Comments on Port Security Issues,

(Revised November 7, 2001)

The ports and harbors in California, which are self-supporting, are grateful that Congress is fully engaged in developing a program to minimize terrorist threats using our national waterways and ports as well as to eliminate criminal activity in ports and harbors.

We would like to comment on the annual return the Federal treasury receives as a result of port and harbors, along with providing specific comments on the proposed legislation as follows:

  • Port, Maritime, and Rail Security Act of 2001, S. 1214
  • Rebuild America: Financing Infrastructure Renewal and Security for Transportation Act of 2001, H.R. 3166
  • Port Threat and Security Act, S.1587
  • Secure Transportation for America Act of 2001, H.R. 3150
  • Transparent Sea Act of 2001, S. 1559
  • Legislation to require inspection of all cargo on commercial trucks and vessels entering the United States, H.R. 2960
  • Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001, H.R. 3013
  • The Airport and Seaport Terrorism Prevention Act, S. 1429 

Federal Assessments

The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report entitled Commercial Maritime Industry: Updated Information on Federal Assessments, which found that eleven Federal agencies levy 124 assessments totaling nearly $22 billion annually on waterborne trade.  About $20 billion of these receipts are deposited directly into the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.  A recent update of a 1997 study by San Francisco State University shows that California’s ports and harbors have a total annual Federal Revenue Impact of $10 billion.

The nation’s ports and harbors accommodate over 95% of this Nation’s overseas trade.  Almost 40% of this trade enters or leaves through California’s ports and harbors.

We applaud the talent and dedication of those who are members of the Coast Guard and Customs Service.  We firmly believe these two agencies have the expertise to properly assess the needs of maritime security.  We want to emphasize these agencies need sufficient resources to effectively perform their duties in California.

Considering the duties and taxes generated by ports and harbors, we believe it is the responsibility of the Federal government to fund the necessary infrastructure and operations of a heightened security system.

As always, we stand ready to collaborate with all interested parties to add value to the security system of this nation’s international trade corridors.  The ports and harbors in California are diverse in their size and types of cargo throughput; any additional security system adopted, needs to recognize the diversity and be tailored to meet it.

Port, Maritime, and Rail Security Act of 2001, S. 1214 (Staff Working Draft of October 29, 2001) Comments

  • S. 1214, should have a sunset that equals funding.  If Congress is not able to fully fund the program, the program should be halted;
  • An effective security program includes not only physical security and access control, but also an intelligence system;
  • Where shall the port security committees in Sec. 104 be established;
  • How will San Francisco Bay be treated for port security committees;
  • Why don’t the local committees include trucking, rail, shippers & freight forwarders like the Port Security Task Force;
  • What are the requirements for “proper security clearance: and “appropriate security clearance;”
  • The maritime transportation security plans, Sec. 106, are to include “other public or commercial structures located within or adjacent to the marine environment.”  This could mean a restaurant, hotel, museum or aquarium located near a waterfront;
  • In Sec. 106 (7) the Secretary shall require the implementation of any necessary security measure, how will this be defined;
  • In Sec. 106 (8) the Secretary shall require each port authority, waterfront facility operator, and operator of any other public or commercial structure located within or adjacent to the marine environment to conduct annual simulation exercise and practice drills or actual exercises, how does this compare to the exercise to be conducted by the port security committees in Sec. 104 (5) as well as the Counter-Terrorism exercises to be conducted under Sec. 110;
  • In Sec. 107 (e), the Federal government should pay the associated costs in carrying out any investigation, criminal history check, fingerprinting, or identification verification services required under Section 107;
  • In Sec. 112, we applaud the appropriation of $10 million in each fiscal year 2003 – 2006 for grants.  However, we are concerned that this will not provide enough funding and we request that if the funding level is not sufficient to implement the requirements of the Secretary, Port Security Task Force or port security committees there is no obligation to implement said requirements; and
  • In Sec. 119, what is the role of Coast Guard Domestic Maritime Safety and Security Team relative to non-terrorist criminal activity and relative to other non-Coast Guard law enforcement agencies at all levels of government.

Rebuild America: Financing Infrastructure Renewal and Security for Transportation Act of 2001, H.R. 3166.

  • We thank the Congress for recognizing the cost of valuable infrastructure and authorizing $500,000,000 in grants for fiscal years 2002 & 2003;
  • We wonder if the requirements of the grant, that each project “provides technology, equipment, or infrastructure that will significantly increase the actual throughput of cargo through a port or terminal facility” may be a limiting factor in providing additional security at the nation’s ports and harbors; and
  • Should the grant program also recognize those security systems that provide increased security while allowing the current amount of cargo to move through the complex at the current rate?

Port Threat and Security Act, S. 1587    

  • At a minimum, the Sea Marshall program will require Coast Guard resources to place or remove the Marshals on vessels at sea.  Will the Coast Guard receive the needed resources?
  • It certainly may be appropriate to limit direct vessel access to or from foreign ports that do not meet the Secretary’s security standards.  We think it will be very difficult to limit trade between other foreign ports, which have trade with those ports lacking security standards, and United States ports.

Secure Transportation for America Act of 2001, H.R. 3150 are:

  • The Undersecretary of Transportation for Security shall be responsible for security in all modes of transportation including security responsibilities over non-aviation modes of transportation that are exercised by Administration of the Department of Transportation.  What is the proposed relationship between the Undersecretary and both the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Administrator of the Maritime Administration?

Transparent Sea Act of 2001, S. 1559.

  • We have no comments at this time.

Legislation to require inspection of all cargo on commercial trucks and vessels entering the United States, H.R. 2960

  • We are uncertain of the need to inspect all cargo entering the United States; and 
  • We do not believe the Customs Service currently has the resources to inspect all cargo in a timely manner.

Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001, H.R. 3013

  • Our views are similar to our comments on S. 1214, noted above.

The Airport and Seaport Terrorism Prevention Act, S. 1429 

  • We believe the grant program in Sec. 101 to be a good first step.  We are not sure that a $250,000 limit is appropriate when one is trying to provide real time video feed to Customs Service offices at all terminals in one port complex;
  • We also support the pilot program for tracking cargo across the United States; and
  • We look forward to working with the National Academy of Sciences to facilitate development of public-private partnerships to assess and improve seaport security.

click here to go to the Thomas Legislative Information Web site to look up bills not listed