Port Security and the Sale of Firms Operating Terminals at U.S. Ports

PORT SECURITY AND THE SALE OF FIRMS OPERATING TERMINALS AT U.S. PORTS -- (Extensions of Remarks - March 02, 2006)

SPEECH OF
HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS
OF MARYLAND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006

* Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about port security and the sale of firms operating terminals at U.S. ports. The proposed sale of the P&O firm--which manages terminal operations at major East Coast ports, including the Port of Baltimore--to a company controlled by the government of Dubai has made many aware for the first time that major seaports in the U.S. are operated by firms controlled by foreign interests, including foreign governments.

* We have long known that we have not closed gaps in physical security at our ports. Only approximately 5 percent of the nearly 9 million containers coming into our nation are physically inspected.

* These gaps exist in part because we have simply not prioritized port security. Since 9/11, more than $20 billion in federal funding has been directed to aviation security while just over $630 million has been directed to port security.

* However, the proposed sale of P&O now makes us aware that not only have we overlooked physical security, we have failed to develop the systems necessary to manage the unique security issues that the increasingly global nature of port management raises.

* Most U.S. ports are owned by public or quasi-public authorities. These authorities frequently lease their terminal spaces to operating companies. P&O is one such operating company--and a quick review of U.S. port facilities reveals that like P&O, many terminal operating companies active in the United States are either foreign-owned or are subsidiaries of foreign entities.

* In some case, these firms not only manage ports around the world, they also run the shipping lines that travel between these ports.

* These kinds of relationships may be very good for business, but our government is not comprehensively assessing what threats these relationships could pose to our national security.

* The Coast Guard analyzed the P&O deal because this deal was subjected to the scrutiny of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States.

* Under normal circumstances, no federal entity comprehensively assesses terminal operating agreements for their security implications.

* Each U.S. port is responsible for developing a facility security plan, which the Coast Guard approves. Amazingly, the Coast Guard does not regularly review terminal operating agreements as part of its assessment of a port's security plan.

* I believe that Congress should, at the very least, examine whether the Coast Guard should be required to review terminal operating arrangements as part of their review of port facility security plans.

* In the absence of such assessments, we do not really know whether firms managing our ports have ownership or business relations that could create a security threat.

* Our transportation networks are truly global and all aspects of transportation businesses have significant foreign involvement. If our government has yet to take stock of these complex business arrangements and of the threats they pose to our transportation security, what other gaps exist and what incidents more threatening than a proposed sale will reveal them?

* Finally, Mr. Speaker, while we have been conducting a national dialogue over recent weeks about the extent of foreign involvement that should be allowed in the operation of our ports, ports are just one of the many pieces of sensitive infrastructure in this nation which have not been adequately secured.

* As we continue to examine our national security policies, we must examine whether our current laws on foreign ownership and operating arrangements pertaining to our nation's infrastructure are in the best interests of our national security. The American people well understand that the protection of our nation should not be subject to the seemingly relentless advancement of trade at all costs. Z! EXT .022 EXTENSION OF REMARKS A02MR8 PERSONAL COMPUTERJ9060-A02MR8-022-*****-*****-Payroll No.: 17840 -Name: -Folios: 1RRF -Date: 03/02/2006 -Subformat:

http://thomas.loc.gov/