Author: Juan Galt� AND John Smith�
Co-Sponsors: Edwin Fernandez�, Ivan Karamazov(I), Robert Schmidt�, Jason Collins(D), Louis Laverone�, Bertram Dalton�, Vern McGyver(D), Kurt Garwood�, James Martin�, David Harper�, Chris Phirman�,

A BILL

To provide funding for port security enhancements, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Port Security Improvements Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) After the tragic terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the Congress initially focused on improving aviation security and, in November 2001, passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71). That Act provided deadlines for specific enhancements in aviation security, including for issuance of certain rules governing the conduct of non-Federal parties.

(2) The Congress then turned its focus to improving port security and, in November 2002, passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-295). That Act did not establish deadlines for specific enhancements in port security. For example, there are no statutory deadlines for interim final rules on facility and vessel security and on civil penalties, nor for the rules on transportation security cards.

(3) The United States maritime transportation system includes more than 300 ports with more than 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals. The top 25 ports account for 98 percent of the more than 6,000,000 container shipments entering United States ports yearly.

(4) The vast maritime transportation system is particularly susceptible to terrorist attempts to smuggle personnel, weapons of mass destruction, or other dangerous materials into the United States. A large-scale terrorist attack at a United States port could not only cause widespread damage but also seriously affect the United States economy.

(5) The General Accounting Office found that, during fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, expenditures by 13 Federal agencies for the maritime transportation system averaged about $3,900,000,000 per year. Three agencies accounted for 93 percent of these expenditures: the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and the Customs Service. The cost of Customs Service operations for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 was $484,200,000, $538,400,000, and $577,200,000, respectively.

(6) During that same period, 11 Federal agencies collected approximately $1,000,000,000 each year from maritime transportation system users. In addition, customs duties levied on commodities imported through the maritime transportation system averaged approximately $15,200,000,000 each year. In comparison, custom duties levied on commodities imported through the aviation transportation system and highway transportation system averaged approximately $3,700,000,000 and $900,000,000 each year, respectively.

(7) Many of the needed maritime transportation security improvements will require costly outlays for infrastructure, technology, and personnel. Before September 11, 2001, the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in United States Seaports estimated that the cost of upgrading security infrastructure at United States ports ranged from $10,000,000 to $50,000,000 per port. These estimates could increase dramatically due to new post-September 11 security requirements. For example, for the first $93,300,000 of Federal grant funds for port security made available in a supplemental appropriations Act, the Federal Government received grant applications for almost $700,000,000. For the second round of an expected $105,000,000 of Federal grants with funds made available in such Act, the Federal Government received applications for $997,000,000.

(8) In December 2002, the Coast Guard published its `Cost analysis report for vessel, facility, and port security' (Appendix C to the notice published December 30, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 79742), which included its estimates of first-year costs for maritime transportation security improvements of $1,300,000,000, and 10-year costs for such improvements of $6,000,000,000.

SEC. 3. FINANCING PORT SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS.

(a) PORTION OF DUTIES COLLECTED AT PORTS- For each fiscal year, there shall be available to the Secretary of Homeland Security for port security enhancements at each port through which articles transported by vessel are unladen for purposes of entering the customs territory of the United States, 25 percent of the amount by which duties collected during the preceding fiscal year on such articles that so entered through that port exceed port security costs incurred at that port during the preceding fiscal year.

(B ) DEFINITIONS- In this section--

(1) the term `port security enhancements' means--

(A) administrative processing and associated services for increasing port security, including administering the transportation security cards (also known as the Transportation Worker Identification Credential) issued under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, including background checks and training;

(B ) physical services (including inspections of cruise passengers, cargo, and empty containers) and certifications;

� construction and maintenance, including upgrades to security infrastructure; and

(D) miscellaneous services;

(2) the term `port security costs' means costs incurred by the Federal Government for the maritime transportation system, including--

(A) administrative processing and associated services;

(B ) physical services, including inspections and certifications;

� construction and maintenance; and

(D) miscellaneous services; and

(3) the term `vessel' has the meaning given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

� PERIOD OF APPLICATION- Amounts shall be available under subsection (a) only for the first five fiscal years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CARD REGULATIONS.

Notwithstanding section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-295; 116 Stat. 2085; 46 U.S.C. 70101 note), the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating--

(1) shall issue interim final regulations under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, by not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) shall issue final regulations under that section by not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. STANDARDIZATION OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PORTS, VESSELS AND FACILITIES.

The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall issue regulations under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, that establish a national minimum set of standard security requirements for--

(1) each port in the United States;

(2) each facility in a port in the United States; and

(3) each vessel entering a United States port.


Link to Hearing

aye

Madame Chair,
In the hearing on this bill, I indicated my sad and reluctant support of this hole in our national security. Yet, since that time, a bill is curently close to vote in the house on strengthening our southern borders, with a price tag in the 280 billion range as I recall.

My feelings at present, as I stated on the house floor, as this biger picture revealed itself to me is when does it all stop? It is not the place of this comittee cetainly to rethink matters of the State Dept, etc, but how much can we afford?

Some pundits have jokingly stated in the past that the intent of terror is to bankrupt the US. Is this far from wrong at the rate we are going? And is it the place of this committe to lower the price tags on this and the future bills we are sure to see here?

To me, these are difficult questions that require more thought than the predictable retort that "security has no price that is too high."

There comes a time when harder questions need to be forced. I am sure most of my colleagues are aware of the pentagon group that issued its findings a couple of days ago, finding in part:

That they don't hate our freedoms, they hate our policies, and that the war on terror breeds terrorists. I do not wish to over editorialize in this venue, but a steady stream opf bills like this one is not the answer.

Debate here runs for a bit yet, but I am contemplating an amendment to lower this bill's price tag.

I yield

Madame Chairwoman,

I regret that I was not present when this hearing occurred. Upon reading the bill, these thoughts occur to me:

1. Why the need for this deadline? Is the author certain that these actions can be accomplished in the amount of time given?

2. What thought was given to the Bill of Rights when this bill was written? A person who says that "no price is too high" for security is a person I should be wary of, especially when ones freedoms are concerned.

I yield.

Mr. Schulte this is not a vote. This is a debate. Please remember that in the future.

Madame Chairwoman,
Sorry, posting late at night can make people do funny things. It won't happen again.

I yield