Saturday, June 04, 2005 - There is a security problem at our two local ports. We simply don't have a good enough check on what we're unloading on the docks. That could spell danger for our local communities and for a national economy that counts on uninterrupted delivery of the goods we import through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach two of the busiest ports in America.

I think it's a security risk we can't afford. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Ports and the legislator who represents the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, I am determined to do something about it and will be working with the shipping industry and State Office of Homeland Security to help make it happen.

My first preference is to convince the federal government to shoulder a greater share of its obligation to provide for homeland security. Programs like port security, under federal jurisdiction, are simply not getting the federal dollars they need.

I am convinced that California will never receive its fair share of federal funds. In fact, recent reports by the U.S. GAO showed that Oklahoma and Wyoming, hardly the homes of bustling port industries, got more port security money per capita than we did and that programs such as the "Container Security Initiative and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism' which uses foreign ports and overseas manufacturers to screen cargo containers before they are shipped to the United States found that nearly a third of containers referred for inspection, including those identified as "high risk," were not inspected.

I applaud efforts by Congresswoman Jane Harman and Sen. Dianne Feinstein to bring attention to security risks that continue to put California in harm's way.

I also agree with Sen. Feinstein's call for action. She said, "… we need to get the best possible port security we can and not wait or blame the federal government. … I think we have to look at a combination of different resources. Money from ports, money from the states, perhaps a small fee on containers."

That's why earlier this year I introduced legislation to assess a state fee on cargo containers in order to provide a revenue stream for port security. Assembly Bill 1406 would have imposed a $10 fee on freight containers to finance security improvements at the state's ports and harbors.

While I would have preferred not to propose a container fee, I believe that we must invest in our port security infrastructure, create a steady funding source and not wait for a security disaster to show the foolishness of inaction.

As originally proposed, cargo fees imposed by my bill would have been deposited in the Port Security and Safety Fund within the California Office of Homeland Security. The money could only have been spent to prevent and defend against homeland security risks relating to freight activity at state ports and harbors. No more than 5 percent could have been spent on administrative costs.

Recently, however, the Assembly's fiscal committee deleted the fee provision of my bill because of fears that individual states can't charge fees on international commerce. Nevertheless, AB 1406 is still moving forward and I will continue to work to improve port and homeland security measures in California. The need won't go away. In fact, I am afraid we might be racing against the clock to address the problem.

California is the leader in international commerce, with an estimated $40 billion in goods moved annually to a source or destination outside the state. It is expected that by the year 2020 the amount of trade transported through the state's ports will triple. Our economy and the nation's economy depend on the security of our ports. It is estimated that the economy would lose between $1 billion and $2 billion daily if the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were forced to close.

In addition to AB 1406, I am authoring a resolution (AJR 21) to urge the president and Congress to increase federal funding for California's ports by providing states a greater pass through of customs revenues. Currently, California collects more maritime customs revenues than any other state in the country and none of it is returned to California to mitigate the costs to our roads and the environment. Assembly Joint Resolution 21 simply urges the federal government to return some of the custom fees and duties to the states that generate those revenues.

America has an avowed, resourceful enemy with a global reach who is committed to destroying the very fiber of our economy. I have proposed a proactive response to this threat. California is in dire need of aggressive statewide port security measures and a steady funding source to pay for it. In the absence of federal funding, it is up to the state to take a leading role in the protection and securing of our ports.

— Betty Karnette represents the 54th Assembly District in the state Legislature.