Port Security Upgrades Welcomed, but Industry Asks Who Will Pay

Leaders of the maritime industry told federal officials gathered in San Pedro on Wednesday that they applaud plans to protect the nation’s 361 ports from terrorism, but they questioned who will pay for the security efforts.

Industry representatives called on the federal government to help ship owners, port terminals and other businesses raise an estimated $6 billion needed to finance the new security measures during the next decade.

More than 400 people attended a public hearing sponsored by the Coast Guard in San Pedro. Dozens addressed the panel of high-level security officials, some warning of security risks and others cautioning how stepped-up security measures could create problems for small ferry operators, ship companies and others in the industry.

The hearing, the fifth of seven nationwide, signals a new emphasis in security efforts since Sept. 11, as the focus expands from potential threats at airports to those in ports and aboard cargo and passenger vessels.

The federal Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, passed last fall, requires ports and ships to be assessed for their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. It bolsters the powers of the U.S. Coast Guard and lays out new responsibilities for a host of port-related businesses.

What it does not provide, however, is significant federal money for the increased security, which the U.S. Coast Guard estimates could cost $1.4 billion in the first year alone. The onus falls on port operators and private businesses.

That amounts to an unfunded mandate, some speakers told high-level representatives of the Coast Guard, Maritime Administration and Transportation Security Administration.

“Our government just doesn’t have the money to fund this,” said Michael C. Moody, risk manager for the port authority of Guam, which is struggling economically because of a drop in tourism. Moody said his port has been approached by private security firms, and “some of their fees are larger than some of the budgets of small government agencies there.”

None of the speakers questioned the need for heightened security at the ports. A recent report from the Council on Foreign Relations found that ports are particularly susceptible to terrorist attack.

With more than 95% of all overseas trade moving in and out of the country by ship, officials fear that such an attack or a significant threat at a major port could send shockwaves through the U.S. economy. The West Coast port shutdown last fall is estimated to have cost as much as $2 billion a day.

“The ports are still vulnerable,” Rear Adm. Larry Hereth, Coast Guard port security director, told reporters at a noontime news conference. “We continue to need to tighten up security.”

Officials want to take precautions to ensure that new regulations “do not interrupt the free flow of commerce,” he added. And in answer to industry concerns about the price of the regulations, he said, “We intend to customize the regulations as much as we can” to reduce costs.

Several speakers expressed concern that shipboard crews are being denied shore passes under stricter security measures set in place after Sept. 11.

“Now it’s very hard to get ashore if you’re a foreign crew member in a U.S. port,” said Dave Connolly, vice president of the Sailors’ Union of the Pacific.

A Maritime Administration official assured the speakers that his agency is paying attention to seafarers’ rights. “They’re working folks, just like you and I,” said special assistant Kevin Krick.

Union leaders urged officials to include their members in discussions about how to improve security.

“Longshoremen know where the vulnerabilities are, and we know them like our employers don’t,” said Luisa Gratz, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 26.