PUTTING INTO PORT

The tragedy of a terrorist attack at a port is nearly matched, to hear Washington Sen. Patty Murray describe it, by its economic aftershocks. She and Sen. Susan Collins have written a bill that attempts to reduce the chances of such an attack and prepare for the aftermath if one occurs while being careful not to impede the efficiency of the ports. It is, nearly five years after the threat of terrorism was undeniable, an overdue and welcome piece of legislation.

In testimony recently before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Murray described the fear that many have if a port – Seattle in her state; on a smaller scale, Portland here – were to suffer from an attack.

What happens under the standards that exists today? “There would be chaos as first responders try to react, and residents try to flee,” she said. “Next, our government would shut down every port in America to make sure there weren’t other bombs on other containers in other cities. That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our economy into a brick wall. … American factories would not be able to get the supplies they need. They would shut their doors and lay off workers. Stores around the country would not be able to get the products they need to stock their shelves.”

Despite these threats to life and the economy, Congress had been slow to pay attention to ports until the Dubai deal, where it over-reacted. In contrast, the Collins-Murray legislation is a thoughtful and methodical approach to improving safety.

It includes five parts: standards for cargo security; higher standards that give shippers preferred treatment under a voluntary program called GreenLane, which tracks their cargo from factory until it reaches the United States; protocols for restarting port operations after an attack; $400 million for security grants for ports; and deadlines and accountability for the Department of Homeland Security to ensure port security occurs.

Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson, while stopping short of endorsing the legislation, said the administration supported much of it. One area of contention is the $400 million in grants. The administration wants that money to be part of a larger pot of security grant funding. Sen. Collins correctly asserted that was a good way for the money to get lost. Despite differences, Congress (the House has passed a version of the bill) and the administration are close enough to expect that the measures could be passed soon.

The large majority of goods consumed in the United States come through its ports, though only a small fraction of them are inspected. The nation already knows that shipping containers have been used to illegally transport weapons, drugs and people – a bomb could be next. Rather than wait for that day and then say, in hindsight, ports were an obvious vulnerability, acting now is prudent and, in fact, overdue. Sens. Collins and Murray have developed an effective means to act.