SHIPPING INDUSTRY: U.S. MARITIME SECURITY LEGISLATION NEEDS CLARITY

SHIPPING INDUSTRY: U.S. MARITIME SECURITY LEGISLATION NEEDS CLARITY    U.S. shipping industry officials voiced concern to lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday that proposed maritime security legislation lacks clarity.
   “Who is responsible for managing the trade consequences should there be an incident?” said Christopher Koch, president and chief executive officer for the World Shipping Council before the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. “And, if we were ever faced with a terrorist use of a container, who is responsible for determining what is done to keep international trade flowing?”
   It’s estimated that $1.3 billion worth of U.S. imports and exports move in and out of the seaports each day. These goods are part of “just-in-time” supply chains of numerous plants and retail suppliers.
   Customs and Coast Guard officials had said that they might close down U.S. seaports if maritime transportation is used in a terrorist attack. “We are very concerned that clear responsibility for this issue and the planning that is required is lacking today,” Koch said.
   In written testimony delivered to the subcommittee, National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America President Peter H. Powell Sr. said the group is “dissatisfied” that the government has failed to “clearly designate a lead agency in its war against terrorism.”
   The NCBFAA is especially concerned about the oversight played by the White House’s Office of Homeland Security.
   “The office conducts its activities in a closed-door environment, maintains little visibility to the public with respect to its management expectations, and leaves many of our enforcement agencies locked in a struggle for resources, responsibility and recognition,” Powell said.
   “If the office were to articulate the respective roles of the agencies, creating clear jurisdictional boundaries for homeland defense, designating leads in specific areas, and letting everyone know who is in charge, the private sector would be grateful,” he added. “Instead we see many redundancies of effort that require our input on multiple occasions to different agencies that impede our progress toward a unified resolution.”
   The NCBFAA is also concerned about the lack of Customs and other agencies’ roles in the House’s draft bill that proposes that the Transportation Department’s undersecretary of transportation for security “develop and maintain a counter-terrorism cargo identification and pre-screening system for containerized cargo shipped to the United States.”
   In his testimony, Koch outlined “four principles,” which would help to instill clarity in the country’s maritime security legislation. They are:
   * A unified, coordinated strategy, which would include clear governing structure.
   * Clear, mandatory rules informing each responsible person in the transportation chain and what is required of them.
   * A commitment by the transportation authorities to ensure “the free and efficient flow of trade.”
   * International cooperation to extend security measures throughout the international supply chain.
   Congress, largely under the leadership of Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, began to consider tighter security measures for the maritime transportation sector long before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. However, the legislation was mostly concerned about stopping cargo theft and drug smuggling in the country’s seaports.
   Before the congressional recess in December, the Senate unanimously passed its version of the 2001 Port and Maritime Security Act.