Bush threatens veto of Coast Guard bill over LNG security

Seattle Post-Intelligencer/AP ^ | 4/23/08 | ANDREW MIGA

[kiriath_jearim]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Wednesday threatened to veto an $8.4 billion Coast Guard bill because it would make the agency enforce security zones around liquefied natural gas, or LNG, terminals.

The White House said the requirement would "divert finite Coast Guard assets from other high-priority missions" and "provide an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy" to the LNG owners.

The Government Accountability Office says a terrorism attack on an LNG tanker arriving at a terminal could ignite an explosion and fire so fierce that people a mile away would be burned. But GAO auditors also say the Coast Guard is already stretched too thin to meet its own standards for protecting arriving LNG tankers from attack.

The U.S. now has eight operating LNG import terminals on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Another dozen are being planned because of increased demand for natural gas and limited domestic supplies.

Bush's threat to veto the bill was issued just before the House was scheduled to begin debate on it. A final vote on it could occur Thursday.

The legislation also sets stricter crime reporting requirements for cruise ships and seeks to prevent catastrophic oil spills by requiring double hulls on large cargo ships.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, accused the White House of "grasping at straws."

"It is remarkable that after months of whining about this bipartisan bill, the best that the administration can come up with to challenge it is to criticize the provision that requires the Coast Guard to protect zones around LNG terminals, many of which are located in densely populated areas," he said.

Thompson and Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Transportation Committee, co-authored the LNG provision.

The bill allows state and local law enforcement agencies to assist the Coast Guard in protecting the security zones around LNG facilities if they have the proper training and resources.

Cruise line operators would be required by the bill to report to the Department of Homeland Security all security incidents - including deaths, serious bodily injuries and sexual assaults - that happen aboard cruise ships.

The bill also requires U.S. vessels carrying more than 600 cubic meters of oil to have double hulls around their fuel tanks. The measure is aimed at preventing a repeat of the huge oil spill in San Francisco Bay last November when a freighter sideswiped a support tower of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.

--- On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 2830, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov

[CedarDave]

I agree with the President. The operators of these facilities should provide their own security with staffing and training requirements set by, and monitored by, the Coast Guard.

[CGASMIA68]

i think some minimum wagers would fit the bill(et)

[FreedomPoster]

Is there a provision for private security firms to have full-auto crew-served weapons? Because that would be high on my priority list, if I were putting together the security force for these facilities.

[Travis McGee]

Probably. Savannah River comes to mind, I think they have private SWAT with helos and all kinds of weapons.

[Squantos]

Yes

Our “private” firm has M134DT’s , Mk 19’s, MP5SDA3’s, M249 SAW’s, AT-4’s and Stingers along with the new HK416’s w/ M203’s recently issued and a few Glock 18’s laying around for sod poodle eradication I think. More munitions and weapons in the mix I won’t mention here.......:o)

[FreedomPoster]

OK, cool. Then I agree with cedardave’s approach in #2.

[Centurion2000]

Our “private” firm has M134DT’s , Mk 19’s, MP5SDA3’s, M249 SAW’s, AT-4’s and Stingers along with the new HK416’s w/ M203’s recently issued

Have to ask how a "private" firm has access to new manufactured M-249 SAWs that were definitely made after 1986.

[Squantos]

Politely not sure of the laws but we are a goobermint contractor that has such......I am an end user. Not a logistical sort.

Stay safe !

[archy]

Is there a provision for private security firms to have full-auto crew-served weapons? Because that would be high on my priority list, if I were putting together the security force for these facilities.

Oh yes. In fact, federal law exempts some firms [armored car services, interstate security transports] from any state firearms regulations- I can dig up the cites if you really need 'em- and there have been a couple of such outfits for which not only crew-served weapons were utilized, but tracked vehicles as well, including M113s, M114A1s, M16 halftracks and a 3-tank HQ tank platoon of M48s.