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.
At the moments the facts are P&O has done business in our ports since the 1600's. P&O owns the port terminals leases and does business in these terminals. P&O is a subsidiary of DPW and P&O does its own management. P&O has passed all requirements security and otherwise to operate these terminals. Some businesses, some in congress and some people want these leases seized from P&O. It may be harder than they think. They couldn't stop DPW from buying P&O. They may not be able to just seize or require assets of P&O sold. What if P&Q just moves its headquarters to the US.
I noticed someone didn't answer anything you addressed. Now, after all this time, you should know they won't be swayed by facts. Shame on you for trying. /sarc :-)
Oh, I like Rush. He's pretty good for the most part. It's the Dubai stuff that seems to have gotten under his skin. He's really lashing out when he should be moving onward.
May I suggest you read post #8, then read post #9. All I saw was venting and someone who didn't get their way on the ports deal.
In the USA, we live under a constitutional republic form of government, in which we elect people to represent us. Conservatives believe that limited government is best. That doesn't mean we believe in no government, we just prefer keeping our priorities straight. If an elected official isn't doing the job we elected him/her to do, next time around we throw the bums out of office. My point is, opposing liberal Democrats is one thing, but opposing all elected officials, including the right of center ones, accomplishes nothing. That is political dissent evolving into chaos and anarchy.
>>>>We do have to face the fact that we live in the most dangerous time in the history of the world. The advent of the nuclear age makes it so.
Agreed. Since the advent of the nuclear age, the last 60 years has been the most dangerous period in world history. However, I'm not convinced TODAY is the most dangerous single point in time. Granted, this is a highly unpredictable time we live in. But the Cold War era was more dangerous to the future well being of the entire human race. MAD kept everyone on their toes, even though total destruction was just around the corner.
So far, there has been no mass terrorist attacks using WMD anywhere in the world. Not even an isolated incidence. How long it will remain that way is anyones guess. Having better port security is a good move to stopping WMD reaching the American homeland. Listening to our elected offcials engage in free speech and political dissent, is part of America's constitutional way of life.
this is exactly the right thing to do, both politically and with regards to security. the white house should get behind a deal of some sort on this.
and also do something about CFIUS, which is a total joke rubber stamp process.
Wow, I always wondered what the limit of National Security was. I knew it wasn't the Constitution. Turns out Free Trade trumps all.
I would make the port operators pay increased fees to cover security. hell, the merchandise already comes in tariff free - there is no reason they cannot pay security fees.
security comes before commerce, you seem to want it the other way around, you and the other 19% of americans that supported the ports deal.
Yep. NO problem with a police state as long as the self chosen Elite gets to run it. Not a DIMES worth of difference between the Hysteric Leftist and the Hate Everyone psuedo Conservatives.
Yeah, AFTER he was reproached for not answering him he finally did. Good Lord. 'Other post', he should have answered on post #9 not blow smoke out his.......
so all forms of security represent the "police state"?
I guess we have to toss out the border patrol, coast guard, airport security at check-in.
" Not a DIMES worth of difference between the Hysteric Leftist and the Hate Everyone psuedo Conservatives."
I agree, and it appears that some people...ahem... can be both at the same time.
Posted at 11:36:30 <
Replied to post # 8 at...11:37:11
Enough. If you want to argue find someone else. Bye.
Well I guess we can just add the Afraid of their Own Shadow cacus to the groups of Big Govt Neo-Socialists that claim to be "Conservative" but are actually just Big Govt Socialist in denial
so what are you suggesting, that all of the port operators "self regulate" themselves regarding security at the ports? are you kidding me? what are you going to propose next, that Mexico secure the US southern border? maybe the Saudis can buy an operations contract to assume airport baggage and passenger screening duties.
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.