Posted on 03/15/2006 9:01:09 AM PST by Reagan Man
(CNSNews.com) -- The controversy over a proposal to allow Dubai Ports World to operate terminals at some major U.S. ports may have hurt President Bush's approval rating, but it could be helping some members of Congress move legislation they believe is needed to better protect U.S. seaports from terrorist threats.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity, believes most Americans are now more aware of port security deficiencies than they were even a month ago.
"If there's anything we learned in the last couple of weeks with the Dubai incident, it was the importance of this issue," Lungren said. "There was a lot of give-and-take on that. There was a lot of political fallout from that but, if there was any silver lining, it was the focus that that incident placed on the need for security of our ports."
Rep. Jane Harman, who returned from New York after the birth of her first grandchild Tuesday to announce the proposal with Lungren, agreed.
"As Dan said, this is the silver lining in the Dubai issue," Harman said. "We've known for a long time that port security is the Achilles' heel of our national security and we have been shouting from the rooftops or, maybe, the container tops to do something about it."
Harman's district includes the Port of Los Angeles, which along with the Port of Long Beach is the largest shipping container complex in the U.S. More than 14 million containers are moved through those two facilities each year, totaling approximately 42 percent of the country's shipped goods.
"The idea of a dirty bomb or a group of terrorists smuggled into one of our big ports in a container keeps me up at night," Harman said.
Harman recalled a recent labor dispute at the Port of Long Beach, which cost the country as much as $2 billion per day in lost commerce. She believes the results would be similar, if not worse, from a successful terrorist attack on any major U.S. port.
"We know the economic consequences of this and we know that al Qaeda is looking to do some sort of harm that would cause grave economic consequences," Harman said. "Unfortunately, this vulnerability that we have is a 'logical' al Qaeda opportunity."
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) warned that the current port security system makes it unlikely that officials would discover a terrorist plot to exploit weaknesses prior to a ship docking in the U.S.
"I think most Americans would be shocked to learn that, this long after 9/11, we still have an honor system for cargo and ships coming into the United States of America. We really don't know what's in those containers" DeFazio said. "Not only do we not know what was actually loaded in the containers, but we [also] aren't safeguarding the containers after that loading point in a way that we can be certain that nothing else was inserted."
The "Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act," which was introduced late Tuesday, seeks to address those concerns. The bill proposes a three-tiered program to defend U.S. ports and foreign shipping facilities, from which goods depart en route to the U.S.
Stateside requirements would include monitoring all seaports for incoming containers bearing radioactive material and comparing the names of all port workers with access to secure areas with the all terrorist watch-lists and resolving any potential conflicts within 90 days. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would also be responsible for developing a plan to resume port operations as quickly as possible after any major disruption.
Overseas, the bill would encourage U.S. officials to work with governments in cooperating countries to help prevent hazardous materials from being secretly introduced into cargo containers. It includes funding to lend detection equipment to those countries that need it and to provide necessary training on its use.
From origin to destination, the proposal would fund efforts to track containers bound for the U.S., to deter the introduction of contraband into previously checked containers after they leave foreign ports. Additional money would be provided to develop new technology to securely seal and track cargo containers.
"We all agree, Democrat, Republican, members of the committee and others in this Congress, that it's essential that our nation take a global approach to the way that we thwart terrorist attacks and protect U.S. ports," Lungren said. "This legislation -- by taking a layered approach to maritime and cargo security -- will help to insure that our country's ports are the last line of defense."
Lungren said the fact that Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, supports the bill, and that similar legislation is also moving through the Senate make passage of some form of the bill likely. Lungren's subcommittee will hold a hearing on the SAFE Ports Act Thursday.
About time these clowns woke up. I wonder what it's going to take to get something done about border security and the mess of jihadist cells they have allowed to be established all over the country.
Its good to see our elected officials in DC working on a real issue for a change. With the WOT still front and center, any effort by the Congress that addresses security issues and concerns, is an effort I will support. After all, its part of their Constitutional duties.
If securing our borders, including ports, is "socialist" then the drafters of the U.S. Constitution must have been socialists.
Eller & Co , run by fat cat Democrat Donors, got beat out for the P&O deal by Dubai Port World. They hired a big shot lawyer and filed a lawsuit. They knew the Lawsuit was crap so they scurried up to Capitol Hill to cry for help. The Unions also hated the deal cause they knew in new Union Negotiations with the new company they were going to get seriously squeezed by demands of labor saving technological improvements. Chucky Schumer, head of the Democrat Senate Election Committee, took the lobbying info and ran with it. It allowed him to do a number of things. It allows Democrats to nuke their "weak on National Security" PR vulnerability. It gets him a big wet sloppy kiss from the unions in terms of money and foot solider for the Senate campaigns. It gets him big dollars from the Port Terminal companies, it drives a wedge into the Republican base, and best of all he got Know Nothing Talking Heads like Sean Hannity, Mike Savage and Laura Ingraham etc. to do the PR dirty work for him.
The best thing is he can walk away a big winner now, OR he can go to stage two and lobby that the ports be "nationalized" like they did with the Airline Screeners. The Congresscowards, their usual gutless selves, simply looked at the polls and panicked. NEVER even thought that they should stand by the President and fight for the truth. They simply panicked and rolled over for the Dem's AGAIN.
No national security implications, no nonsense about "turning our ports over to Arabs" simply a business deal where the losers went to Congress to buy the influence to reverse the deal. The same Americans running the port terminals now would of been running them after the deal for Dubai Port World. The name on the outside of the terminal and the name on the paycheck given to the American terminal workers would have change and that is about it.
Simply amazing that the same people who whine endlessly about "Bush big spending" and "Big Govt Republicans" now have seen to it that there will be an expansion in the cost, scope and reach of the Federal Govt over the Private Sector. That's the REALITY which the Whine All The Time Choir just screamed down rather then admit the knee jerk nature of their "I'm mad at Bush" hissy fit about the Terminal Deal.
The "real Conservatives" would have NO problem massively increasing the size, scope and reach of the Federal Govt in the areas of Trade, Border Security, Economic Nationalism and Cultural Policing. The Whine All The Time Choir continually whine about Federal Spending but really are just pissed because the Govt isn't spending on what THEY want. The Bubble World pseudo Conservatives, would spend trillions to "protect" themselves from all those nasty "wogs" living in all those nasty foreign places. Like any of the "Wogs" would be stupid enough to want to live in the same trailer parks as these clueless drones.
The Whiners have no more interest in Limited Government then the Deaniac Leftists. They merely want the Fed Govt to do different things FOR them and to their illusionary "enemies".
No reply - just rant. Bye Bye
Been listening to Rush since 1990. He was great during the Clinton years. Lately I wonder what's up with Rush`s state of mind. Not only has Rush been far off the conservative reservation recently, he sounds like a typical Bush sycophant-apologizer. At times Rush sounds like he's lost his mind. We all know Rush is capable of being highly entertaining as he attacks liberals, and rightfully so. But that good natured pompous attitude of Rush`s seems to have turned into bombastic shrillness, and that is difficult to listen to for very long. Rush was so wrong about the DPW/UAE deal, I'm surprised he hasn't his conservative audience altogther.
The number one responsibility for the federal government, is to secure, protect and defend the American people and the US homeland from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This is especially true during time of war. Right now, America is at war with Islamic jihadism and islamofascism. Its called the WOT.
You sound like a mister know-it-all, when in reality, you know-nothing. You listen to Rush Limbaugh and his shrill bombastic rhetorical outbursts, then come onto FreeRepublic with Rush`s talking points in hand, and you try to emulate Rush`s outrageous radio behavior. One problem. You don't come across like Rush, you sound like 12 year old juvenile. A spolied brat.
Where you going to get the hundreds of billions to spend?
For starters, cancel the trillion dollar Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The American taxpayer doesn't need to pay for the drugs that seniors use. That is just another liberal style Euro-socialist program. Along with Social Security and Medicare/Medicad, the PDP will eventually bankrupt the good old USA. In addition, the RSC has proposed $368 billion in cuts over the nest five annual budget years. Sounds like the money is available. We just need our elected GOP officials to grow some cojones and start governing like conservatives.
The effort is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale that has prompted a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.
The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased this month. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.
Lawyers for a Miami company attempting to block a Dubai firm's takeover of a British port operator said Tuesday their client's business could be hurt if the deal goes through. Paul Downes, a lawyer for Miami-based cargo-handler Eller & Co., told Britain's High Court that Eller would be affected because some companies have threatened to withdraw business from U.S. ports that would be run by Dubai's DP World if the deal goes through. He said it was not relevant to Eller's case that the worries in the United States over the deal were justified or not.
Fast forward...oh wail wail how could it have happened wail wail. Puleese port security? I believe it was our President who said at the onset of the war on terror that by the very nature of our society, with the openness in trade and freedom of movement, there was no way in hell to be successful on any meaningful level at detecting a plan put in motion. The strategy is to disrupt the movement of money and harrassment of the planners. You're simply an idiot if you believe there will ever be anything approaching a level of inspection and review necessary to ferret out a specific batch of contraband that could be used in an attack. red neck politics prevailed in the Dubai brouhaha. It certainly wasn't conservatism.
At least you finished up on an optimistic note, even if your post was a bit gloomy.
All anyone can ask for, is that people do the best job possible. Its one thing to strive for perfection, its another thing to reach perfection in any aspect of life. Same with governing people. Our elected officials and appointed public servants need to place American interests ahead of foreign concerns at all times. Same with port security. We can do a better job then is being done today. If that means spending more money, so be it. In the long run, its well worth the cost.
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.