The House Transportation Committee is to hold five hearings on the new legislation in order to piece together a so-called maritime "antiterrorism" bill. By raising the specter of the U.S. ports as "wide open" to security threats, Washington is seeking to deepen its intervention on the waterfront.

The U.S. Senate has already passed a similar bill. Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina said, "This is a gaping hole in our national security that must be fixed, and it must be fixed before enemies of the United States try to exploit our weakness."

Hollings, a Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, first introduced the Port and Maritime Security Act in July 2001 along with Sen. Robert Graham of Florida.

Subcommittee chair Rep. Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey said, "A critical facet of protecting our ports is ensuring the identity of all people working in these areas and knowing who belongs, and more importantly, who does not." Steve Stallone, spokesman for the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) based here in San Francisco, said the union is opposed to these measures.

"People who have already paid their debt to society have come back and gone through the hard work of getting into the union, have gotten their lives together, and are making a good living," he said. "And now suddenly you get thrown out of your job for something you did years ago? This sounds like double jeopardy."

Stallone also objected to adding the crime of sedition to the list. Many ILWU members participated in protests against the World Trade Organization, he said. "Is that going to be a factor?"

The federal legislation is in addition to state laws that are being discussed. For example, the state of Florida has passed a new law requiring longshoremen, laborers, and even truck drivers at the state's 14 ports to undergo criminal background checks. The workers will be fingerprinted and checked by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

One aspect of the harsher security requirements for maritime workers is "re-credentialing" seafarers and issuing them an electronic card that they would carry from ship to ship.  
 
Union, bosses prepare for talks
These steps taken against maritime workers come as contract talks begin between the ILWU and West Coast waterfront employers and their trade group, the Pacific Maritime Association. According to a report in the Journal of Commerce, "This year's negotiations promise to be contentious. Terminal operators, carriers, and shippers already are talking openly about the possibility of a strike or lockout in the heart of the annual peak import season."

At the same time, U.S. officials received a cool reception at a meeting of the 161-member International Maritime Organization (IMO). Washington is urging biometrics examinations--such as fingerprinting and retina scans--and background checks for all seafarers, and security plans for ships, ports, and offshore terminals. The Financial Times noted that "the requirement for background checks on seafarers is expected to be controversial, as it could contravene some countries' civil liberties legislation."

Indeed, Rear Admiral Paul Pluta of the U.S. Coast Guard, who headed up the U.S. delegation, said that Washington's proposals received "virtually no support" at a special working group of IMO's maritime safety committee.

One controversial measure proposed by the U.S. delegation was "vessel-port interface," which would open foreign port facilities to U.S. inspection. Clay Maitland of International Registries pointed out that other countries "don't want the U.S. to have tis own personnel in major ports overseas looking at the security of the terminals, which is conceivably something that could happen. You could have the [U.S.] Coast Guard in a major port...doing spot checks of containers."

U.S. Customs officials have broached a plan to "push the borders out" by installing their own security checkpoints at foreign ports where intermodal containers are bound for the United States.

Bill Kalman is a member of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 120.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home