Mission for Kerrycrats: response to FT editorial (Port Security)

[MH1]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e14e84ae-aa20-11da-96ea-0000779e2340.html

Editorial appeared today in the Financial Times. Note the info about the author at the bottom of the excerpt.

Overall, it bashes *, but the part in bold needs a rapid rebuttal, IMO:

Why can America not mind its own businesses?
By John MacArthur
Published: March 2 2006 21:01 | Last updated: March 2 2006 21:01

It is hard not to chuckle at the way the Democratic party is exploiting “portgate”, the confrontation over control of America’s east coast ports. The other day a Washington-based friend – formerly employed by a Democratic senator – called to share his amusement over the spectacle of politicians, most of them bellicose free-traders, accusing President George W. Bush of reckless disregard for the nation’s security.


“They got kicked in the head so many times they finally woke up,” he said with mirthful sarcasm. “Now, all they have to do is say it every day until November: ‘He’s selling our ports to terrorists!’ ”

To be sure, the Dubai Ports World controversy is replete with irony. Since the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks, neither political party has shown much interest in port security. Retired coast guard commander Stephen Flynn notes that since then, Congress has declined to spend anything close to the estimated $5.6bn (€4.6bn) necessary “to make ports minimally secure”. Moreover, the leadership of both political parties supported the Bill Clinton-backed “free trade” (permanent normal trade relations) agreement with China in 2000, which led to a huge increase in poorly inspected container traffic into the US. There is also something comical about the “opposition” party suddenly getting tough after caving in to Mr Bush on so many issues – from invading Iraq and tax cuts favouring the rich to assaults on civil liberties.

(snip - the whole editorial is available at the link)

The writer, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, is author of The Selling of ‘Free Trade’ (University of California Press)

So, the mission of the Kerrycrats, should you choose to accept it, is

1) come up with a list of legislation proposed by Democrats (especially, but not limited to our favorite Senator) trying to improve port security and related Homeland Security concerns.

2) also public statements and speeches, again especially by JK.

3) several of us should write LTTE to the Financial Times expressing something to the effect (some ideas - pick and choose or add your own!): Dems have shown plenty of interest; the MSM has not covered it; perhaps this is an area where Harpers (the author's magazine) could step up its own coverage; here is a list of what the Dem Presidential nominee and other Dems have been trying to get done on port security; it is just the Republicans who have no interest, because while they are willing to send our troops to die in a country that was unconnectd to 9/11 they are unwilling to give up their tax breaks for the wealthy to pay for REAL security - here at home. Do not tar both parties with the failures of the party in power. That's just completely inaccurate.

Contact info:
email - [e-mail]
fax (NY) - 212 641 6504
fax (London) - [phone]

Also, after we collect some research, I think this should be posted in GD-P to get more help.

How bout it folks? Do you accept the mission? How many bills and statements can we dig up? Then, how many LTTE can we send to them?

[karynnj]

1. There was a Senate bill S1214

that has pages and pages of floor speeches on December 20, 2001. Lots of familair names - Holling and McCain were Chairman and Ranking member. The work seems to have been done by Bob Graham, Kerry, Breaux, Edwards (amendments for research), and many others.

I just found it and am scanning it - but I don't know how to find out whether it passed.

From Hollings' comments:

Senators KERRY and BREAUX authored another critical section of this bill: the Sea Marshal program. The bill would authorize the Coast Guard to board vessels in order to deter, prevent, or respond to acts of terrorism or otherwise provide for the safety and security of the port and maritime environment. We would authorize $13 million over five years for this new Coast Guard enforcement. The provision in question also requires the Secretary to evaluate the potential of using licensed U.S. merchant marine personnel to supplement the law enforcement efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard.

From McCain's statement (content more important than words - I think Clinton initiated the Rudman/Hart study that Bush et al seemed not to have read.

"Both the Hart-Rudman Report on Homeland Security and the Interagency Commission on Crime and Seaport Security found our seaports to be vulnerable to crime and terrorism. While there is no way to make our Nation's seaports completely crime free and impenetrable to terrorist attacks, the bill before us today is a very strong first step in closing the gaps in national security that now exist at our seaports. "

Kerry's comments - cause he's Kerry:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, allow me to congratulate our distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator HOLLINGS, for his outstanding work in putting together S. 1214, The Maritime and Port Security Improvement Act. I also wish to congratulate Senators GRAHAM and MCCAIN for all of their hard work in moving this very important legislation that is crucial to homeland defense.

I also wish to recognize Carl Bentzel of the Commerce Committee for his years of hard work in putting this legislation together.

I thank Senator Hollings for including several provisions from S. 1589, the Port Threat and Security Act of 2001, in the final version of his bill. If I may, I would like to discuss the provisions from S. 1589 that were included in the final version of S. 1214.

Senator Breaux and I recently held oversight hearings before our respective Subcommittees on the Coast Guard and its role in improving maritime security after the terrible attacks of September 11. As Senators HOLLINGS and BREAUX well know, even before September 11 our maritime and port security was in sorry shape. However, the attacks on New York and Washington made it clear we need to go farther afield to guard against terrorism and other crimes.

We need to improve our base of information to identify bad actors throughout the maritime realm. A provision of the bill would help us identify those nations whose vessels and vessel registration procedures pose potential threats to our national security . It would require the Secretaries of Transportation and State to prepare an annual report for the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found would pose a risk to our ports, or that have presented our government with false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. In addition the report would identify nations that do not exercise adequate control over their vessel registration and ownership procedures, particularly with respect to security issues. We need hard information like this if we are to force ``flag of convenience'' nations from providing cover to criminals and terrorists.

This is very important as Osama bin Laden has used flags of convenience to hide his ownership in various international shipping interests. In 1998 one of bin Laden's cargo freighters unloaded supplies in Kenya for the suicide bombers who later destroyed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To that end, the bill requires the Administration to report on actions they have taken, or would recommend, to close these loopholes and improve transparency and registration procedures, either through domestic or international action--including action at the International Maritime Organization.

This legislation would also establish a national Sea Marshal program to protect our ports from the potential use of vessels as weapons of terror. Sea Marshals have recently been used in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and is supported strongly by the maritime pilots who, like airline pilots, are on the front lines in bringing vessels into U.S. ports. Sea Marshals would be used in ports that handle materials that are hazardous or flammable in quantities that make them potential targets of attack. The Coast Guard has taken a number of steps including using armed Coast Guard personnel to escort a Liquid Natural Gas, LNG, tankers into Boston since September 11. Prior to September 11 these vessels were escorted by Coast Guard vessels into the port but no armed guards were present on the vessel. I strongly believe that having armed personnel, such as Sea Marshals, on these high interest vessels is very important and will considerably increase security in our nation's ports, including Boston. The ability of terrorists to board a vessel and cause a deliberate release of LNG or gasoline for that matter is very real. Sea Marshals will make it much more difficult for this to happen. The Secretary of Transportation would be responsible for evaluating the potential use of Federal, State, or local government personnel as well as documented United States Merchant Marine personnel to supplement Coast Guard personnel as Sea Marshals. In addition it is my hope that the Secretary will establish training centers around the country for the Sea Marshal program. I further believe that the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy or any of the State maritime academies would make excellent locations for such training centers.

Lastly, this legislation would allow the President to prohibit any vessel, U.S. flagged or foreign, from transporting passengers or cargo to and from a foreign port that does not have adequate security measures as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. I would like to remind my colleagues that a similar provision exists in the airline industry and I see no reason why the President should not have the power to suspend vessel traffic to and from ports with inadequate security , just like he can now do with international airports. The stakes are simply too high Mr. President, we cannot allow shipping containers to enter this country unless adequate security exists in foreign ports to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being loaded. In addition we should not allow cruise ships carrying U.S. passengers to visit foreign passenger ports that do not have adequate security .

I again wish to congratulate Senator Hollings on this landmark legislation and to thank him for including several provisions from S. 1589. This legislation will ensure that the United States has the tools, the information, and the personnel to guard against waterborne threats to our Nation and our citizens.

Bob Graham comment:
Alarmingly, less than 2 percent of this enormous number of cargo containers are actually inspected.

Clealand's comments:
. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1214, the Port Security and Improvement bill. This legislation is overdue and absolutely needed in broadening our response to the threat of terrorism.

The Report of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports, issued in the fall of 2000, indicates that ``the state of security in U.S. seaports generally ranges from poor to fair, and in a few cases, good.'' Now that this country is acutely aware of the repercussions of overlooking transportation security weaknesses, Congress would be severely remiss if we did not act promptly to improve on the ``poor to fair'' rating at our ports.

I believe that technology can play an important role in ensuring the integrity, safety, and security of goods coming into this country via ship. To that end, my amendment that is included in S. 1214 establishes a pilot program run and defined by the Customs Service to examine different technologies and how they can be employed to verify that a container's contents are what they say they are and that they have not been tampered with during transport. Shippers and transporters using effective such technologies could then enter U.S. ports on an expedited basis. With 95 percent of foreign trade entering or leaving the U.S. via ship, allowing a quicker entrance by certain ``trusted shippers'' will allow a quicker conveyance to American consumers.

Already, I have seen outstanding demonstrations from people all over this country of their detection technologies and how they can be used to improve security . My amendment is a challenge to these innovators to develop such technologies for use in the shipping world.

Additionally, I have heard testimony from maritime experts that America needs to find ways to ``push its borders back.'' By ``pushing back'' our borders the intention is to ensure the integrity and inspection of goods entering the country at points farther out from our physical borders. If this process can be taken care of in a foreign port , confidence in the integrity of the goods increases and time is saved by domestic inspectors who can use their resources elsewhere. My amendment would allow the securing of goods in the port of origin so that when these goods arrive in the U.S. we can be assured of their safety.

Feinstein:
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am encouraged that the Senate is poised to pass legislation bolstering security at our Nation's 361 seaports. I thank the members of the Senate Commerce Committee for their hard work on this bill.

While often out of the public eye, ports and harbors across the United States are America's economic gateways. Every year, U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo, valued at approximately $600 billion. If you exclude border commerce with Mexico and Canada, our ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Two of the busiest ports of the nation are in California, at Long Beach and Oakland.

Yet, just 1 or 2 percent of the 11 million shipping containers reaching our ports are inspected each year. The Federal Government has taken steps to beef up security along our northern and southern borders. And we are addressing aviation security . But just about everything that arrives by ship is waved through.

This bill will strengthen law enforcement at our ports by establishing a federal port security task force and providing more funding for local efforts to boost port security . It is crucial that we increase cargo surveillance and inspections . And it is crucial that we provide our Customs agents and other port security forces with the equipment needed to detect chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, WMD.

Osama bin Laden has stated that he considers it his ``religious duty'' to obtain such weapons.

Earlier this month, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned, ``The willingness of terrorists to commit suicide to achieve their evil aims makes the nuclear terrorism threat far more likely than it was before September 11th.'' According to the Agency, there have been 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear material since 1993 and 201 cases of trafficking in medical and industrial radioactive material. Sadly, it is no longer beyond the pale to imagine that bin Laden and his associates might try to smuggle a nuclear device or so-called ``dirty bomb'' onto a cargo ship entering one of our busy seaports and then detonate it.

I was prepared to offer an amendment to make it quite clear that references in the bill to chemical, biological, or other weapons of mass destruction include nuclear devices.

Shumer's comments - no real content other than praise of Holling and that bill passed.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to say a few words about the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001 and the herculean efforts of the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Hollings, to get it passed.

In the aftermath of September 11, most of the legislation considered in this chamber has been reactive in nature. This bill, like Senator Byrd's homeland security package, is decidedly different.

This bill is designed to prevent a terrorist attack on one of our nation's most vulnerable pieces of infrastructure--our ports. This bill anticipates the possibility of an attack, and sets out to make that impossible. This is exactly the kind of legislation that we were sent to Congress to pass.

Yet it would not have passed without the dogged efforts of Senator Hollings, who forced the issue as most members of Congress were leaving town.

[karynnj]

2. More on the 2001 work when Democrats were in charge

Kerry comments on S1214 on October 30, 2001

Madam President, As Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, I rise today to introduce legislation to identify and reduce maritime threats from criminal or terrorist action, particularly those originating from foreign ports and vessels. I am particularly pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the Commerce Committee Mr. Hollings of South Carolina and the Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee Mr. Breaux of Louisiana.

Senator Breaux and I recently held oversight hearings before our respective Subcommittees on the Coast Guard and its role in improving maritime security after the terrible attacks of September 11. As Senators Hollings and Breaux well know, even before September 11 our maritime and port security was in sorry shape. Senator Hollings had already recognized the need to rectify these deficiencies and authored S. 1214, the Maritime and Port Security Improvement Act, which was reported out of the Committee in August, and which I am proud to cosponsor. However, the attacks on New York and Washington made it clear we need to go farther afield to guard against terrorism and other crimes.

Today's legislation is intended to supplement the security provisions of

GPO's PDFS. 1214 by improving our ability to detect and prevent maritime terrorism and crime before it has the chance to sail into U.S. ports. We intend to work with Committee members to ensure these provisions are included in the final bill the Senate sends to the House.
At our October 11 oversight hearing, Coast Guard Commandant James Loy and other witnesses gave some thoughtful testimony that is the backbone of this legislation. The hearing also brought to light the challenges presented to the Coast Guard in securing our maritime border from such threats. In addition to introducing this legislation, we also will address glaring Coast Guard resource shortfalls through increased authorizations in our FY 2002 Coast Guard authorization bill, which we will bring to the floor shortly. The Port Threat and Security Act is focused on giving the Coast Guard the tools and the information they need to do the job right.

First, we need to improve our base of information to identify bad actors throughout the maritime realm. This legislation would help us identify those nations whose vessels and vessel registration procedures pose potential threats to our national security . It would require the Secretaries of Transportation and State to prepare an annual report for the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found would pose a risk to our ports, or that have presented our government with false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. In addition the report would identify nations that do not exercise adequate control over their vessel registration and ownership procedures, particularly with respect to security issues. We need hard information like this if we are to force ``flag of convenience'' nations from providing cover to criminals and terrorists. Mr. President, this is very important as Osama bin Laden has used flags of convenience to hide his ownership in various international shipping interests. In 1998 one of bin Laden's cargo freighters unloaded supplies in Kenya for the suicide bombers who later destroyed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To that end, the bill requires the Administration to report on actions

they have taken, or would recommend, to close these loopholes and improve transparency and registration procedures, either through domestic or international action--including action at the International Maritime Organization.

My legislation would also establish a national Sea Marshal program to protect our ports from the potential use of vessels as weapons of terror. A Sea Marshal program was recently established in San Francisco, and is supported strongly by the maritime pilots who, like airline pilots, are on the front lines in bringing vessels into U.S. ports. Sea Marshals would be used in ports that handle materials that are hazardous or flammable in quantities that make them potential targets of attack. The Coast Guard took a number of steps including using armed Coast Guard personnel to escort a Liquid Natural Gas, LNG, tanker into Boston last evening. This was the first delivery of LNG to Boston since September 11 and a number of people were concerned about the safety of bringing LNG into the port . Prior to September 11 these vessels were escorted by Coast Guard vessels into the port but no armed guards were present on the vessel. I strongly believe that having armed personnel, such as Sea Marshals, on these high interest vessels is very important and will considerably increase security in our nation's ports, including Boston. The ability of terrorists to board a vessel and cause a deliberate release of LNG or gasoline for that matter is very real. Sea Marshals will make it much more difficult for this to happen. The Secretary of Transportation would be responsible for establishing qualifications and standards for Sea Marshals which could be comprised of Federal, State or local law enforcement officials.

This legislation also aims to make use of unarmed pilots as yet another way to combat terrorism in our ports. Nearly every vessel that enters a U.S. port is first boarded by a sea pilot to assist the crew in navigating the harbor. Many times these pilots are the first set of U.S. eyes on vessels that may be headed to our ports bearing criminals or contraband from overseas. They are our eyes and ears, but cannot be expected to be a line of physical defense, that is the job of the Sea Marshals. This legislation would require the Secretary of Transportation to use these ``eyes and ears'' effectively in the war on terror. The Secretary is directed to investigate discrete ways in which sea pilots can provide information to warn of a possible terrorist attack or other crime. It is important that we explore secure mechanisms to allow these pilots to contribute to our maritime domain awareness, including notifying law enforcement officials of suspicious activity on a vessel. I am convinced there are a number of ways that these pilots could safely provide the authorities with information that can thwart illegal activities without alerting the vessel's captain or crew, or potential terrorists.

This legislation would also require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct 25 foreign port vulnerability assessments each year, and places on foreign ports the same reporting and assessment requirements we use for foreign airports. This is essential to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from harm in foreign ports, and are informed about any risks before leaving U.S. soil. It is also absolutely necessary to use foreign ports as our first defense against threats to U.S. ports. We cannot expect to protect U.S. borders by erecting a fence only at our own ports. As one of our witnesses said, ``the leading edge of our boundary for homeland defense is, in fact, foreign ports.'' In many instances, such defenses would be fruitless because of the sheer volume of cargo that passes through our ports daily. We need advance warning long before these vessels appear at our harbor entrances. Critical information that can help the Coast Guard identify these risks can only be collected at foreign ports where cargo and persons are first placed aboard the vessel. Despite this obvious need, we have fallen behind on our assessments of foreign ports. I firmly believe that the only way we can make U.S. ports and harbors safe is by going to the source and ensuring appropriate measures and facilities are in place to guarantee the safety of U.S. citizens visiting foreign ports as well as the safety of cargo bound for the United States.

In order to pay for these inspections this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to collect a 50 cent user fee on all cruise passengers that depart the United States for a foreign port . Quite frankly, 50 cents is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that a port vulnerability assessment has been completed prior to a cruise ship with as many as 5,000 U.S. citizens as passengers, docks in a particular country. U.S. citizens should not be disembarking in ports that have not been scrutinized for security violations. One witness pointed out that in many circumstances U.S. cruise ship passengers are passing through ports that could not be assessed because they were deemed too dangerous for military personnel! This is ludicrous. I am sure those passengers had no idea of this potential danger, and we need to make sure that they are both safe and informed.

Lastly, this legislation would allow the President to prohibit any vessel, U.S. flagged or foreign, from entering the United States if the vessel has embarked passengers or cargo from foreign ports that do not have adequate security measures as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. Recently inspectors in Italy checking a container bound for Canada discovered a member of the al-Qaida terrorist organization hiding in a shipping container equipped with a bed and makeshift bathroom. The suspect, an Egyptian in a business suit, had with him a Canadian passport, a laptop computer, two cell phones, airport maps, security passes for airports in three countries and a certificate proclaiming him an airplane mechanic. We cannot allow any country to have such poor security such that terrorists can stow away in a shipping container. I would like to remind everyone that a similar provision exists in the airline industry and I see no reason why the President should not have the power to suspend commerce from a port with inadequate security , just like he can now do with international airports.

GPO's PDF I believe that these provisions, when combined with the strong port security program of S. 1214, will ensure that the United States has the tools, the information, and the personnel to guard against waterborne threats to our nation and our citizens.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S. 1587
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Port Threat and Security Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVED REPORTING ON FOREIGN-FLAG VESSELS ENTERING UNITED STATES PORTS.

Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act and every year thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall provide a report to the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and International Relations of the House of Representatives that lists the following information:

(1) A list of all nations whose flag vessels have entered United States ports in the previous year.

(2) Of the nations on that list, a separate list of those nations--

(A) whose registered flag vessels appear as Priority III or higher on the Boarding Priority Matrix maintained by the Coast Guard;

(B) that have presented, or whose flag vessels have presented, false, intentionally incomplete, or fraudulent information to the United States concerning passenger or cargo manifests, crew identity or qualifications, or registration or classification of their flag vessels;

(C) whose vessel registration or classification procedures have been found by the Secretary to be insufficient or do not exercise adequate control over safety and security concerns; or

(D) whose laws or regulations are not sufficient to allow tracking of ownership and registration histories of registered flag vessels.

(3) Actions taken by the United States, whether through domestic action or international negotiation, including agreements at the International Maritime Organization under section 902 of the International Maritime and Port Security Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1801), to improve transparency and security of vessel registration procedures in nations on the list under paragraph (2).

(4) Recommendations for legislative or other actions needed to improve security of United States ports against potential threats posed by flag vessels of nations named in paragraph (2).

SEC. 3. SEA MARSHAL PROGRAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish a program to place sea marshals on vessels entering United States Ports identified in subsection (c).

(b) CONSULTATION.--In establishing this program, the Secretary shall consult with representatives from the port security task force and local port security committees.

(c) SEA MARSHAL PORTS.--The Secretary shall identify United States ports for inclusion in the sea marshal program based on criteria that include the following:

(1) The presence of port facilities that handle materials that are hazardous or flammable in quantities that make them potential targets of attack.

(2) The proximity of these facilities to residential or other densely populated areas.

(3) The proximity of sea lanes or navigational channels to hazardous areas that would pose a danger to citizens in the event of a loss of navigational control by the ship's master.

(4) Any other criterion deemed necessary by the Secretary.

(d) SEA MARSHAL QUALIFICATIONS.--The Secretary shall establish appropriate qualifications or standards for sea marshals. The Secretary may use, or require use of, Federal, State, or local personnel as sea marshals.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation such sums as may be necessary to carry out the requirements of this section for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

(f) REPORT.--Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the success of the program in protecting the ports listed under (c), and submit any recommendations.

SEC. 4. SEA PILOT COMMUNICATION AND WARNING SYSTEM.

Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall provide a secure report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the potential for increasing the capabilities of sea pilots to provide information on maritime domain awareness. The report should specifically address necessary improvements to both reporting procedures and equipment that could allow pilots to be integrated more effectively in an maritime domain awareness program.

SEC. 5. SECURITY STANDARDS AT FOREIGN SEAPORTS.

(a) ASSESSMENT.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall assess the effectiveness of the security measures maintained at--

(A) each foreign seaport--

(i) served by United States vessels;

(ii) from which foreign vessels serve the United States; or

(iii) that poses a high risk of introducing danger to international sea travel; and

(B) other foreign seaports the Secretary considers appropriate.

(2) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND STANDARDS.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct an assessment under paragraph (1) of this subsection--

(A) in consultation with appropriate port authorities of the government of a foreign country concerned and United States vessel operators serving the foreign seaport for which the Secretary is conducting the assessment;

(B) to establish the extent to which a foreign seaport effectively maintains and carries out security measures; and

(C) by using a standard that will result in an analysis of the security measures at the seaport based at least on the standards and recommended practices of the International Maritime Organization in effect on the date of the assessment.

(3) REPORT.--Each report to Congress required under section 2 shall contain a summary of the assessments conducted under this subsection.

(b) INTERVAL.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct assessments under subsection (a) of this section of at least 25 foreign seaports annually until all seaports identified in subsection (a)(1) are completed. The first 25 of these assessments shall be conducted within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) CONSULTATION.--In carrying out subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Secretary of State--

(1) on the terrorist threat that exists in each country; and

(2) to establish which foreign seaports are not under the de facto control of the government of the foreign country in which they are located and pose a high risk of introducing danger to international sea travel.

(d) QUALIFIED ASSESSMENT ENTITIES.--In carrying out subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Transportation may utilize entities determined by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of State to be qualified to conduct such assessments.

(e) NOTIFYING FOREIGN AUTHORITIES.--If the Secretary of Transportation, after conducting an assessment under subsection (a) of this section, determines that a seaport does not maintain and carry out effective security measures, the Secretary, after advising the Secretary of State, shall notify the appropriate authorities of the government of the foreign country of the decision and recommend the steps necessary to bring the security measures in use at the seaport up to the standard used by the Secretary in making the assessment.

(f) ACTIONS WHEN SEAPORTS NOT MAINTAINING AND CARRYING OUT EFFECTIVE SECURITY MEASURES.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--If the Secretary of Transportation makes a determination under subsection (e) that a seaport does not maintain and carry out effective security measures, the Secretary--

(A) shall publish the identity of the seaport in the Federal Register;

(B) shall require the identity of the seaport to be posted and displayed prominently at all United States seaports at which scheduled passenger carriage is provided regularly;

(C) shall notify the news media of the identity of the seaport;

(D) shall require each United States and foreign vessel providing transportation between the United States and the seaport to provide written notice of the decision, on or with the ticket, to each passenger buying a ticket for transportation between the United States and the seaport; and

(E) may, after consulting with the appropriate port authorities of the foreign country concerned and United States and foreign vessel operators serving the seaport and with the approval of the Secretary of State, withhold, revoke, or prescribe conditions on the operating authority of a United States or foreign vessel that uses that seaport to provide foreign sea transportation.

(2) PRESIDENTIAL ACTION.--If the Secretary makes such a determination under subsection (e) about a seaport, the President may prohibit a United States or foreign vessel from providing transportation between the United States and any other foreign seaport that is served by vessels navigating to or from the seaport with respect to which a decision is made under this section.

(3) WHEN ACTION TO BE TAKEN.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply with respect to a foreign seaport--

(i) 90 days after the government of a foreign country is notified of the Secretary's determination under subsection (e) of this section unless the Secretary of Transportation finds that the government has brought the security measures at the seaport up to the standard the Secretary used in making an assessment under subsection (a) of this section before the end of that 90-day period; or
(ii) on the date on which the Secretary makes that determination if the Secretary of Transportation determines, after consulting with the Secretary of State, that a condition exists that threatens the safety or security of passengers, vessels, or crew traveling to or from the seaport.

(B) TRAVEL ADVISORY NOTIFICATION.--The Secretary of Transportation immediately shall notify the Secretary of State of a determination under subparagraph (A)(ii) of this paragraph so that the Secretary of State may issue a travel advisory required under section 908 of the International Maritime and Port Security Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1804).

(4) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.--The Secretary of Transportation promptly shall submit to Congress a report (and classified annex if necessary) on action taken under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, including information on attempts made to obtain the cooperation of the government of a foreign country in meeting the standard the Secretary used in assessing the seaport under subsection (a) of this section.

(5) CANCELLATION OF PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS.--If the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that effective security measures are maintained and carried out at the seaport against which the Secretary took action under paragraph (1), then the Secretary shall--

(A) terminate action under paragraph (1) against that seaport; and

(B) notify the Congress of the Secretary's determination.

(g) SUSPENSIONS.--The Secretary of Transportation, with the approval of the Secretary of State and without notice or a hearing, shall suspend the right of any United States vessel to provide foreign sea transportation, and the right of a person to operate vessels in foreign sea commerce, to or from a foreign seaport if the Secretary of Transportation determines that--

(1) a condition exists that threatens the safety or security of passengers, vessels, or crew traveling to or from that seaport; and

(2) the public interest requires an immediate suspension of transportation between the United States and that seaport.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter to carry out this section.

SEC. 6. FOREIGN PORT ASSESSMENT FEES.

(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Transportation shall collect a user fee from cruise vessel lines upon the arrival of a cruise vessel at a United States port from a foreign port . Amounts collected under this section shall be treated as offsetting collections to offset annual appropriations for the costs of providing foreign port vulnerability assessments under section 5.

(b) AMOUNT OF FEE.--Cruise vessel lines shall remit $0.50 for each passenger embarkment on a cruise that includes at least one United States port and one foreign port .

(c) USE OF FEES.--A fee collected under this section shall be used solely for the costs associated with providing foreign port vulnerability assessments and may be used only to the extent provided in advance in an appropriation law.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The requirements of this section apply with respect to travel beginning more than 179 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

[TayTay]

3. Wow! Nice work Karynnj!!!! n/t

[karynnj]

5. Someone taught me how to use Thomas (named Tay Tay)

I want to read the stuff better - I just scanned it.

The main questions I have are:
-What did Hart/Rudman recommend?
-Did the bill address these?
-Clearly this bill didn't fix the ports - Was it that the bill was inadequate? or Was it under funded? Who voted for and against it. (on edit - it looks like it was underfunded per Ron's post on Republican votes - but they were mostly 2003,2004 votes (which were ao off from passing that Kerry is usually "not voting")
-What did the administration contribute? Were they supportive?

(The one thing I could see was how each tried to use his domain to address the problem - ie Kerry was most involved in how the Coast Guard could be used. )

The danger in bringinng up the the fact that the Democrats (with some Republicans) wrote major legislation in the wake of 911 is that it obviously left the ports inadequately protected.

[ProSense]

6. Excellent! n/t

[Dr Ron]

4. Some data on Kerry and Port Security

Kerry in debates:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2058

More from Kerry during the 2004 campaign:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2028
http:

More general info on Republicans voting against Port Security:

http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20060222_dubai/

[MH1]

7. Thanks all!! Great work espec on the 2001 and pre-election stuff...

But hasn't JK had some statements and bills more recently, too?

[MH1]

8. Some items I found:

Port Security - Kerry amendment adopted (7/12/2005):
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=240527

statement here (07/12/2005)
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=240479

7/20/2005:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=241166

This Media Matters covers it as well (item #7 on their list) - doesn't mention Kerry but has lots of other great stuff:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030005
(saw this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x567454)

[karynnj]

9. I think the first link to Kerry's web site actually has most of the

answer. The end of his statement on the amendment is:

"In January, the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General issued a report criticizing the department’s management of the Port Security Grant Program, saying there is “no assurance that the program is protecting the nation’s most critical and vulnerable infrastructure and assets.”

The Inspector General found that many of the projects that received funding lacked merit, the program’s bureaucracy prevented money from getting to the most vulnerable ports, and that available assessments of ports’ infrastructure and vulnerabilities were not used effectively.

Among the most serious revelations:


Of the $564 million awarded for port security grants since 2002, only 21 percent, or $106 million, has actually been spent.
82 of 86 project applications submitted in 2003 were found by a review board to lack merit. All received funding.
In 2003, only one staff member oversaw the grant program. 811 projects were funded that year. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This really says that Congress allocated money for the ports, but the administration spent very little of it and most of what they did do "lacked merit". (Put with the other things - Congress in December 2001 did pass legislation and the executive branch didn't do its work well.)

[globalvillage]

10. I think all of these include port security

S.AMDT.1162 to H.R.2360 To require the Inspector General to report to the Congress on the port security grant programs.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 7/11/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 7/12/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1162 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent

H.R.1731
Title: To improve the security of the Nation's ports by providing Federal grants to support Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans and to address vulnerabilities in port areas identified in approved vulnerability assessments or by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sponsor: Rep Harman, Jane (introduced 4/20/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: S.855
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology.

S.2008
Title: A bill to improve cargo security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Murray, Patty (introduced 11/15/2005) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 11/16/2005 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 292.

H.R.173
Title: To prevent and respond to terrorism and crime at or through ports.
Sponsor: Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita (introduced 1/4/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

H.R.2651
Title: To reduce crime and terrorism at America's seaports, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Schiff, Adam B. (introduced 5/26/2005) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: S.378
Latest Major Action: 5/26/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

S.378
Title: A bill to make it a criminal act to willfully use a weapon with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person while on board a passenger vessel, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (introduced 2/15/2005) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.2651
Latest Major Action: 4/21/2005 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 86.

H.R.163
Title: To amend title 46, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out an empty shipping container sealing pilot program to encourage shipping container handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita (introduced 1/4/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/18/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Security, infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity

S.140
Title: A bill to provide for a domestic defense fund to improve the Nation's homeland defense, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 1/24/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

S.12
Title: A bill to combat international terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (12)
Latest Major Action: 1/24/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


H.R.1414
Title: To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue regulations concerning the shipping of extremely hazardous materials, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Markey, Edward J. (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: S.1256
Latest Major Action: 3/29/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight.


S.1256
Title: A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop regulations regarding the transportation of extremely hazardous materials, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (introduced 6/16/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.1414, H.R.3510
Latest Major Action: 6/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

H.R.4009
Title: To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct comprehensive examinations of the human resource capabilities and needs, organizational structure, innovation and improvement plans, intelligence and information analysis capabilities and resources, infrastructure capabilities and resources, budget, and other elements of the homeland security program and policies of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Thompson, Bennie G. (introduced 10/6/2005) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 10/7/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.


And this

Furthermore, most Republicans in Congress have resisted Democrats’ efforts to secure U.S. ports. As the Senate Democratic Policy Committee has documented, since 9-11, Senate Republicans have voted to defeat Democratic measures to increase funding for port security. For example, Schumer’s amendment to the 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to provide $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports was defeated by a 51-45 near-party-line vote. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) introduced an amendment to the same bill that would have provided $100 million in port and maritime security grants. The Republican Senate rejected Byrd’s measure by a near party-line vote of 51-45. Republicans also defeated former Sen. Ernest Hollings’s (D-SC) amendment to the 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which would have provided $300 million in maritime security grants, by a 50-48 largely party-line vote. In addition, for the 2003 War Supplemental Appropriations bill, Hollings’s amendment to increase port security funding by $1 billion was defeated by a 52-47 vote largely along party lines.

http://maximumamerica.com/?cat=6249

[karynnj]

11. OMG The Republicans are sitting on all of these

- except Kerry's, which led to the report that they aren't even spending the money on appropriate projects.

I now understand why Kerry sounded furious when he spoke about port security.

[TayTay]

12. I really do think this is one of his strongest issues

He did all that work on where terrorists get money and illegal goods and how they move it around. I think he knows a lot on this.

The Bush Admin lies. They pretend to be little macho men who are sooooo tough on terrorism and such. All they are really tough on is civil liberties. They are not interested in doing anything that will upset business or global trade and that includes making tough comittments on port security. (Or any other kind of security. We still don't have good policy on regulating chemical shipments through major cities, for goodness sakes.)

This United Arab Emirates deal si more of the same. They don't want to upset allies that are helping them in the Iraq War. The safety and security of America is secondary to not pissing off an ally that suppresses their own people and has a dubious comittment (at best) to human rights and to so many other things. It's all about the money and nothing else.

No wonder Sen. Kerry was pissed off. He has every right to be. He actually wants to make America safer with sane measures that will call for more inspections and such. He wants more than just 'tough talk,' he wants the tough actions as well.

[karynnj]

13. I really wish the "leaders" of the party would see that

this is not just a political issue but a very real security issue. I realize they want Hillary and Schumer out front on this, but Kerry really has far more background on the overall issue.

He also is the only one I really trust not to play politics on this. Bill Clinton's role makes no sense - he advises the company on what could best smooth their acceptance here - while he says that GOVERNMENT owned companies shouldn't operate our ports. (I also think the "Government owned" while true, is not honest. An independent UAE company would be just as unacceptable.

[TayTay]

14. I agree. The Democrats are missing an opportunity here

They should have Kerry front and center on this and play clips from the debates where Kerry fought for sane security measures at the ports and Bush claimed it was too expensive. Sigh!