Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida: Statement: Nelson seeks further protections against nuclear attack by terrorists

Mr. President, apprehension exists among more than 70 percent of the people of the United States that by an act of cowardly terrorists their peace and security, if not their lives, are at risk.

Sadly, there is sound reason for such widespread apprehension, evidence of which can be examined by all. It is found in the 9-11 commission’s voluminous report.

I recall but one part of that report when I say that “opportunities for terrorists to do us harm are as great - or greater - in our shipping ports as they are in commercial aviation.”

In fact, a respected policy center that studies terrorism looked at what would happen if a 10-kiloton bomb was detonated in the Port of Long Beach, California.

Sixty-thousand people would die instantly. Another 150,000 would suffer radiation poisoning; and, some 2 million to 3 million people would have to be relocated due to contaminated land.

The cost to our nation’s economy would be about one-trillion dollars.

Finally, as the RAND Center noted, terrorists have shown the capability to launch attacks on the water:

Remember, the USS Cole.

Most experts agree our ports are not only vulnerable, but also the damage resulting from an attack there could be catastrophic.

The state I represent is home to 14 deepwater ports. To me, then, falls the task of fighting to protect these ports; and, thereby the peace and security of Florida.

The outcome of this fight, however, has much broader implications for our country. All of our nation’s 88 ports that handle cargo containers remain vulnerable. Only an estimated six-percent of the cargo coming into these ports is fully inspected.

Our own Department of Homeland Security says three-out-of-four American ports do not have equipment to screen for nuclear weapons or “dirty” bombs – a conventional weapon designed to spread radioactive material.

And the congressional budget office says the president’s proposed plan falls about $130 million short of what’s needed to protect these ports.

The administration has not made port security the priority it needs to be.

Former Senator Bob Graham recently warned that the increase in federal spending was not enough to adequately protect ports.

The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Graham says if he were a terrorist, he knows exactly how he'd go about wreaking havoc in the U.S. He'd head for a port with lax security and smuggle a "dirty" nuclear bomb.

In the legislation before us, we propose to secure just 22 of our nation’s busiest container ports.

But shouldn’t the other 66 domestic container ports also receive scrutiny?

And shouldn’t we protect the additional 273 secondary sea-and river-ports in the U.S.?

A terrorist could seek out any one of these as an alternative target.

This is why today I offer an amendment directing the Homeland Security secretary to develop a strategy for the deployment of radiation detection capabilities at every U.S. port.

I believe this will make all of us much safer.

There has been enough delay. It’s time to do this. And we should do it right.

###