Security and Accountability for Every Port Act

SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT -- (Senate - September 07, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to present the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006. This bill will help to close dangerous gaps in our ability to protect our shipping lanes and seaports from attack.

A number of our colleagues have worked very hard on this bill. This bill reflects not only bipartisan consultation and support but coordination among the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Finance Committee. I thank our leader, Senator Frist, for encouraging and facilitating those discussions.

I particularly wish to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, who joined me in sponsoring the GreenLane cargo security bill in November of 2005, which has served as the basis for the legislation we debate tonight. Senator Murray has been steadfast in her commitment to enhancing port security. She has been working on it since the attacks on our country 5 years ago. She has been a terrific partner.

Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Grassley, Senator Lieberman, Senator Baucus, Senator Coleman, and Senator Allen have also played critical roles on this important legislation. Their support and involvement have been invaluable in crafting a measure that I believe is going to make a real difference and that will improve our protection against terrorist threats without crippling the operations of our ports. This is very important. We need to strengthen security at our ports, but we need to do so in a way that does not cripple our system of trade, that does not place barriers in the way of moving legitimate goods.

This legislation will provide the structure and the resources needed to better protect the American people from attack through seaports that are both vulnerable points of entry and vital centers of economic activity.

Our legislation, our joint legislation, which is the product of so many weeks, months, and years of study and compromise, is a comprehensive approach that addresses all major aspects of maritime cargo security. It would require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for all transportation modes by which cargo moves into, within, and out of American ports. It creates an Office of Cargo Security Policy to coordinate departmental activities and to be a central contact point for interagency, private sector, and international partners in cargo security. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop protocols for the resumption of trade at seaports after an incident. That is necessary to minimize economic losses. It authorizes risk-based grants, training, and exercises for port security. It improves and expands several security programs, such as the Container Security Initiative, known as CSI, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, and establishes deadlines for DHS action on these programs. And it provides incentives for shippers and importers who meet the highest levels of cargo security standards.

Before commenting further on these provisions, let me offer a few facts that illustrate the importance of strengthening the security of our seaports.

America's 361 seaports are vital elements of our Nation's transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2005 alone, U.S. ports logged 53,000 calls by foreign-flagged vessels, including 16,000 container ship calls that brought 11 million shipping containers to our shores.

The largest 22 ports, ranging from Los Angeles to Boston, handle 98 percent of the container traffic. Nearly half of all container ship calls are made in just three States--California, New York, and Virginia--but traffic arrives at many ports, from Maine to Hawaii, including a port in my State, Portland, the largest port by tonnage in new England. Coming from a State with three international cargo ports, I am keenly aware of the importance of seaports to our national economy and to the communities in which they are located.

In addition to our ports' economic significance, the link between maritime security and our national security is obvious and the vulnerabilities of our ports worrisome. Shipping containers are a special source of concern. When we look at shipping containers, we know, in most cases, they contain useful consumer goods. But shipping containers could also be used to convey a squad of terrorists or a dirty bomb. In some sense, containers could be the 21st century ``Trojan horse.''

The vulnerabilities of containers are evident when one considers a recent incident that occurred in Seattle. In May, several Chinese nationalists illegally smuggled themselves within a shipping container that made its way to Seattle. Now, they were discovered, fortunately, but think if that container had, instead of including illegal Chinese immigrants seeking a better way of life, included individuals, terrorists, who were dedicated to destroying our way of life.

The container has also been called ``the poor man's missile'' because a low-budget terrorist could ship one across the Atlantic or the Pacific to a U.S. port for just a few thousands dollars. And the contents of a container do not have to be as complex as a nuclear or chemical or biological weapon. As former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told the New York Times last year, a single container packed with readily available ammonium sulfate fertilizer and a detonation system could produce 10 times the blast that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Whatever the type of weapon, an attack on an American port could cause great loss of life, damage our energy supplies and infrastructure, cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on just-in-time inventory, prevent farmers from exporting their crops, and hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces.

Earlier this year, I visited the ports in L.A. and Long Beach and Seattle. At the invitation of Senator Murray, I examined the Seattle port. When one looks at the busy harbor in Seattle, one sees ferries bringing thousands of passengers--a large urban population--in sight of the port and two stadiums nearby. You realize immediately the depth and destruction that a ship carrying a container with a weapon of mass destruction could inflict at a single port.

Moreover, a successful port attack would likely trigger a security lockdown of all of our ports, just as the attacks 5 years ago grounded all commercial aircraft. So the economic damage would swiftly spread across the entire country. The Pacific Coast has already given us a glimpse of the economic damage that an attack on a port would cause. The west coast dock strike of 2002 was peaceful and anticipated, unlike any terror attack would be, but it cost an estimated $1 billion a day in economic losses for each of the 10 days it lasted.

Of course, a port could also be a conduit for an attack as well as being a target itself. A container with dangerous cargo could be loaded on a truck or a railcar or have its contents unpacked at a port and distributed to support an attack elsewhere--perhaps in the heartland of this country.

For these reasons, and many others, including the risks of container tampering or false documentation, the 9/11 Commission concluded that ``Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime and surface transportation'' as in commercial aviation.

Some actions have been taken to improve security at our seaports. The 9/11 terror attacks prompted some useful moves toward better security for vessel shipping lanes and the ports themselves. But, unfortunately, many of these initiatives have not proceeded under a comprehensive, strategic security plan. Some of them have lagged, and some of them have not been effectively implemented.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee has conducted five hearings on port security and the failures of DHS's cargo security programs. The first hearing we held back in March of 2003 when the committee heard testimony from several experts that cargo containers could well be the next target of terrorists. Three of these hearings have been conducted by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Coleman, and I thank him and Senator Levin for their efforts in this area. Indeed, several provisions in our bill address concerns that were identified through that joint investigative work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the junior Senator from Mississippi for his kind comments. He has been so helpful as a member of the Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee in helping us weave our way through a very difficult maze. Without his advice and support, I doubt that we would be here tonight. I express my personal appreciation to Senator Lott for his guidance and his assistance and for keeping us all focused on the goal. We could never let turf battles or jurisdictional disputes block us from accomplishing such a needed and important task. He helped us keep our eye on the ball. I thank the Senator very much for his comments.

Mr. President, I was talking about the hearings we were having. Our most recent hearing was in April on the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act, which I mentioned Senator Murray and I had introduced. We heard also from the House leaders on port security, including Representative DAN LUNGREN and Representative JANE HARMAN, as well as other experts on our Nation's ports. The following month, that bill was reported out of the Homeland Security Committee.

The Port Security Improvement Act will clarify the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of Government agencies at all levels and of private sector stakeholders. It will establish clear and measurable goals for better security of commercial operations from the point of origin to the destination. It will also establish mandatory baseline security standards and provide incentives for additional voluntary measures.

Perhaps most importantly, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to develop protocols for the resumption of trade in the wake of an attack. Five years after the 9/11 attacks, the Federal Government still has not established adequate protocols for resuming port operations and setting cargo release priorities after an attack. I will tell you, when I talk to port authority directors, every single one of them brings this up as a major issue. If we don't have a plan for restarting our ports and for releasing cargo, then our ports will be closed far longer than they would need to be and economic losses would multiply.

This legislation would also establish priorities for critical DHS programs necessary to improve maritime cargo security and would set clear timelines to ensure steady progress on their development and expansion. Let me give another example of where DHS has languished in some areas. They have made progress in others but languished in some.

For example, the Department has been working on a minimum standard for mechanical seals on containers for more than 2 years but has yet to issue it. Under our bill, the Department would have 6 months to establish minimum standards for securing containers in transit to the United States. All containers bound for U.S. ports of entry would have to meet those standards no later than 2 years after they are established.

The bill also provides guidance and deadlines for essential improvements in the Automated Targeting System, the Radiation Portal Monitor Program, the CSI and C-TPAT.

The Automated Targeting System, ATS, is a screening mechanism that the Federal Government uses to help it determine which of the 11 million containers entering this country should receive further scrutiny. The GAO has criticized ATS for utilizing inadequate information to accurately assess the risk of cargo, and our legislation will ensure that the DHS improves that program.

Another notable provision of the bill is the requirement that radiation scanning be applied to 100 percent of the containers entering the 22 largest U.S. ports by December 31, 2007. Now, the result of that is that 98 percent of all cargo containers coming into U.S. ports will be screened for radiation. That is in addition to the radiation scanning that is done at foreign ports through the CSI and the Megaports Programs.

The legislation also expands and enhances the C-TPAT program to ensue the security of cargo from point of origin to destination. It creates a GreenLane, a third tier of C-TPAT, offering additional benefits to participants that voluntarily meet the highest level of security standards. The cooperation of private industry is vital to securing supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts.

Another security measure that has languished for years is the vital Transportation Workers Identification Card, or the TWIC Program. Again, we would require DHS to publish a final rule on the implementation of this program by the end of this year.

Finally, this comprehensive legislation would authorize the competitive, risk-based Port Security Grants Program. It would have stable, consistent funding set at $400 million each year for the next 5 years. This is a significant commitment of resources, and it will allow our ports to plan and to undertake multiyear projects that require a sustained investment.

The Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 will help us construct an effective, layered, coordinated system that extends from the point of origin to the point of destination. It will cover the people, the vessels, the cargo, and the facilities involved in our maritime commerce. And it addresses a major vulnerability identified time and again by terrorism experts.

Mr. President, I do hope that we can proceed with all due haste to enact this important legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator for her excellent statement, for her leadership, and for getting us to where we are today. It has been a long journey, but with her leadership we were able to craft this bill, work out the many compromises, and come to the floor. I hope we can do this bill relatively quickly. It has been the subject of an awful lot of discussion and review, and it would be terrific if we can show the American people that we can act in a bipartisan way on an issue that really matters to their security.

It is appropriate that the Presiding Officer tonight is the Senator from Virginia, Senator Allen. I know that port security has been a major priority of his. Earlier in my statement, I mentioned that California, New York, and Virginia are the three States that receive the greatest number of containers, although actually I would think that Washington State has to be in there, too, given the size of Seattle and Tacoma's ports as well. So I know they should be in there as well. But Virginia is a major player in port security, and I want to commend the Senator from Virginia for his leadership on this issue. I know that this has been of great concern to him. He has talked to me as this bill has been making its way through the process, and I publicly thank him for caring about this issue and making it a priority as well.

Mr. President, I am not aware of further Members who are seeking to speak on my side, and I see no indication of further Members on the other side. I am going to, very briefly, put in a quorum call so that we can check, but I believe we are very close to concluding our business for tonight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov