COSCO was a big issue, and AFAIK, COSCO still isn't operating any terminals. They are landing lots of freight however.
We are also hearing that only 5% of containers are being checked. The voices saying that 100% are checked from the EXIT port is not being heard.
Depends on what "checked" means. I'm still looking for corroboration for the assertion that 100% are scanned for radiation. 100% landing at Oakland are (supposed to be), but the (not yet passed) Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 recites an allocation of funds for a DEMONSTRATION program.
SEC. 306. SECURITY OF MARITIME CARGO CONTAINERS.As noted above, H.R. 1817 has not yet passed. Its status as of May 19, 2005 is, "Referred to Senate committee: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs."(d) Container Security Demonstration Program.--
(1) Program.--The Secretary is authorized to establish and carry out a demonstration program that integrates radiation detection equipment with other types of nonintrusive inspection equipment at an appropriate United States seaport, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Requirement.--The demonstration program shall also evaluate ways to strengthen the capability of Department of Homeland Security personnel to analyze cargo inspection data and ways to improve the transmission of inspection data between appropriate entities within the Department of Homeland Security.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to include many Democratic suggestions in this bill, and I want to say that most of the provisions in his bill are good ones.
But the truth is that this bill does not address a large number of dangerous security gaps. For example, this bill does not close serious security gaps in chemical plants, aviation, railroads, passenger trains and railroads, buses, border security, the ability of first responders to communicate in an emergency, the importance of protecting privacy, and a whole host of other areas where we must improve security. This bill does not even mention chemical plants or airports. How can we call this an authorization bill?
My substitute, Madam Chairman, addresses all of these areas, and more. First, the substitute makes funding for homeland security a priority. The President's budget and this bill does not fulfill the commitment we made in the 9/11 Act the President signed into law in December, but this substitute meets those challenges.
For example, for just a mere $92 million called for in the 9/11 Act, we could install radiation portal monitors in every port of entry in this country. My substitute offers solutions where the bill does not give the answers. For example, it protects our borders by requiring DHS to put technology in place to ensure that every mile of the border is monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It protects our ports by authorizing new port security grants. It protects airlines and prevents hijackings by installing new, in-line baggage screening systems that work better and faster. And, in an area where I strongly disagree with the chairman, we fully sponsor the development of research on how to counter shoulder-fired missiles that terrorists can use to shoot down a plane.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Ranking Member Thompson's substitute amendment.While H.R. 1817 takes important steps in improving our security and preparedness, it simply does not go far enough. ...
Now, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Threats, I am particularly pleased to note that the Democratic substitute would provide for the installation of radiation portal monitors at all ports of entry. This is a key step in our efforts to keep dangerous materials out of our borders.
29 . DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT ...
(House of Representatives - May 18, 2005)
The WH administration is not entirely happy with the proposed funding authorization.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 18, 2005The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 1817. However, the Administration has a number of serious concerns regarding provisions in H.R. 1817 that would conflict with the President's Budget, interfere with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary's management authorities, and hinder the Department's ability to implement its various missions. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns before any final action on this legislation.
While the aggregate level of appropriations authorizations in H.R. 1817 is closely aligned with the President's Budget, the bill includes several program-specific authorization levels that are not consistent with the Budget. Discrepancies of particular concern include insufficient funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and for Targeted Infrastructure Protection grants. The Administration urges that authorization offunding for these programs be consistent with the President's Budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1817sap-h.pdf
The 100% being checked was from a port guy being interviewed on Fox. I do not have another source.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590048/posts
Fact Sheet: Securing U.S. Ports (DHS Press release: we are screening 100% of shipping containers) DHS ^ | Feb. 22, 2006 | DHS
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.
Snip.......
Shame on you! <g>
COSCO was a big issue, and AFAIK, COSCO still isn't operating any terminals. They are landing lots of freight however.
We are also hearing that only 5% of containers are being checked. The voices saying that 100% are checked from the EXIT port is not being heard.
Depends on what "checked" means. I'm still looking for corroboration for the assertion that 100% are scanned for radiation. 100% landing at Oakland are (supposed to be), but the (not yet passed) Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 recites an allocation of funds for a DEMONSTRATION program.
In case you can't tell, I think this is a nice catch. I'm still leaning "pro" ports, primarily on the rationale that our security depends on inspections at the port of origin, not our ports, and we need cooperation from folks like DWP to do that, but the more info, the better.