WASHINGTON, March 1 (UPI) -- American ports have come a long way since September 11, 2001, in identifying and addressing problems with security. According to the Homeland Security Department, between 2004 and 2007 it will have spent $10 billion on maritime security investments, but industry and government officials say much remains to be done.
"In the over four years since the 9/11 attacks, there has been very little in the way of collective, tangible improvements in the maritime sector," said Lisa Huber, vice president of the Marine Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay, at a House hearing on a new effort to establish a national strategy for maritime security.
Multiple laws and regulations have been passed and individual businesses have made security changes, but Huber said the "only visible effect of these efforts" is making it more difficult and costly for crews and cargos to use American ports.
There is still not a single standard and method for securing access to ports, said Susan Monteverde, the vice president for government relations of the American Association of Port Authorities.
"Under (the Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002) you do have to control access to ports, but it doesn't tell you how. Some look at a driver's license or some other photo ID," Monteverde said in an interview with UPI.
One of the key concerns remains the Transportation Workers Identification Card, a program to provide a single biometric credential to be used at U.S. seaports, allowing transportation workers and seaport users to get just one security clearance and to be checked against terrorism databases anywhere nationwide. Begun in 2003 in a pilot effort, the program has been repeatedly delayed and has experienced cost overruns. Regulations for the program were initially due in 2004, but now are not likely until late in 2006.
The federal government is still determining whether the Homeland Security Department will manage the program and issue the cards, or whether it will just publish a regulation and require individual ports or states to issue cards. Port operators believe it should be a federal responsibility, leaving cards and readers up to individual ports invites confusion and a plethora of different technologies.
It is also not yet determined whether freelance workers will require U.S. employer sponsorship to get a card, and how foreign workers and crews will be handled in general -- a complicated endeavor with more than 5,000 international crews servicing American ports annually.
"TWIC is supposed to help port security know who is on their facility, and this has been very slow. We are very frustrated by that," said Monteverde.
There is also some question as to who will bear the cost of the program. At Long Beach alone initial implementation costs are expected to be $45 million, according to the Government Accountability Office. At least 6 million cards are expected to be issued.
Another concern has to do with a Ports Security Grant Program. Under that program, private companies and port authorities apply to the federal government for grants to improve physical security at harbors. Congress has provided $175 million in grant money in 2006 but the Homeland Security Department has yet to release the funds, slowing security improvement to ports, said Monteverde. The money is meant to cover some of the $5.6 billion needed overall for port security, according to the Coast Guard. Applications for grants since 2003 have outpaced grant money by about threefold, according to the American Association of Port Authorities.
The existence of the grant program itself may be acting as a disincentive to private port operators, said a former Coast Guard official. The companies are supposed to investing their own money in port security as a matter of law (the MTSA) and good business practice. But many are holding off and applying for grants for work they should be paying for out of their own pockets, he said.
Another security system in place is the Automated Identification System, a system to provide real-time information on the identity, location, speed and course of vessels. AIS is only being used in 12 major ports and its coverage extends to only about 20 to 30 miles offshore. The Coast Guard is currently considering requiring all commercial vessels 65 feet or greater in length, including fishing and recreational vessels that are currently excluded from carriage requirements, to carry and operate AIS systems.
But according to Huber, the Coast Guard does not have the infrastructure or manpower to actually monitor the AIS as ships move in and out of American waters. The system costs about $10,000, and the cost is borne by the vessel operator.
Neither does it have the manpower or capability to patrol ports landside or to make sure private operators are complying with the strictures of the MTSA, said Michael Mitre, a longshoreman at Long Beach and the port security director for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
"Unfortunately as the MTSA security regulations have been implemented, many terminal operators, foreign and domestic, continue to ignore measures designed to improve port security," he said.
The Coast Guard "are the primary waterside enforcer. But they are not and never have been landside enforcement team," Mitre said. "You don't see teams of Coast Guard looking landside at compliance, and I think that's what the problem is."
The Coast Guard annually inspects each of the ports for compliance with MTSA and also does unannounced spot checks, according to the former Coast Guard official.
Another shipping industry executive who asked not to be named told UPI port terminal operators and shipping companies and the federal government have a fundamental disagreement about how to provide physical security at the ports. The shipping companies have security guards but are resisting providing them with guns.
"All it would take is one guard accidentally shooting someone to bring a whole company down," the executive said. "We don't have indemnity, and we don't have law enforcement capabilities."
But neither does the government have sufficient security forces to protect ports. Local police, port authority guards, Coast Guard and other law enforcement agents are present but in too few numbers to be effective, given the risk and vulnerability of ports, the executive said.
The Coast Guard has instituted 100-man Maritime Safety and Security Teams at just over a dozen ports to respond to terrorist attacks.
Rear Adm. Thomas Gilmore, the Coast Guard officer in charge of marine safety and security, told the Senate Commerce Committee Tuesday the Coast Guard has "adequate funding to do the job we need."
In November, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, introduced a bipartisan port security bill called the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Act.
"Right now, there is a gaping hole in America's security when it comes to the cargo entering our ports each day," Murray said in a statement Wednesday. "To protect our nation we have to develop a cargo security system that closes vulnerabilities, provides a way to resume trade after an incident, and maintains the efficient flow of commerce."
The bill would establish a partnership among vessel operators who voluntarily adhere to the highest level of security practices, freeing up resources to focus on higher risk cargos. The bill would also set minimum security standards for all cargo containers entering the United States. It would establish an Office of Cargo Security Policy to ensure accountability and coordination of cargo security policies, procedures & regulations at the Homeland Security Department. It would also establish a Joint Operations Center to coordinate the response to a terrorist event and the resumption of the flow of commerce as quickly as possible. The bill would also provide $400 million for port security grants.
