WASHINGTON — As the war with Iraq unfolded and domestic security concerns heightened, port officials told Congress that U.S. seaports remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks amid a confusing tangle of authority and communications as they implement federal border security regulations.

Jeffrey W. Monroe, the director of the department of ports and transportation for Portland, Maine, the largest port in New England, told the Senate Government Affairs committee on Thursday that he is troubled by the lack of coordination and standards among agencies. Monroe testified that a shortage of properly trained staff and no agreement on sources of funding is delaying implementation of the extra security measures. Port managers aren't getting enough intelligence from federal agencies, he said, and so he relies on people in the aviation industry to give him needed information.

Monroe said port officials find themselves in the awkward position of playing referee to the various rule-making bodies. "This situation cannot continue," he said, citing rules for even obscure tasks such as fence-building and specifying the height of lettering on identification badges.

"They are issued by agencies without regard or knowledge of what other agencies are regulating," he said.

Monroe told legislators the government's emphasis on the air and ocean modes shortchanges rail and truck carriers. He suggested the Transportation Security Administration form a "Coordination of Seaport Threat Reduction Task Force" that includes Customs, Coast Guard and other agencies to advise lawmakers about how to create a comprehensive security strategy across the transportation infrastructure.

Monroe rejected any proposal that would eliminate the country's feeder ports, and consolidation of the larger ports. Rather than increasing risk to communities, Monroe said feeder ports actually decrease it by taking some of the containers out of population centers and putting them off the coast.

He pointed out that more than 70 percent of the 6 million containers moved through U.S. ports each year is concentrated in just a few ports around the country, which only increases risk. "I believe that smaller feeder ports have a better opportunity to identify a shipment that is potentially threatening," he said.

Under Secretary for the Border and Transportation Security Directorate Asa Hutchinson told the hearing that it would be impractical for the federal government to physically inspect all inbound containers, and instead advocated better intelligence-gathering and profiling for potential trouble spots.

Stephen Flynn, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow studying security threats and a former Coast Guard commander, warned that a lack of staffing limits screening at foreign ports. The Sept. 11 hijackings shut down domestic air travel for days, but a cargo attack could cripple commerce worldwide for much longer.

"The stakes are enormous," Flynn said. "If a surprise terrorist attack were to happen tomorrow involving the sea, rail or truck transportation systems that carry millions of tons of trade to the United States each day, the response would likely be...a self-imposed global embargo."

Flynn criticized Customs' Container Security Initiative that puts U.S. Customs inspectors at foreign ports to pre-screen U.S.-bound shipments. He said only 20 inspectors have been placed at just six of the largest ports - Singapore, France, Belgium, Netherlands and two in Germany. He also noted "a nearly complete absence" of U.S. Customs Service officials to oversee the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program with shippers. And he said a terrorist act could paralyze shipping. "Given the current state of container security," Flynn said, "it is hard to imagine how a post-event lockdown on container shipments could be either prevented or short-lived."

By Ann Saccomano