AAPA wants port security without economic impact
Mar 27, 2006 1:28 PM
Federal legislation is needed that enhances port security without punishing international businesses that operate marine terminals domestically and overseas, according to information from the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA).
Effective port security requires a complex system of technologies, screening, management and common sense, according to Susan Monteverde, AAPA’s government relations vice-president.
“Primary responsibility for port security rests with the federal government and requires the cooperation of all port-related organizations,” she said. “AAPA supports a thorough, intelligence-based and transparent federal government review of foreign mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers that impact US port terminals to ensure there are no national security concerns.”
AAPA recommends a risk-based scanning and inspection policy for cargo containers, and believes as much as that as possible should take place overseas. In addition, AAPA is seeking at least $400 million a year in federal funds to invest in the physical security of US port facilities, including improved lighting, checkpoints, perimeter protection, communications systems, and costs for operations, maintenance and security personnel costs.
Responding to recent concerns about foreign investment and management of US marine terminals, the members of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) warned against recent legislative proposals that could lead to severe economic and trade consequences.
Kurt Nagle, AAPA president and chief executive officer, noted there are several elements in protecting the nation’s ports and their adjacent communities. “We must have the resources to protect both cargo and port facilities,” he said.
AAPA strongly opposes any blanket ban on foreign companies operating in US ports. Whether domestic or foreign-owned, all marine terminal operators in the United States must comply with federal security regulations, AAPA pointed out.
“Given the international nature of our economy and the role of the ports, it makes no sense to target foreign-based firms that have a proven track record of compliance and cooperation,” Nagle said.
© 2013 Penton Media Inc.