< return | ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
Markey and Lynch Call on Chertoff to Re-evaluate Wrongheaded Ratings and Make It Possible for Rep. Markey said, “The Rep. Lynch, member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said, “Classifying the Port of Boston as a low security risk flies in the face of common sense and runs contrary to our experience here. This is a major commercial port where over 15 million tons of cargo gets transported within miles of densely settled residential communities. We also have LNG tankers that travel through the Port regularly and which constitute a high risk terrorist target. Republicans are playing pork barrel politics with homeland security. There is no other way to explain why Old MacDonald Below is the text of Reps. Markey and Lynch’s letter to Sec. Chertoff: October 10, 2006 The Honorable Michael Chertoff Secretary Department of Homeland Security Dear Secretary Chertoff: We are writing to express our strong opposition to the decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to relegate the Port of Boston to the lowest security risk tier as part of the Department’s process for evaluating port security grant applications and determining which grant applications should receive funding in the latest round of the Fiscal Year 2006 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP). As you know, in the latest PSGP round, DHS provided the According to DHS, 78 ports, including the Port of Boston, were designated as lowest risk (Tier 4) and eligible for a potential share of $25 million in grant funding, while 4 ports were designated as highest risk (Tier 1) and eligible for a potential share of $50 million. Clearly, placement in the lowest risk category compels “The risk scores for each port, and their subsequent Tier assignments, were determined through an analysis of threats, vulnerabilities and consequences. This included an assessment by the intelligence community about the intent and capability of known terrorist groups to target specific port areas, as well as consideration of specific factors such as the distance of the port from open water, the port’s volume of activity, the potential for casualties from an attack, and the economic and strategic impacts of an attack on the port. This analysis placed the Given the Department’s criteria for assessing risk, it is incomprehensible that the The Moreover, the LNG facility provides about 20 percent of all of the natural gas consumed in New England annually, and during period of peak demand, the By the Department’s own risk formula, it appears that the port of Boston should have been assigned to a higher risk category consistent with its unique security challenges, including its proximity to the LNG terminal in Everett, the only LNG terminal located in an urban area, and the port’s past history as a port utilized by terrorists seeking to attack our country. Accordingly, we request that the Department provide all documentation and analysis used to place the Port of Boston in the lowest risk category as part of the PSGP process and urge the Department to immediately re-evaluate the calculations used to justify the risk score assigned to the Port of Boston. If any of these materials are classified, please provide them in a separate classified annex and contact our staff to make arrangements for the appropriate review of the documents. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Edward Markey Stephen Lynch -30- |