needs to
know the exact longitude and latitude of the location of our nuclear
plants," Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) said.
But money will be needed for most of the proposals. And still to be
determined is who will pay.
"Industry has an obligation to provide security, but there's sufficient
evidence that the federal government should make additional and
significant contributions to this effort, not only for the people's
safety in communities, but also for the safety of our economy, which . .
. has its foundation on a reliable, steady
source of energy for this nation," Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said
during a hearing last week.
Some costs might be passed on to customers.
A Senate-approved air security bill, which would create a force of more
than 18,000 federal workers to screen passengers and baggage, provides
for a passenger surcharge of $2.50 to fund the improvements.
Murkowski cautioned against expecting too much from the federal
government.
"The FBI and our intelligence agencies will play key roles, but we can't
station federal troops along every mile of pipeline or in front of every
refinery," he said. "State and local police will remain the front-line
law enforcement agency, and the industries will have primary
responsibility for security at these facilities."
The public may be expecting more.
"Sept. 11 changed everybody's thinking," said Wallace Renfro, spokesman
for the National Collegiate Athletic Assn., expected to testify soon at
a House hearing on security at sports venues. |
