New port-screening requirement divides D.C.

Some believe request possible
Lawmakers have questioned whether the new technology offers much improvement over current monitors that are prone to false alarms set off by naturally occurring radioactive material in medical isotopes, ceramics or kitty litter.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairmen of the Senate and House Homeland Security committees, said preliminary tests indicate the effectiveness of the new advanced monitors “may fall well short of levels anticipated.”

Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., a critic of the new provision, noted that those unhappy with current technology are among the same people calling for 100 percent scanning. “You can’t have it both ways,” he said, adding that “the technology is not there at this point.”

Democrats, in successfully arguing for the scanning provision, said that if the United States could put a man on the moon within the same decade that John F. Kennedy challenged the nation to that goal, it can certainly come up with effective nuclear warning technology in five years.

Markey also disputed the contention that the new system would be too expensive, citing estimates that the cost of 100 percent scanning, including the application of tamper-proof seals, would be about $100 per container. He said that’s insignificant compared with the average $66,000 value of goods shipped in each container and estimates that the cost of a disruption of U.S. port operations from a successful terrorist attack could reach $58 billion.

Steep price tag
The Congressional Budget Office quoted a figure of $1.5 billion over three years to acquire and set up the scanning and detection equipment. The United States could provide financial aid to smaller countries, but the CBO said it expected most of the costs to be borne by foreign ports in order to maintain trade with the United States.

Among opponents of the new law is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Jason Conley, its senior manager for homeland security, said there is no really good cost estimate, but predicted that the amount of money needed to implement and operate the system, deal with false alarms and handle delays and disruptions will be very high. He said foreign governments and ports would probably pass along the costs to shippers and consumers.

But cost is not the main reason that 100 percent scanning provision is opposed by major cargo shippers and America’s key trading partners, according to the World Shipping Council.

It said the new law doesn’t adequately address who will buy and maintain the equipment, who will do the scanning, how the data will be analyzed, how radiation-linked health issues will be handled and what might happen when foreign governments demand that U.S. ports install similar equipment.

Markey said the technology exists, the warnings of trade disruptions are overblown and the bottom line remains the same: If a nuclear bomb reaches a U.S. port or city, it’s already too late.

More from msnbc.com RedTape: DirecTV thrives on ‘deception,’ lawsuit says Doctor's mission to save Ethiopian kids' hearts Bad Santa: Gifts that say you’re old, fat or hairy  What hit Italian prime minister? Take our weekly quiz Send your holiday pictures to troops Send us your memories and images of the past decade

MORE FROM SECURITY

Security Section Front

Did ‘Jihadi cool’ lure students to Pakistan? Obama plan could limit secret documents U.S. sends 12 detainees to home nations FBI walks tightrope in outreach to Muslims U.S. gathered intel on Nation of Islam AP source: Feds eye NY trial for Gitmo suspect Security Section Front   Add Security headlines to your news reader: