Security and Accountability for Every Port Act

SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT -- (Extensions of Remarks - May 12, 2006)

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes:

* Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, while I would have preferred a more proactive and comprehensive plan such as that proposed by the Democratic ``Real Security Agenda'', I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act because it is a step in the right direction.

* As a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, I am well aware of the vulnerabilities of our nation's ports. In fact, the 9/11 Commission report concluded that terrorists have the ``opportunity to do harm as great or greater in maritime and surface transportation'' than the September 11 terrorist attacks.

* Our nation's seaports handle over 95 percent of our foreign trade, more than $1 trillion annually. The ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach near my district form the largest container port complex in the nation. These ports processed more than 35,000 cargo containers a day in 2005, and accounted for some 40 percent of all container traffic nationwide.

* Given the volume of our shipping trade, a terrorist attack against the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, or any major commercial seaport for that matter, would freeze commercial shipping business, close all seaports for an indefinite time, and have a devastating impact on our national economy. This is not a wild estimate or an exaggeration for effect. We have only to look at the work stoppage at the LA/Long Beach ports in 2002 that directly impacted businesses across the country and cost the national economy approximately $1 billion a day.

* When approved, the SAFE Port Act will make progress toward protecting the physical infrastructure of our seaports as well as our national economy which is so clearly dependent on the commercial shipping business.

* I believe the following three provisions in the bill are particularly important.

* First, the bill requires the development of plans to address supply chain security and the resumption of trade in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Securing the supply chain against cargo-tampering is critical to decreasing the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction make it aboard ships bound for the United States. Ensuring that our ports can resume trade operations as soon as possible following any terrorist will mitigate the economic cost of any such attack.

* Second, the bill also mandates that Transportation Worker Identification Cards to be issued to port workers. Standardizing identification cards will better enable us to determine who should have access to sensitive areas at our ports and it will make it more difficult to counterfeit the ID cards.

* Lastly, the bill more than doubles present funding for the successful port security grant program to $400 million At the current rate of funding, securing the physical infrastructure of our ports would take decades to complete.

* Despite these and other important provisions, I continue to be disappointed that the rule for this bill did not allow consideration of amendments by my Democratic colleagues that would have further enhanced the protection of our ports and our economy.

* For example, the Thompson Amendment would have added 1600 new Customs and Border Protection officers at our Nation's ports. Having adequate staff to inspect incoming cargo is a basic first step toward securing incoming cargo.

* Additionally, the Langevin Amendment would have accelerated the installation of radiation detection monitors at our seaports. This is important because inspection of every incoming cargo container isn't realistic given the volume of trade. We are foolish not to maximize and expedite the full use of technology to scan containers for radiation that may reveal weapons of mass destruction.

* Lastly, Democrats sought to mandate 100 percent screening overseas, of cargo containers bound for U.S. seaports to protect the homeland from hidden shipments of weapons of mass destruction.

* Democratic proposals were common sense improvements to the bill and would have better prepared us for the increased security concerns facing our country. The House should not have been denied the opportunity to openly debate these important issues.

* The additional inspection officers, scanning equipment, and mandated cargo screening that these amendments proposed are not inexpensive plans and would have required significant investments. However, we cannot afford to not make these necessary investments and risk a far greater cost in terms of our economy and loss of American lives.

* Madam Chairman, port security is national security. This bill is a good step in the right direction toward securing our ports, our economy, and our Nation. However, I hope the conference committee will improve the bill further by addressing the issues of customs inspection officers, radiation detection monitors, and cargo screening that the Democrats proposed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/