Posted on 03/04/2006 12:31:35 PM PST by FairOpinion
Fact Sheet: Securing U.S. Ports
The Administration has dramatically strengthened port security since 9/11.
Funding has increased by more than 700% since September 11, 2001. Funding for port security was approximately $259 million in FY 2001. DHS spent approximately $1.6 billion on port security in FY 2005.
Following 9/11, the federal government has implemented a multi-layered defense strategy to keep our ports safe and secure. New technologies have been deployed with additional technologies being developed and $630 million has been provided in grants to our largest ports, including $16.2 million to Baltimore; $32.7 million to Miami; $27.4 million to New Orleans, $43.7 million to New York/New Jersey; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia.
Who Secures The Ports:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): CBP’s mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States by eliminating potential threats before they arrive at our borders and ports.
CBP uses intelligence and a risk-based strategy to screen information on 100% of cargo before it is loaded onto vessels destined for the United States. All cargo that is identified as high risk is inspected, either at the foreign port or upon arrival into the U.S.
Coast Guard: The Coast Guard routinely inspects and assesses the security of U.S. ports in accordance with the Maritime Transportation and Security Act and the Ports and Waterways Security Act. Every regulated U.S. port facility is required to establish and implement a comprehensive security plan that outlines procedures for controlling access to the facility, verifying credentials of port workers, inspecting cargo for tampering, designating security responsibilities, training, and reporting of all breaches of security or suspicious activity, among other security measures. Working closely with local port authorities and law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard regularly reviews, approves, assesses and inspects these plans and facilities to ensure compliance.
Terminal Operator: Whether a person or a corporation, the terminal operator is responsible for operating its particular terminal within the port. The terminal operator is responsible for the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices. The cranes they use may be their own, or they may lease them from the port authority.
Port Authority: An entity of a local, state or national government that owns, manages and maintains the physical infrastructure of a port (seaport, airport or bus terminal) to include wharf, docks, piers, transit sheds, loading equipment and warehouses.
Ports often provide additional security for their facilities.
The role of the Port Authority is to facilitate and expand the movement of cargo through the port, provide facilities and services that are competitive, safe and commercially viable. The Port manages marine navigation and safety issues within port boundaries and develops marine-related businesses on the lands that it owns or manages.
A Layered Defense:
Screening and Inspection: CBP screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S.- using intelligence and cutting edge technologies. CBP inspects all high-risk cargo.
CSI (Container Security Initiative): Enables CBP, in working with host government Customs Services, to examine high-risk maritime containerized cargo at foreign seaports, before they are loaded on board vessels destined for the United States. In addition to the current 42 foreign ports participating in CSI, many more ports are in the planning stages. By the end of 2006, the number is expected to grow to 50 ports, covering 90% of transpacific maritime containerized cargo shipped to the U.S.
24-Hour Rule: Under this requirement, manifest information must be provided 24 hours prior to the sea container being loaded onto the vessel in the foreign port. CBP may deny the loading of high-risk cargo while the vessel is still overseas.
C-TPAT (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism): CBP created a public-private and international partnership with nearly 5,800 businesses (over 10,000 have applied) including most of the largest U.S. importers -- the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). C-TPAT, CBP and partner companies are working together to improve baseline security standards for supply chain and container security. (We review the security practices of not only the company shipping the goods, but also the companies that provided them with any services.)
Use of Cutting-Edge Technology: CBP is currently utilizing large-scale X-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation detection devices to screen cargo. Presently, CBP operates over 680 radiation portal monitors at our nation’s ports (including 181 radiation portal monitors at seaports), utilizes over 170 large scale non-intrusive inspection devices to examine cargo, and has issued 12,400 hand-held radiation detection devices. The President’s FY 2007 budget requests $157 million to secure next-generation detection equipment at our ports of entry. Also, over 600 canine detection teams, who are capable of identifying narcotics, bulk currency, human beings, explosives, agricultural pests, and chemical weapons are deployed at our ports of entry.
UAE/Dubai Ports World Acquisition
DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports.
The recent business transaction taken by DP World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to acquire British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) does not change the operations or security of keeping our nation’s ports safe. The people working on the docks also will not change as a result of this transaction. This transaction is not an issue of controlling United States’ ports. It is an issue of operating some terminals within U.S. ports. DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O: o Baltimore - 2 of 14 total o Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal) o Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals) o New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge) o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals) o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4 o (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.) *Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo.
P&O and DP World made a commitment to comply with current security programs, regulations and partnerships to which P&O currently subscribes, including: o The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT); o The Container Security Initiative (CSI); o The Business Alliance on Smuggling and Counterfeiting (BASC); and, o The Megaports Initiative MOU with the Department of Energy.
All P&O security arrangements will remain intact, including cargo security cooperation with CBP, compliance with USCG regulations (ISPS and MTSA) regarding port facilities/terminals, and foreign terminal operations within CSI ports.
Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (March 2005). As a result, CBP officer are working closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the U.S. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operation within CSI ports.
U.S. Recommended Standards for Container Security Initiative (CSI)
The Container Security Initiative consists of four core elements. These are: (1) establishing security criteria to identify high-risk containers; (2) pre-screening those containers identified as high-risk before they arrive at U.S. ports; (3) using technology to quickly pre-screen high-risk containers; and (4) developing and using smart and secure containers.
In order to be eligible to participate in CSI, the Member State’s Customs Administration and the seaport must meet the following three requirements:
The Customs Administration must be able to inspect cargo originating, transiting, exiting, or being transshipped through a country. Non-intrusive inspectional (NII) equipment (including gamma or X-ray imaging capabilities) and radiation detection equipment must be available and utilized for conducting such inspections. This equipment is necessary in order to meet the objective of quickly screening containers without disrupting the flow of legitimate trade. The seaport must have regular, direct, and substantial container traffic to ports in the United States.
As part of agreeing to participate in CSI, a Member State’s Customs Administration and the seaport must also:
Commit to establishing a risk management system to identify potentially high-risk containers, and automating that system. This system should include a mechanism for validating threat assessments and targeting decisions and identifying best practices. Commit to sharing critical data, intelligence, and risk management information with the United States Customs Service in order to do collaborative targeting, and developing an automated mechanism for these exchanges. Conduct a thorough port assessment to ascertain vulnerable links in a port’s infrastructure and commit to resolving those vulnerabilities. Commit to maintaining integrity programs to prevent lapses in employee integrity and to identify and combat breaches in integrity.
###
As seen in the above quote it seems you have missed a few qualifications of what they mean when they say "scan 100%" and "all cargo". They scan 100% of what they determine as High Risk which means they check manifests to determine high risk. Also it is not all scanned before it gets to US ports some if it is done AFTER it gets here.
it's what they had at the RNC convention. You had to walk through radiation detectors to get into the convention. Similar.
I am trying to be for real. I will not defend, or deny the 5% number. It is not documented in this article that we are discussing. This article simply states that ALL suspicious cargo, identified through 100% screening; is inspected. Some people get confused by the semantics. The fact that there has not been another attack on America indicates that something is working. I will eat my words if we are attacked again through a seaport.
And here is some interesting info from a company, who may or may not be supplying some equipment for screening, but they have some neat technology.
http://www.hissusa.com/cyber_port_system.html
"2. CYBER RAD: Radiation Detection System: This proprietary system uses a series of four spreader bars, mounted on the arms of the port cranes. Every container is automatically screened for radiation. The screening data is sent via a wireless link to the port command and control center for disposition. "
Why the heck can't the Bush White House send someone out who can toot their own horn about this stuff from time to time (and I don't mean John Snooze, er Snow or Scott McClellan...he needs to be running a back office operation sending out presidential birthday wishes to donors as they turn 100 or something.)
Apparently it's a bit like defining what "is" is.
Would you be so kind and correct the title, the part in paranthesis, changing the word "scanning" to "screening", to be consistent with the DHS specific statement.
Thanks very much.
While this is all good and well, CBP has not earned rave reviews for their performance on the Texas border. Maybe the Longshoremen can not be bribed and intimidated like their land-locked peers. CBP is THE most corrupt organization on the Texas border.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Numbers, figures, series... There's nothing there. It's all specific nonsense, specifically, with the intent to provide a (perhaps false) sense of security/comfort.
I sort of knew that already.
The hard part is determining if the "1,200 boxes of Chinese laterns" is actually, and only, 1200 boxes of Chinese laterns. We check that about 5% of the time.
And this is an official statement by the DHS.
The "scan" is of paperwork, of the paper trail, not the physical containers.
"I will eat my words if we are attacked again through a seaport."
Nice to see that you're proactive.
What we all need to realized, that the Dem and MSM statements referring to "only 5% are inspected" strongly imply or even say, that we aren't doing anything at all about the 95%, that 95% of the containers come into the US, in a way that we are totally ignorant about them.
The DHS press release goes into the specific actions taken, demonstrating that ALL containers are screened, look at the "Layered Defense" section. Then the high risk ones get further screening and inspection and all cargo entering the US is screened for radiation.
There is a big difference in what is actually being done, quite a lot and the impression the Dems are trying to create, that we are only randomly inspecting 5%.
There is a big difference.
Yes, this is an official DHS statement. I was attempting to point out to SwordofTruth that the 5% thing is a media soundbite. While this DHS statement may be timed to current events -DPW-, it does have enough information about procedures to help sane folks form an opinion. The black helo crowd will always have another conspiracy.....
FairOpinion said: But I also read, that all containers to go past radiation detectors, so they are screened for radiation.
A few days ago, here on FR, I read that only one port has one radiation detection machine that works. No, they are not all screened for radiation. Many have been screaming for years for more port protection.
Here's some from a 2 minute google search.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106597
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report released this week contradicts claims by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that U.S. ports are in "full compliance" with anti-terrorism standards scheduled to go into effect today. The report alleges that about 7 percent of all U.S. ports and more than half of U.S. ships have not even been reviewed, and that the process for reviewing some other ports is flawed. The big problem, however, is money: the LA Times reports, "experts said yesterday that inadequate government funding has slowed efforts" to secure the nation's ports. As in many areas of homeland security, President Bush has underfunded his own security mandates for U.S. ports, putting Americans at risk. American Progress's P.J. Crowley writes that as a result of underfunding, "a lot of the security improvements the Bush administration is touting exist on paper and not yet on the pier."
ADMINISTRATION'S RESOURCE DIVISION 'SELF-DEFEATING': Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander, says the administration's lack of funding for port security is part of a "self-defeating and dangerous division of resources between the U.S. military and homeland security." Referring to the billions the administration has spent overseas, Flynn points out, "For the cost of two F-22 fighter jets and three days of combat in Iraq…the nation's ports could be secured against terror."
http://hutchison.senate.gov/ccinfrastructure.htm
Port Security
The final question on this issue concerned port security. I wrote, "Ninety-five percent of our nation's overseas trade is carried via ship. Yet only two percent of inbound containers are checked by U.S. Customs at our nation's ports. How do you think we should protect our ports?" This issue is critical for all coastal points of entry in the nation, especially here in Texas where numerous ports line the Gulf of Mexico. The Port of Houston takes in more foreign tonnage than any other port in America and handles half of the petrochemical capacity in the country. Your survey responses indicate that you too are concerned about the security of our ports. Fifty-two percent of respondents felt that ships entering U.S. ports should be subject to as much scrutiny as airplanes coming into U.S. airports, while 32 percent felt that cargo aboard ships should be inspected at random.
__________________
Securing our ports: Failing miserably
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Saturday, March 5, 2005 |
Two years and several million dollars later, U.S. ports are not any more secure than when Homeland Security started doling out government grants, the department's inspector general concludes.
The IG's 70-page report offers a snapshot of a bloated federal bureaucracy at its worst.
Instead of focusing on the nation's 10 primary ports in California and New York -- which handle about 80 percent of all international shipping -- about $517 million went out in scattershot grants.
I agreed with you, and just intended to further strenthen your statement, by pointing out that this article is not just some journalist making statements, but it's an official DHS statement.
In the meantime, I looked and here is what the Dems claim -- that only 5% are screened, the rest come in, without being even checked for radiation. The DHS statement refutes that completely.
Here is an excerpt from NANCY PELOSI's statement:
"The biggest threat to our security is the fissile materials that are still out there, the nuclear materials of the post-Soviet Union world. They were formally weapons of the Soviet Union and now they are not secured adequately and available to terrorists.
"The single biggest threat is those weapons in a container coming into our country. I really can't understand why this Administration has refused to do what is necessary to protect our ports from that threat. And, it's not only our ports; when these containers come from overseas to our country, they are unloaded onto a truck, onto a train, drive right through your city, your town, perhaps past your home. So the danger goes well beyond our ports.
"Here at home, only 6 percent of containers entering our ports are screened. Yet at two of the busiest terminals in the world - in Hong Kong - 100 percent of containers are screened. If Hong Kong terminals can do it, why can't America?
"That is why Democrats are proposing that 100 percent of the containers that comes to our ports are screened, at the port of origin - long before they reach our shores and our waterways."
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6466
What Pelosi is stating is NOT true and it's misleading. What she proposes, it's already being done.
THAT was my point, that the Dems statements need to be refusted with the truth -- which was your point as well.
Something that should also be made clear to the MSM idiots is the impossibility of protecting our nation from every possible attack. Fortress America is, in the end an expensive, failing strategy.
We must take the battle to terrorists, everywhere in the world.
"Here's some from a 2 minute google search. "
====
That's what happens, when you don't pay enough attention.
1. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106597
This is from a leftist, Bush hating site, and it's from back a while ago, talking about Ridge.
2. http://hutchison.senate.gov/ccinfrastructure.htm
Hutchinson seems to unfortunaHS.tely be parroting the MSM lies.
3. NO link to your Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article.
====
Bottom line: I guess you rather believe leftist Bush hating sites and the MSM, than the official statements of the DHS.
Sen. Kay Hutchison
The final question on this issue concerned port security. I wrote, "Ninety-five percent of our nation's overseas trade is carried via ship. Yet only two percent of inbound containers are checked by U.S. Customs at our nation's ports.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.