[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 58 (Friday, May 12, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 4, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4954) to 
     improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered 
     defenses, and for other purposes:

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, while I would have preferred a 
more proactive and comprehensive plan such as that proposed by the 
Democratic ``Real Security Agenda'', I rise today in support of H.R. 
4954, the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act because 
it is a step in the right direction.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, I 
am well aware of the vulnerabilities of our nation's ports. In fact, 
the 9/11 Commission report concluded that terrorists have the 
``opportunity to do harm as great or greater in maritime and surface 
transportation'' than the September 11 terrorist attacks.
  Our nation's seaports handle over 95 percent of our foreign trade, 
more than $1 trillion annually. The ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach 
near my district form the largest container port complex in the nation. 
These ports processed more than 35,000 cargo containers a day in 2005, 
and accounted for some 40 percent of all container traffic nationwide.
  Given the volume of our shipping trade, a terrorist attack against 
the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, or any major commercial seaport 
for that matter, would freeze commercial shipping business, close all 
seaports for an indefinite time, and have a devastating impact on our 
national economy. This is not a wild estimate or an exaggeration for 
effect. We have only to look at the work stoppage at the LA/Long Beach 
ports in 2002 that directly impacted businesses across the country and 
cost the national economy approximately $1 billion a day.
  When approved, the SAFE Port Act will make progress toward protecting 
the physical infrastructure of our seaports as well as our national 
economy which is so clearly dependent on the commercial shipping 
business.
  I believe the following three provisions in the bill are particularly 
important.
  First, the bill requires the development of plans to address supply 
chain security and the resumption of trade in the aftermath of a 
terrorist attack. Securing the supply chain against cargo-tampering is 
critical to decreasing the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction 
make it aboard ships bound for the United States. Ensuring that our 
ports can resume trade operations as soon as possible following any 
terrorist will mitigate the economic cost of any such attack.
  Second, the bill also mandates that Transportation Worker 
Identification Cards to be issued to port workers. Standardizing 
identification cards will better enable us to determine who should have 
access to sensitive areas at our ports and it will make it more 
difficult to counterfeit the ID cards.
  Lastly, the bill more than doubles present funding for the successful 
port security grant program to $400 million At the current rate of 
funding, securing the physical infrastructure of our ports would take 
decades to complete.
  Despite these and other important provisions, I continue to be 
disappointed that the rule for this bill did not allow consideration of 
amendments by my Democratic colleagues that would have further enhanced 
the protection of our ports and our economy.
  For example, the Thompson Amendment would have added 1600 new Customs 
and Border Protection officers at our Nation's ports. Having adequate 
staff to inspect incoming cargo is a basic first step toward securing 
incoming cargo.
  Additionally, the Langevin Amendment would have accelerated the 
installation of radiation detection monitors at our seaports. This is 
important because inspection of every incoming cargo container isn't 
realistic given the volume of trade. We are foolish not to maximize and 
expedite the full use of technology to scan containers for radiation 
that may reveal weapons of mass destruction.
  Lastly, Democrats sought to mandate 100 percent screening overseas, 
of cargo containers bound for U.S. seaports to protect the homeland 
from hidden shipments of weapons of mass destruction.
  Democratic proposals were common sense improvements to the bill and 
would have better prepared us for the increased security concerns 
facing our country. The House should not have been denied the 
opportunity to openly debate these important issues.
  The additional inspection officers, scanning equipment, and mandated 
cargo screening that these amendments proposed are not inexpensive 
plans and would have required significant investments. However, we 
cannot afford to not make these necessary investments and risk a far 
greater cost in terms of our economy and loss of American lives.
  Madam Chairman, port security is national security. This bill is a 
good step in the right direction toward securing our ports, our 
economy, and our Nation. However, I hope the conference committee will 
improve the bill further by addressing the issues of customs inspection 
officers, radiation detection monitors, and cargo screening that the 
Democrats proposed.

                          ____________________