The U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has issued a news release following its vote last week to require all vessels calling at United States ports to carry security plans approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.According to press reports, the measure (contained in the House version of the Coast Guard Authorization Act) likely faces opposition in the Senate as well as from the administration and the Coast Guard itself. The provision is not included in the Senate version.
An article in Lloyd’s List noted, “The House vote, coming as it does less than two months before the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code come into effect, raises the spectre of chaos in the U.S. trades once the implementation deadline passes on July 1.”
The full text of the committee’s press release appears below. It also is available on the committee’s web site here
House Strongly Supports Stricter
Security Rules for Incoming Ships
Instructs conferees on Coast Guard authorization
The House of Representatives is standing by language in its version of the Coast Guard authorization bill to require ships coming into U.S. ports to meet U.S. security standards.
By a nearly unanimous vote of 395-19, the chamber voted to instruct conferees to hold to the provision in the House bill that requires foreign-flag vessels serving the United States to have a security plan specifically approved by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has been allowing foreign vessels to have a security plan approved by their home country government. The Senate version of the bill would affirm the Coast Guard’s policy.
Congress included the security requirement when it passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. Shortly afterward, however, the Coast Guard agreed to amendments to the international Safety of Life at Sea Convention that, in effect, precludes the Coast Guard from reviewing the security plan of a ship entering U.S. waters if the plan has already been approved by the government of the country in which the ship is registered.
During debate on the motion, Rep. James L. Oberstar (Minn.), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Bob Filner, Ranking Democrat on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, stressed the importance of the provision. They pointed out that, for economy and convenience, many of these vessels are registered in small countries noted for their lax enforcement of maritime safety regulations.
“The Coast Guard negotiated away the power of the U.S. to inspect the security plans approved by other countries and to see whether a vessel operating under a foreign flag is in compliance with the security plan of the country of registry of that vessel,” Oberstar said.
“Look at some of the largest registries in the world, like Panama, Malta and Cyprus, and you will find vessels that are often detained by the Coast Guard for violations of international safety laws. Now we expect those countries to protect U.S. citizens by making sure that their vessels have adequately implemented security plans,” Filner said. “I, for one, am not willing to delegate our security responsibilities to the government of Panama, Malta or Cyprus.”
The motion received strong bipartisan support despite opposition from the Bush Administration.
“Didn’t the President of the United States say, and hasn’t he said repeatedly, ‘I will never ask permission of the United Nations to defend the United States. I will never ask permission of a foreign government to protect the citizens of the United States. We are not going to ask for a permission slip,’” Oberstar said. “This treaty is a permission slip.”
Oberstar said the basic issue is whether the U.S. will have the ability to see that incoming foreign-flagged ships were loaded in accordance with a security plan that meets our standards and protects our security.
“We do this already with aviation,” Oberstar said. “Why can’t we do it for maritime?”
###
Printer Friendly Page