Marine Log - August 2007 - (Page 18) INSIDEWASHINGTON The 9/11 recommendation that wasn’t H eaded for promised presidential signature as we went to press was H.R. 1, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. One provision of the act that has received considerable attention is one that requires something that was not, in fact, a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It’s the one that mandates, within five years, the scanning of 100 percent of all cargo containers before they are loaded on ships bound for the United States. The loudest proponent of this measure has been Rep. Jerry Nadler (D.-N.Y.). The cargo scanning requirements of H.R. 1 are based on language introduced by Rep. Nadler two years ago. Rep. Nadler’s Sail Only if Scanned (S.O.S.) Act called for all shipping containers bound for the U.S. to be scanned for radiation and density at foreign ports. “Twelve million shipping containers enter our ports every year, and we currently inspect less than six percent of them,” said Rep. Nadler in commenting on passage of H.R. 1. “With this bill, every container bound for America will be electronically scanned. Our nation’s ports are a gaping hole in our ability to block nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their components from entering our country—a hole that we are beginning to plug today. I thank my colleagues, and, in particular the House Democratic leadership for supporting this measure and the cargo scanning provision, and I urge the President to stand for our security and sign the bill into law.” Not everyone is quite as happy as Rep. Nadler with the scanning provision. Critics believe that the technology just isn’t there yet. What’s the likelihood of an attempt to use a container to get a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb into the U.S.? A recent Congressional Research Service report,“Maritime Security: Potential Terrorist Attacks and Protection Priorities,” published January 9, 2007, presents a range of assessments in which some credible experts seem dismissive of the risk while others see it as very real. But there is general consensus that the consequences of such an attack would be so grave that it must be paid attention, however unlikely. Much more worrying is the widespread view that other forms of shipping offer easier ways than containers of smuggling a dirty bomb or nuclear device into the U.S. The CRS report points out that “by tonnage, containers carry only 11% of U.S. overseas waterborne trade and container ships account for about one in every three U.S. port calls. Other types of cargo also face less security screening. Relatively low value cargo might be targeted if terrorists perceive it receives less attention from U.S. Coast Guard and customs officials.” That’s one flaw in implementing the scan-all-boxes law. Another, of course, is the unreliability of currently available hardware. Fortunately, the legislation as passed contains authority for the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security to extend the deadline by two-year increments. 18 MARINE LOG AUGUST 2007 www.marinelog.com http://www.marinelog.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.