Today's Article
Why has it taken the
U.S. government so
long to secure our
ports?
U.S. government so
long to secure our
ports?
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Congress Finally Tackles Port Security
By Cliff Montgomery
The G.O.P. has worked long and hard to cultivate an image of being "tough"--"tough" on crime, "tough" on sexual mores,
"tough" with terrorists. But as the recent fallout regarding their cover-up of former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) shows
all too well, that doesn't mean they're tough on their own kind.
The current crop of Republicans are "tough" on everyone else, but never tough on themselves. This hypocrisy may
titillate when it comes to Foley's case, but it may also end up putting Americans of every stripe in serious
danger.
It may surprise many Americans in this post-9/11 world to discover that the G.O.P.-run Congress and White House have
done next to nothing when it comes to bolstering port security. The ports are of course those maritime locations where
goods from all over the world--including the Middle East--arrive on these shores.
In fact the Bush White House made headlines several months ago--the bad kind--when it officially backed Dubai Ports
World's attempt to take over terminal operations at several major U.S. ports. The controversy from this misstep prompted
a string of hearings in both the House and Senate, in which port and cargo security experts further shocked Americans
by stating that the nation remained dangerously vulnerable to a maritime attack.
The reason? Large corporations were afraid they may lose a few dollars if port security were heightened; so its lobbyists
paid congresspeople, a great number of them members of the G.O.P., to look the other way.
The result? Possible disaster at any moment, because a few big shots were worried they may lose a few dollars as we
protect ourselves.
Such revelations created momentum among U.S. citizens for serious maritime security legislation. In early May, the House
overwhelmingly passed its version, sponsored by House Homeland Security Economic Security Subcommittee Chairman
Dan Lungren, (R-CA)., and Intelligence ranking member Jane Harman, (D-CA). The security bill would authorize more
than $1.3 billion in funds for fiscal 2007, followed by an average of about $840 million each subsequent year through 2012.
But there's been problems in the Senate. There, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan
Collins, R-Maine, and Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have wrestled over an agreement to
allow a major maritime security bill to move forward.
Chairman Stevens is known to be, shall we say, one of the more "colorful" characters on Capitol Hill. He is also notorious
for public boondoggles, such as grabbing millions of taxpayer dollars for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," a useless
bridge project in Alaska which practically every expert in pork-barrel spending has hailed as a new low.
He is also said to have never met a lobbyist he didn't like; more than 80% of Stevens' contributions come from business.
This is perhaps the main reason for Chairman Stevens' sudden worries with how the port security bill may effect a chosen
few.
The bill had been bottled up because it contains provisions which cut across the jurisdictional lines of the two committees.
Sponsored by Collins and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-WA), the Senate bill would authorize about $835 million a year for
maritime security through existing Customs and Border Protection fees, require a comprehensive strategic plan for
supply-chain security, and require the Homeland Security Department to develop a program for quickly resuming maritime
commerce in the event of a terrorist attack.
Both bills would also authorize $400 million every year for a port security grant program. The Bush Administration,
however, has expressed its opposition to the grant program. It's an issue that would need to be resolved before the "tough"
president who wanted Dubai to take over our ports would sign any port security bill into law.
By Cliff Montgomery
The G.O.P. has worked long and hard to cultivate an image of being "tough"--"tough" on crime, "tough" on sexual mores,
"tough" with terrorists. But as the recent fallout regarding their cover-up of former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) shows
all too well, that doesn't mean they're tough on their own kind.
The current crop of Republicans are "tough" on everyone else, but never tough on themselves. This hypocrisy may
titillate when it comes to Foley's case, but it may also end up putting Americans of every stripe in serious
danger.
It may surprise many Americans in this post-9/11 world to discover that the G.O.P.-run Congress and White House have
done next to nothing when it comes to bolstering port security. The ports are of course those maritime locations where
goods from all over the world--including the Middle East--arrive on these shores.
In fact the Bush White House made headlines several months ago--the bad kind--when it officially backed Dubai Ports
World's attempt to take over terminal operations at several major U.S. ports. The controversy from this misstep prompted
a string of hearings in both the House and Senate, in which port and cargo security experts further shocked Americans
by stating that the nation remained dangerously vulnerable to a maritime attack.
The reason? Large corporations were afraid they may lose a few dollars if port security were heightened; so its lobbyists
paid congresspeople, a great number of them members of the G.O.P., to look the other way.
The result? Possible disaster at any moment, because a few big shots were worried they may lose a few dollars as we
protect ourselves.
Such revelations created momentum among U.S. citizens for serious maritime security legislation. In early May, the House
overwhelmingly passed its version, sponsored by House Homeland Security Economic Security Subcommittee Chairman
Dan Lungren, (R-CA)., and Intelligence ranking member Jane Harman, (D-CA). The security bill would authorize more
than $1.3 billion in funds for fiscal 2007, followed by an average of about $840 million each subsequent year through 2012.
But there's been problems in the Senate. There, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan
Collins, R-Maine, and Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have wrestled over an agreement to
allow a major maritime security bill to move forward.
Chairman Stevens is known to be, shall we say, one of the more "colorful" characters on Capitol Hill. He is also notorious
for public boondoggles, such as grabbing millions of taxpayer dollars for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," a useless
bridge project in Alaska which practically every expert in pork-barrel spending has hailed as a new low.
He is also said to have never met a lobbyist he didn't like; more than 80% of Stevens' contributions come from business.
This is perhaps the main reason for Chairman Stevens' sudden worries with how the port security bill may effect a chosen
few.
The bill had been bottled up because it contains provisions which cut across the jurisdictional lines of the two committees.
Sponsored by Collins and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-WA), the Senate bill would authorize about $835 million a year for
maritime security through existing Customs and Border Protection fees, require a comprehensive strategic plan for
supply-chain security, and require the Homeland Security Department to develop a program for quickly resuming maritime
commerce in the event of a terrorist attack.
Both bills would also authorize $400 million every year for a port security grant program. The Bush Administration,
however, has expressed its opposition to the grant program. It's an issue that would need to be resolved before the "tough"
president who wanted Dubai to take over our ports would sign any port security bill into law.