Homeland Security Should Be More Than a Slogan
It was another day of business as usual in the House today, as the GOP killed another common sense homeland security reform. This time, they refused to adopt an amendment that would have required every U.S.-bound shipping container to be scanned for radiological weapons at its port of origin. For the party that's running on (and clinging to) security issues as its heart and soul, the Republicans have shown a surprising unwillingness to make security more than a slogan.
Today the House passed the SAFE Port Act, a bill to enhance certain facets of port security. It's fairly noncontroversial in what it does: setting up grant programs for port security, and instituting a system for taking second looks at so-called high-risk shipping containers. It's what the bill does not do, however, that worries Democrats: it does not call for 100-percent scanning of containers.
Security experts concur that the only way we're going to stop a nuclear weapon from being smuggled in through our ports - something we know al Qaeda and others would like very much to do - is to scan every shipping container before it sails for our shores, and to have U.S. government officials review the scans so that anything suspicious can be intercepted while it's still a safe distance out. Congressman Ed Markey and I offered an amendment today to make that policy our law.
The amendment was based on a bill I introduced earlier this year, the Sail Only if Scanned (S.O.S) Act. The legislation requires that all containers be scanned for radiation and density at the port of origin, and that all containers to bear tamperproof seals that would notify authorities of any disturbance in real time. As ambitious as it sounds, the bill is grounded in technology and techniques that are already in use. Most notably, the system is being employed at two terminals in Hong Kong, one of the busiest ports in the world. My bill would essentially take the Hong Kong program and mandate its application to all ports that ship to the United States. It's tough, it's simple, and it makes sense. Congressional Democrats have made it a cornerstone of our Real Security Agenda. The amendment defeated today represents a slightly modified version of the bill, allowing major ports three years to comply with the regulations, and allowing five years for smaller ports to do so.
By any standard, this is a common-sense piece of legislation, and one that is sorely needed. So why was it defeated?
Wal-Mart and other mega-importers, under the umbrella of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, have been lobbying fiercely against 100-percent scanning. The industry alleges that scanning every container would slow down commerce and harm their profits. If that sounds achingly familiar, it's because that's the same objection raised by industry groups when Congress decided, after 9/11, that every airline passenger and every piece of luggage needed to be scanned. Lobbyists foretold clogged airports, massive delays, and the death of the airline industry. But, as so often happens, common sense trumped corporate paranoia. Our flights depart on-schedule, and every bag is scanned.
The House faced a similar decision today. The logic couldn't be simpler: we don't let bags onto airplanes unless we know the contents pose not threat, and we ought to impose the same standard on shipping containers. Every House Democrat voted for 100-percent scanning, joined by six Republicans. But, alas, the other 222 Republicans just couldn't bring themselves to vote Aye. Was it threats from Wal-Mart, or was it simple unwillingness to think big? I don't know which is more worrisome for our country. One thing is clear: this Republican Congress cannot be trusted with our security.
Democrats are going to keep pushing 100-percent scanning of shipping containers. If our Republicans counterparts want to wait for another attack before making changes, then they will have to answer for that in November.
Wal-Mart and other mega-importers, under the umbrella of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, have been lobbying fiercely against 100-percent scanning. The industry alleges that scanning every container would slow down commerce and harm their profits.
It would. Too bad.
Dissent Protects Democracy
May 4, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The security procedures the airline industry has to follow have certainly slowed down commerce and cut profits, but I suppose that industry doesn't have GOP clout. About the worst that could happen if the airline security procedures were dropped is a hijacked aircraft and all passengers and crew lost - 300 or so deaths. But, if a nuclear weapon were to be smuggled into the country in a shipping container, the casualty total could be a thousand times bigger. Surely that makes it obvious which of the two security systems should be the top priority, and it isn't the airline security system.
The real problem here is that the Republicans don't really believe what they have been spouting about a global war going on. They realize full well that the threat we face from terrorism is almost vanishingly small. So, they have a hard time passing any legislation that would adversely impact the profits of their supporters just to help in a non-existent war. They are sort of between a rock and a hard place on that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 4, 2006 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with security measures of this sort is that while they close a loophole that terrorists might use, once they are in place, they are almost irrelevant because the terrorists will realize the loophole is closed and find another one.
And there are a virtually infinite number of "other ones". It depends entirely on one's imagination.
Read my lips.
A terrorist attack CANNOT be stopped by "security" of ANY kind - depending on the competence of the terrorist, at least. In some cases it might be.
Burglar alarms in homes only keep out the "riffraff." A professional will blow past them like they don't exist.
The same is true of any form of "security" imposed on transportation or shipping.
It might even be possible for the terrorists to determine the technical specifications of the devices used to do the scanning - and then simply devise measures to defend against them - and STILL ship a nuke in a container.
It's not clear to me that terrorists would even use a container to ship a nuke. A nuclear weapon is an important and relatively fragile piece of equipment - especially one that isn't professionally manufactured by a nuclear weapons lab. If you're a terrorist, you know that expensive and difficult to replace piece of equipment is going to be subjected to all sorts of threats if "shipped" anywhere. So you're going to "babysit" that device until it reaches its target.
I doubt terrorists would ship a nuclear device in a container. They might ship a ton of Semtex, but not a nuke.
And it's the Semtex that would be far more deadly - except for the spin - if used properly.
May 5, 2006 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
TransH lists good points. Here's another one:
The easy way to defeat entry scanning is to not wait for unloading, or even docking. A nuke set off outside of a major port is nearly as deadly as one set off on land, and completely dependable. Nuke prevention must occur where nukes exist. (Fund Nunn-Lugar.)
By the time one gets close it's too late.
May 5, 2006 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but a basic concept in security is defense in depth: building multiple layers of security so that if one fails, others are in place.
Just because this layer can be breached, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.
Dissent Protects Democracy
May 5, 2006 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politicians have become addicted to symbolic legislation. Things that do little, or affect few, but can be used to beat their opponents over the head with. We have seen this with gay marriage, immigration "reform", the $100 gas rebate and port security.
100% scanning is not really needed. Walmart controls its supply chain, it knows what is in each container, where it came from and where it is going. The same thing is true for many other frequent shippers. So part of this bill is not security but scoring political points. A rational bill would be one that allows for inspections where needed and certification of containers by trusted shippers. This would be cheaper, just as effective, but make less of a sound bite on the evening news.
If you want to make a mess of things, navigate an old freighter just outside of a major port and then cause it to split open and spill millions of gallons of fuel into the harbor. You can see how much disruption this would cause by just looking at the effects when this happens by accident as off Spain last year.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 5, 2006 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I might point out that most people who can afford a good burglar or intruder alarm system and have need of one still buy them and set them. "Riff-raff" can do a lot of harm. The good security companies just have to continually try to adjust to new realities. Same thing for police. When a police force isn't effective, when crime rates soar, do people say: let's get rid of police, we don't need 'em?
Terrorism has not always been MidEast based and it will not always be MidEast based. So say everything was hunky-dory over there tomorrow. Our next hit could be a Puerto Rican freedom fighter. And Osama bin Laden has taught all the wannabes out there of all kinds to dream big dreams. Check with Europe; they know what its like: you have to have "police."
That said, I myself don't see the reason for 100% screening. I think randomness works best in all defensive crime procedures, and when you do 100%, and announce it, you tip off possible perps to alter their game right away and let them know that's where you're concentrating your resources. Rep. Nadler, why do you think 100% is necessary? Is it that the costs mean you might as well?
May 5, 2006 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it an either or choice? Some terrorist acts have been stopped. It makes sense to stop as many as possible while recognizing that all such acts won't be stopped.
If there is another attack within the United States I would not count on our rights surving it nor would I count on much of the Muslim world surving such an attack.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 5, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the explanation of the failed passage of what seemed like a no-brainer.
However, most everyone here agrees that such measures will only stop the riff-raff terrorists. The smart ones will get around them, just as the smart hackers stay two steps ahead of Norton and McAfee, etc.
Politically, most Americans don't understand most of what just happened. Seems like the Dems could put the question to Americans: Do you want more profits for WalMart or Safer Ports?
32% will go for WalMart probably and the rest will go for safer ports. That's my bet.
Funding Nunn-Lugar would be my choice.
"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." GWB 9/27/2000
May 5, 2006 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, but isn't that why Rep. Nadler's bill would require scanning "at the port of origin."?
May 5, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anything > 5% is an improvement right now. Whether it's 75, 80, 100%, random or not, that can be compromised.
But the driver for this should be our safety, not Wal-Mart & Co's profits.
Dissent Protects Democracy
May 5, 2006 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard it costs $6.50 per container to scan them.
One terrorist incident connected to a shipping container closes all of our ports indefinitely waiting to install this system anyway, which will certainly slow down commerce and cut profits. Why wait for that?
Most companies only care about short term profits, even with potentially devastating long term consequences.
May 5, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I missed that. Absolutely.
But if I were one of the bad guys I wouldn't ship through a common carrier, I'd buy an ocean-going fishing boat.
May 5, 2006 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a major study on the cost of this. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1220/
It is hard to understand, but by my reading the largest cost of 100% scanning is likely to be the delay time for a container. I guess the total costs might be $1000 per container. That is significant but not a major disruption of our economy.
I have no doubt that there are terrorists today trying to acquire a nuclear bomb to set off in a major US city. The cargo container is the easiest way to get it there.
May 5, 2006 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or perhaps a ton of Semtex and five tons of high level nuclear waste. I think this sort so scanning would also catch the sort of dirty bombs that could make a major port unusable.
Fred in Vermont
May 5, 2006 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well now I see that the bill that passed mandates 98% of the containers be scanned. So Rep. Nadler, what is the major difference? It looks to me like a political difference with no practical substance. Please say otherwise.
May 5, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Nadler, the on-site cost is $6.50/container and the scan takes 10 seconds. The average cost of shipping a container is around $4,000.00 which makes the added cost of $6.50 seem pretty negligible. Of course corporations, WalMart is no exception, generally view any government "interference" in their business operations as setting off a raft of others to follow, which is why they always put up a fight.
May 5, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
High level nuclear waste is, by definition, hghly radioactive, so would be easy to find by even sloppy testing. And, 5 tons of it would be much easier, plus would likely become extremely hot while in the container. I don't think that is the risk. A bomb isn't terribly radioactive, is much smaller, and much easier to shield. Part of the screening to be done involves finding areas of high density (uranium or plutonium) in the container, so screening should be very effective.
Now, back to "the terrorists": That phrase implies a large organization of people aiming at a common goal, sort of like an army. That isn't what we face. We face small groups of poorly organized, but extremely motivated people, with financial backing to do as much harm as they can. It is much closer to organized crime than to an army.
We do what we can to stop crime - burglar alarms, fences, locks, being alert, good police work, etc., so we should also do what we can to stop terrorism, which is just really big crimes. It just makes sense to scan cargo containers headed for our ports, as part of doing what we can. It also makes sense to have the coast guard be aware of ship traffic of all kinds in our waters, just as the FAA is aware of aircraft traffic at all times in our skies. In spite of all of this, some day there will be another terrorist attack here - most likely by US citizens, but possibly by non-citizens. The goal is to make that attack be far in the future.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 5, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link for that?
Here's WaPo (bold mine):
Dissent Protects Democracy
May 5, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link for that?
For some reason I can't find clear info about the most important point. In the bill passed, will the ships be inspected at the US port or at the port of origination?
Inspection on the US side would not deter a nuclear bomb shipped into LA harbor.
May 5, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laudable objective:
BUT, based on reading a GAO report on a current limited program, this proposal is beyond reality so will not deliver the touted security. Even if 100% of the containers pass through detectors (and that would be monumental) there will not be anything close to 100% detection success due to technical, environmental and operational factors.
Some points from the report (link below):
-- As of 2002, approx. 7 million containers arrived at US ports
-- Detection, with perfect detection conditions, will miss some of what we want to detect and will detect some things which are of no concern.
-- Conditions will not be perfect. Detection equipment’s performance and sustainability challenged by: port layouts; cargo stacking variations; different types of container handling equipment; conditions such high winds and sea spray.
-- Local post officials would control calibration levels and would be resonsible for followup handheld screening.
GAO-05-375 'Preventing Nuclear Smuggling: DOE Has Made Limited Progress in Installing Radiation Detection Equipment at Highest Priority Foreign Seaports' 3/31/05.
May 5, 2006 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can follow the WaPo link to the bill itself...I can't find anything in there that specifies inspection, but it's big, and very Congressional.
If the target was the port, then yes, inspections here won't do much. If the target is inland, then it will help.
Dissent Protects DemocracyMay 5, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been fulminating lately about the lack of cargo inspections, because of the contrast of that obvious security need with a totally unnecessary "security" I found out about when my cat was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism. The cat got a dose of radioactive iodine to destroy the tumor that was causing the hyperthyroidism, and has been in quarantine while the level of radioactivity drops from "mostly harmless" to completely harmless.
While she's in quarantine, I have to use flushable cat litter and flush the litter down the toilet, not put it in the trash, because her excretions are radioactive. And why, you may ask, is it better to add radioactive material to the water supply than to send it to the landfill?
That's why I'm fulminating. I can't send radioactive material to the landfill, indeed not even the miniscule amount of low-level radioactivity excreted by a formerly hyperthyroid cat, because -- the veterinary surgeon took pains to explain -- "after 9/11" the landfills hereabouts had radiation detectors installed. The Feds figure that anybody making a dirty bomb in his kitchen won't keep the bomb-making setup "clean" enough to avoid contaminating the immediate environs, including stuff that ends up in the trash; if a garbage truck sets off the detectors at the landfill, the Feds will be alerted to descend upon the neighborhood and arrest the terrorist. I have to flush the cat litter down the toilet to prevent a false alarm.
I swear I am not making this up. We can't inspect cargo coming into our seaports, but at least our landfills are safe from radioactive cat poop.
May 5, 2006 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs -
in my comment below I have a link to a GAO report about a current program that aims to do detection at a few limited ports. The report provides insight as to the challenges. My view is that these Congressional 100% claims are just that, claims without the possibilty of achievement.
Don't remember if it was in this report or elsewhere in my reading that I learned that detection is not just an in and out of port issue. There are also issues as containers are moved from one part of a port to another.
May 5, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Praise the Lord! I have been deathly afraid of radioactive cat poop for years, but now I am saved!!!
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 5, 2006 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have got to send this story to Russ Feingold. It would be perfect in a Senate speech.
This could only have come from the Dept. of Idiotic
Homeland Insecurity
aka Home of the Brain Dead.
"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." GWB 9/27/2000
May 6, 2006 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink