Big Box Retailers Fight Cargo Screening; White House Opposes Bill
January 12, 2007 10:34 AM
Rhonda Schwartz Reports:
Washington DC lobbying groups representing Walmart and other big retail chains, blanketed capital hill with letters this week in a futile last ditch attempt to stop passage of a House bill calling for 100% screening of air and sea cargo which they said would “impose costly mandates on American business.”
“They say the price is too high, for them. But the price the passengers on that plane will pay is their lives, because that’s the way al-Qaeda could place a bomb on a plane.” said Representative Ed Markey (D)sponsor of the amendment which was passed by the new Democratic majority in Congress this week including one third of the Republic members.
But while the business interests lost this round, it appears the Bush White house will join the lobbyists in a fight to prevent the bill from moving forward in the Senate.
The White House issued a detailed statement opposing the bill’s requirement for 100% scanning of air and sea cargo, saying “such a requirement is neither executable nor feasible.”
**Said Markey today, “When you don’t screen all the cargo, you can’t be sure it’s safe – its’ that simple. The Bush Administration is buying into the industry’s overblown claims when it should instead implement stronger air and maritime cargo policies to make our country more secure.”
100% screening is not needed to provide effective security and safety. Random sampling plans have been used for years in many industries to reduce risks to the one in a million level. And contrary to the article, 100% inspection does not provide 100% security. In fact, 100% screening actual results in a higher risk than effective sampling plans. The mathematical explanation of this is beyond the scope of this forum, but for proof, just look at “failures” in airport security screening.
Anyone who thinks that 100% of ANYTHING is achievable is hallucinating.
The only things this bill would accomplish are:
A vast slowdown in cargo processing at the ports.
A vast increase in the Customs budget.
A vast increase in the number of Customs inspectors - mostly ill-qualified and poorly trained because there won’t be time enough to do that job right.
Some not-too-swift lawmakers can pat themselves on the back for passing a worthless, “Feel-good,” bill that will make their technologically challenged constituents happy.
There is no situation so bad that a politician can’t figure out how to make it worse.
Amen, Chuck. All this is, is a feel good, piece of “fluff” legislation. How on earth would we screen 100 percent of all of the containers that come into this country on a daily basis? That would be damn near impossible, and the delays that it would impose on cargo movement would probably be prohibitive…
What is it going to be screened for?? Nuclear weapons? What about nerve gas? or explosives? or biological agents?? If they screened for each one, how long each screen take? And, what about false positives? Did anyone hear about the sprinkler parts posing as C4 at Miami’s (I think) airport last week? Apparently, a box tested positive for containing C4, once it was detonated, they found it was sprinkler parts. I can only imagine that this is one more piece of legislation that these idiot politicians can point at and say “See, I did that, aren’t I good?”
Well, I don’t see it ever coming to pass, but, with the Bush administration opposing this bill, the other side gets to point fingers, and say “See, Bush only cares about big business, not the average American, he doesn’t want to keep you safe!” Just another reminder of why I detest politics, and politicians… Once again, no logic, or common sense applied to formulating this legislation…
The interest is primarily for “weapons of mass desctruction”, i.e. chemical, biological and nuclear. Primary screening will be a form of radiography with a secondary screening to resolve alarms (e.g. LLNL’s nuclear car wash). Throughput will be a challenge, though screening before the container is loaded on the ship or plane should help (and it would be much nicer to spot the problem before it gets here).
The incentive for developing and deploying a screening system is that having a smuggled nuke go off would result in a huge loss of life, expenses from rebuilding and a several month cessation of world trade.
I remember reading somewhere that a container can pass, while on truck/ train, through a big sensor array. Which can pick up most kinds of things used in blowing stuff up. I think its a good idea to check the cargo (me living near the port of oakland) but to do 100% will take A LOT of time and money.
I understand that the containers can pass through a sensor array, and it would probably take a minute or so for the scan. When you think about it, not alot of time. BUT, how many sensors would one need? 100? 200?, even if each port was equipped with 100 senors, how many trucks leave any given port, on any given day?
Look when you get right down to it, the fact that we have so many containers coming into this country uninspected makes me nervous. If there was a way to screen a majority of them (not necessarily 100%) and not impose delays on shipments, and ultimately raise prices, then I am all for it.
You know, it wouldn’t even have to be a nuclear/biological type weapon either, just a few hundred pounds of explosives would cause a fair amont of damage, especially if detonated on a train as it passes through a town. Both the BNSF and UP in this area pass right through the downtown area of many suburbs… anyway… enough of that.
I just wish these idiots would come up with a feasible plan, instead of hawking “legislation” that allows them to play politics, point fingers, and ultimately, solve nothing.
Does anyone have any idea how many containers come into this country a day? or how many trucks leave any given port in 24 hours? I would love to see even some ballpark figures on this.
Washington DC lobbying groups representing Walmart and other big retail chains, blanketed capital hill with letters this week in a futile last ditch attempt to stop passage of a House bill calling for 100% screening of air and sea cargo which they said would “impose costly mandates on American business.”