[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2531-2533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            REDUCING CRIME AT AMERICA'S SEAPORTS ACT OF 2005

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation to 
improve our Nation's ability to use the criminal law to guard against 
and respond to terrorist attacks at our seaports--the Reducing Crime at 
America's Seaports Act of 2005.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Biden, Specter, Kyl, and

[[Page 2532]]

Allen, who have co-sponsored this bill, in moving forward with this 
initiative.
  The Nation's seaports are a tremendous asset to our economy. They 
also represent a significant vulnerability to a possible terrorist 
attack.
  Much of our national commerce travels through these ports. Ninety 
percent of all cargo tonnage moves through the 50 biggest ports. Just 
25 of those ports account for 98 percent of the Nation's container 
traffic--two of the largest such ports, Oakland and Los Angeles/Long 
Beach, are in my home State of California.
  A modern port, which handles huge ships laden with thousands of 
containers, and vast amounts of critical bulk cargo, is complex and 
sprawling. It is also extremely vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
  The very complexity and size of our ports make them an obvious and 
attractive target for a terrorist. With hundreds of miles of wharves 
and piers, a vast volume of boat, truck and car traffic, lengthy 
perimeters, ports can be the perfect target.
  Not only are they vulnerable to attack, the consequences of even a 
small attack could be overwhelming. Commerce would be devastated, not 
only at and around the port, but all around the Nation, because the 
goods moving through ports are the lifeblood of industry and commerce 
throughout the Nation. The human cost would also be terrible, because 
ports not only employ thousands of workers; they are without exception 
located near large metropolitan population centers.
  My concern is not just theoretical. The available intelligence 
analysis supports the conclusion that seaports are a critical 
vulnerability. Our terrorist enemies are well aware of the 
vulnerability of these ports, and are well equipped to do terrible 
damage.
  This problem is heightened by two critical factors: the first is the 
growing importance of containers in maritime commerce. Since their 
introduction in the late 1960s, container traffic has grown. It now 
accounts for 66 percent of dollar value of all U.S. maritime traffic. 
In some ports, such as Los Angeles/Long Beach, it constitutes most of 
the trade. The problem with containers is that they are, by definition, 
a potential delivery device for a terrorist weapon. Whether 
conventional explosives, biological agents, or a nuclear device, such 
as a so-called ``dirty bomb,'' containers complicate the problem of 
securing our ports. The second factor is the increasing possibility 
that terrorists have, or will soon acquire, the ability to mount 
unconventional attacks, such as nuclear, radiological or biological 
attacks. In such a case our ports provide both a method for bringing 
such things into the country for an attack inland, and can be the 
target itself.
  There is a lot to do to secure our ports. Some of it requires long 
term investment in capital improvements. But we can accomplish much 
simply by fine-tuning the tools we already have. Among those tools is 
the criminal law. These laws are vital to those on the front line--the 
Coast Guard, the FBI, Customs Agents, and the State, local and private 
authorities who protect our ports every day.
  This bill will improve the criminal law applicable to ports in the 
following ways: it would clarify that the law prohibiting fraudulent 
access to transport facilities includes seaports and waterfronts within 
its scope, as well as increase the maximum term of imprisonment for a 
violation from 5 years to 10 years. According to the Report of the 
Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports: 
``[c]ontrol of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the 
seaports is often lacking.'' Such unauthorized access is especially 
problematic, since inappropriate controls may result in the theft of 
cargo and, more dangerously, undetected admission of terrorists.
  It would amend the U.S. Code to make it a crime: One, for a vessel 
operator knowingly to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so 
by a Federal law enforcement officer, including the Coast Guard; two, 
for any person on board a vessel to impede boarding or other law 
enforcement action authorized by federal law; or three, for any person 
on board a vessel to provide false information to a federal law 
enforcement officer. Any violation of this section would be punishable 
by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years. A core 
function of the Coast Guard is law enforcement at sea, especially in 
the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11. While the Coast 
Guard has authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to 
force a vessel to stop or be boarded, ``refusal to stop,'' by itself, 
is not currently a crime.
  It creates a new criminal provision to make it a crime to willfully 
use a dangerous weapon, including chemical, biological, radiological or 
nuclear materials, or explosive, with intent to cause death or serious 
bodily injury to any person on board a passenger vessel. Any violation 
of this section, including attempts and conspiracies, would be 
punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 20 years 
and, if death results, for a term of imprisonment up to life. This 
section would close a potential gap in existing law by making it clear 
that ``passenger vessels'' like cruise ships are included within the 
scope of transportation vehicles covered by the provision.
  The bill would amend existing law which covers violence against 
maritime navigation to make it a crime to intentionally damage or 
tamper with any maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard 
or under its authority, if such act endangers the safe navigation of a 
ship. The Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids on more 
than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied upon by 
all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are essential for 
safe navigation and are, therefore, inviting targets for terrorists.
  The bill would make it a crime to: One, knowingly place in waters any 
device or substance which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, 
interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime 
commerce; or two, knowingly discharge a hazardous substance into U.S. 
waters, with the intent to endanger human life or welfare. Any 
violation of these provisions would be punishable by a fine and/or a 
term of imprisonment up to life; if death results, the offense could be 
punishable by a sentence of death. This addresses the vulnerability of 
our shorelines and ports to such a terrorist attack the results could 
be economically and environmentally devastating.
  The law would make it a crime to knowingly and willfully transport 
aboard any vessel an explosive, biological agent, chemical weapon, or 
radiological or nuclear materials, knowing that the item is intended to 
be used to commit a terrorist act. Any violation of this provision 
would be punishable by a fine and/or a term of imprisonment up to life; 
if death results, the offense could be punished by a sentence of death. 
It would also make it a crime to knowingly and willfully transport 
aboard any vessel any person who intends to commit, or is avoiding 
apprehension after having committed, a terrorist act.
  The law creates a set of crimes involving attacks on sea vessels. 
Modeled upon the existing criminal sanctions for destruction or 
interference with aircraft or aircraft facilities, updating them in the 
maritime area to harmonize them with coverage in the aviation context. 
Specifically, this section would make it a crime to: One, damage or 
destroy a vessel or its parts, a maritime facility, or any apparatus 
used to store, load or unload cargo and passengers; two, perform an act 
of violence against or incapacitate any individual on a vessel or at or 
near a facility; or three, knowingly communicate false information that 
endangers the safety of a vessel.
  The law would also subject any individual who knowingly conveys false 
information about the offenses described above, or other named 
offenses, to a civil penalty up to $5,000. In addition, an individual 
who willfully and maliciously or recklessly conveys false information 
would be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 
5 years.
  The law would amend the U.S. Code to prohibit the carrying of a 
dangerous weapon, including a firearm or explosive, at a seaport or on 
board a vessel.

[[Page 2533]]

Any violation of this section, and conspiracies, would be punishable by 
a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 10 years; an 
individual who willfully or recklessly violates this section would be 
punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 15 
years; if death results, the offense would be punishable by a term of 
imprisonment up to life. According to the Interagency Commission 
Report, ``[a]t many seaports, the carrying of firearms is not 
restricted, and thus internal conspirators and other criminals are 
allowed armed access to cargo vessels and cruise line terminals.''
  The bill expands the scope of section 659 of title 18, theft of 
interstate or foreign shipments, to include theft of goods from 
additional transportation facilities or instruments, including 
trailers, cargo containers, and warehouses. In addition, it would 
increase the maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts from 1 
year to 3 years and clarify that the determination of whether goods are 
``moving as an interstate or foreign shipment'' is made by considering 
the entire cargo route, regardless of any temporary stop between the 
point of origin and final destination.
  In addition to making changes to the criminal law, the bill creates 
mechanisms to permit the government to efficiently acquire data 
necessary to target scarce enforcement resources. Recognizing that 
cargo theft is not only a significant economic problem in its own 
right, but an indicator of porous security, and thus of terrorist 
vulnerability, the law creates meaningful reporting requirements.
  This bill would require the Attorney General to one, mandate the 
reporting of cargo theft offenses; and two, create a database 
containing the reported information, which would be appropriately 
integrated with other agencies' information-collection efforts and made 
available to governmental officials. Despite the fact that cargo theft 
is a well-known problem, there exists no national data collection and 
reporting systems that capture the magnitude of serious crime at 
seaports.
  The bill increases the penalties for noncompliance with certain 
manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including 
information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country 
from which the shipments originated. The effectiveness of Federal, 
State and local efforts to secure ports is compromised by criminals' 
ability to evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the 
content of cargo--with little more than a slap on the wrist, if that. 
The existing statutes simply do not provide adequate sanctions to deter 
criminal or civil violations. As a consequence, vessel manifest 
information is often wrong or incomplete--and our ability to assess 
risks, make decisions about which containers to inspect more closely, 
or simply control the movement of cargo is made virtually impossible.
  Our Nation's ports represent a critical vulnerability point in our 
Nation's defenses. It is critical that we take steps to reduce this 
vulnerability, develop defenses, and, unfortunately, plan for 
mitigation should there be an attack. There is much to do, including 
providing additional funding. This bill addresses one aspect of the 
problem by improving and adding to the criminal justice tools which can 
protect our ports. It is a relatively narrow bill, with a precise focus 
on the problem at hand.
  I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this much-needed 
improvement to our law.

                          ____________________