At the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee's full committee hearing on seaport security in late July, everyone agreed on one thing: Security measures at our nation's seaports need improvement. What they couldn't agree on was how to achieve that objective.

In his opening statement, committee chair Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) highlighted some of the provisions of the Port and Maritime Security Act (S.1214), which he had introduced a few days earlier with Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.). The proposed legislation was much like a similar bill that had been introduced in the previous session of Congress but had failed to pass.

S.1214 mandates the creation of a task force under the leadership of the Department of Transportation (DOT). That task force would be charged with implementing the act's provisions and developing and coordinating programs with local, state, and federal organizations to improve security. The bill also requires the U.S. Coast Guard to establish local port security committees and to assess security standards at seaports. It asks DOT to coordinate reporting of seaport crimes; establishes a maritime security training program; requires the departments of agriculture, treasury, and transportation to establish joint inspection facilities at seaports; and mandates filing of full information for in-bond shipments prior to leaving the arriving port, among others. Hollings said he would later add a provision that would give the Coast Guard authority to do background checks on port workers.

The Hollings-Graham bill includes funding for these measures as well as for the purchase of surveillance and deterrent equipment by ports and federal agencies like the U.S. Customs Service. The majority of the requirements, though, would be funded through an extension of tonnage duties at their current levels for another four years. Tonnage duties, which are scheduled to be reduced next year, are paid annually by vessel operators based on the weight of their ships.

Hollings cited concerns that the projected doubling of international trade in the next 20 years would introduce greater security threats, noting that currently only about 2 percent of all incoming ocean containers are being inspected. He then held up national aviation safety and security programs as a model, saying that there must be similar, federally controlled standards for seaport users. "Essentially, where seaports are concerned, we have abrogated the federal responsibility of border control to the state and private sector," he asserted, adding that he found that system unacceptably ineffective.

The ports themselves disagreed. In testimony before the committee, Massachusetts Port Authority Port Director Michael Leone, representing the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), said that although the port community agreed that improvement was needed, the group did not believe that a federally mandated program was the best solution. Leone praised some aspects of the bill, but cited several concerns, including the bill's uniform approach to standards rather than basing them on actual conditions at each port, and the "redundancy" of establishing a new federal program instead of improving existing programs that involve federal, state, and local agencies. "We believe increased coordination and information sharing among these various agencies and the private sector combined with additional resources for current programs is the appropriate method to address these important issues," he said.

Similarly, Kim E. Petersen, executive director of the Maritime Security Council, emphasized his organization's readiness to assist in implementing improvements while voicing concern over several of the bill's provisions. First and foremost, he noted, was the inexplicable failure to include ocean carriers in any of the bill's proposed task forces and coordinating committees. His organization, which includes two-thirds of the world's major ocean carriers, plays a critical role in coordinating anti-crime efforts involving federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies, he said, adding "Can it really be the intention of the committee to have seaport security issues reviewed by stevedores' unions but not by the sea carriers themselves?"

Petersen went on to express support for the bill's intent while detailing numerous shortcomings in areas such as funding (which he described as "woefully inadequate"), the selection of coordinating agencies for specific initiatives, and duplication of existing public and private-sector programs.

Other private-sector speakers essentially said the same thing: They wholeheartedly supported the intent of the Hollings-Graham plan and stood ready to assist in any way, but they questioned the validity of several key provisions in the bill. Testimony on behalf of federal agencies such as the U.S. Maritime Administration and DOT, by contrast, avoided criticism and simply expressed support for the proposals while outlining the agencies' qualifications for participating in the proposed initiatives.

By the end of the hearing, it was clear that government and the maritime industry would be on opposing teams even though they had identical goals. But as numerous speakers pointed out, the only way to solve existing problems is for government and industry to work more closely together - an approach industry hopes to see written into the final version of the bill.