Ports group backs trio of security bills
Group opposes fourth measure that would require full inspection of all cargo entering the United States, calling it unrealistic.
The American Association of Port Authorities is throwing its weight behind three bills aimed at strengthening maritime and cargo security.
The association, which represents public port authorities across the country, decided at the conclusion of its spring conference in Washington late Tuesday to support the "Greenlane Maritime Cargo Security Act," the "Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act," and the "Transportation Security Improvement Act."
All three bills have been gaining steam in Congress in response to heightened concerns over gaps in maritime and cargo security.
"AAPA supports a risk-based scanning and inspection policy, and we believe as much as that as possible should take place overseas," Susan Monteverde, the association's vice president for government relations, said in an interview Wednesday. Members of the association's executive committee made rounds on Capitol Hill today to inform congressional members and staff of their positions on pending legislation.
But one bill drew the opposition of the trade group, namely the "National Defense and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act," which was introduced earlier this month by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. That bill would require all U.S. port terminal operations to be managed by a U.S. entity, and would mandate 100 percent inspection of all cargo coming into the United States.
The majority of U.S. port terminal operations are now managed by foreign companies, whether they are private or government-owned. Monteverde said Hunter's bill is unrealistic, adding that AAPA supports having foreign companies manage terminal operations, even if they are owned by a foreign government.
When it comes to inspecting cargo, the association supports the strategy now used by the Homeland Security Department, which calls for scanning and inspecting high-risk containers, Monteverde said. The group would like at least one new provision added to pending legislation that would allow port authorities to be reimbursed for personnel costs.
None of the bills has that provision. The trade association also supports reform of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States so it becomes "more thorough, intelligence-based and transparent," Monteverde said.
The Greenlane bill, sponsored by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., would provide $835 million a year for maritime security using existing Customs and Border Protection fees and require a comprehensive strategic plan for supply-chain security.
Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens', R-Alaska, sweeping "Transportation Security Improvement Act" addresses aviation, rail and maritime security. It would authorize tens of millions of dollars more for container security programs, require new standards for screening and shipping cargo abroad and allow federal port security grants to be distributed solely based on risks and vulnerabilities.
The "SAFE Port" bill, written by Homeland Security Economic Security Subcommittee Chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif., and House Intelligence ranking member Jane Harman, D-Calif., would overhaul maritime security and provide about $800 million to bolster security and screening efforts at U.S. ports.
House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has made floor action on the latter bill a priority when the House returns next week from its current recess.