|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: Proposed “Fee” Delays Port Security Bill A proposed “fee” has left legislation to bolster security in U.S. ports stuck in committee for months, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 2). The fee, proposed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), would be attached to cargo and paid by importers and exporters to help fund the bill’s provisions. House Republicans have complained, however, that the fee is actually a tax, and taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. There is also concern that Congress has already given ports $300 million in grants in two emergency spending bills. “The proposal came apparently out of nowhere,” said Steven Hansen, spokesman for House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. “It’s the one major issue holding up the bill.” Hansen also noted that the bill passed through the Senate and the House without this provision. Hollings insisted, however, that the fee is necessary. “We’ve got to get the money,” he said. The bill would require each seaport to implement a federal security program; obtain more information about ship’s cargo, crew and passengers before they reach the port; conduct background checks on employees in sensitive areas; provide more funding for security agents; and coordinate law enforcement efforts. Hollings said that he hopes to move the bill through conference by changing the language in his proposal and avoiding designation of a tax. “I’m getting optimistic for the first time,” he said (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Sept. 16).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
