Editorial: Are we really any more safe?

Friday, Dec. 30, 2005 | 6:54 a.m.

The Bush administration's creation of the Homeland Security Department in 2003 struck many Americans as a bold move in response to threats of terrorism. It was formed by merging 22 federal agencies and its purpose was to ensure that the country's civilian defenders were all well coordinated and working toward the common goal of improving the nation's preparedness.

Two reports released this week, however, have cast doubt on whether the agency is really an improvement over the government's pre-9/11 organization. One report, prepared for the 13 Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee, cites 33 pledges that remain unfulfilled by the department. Among them are pledges to screen for radioactive materials at border crossings and major airports and seaports, to install surveillance cameras at high-risk chemical plants and to complete emergency planning for vulnerable buildings and infrastructure.

The other report was prepared by the department's own inspector general, Richard Skinner. He cited major problems in the areas of management, financial accountability and communications.

Hurricane Katrina was the first big test for the department, and its managers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency failed miserably. We hope Congress reads these new reports carefully and begins putting the Homeland Security Department under a microscope.