GovernmentExecutive.com

A proposed overhaul of U.S. maritime security programs, including changes aimed at beefing up cargo inspections at foreign and American ports, is rapidly drawing bipartisan support, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Monday.

Collins and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told reporters they believe their "Greenlane Maritime Cargo Security Act" will address concerns that have been raised in recent weeks since news broke that a Dubai company wants to manage port terminal operations in the United States.

Companion legislation will be introduced soon in the House by Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King, D-N.Y., Intelligence ranking member Jane Harman, D-Calif., and Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., said Collins, adding that she plans to hold a hearing on her own bill in late March, followed by an April markup.

The Collins-Murray bill would provide $835 million a year for maritime security using existing fees collected by Customs and Border Protection. It would also require the Homeland Security Department to take several steps to strengthen the government's efforts abroad and domestically.

"Our goal is to make sure that we know from the factory door to the retail store floor how the cargo has been handled at each step of the supply chain," Collins said at a news conference.

She and Murray want $400 million to be set aside annually for port security grants, an approach that puts them at odds with Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. For the second year in a row, the Homeland Security Department has proposed eliminating grant programs in favor of creating a $600 million Targeted Infrastructure Protection program, through which state and local governments would compete for funds to pay for security in many areas, including ports, transit systems and chemical plants.

Congress balked at the proposed change last year and Collins appeared Monday to put it in jeopardy again.

"I think DHS is just plain wrong in trying to combine all infrastructure grants into one program," Collins said. "That could result in port security grants getting nothing."

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke defended the Targeted Infrastructure Protection program. "Rather than operating five different programs, each with separate guidelines, we're introducing a streamlined program, the TIP, which allows the department to allocate port security funding based upon the greatest risks," he said.

Knocke added that port security grants are one element of a comprehensive maritime security strategy that begins abroad and includes programs that did not exist prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, such as the Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.

Murray, who sits on the Appropriations and Budget committees, said she does not believe the Senate bill would require new funding, but rather could be paid for using 3 percent of existing fees and duties collected by CBP, which is part of the Homeland Security Department.

Collins also said she and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., will introduce legislation late this week to "completely revamp" the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which originally approved the Dubai company's bid to manage U.S. port terminal operations.

"In fact, I would scrap the current system and create a new process that would be housed in the Department of Homeland Security rather than in the Treasury Department. It would also have the committee include a member of the intelligence community on it," Collins said.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Budget ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Lieberman Monday criticized President Bush for underfunding homeland security and proposed adding $8 billion for ports, rail and transit security using money obtained by "aggressively attacking" what they said was an estimated $350 billion tax gap between what taxpayers owe the government and how much is collected every year.

Greta Wodele contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

• Ah, what a beautiful word ... retired. Why, because I'm finally out of this insanity! I spent several years working at a major East Coast airport, interacting with Special Agents, INS officers, PQ, FWS, etc., and somehow we all got along, and did the job. Now, where are the uniformed (or, uninformed) officers to work with and support the agents? Would you want to work for the same pay and learn four times the work? Not me, and I wish all involved the best, 'cause the barn door is wide open. GovExec.com reader Posted March 15, 2006 8:43 PM
• Cargo security is very important, but represents just one part of the problem facing this nation. Question: Who searches the crewmembers walking off vessels at the ports? Or the longshoremen, truck drivers, and others who work at the piers? Who conducts border searches of vehicles entering and leaving the ports (which are just as much a part of the U.S. border as the Mexican and Canadian land border crossings, and international airports)? Who searches the vessels themselves, from the shaft alley to the engine room to fuel and water tanks to the crew's quarters? The answer is -- no one! Ever since Customs did away with the Customs Patrol Officer (CPO) position in the 1980s, these vital functions have been virtually ignored. Customs inspectors (now CBP Officers) try to fill the gap, but have their hands full with examining cargo. The Coast Guard doesn't perform this function, and local port security guards and police have no border search authority, so the question remains, who will? Anyone can walk off a ship with just about anything, from narcotics to weapons of mass destruction, and nobody is there to stop them. Unless this problem is also addressed by our leaders, our nation will remain far from secure. Mr. President, Mr. Chertoff, Ms. Collins. Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. King: are you listening? GovExec.com reader Posted March 7, 2006 6:34 PM