DOMESTIC SECURITY WILL continue to be a focus as Congress moves through its new session, along with the looming war with Iraq. Protecting the nation from terror threats is a dauntingly broad topic, but one specific risk deserves a stronger emphasis than it has gotten so far: bolstering protection at our nation's ports.

There's a strong case to be made that our seaports are the biggest weakness in our security -- far bigger than airports now are. An enormous amount of cargo flows through them: The Port of Charleston, the nation's fourth-busiest, handled 1.59 million trailer-loads of goods in 2002. While documents are scrutinized for suspicious incoming cargo, only a small fraction of containers are actually opened to verify that the goods inside are what's listed -- or if stowaways are aboard. Some radiation detectors and trained dogs are employed, but nobody pretends our detection efforts nationwide are as good as they should be.

Our ports might be the easiest way for a terrorist group to sneak a nuclear weapon into the country -- unlike a missile launch, using a cargo container does not immediately point back toward the source of the attack. And the weapon does not even have to make it past port security -- it can be exploded on the dock or aboard ship in the harbor.

An attack on our ports need not be that devastating to cripple our economy. Even a lesser disturbance at a port would shut down harbors, in the manner that airports were closed after 9/11. The economic impact of that would be damaging, both for retailers awaiting imports and businesses who have kept inventories lean. Last fall's West Coast labor dispute at ports showed the nation's economic reliance on shipping.

An important bill to address the dangers in port security passed last fall. The bill was cosponsored by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and our own Sen. Fritz Hollings, who has been an advocate for improved port security since long before Sept. 11, 2001. It required that ports evaluate their weaknesses and plan to handle incidents, and that all ships transmit their locations for tracking in U.S. waters, among other measures.

But the bill's changes are not paid for. And no overall provision for port security is included in the White House budget released earlier this year. Instead, small chunks of grant money are being set aside, and increases in the budgets of the Coast Guard and Customs Service will help to bolster protections.

One measure already passed this year sets aside $9 million to launch Project Seahawk, a trial project to link all the government entities responsible for port security at Charleston into one command center. The bill also will boost the search for better detection equipment, which is a critically necessary step.

This measure is a good step, but really only a small part of what must be done. As Congress writes the budget for the next fiscal year, it should set aside money specifically to pay for needed port security improvements. If specific money is not appropriated, the risk is that port security will not get the resources it needs -- in Charleston and around the country.

Given the evident risks, port security cannot be allowed to fall through the budgetary cracks.