Republicans Block Democratic Bill to Scan 100% of Shipping Containers

[cal04]

Nadler

GOP leadership nixes passage of the Nadler/Oberstar S.O.S. Act, which would fix the gaping vulnerability at our ports
House Republican Leadership today blocked House consideration of the Sail Only if Scanned (S.O.S.) Act, a bill to x-ray 100-percent of shipping containers entering the United States. Congressman Jerrold Nadler authored the bill with Congressman James Oberstar, ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Nadler offered the S.O.S. Act as an amendment to H.R. 4939, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill currently under consideration by the House. The Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee raised a point of order against the bill, blocking debate and a vote on the measure. "The Republicans in Congress had a concrete opportunity today to fix a gaping hole in our national security, and, once again, they failed to act," Congressman Nadler said. "Security experts agree that we will not be safe until we scan 100 percent of U.S.-bound shipping containers before they depart for our shores. Shockingly, the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress are content to leave that figure at 1 percent."

The S.O.S Act, H.R. 4899, mandates that all containers be scanned using the best-available technology, including scanning for radiation and density, before they are loaded onto a ship bound for the United States, and that all U.S.-bound containers be sealed with a transponder that would notify American officials of a breach before the shipment enters the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States.

House Democratic Leadership has embraced the bill as a common-sense solution to an urgent threat. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Caucus Chairman James Clyburn and other Democratic leaders yesterday echoed Nadler’s call for 100-percent scanning. As Whip Hoyer said, "In a time of unprecedented threats to America’s security, we can accept nothing less."

Nadler
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/RepbBlockSOSAmdt031606.html
link in story
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7b449BBE79-704A-423C-AF88-6D9DF9D989D8%7d&DE=%7b3F0B76A8-F4D9-46CE-8A17-B08E0B99DFFA%7d

[CrazyOrangeCat]

1. Miserable scumbag pukes.

:spank: :grr:

[ClassWarrior]

2. This is awesome - they're trapping the Cons on security issues!!

Maybe the folks in the House understood Feingold's actions more than the folks in Senate?... Who's Oberstar, by the way?

NGU.

[AndyA]

3. Why do the Republicans hate America? Why do they love terrorism? n/m

[IsItJustMe]

4. Sounds like a winning issue to run on.

[Canuckistanian]

5. And the GOP blocked this why?

Just because it was from the Democrats? And do they plan their own bill to replace it?

[Ksec]

6. Sure they will

and itll be full of corporate giveaways.

[Canuckistanian]

13. And they'll take credit for the idea

Then they'll badly underfund it, the companies will run away with the money and it'll all be forgotten.

[ClassWarrior]

7. I'm sure it was because it'd cost their corporate campaign contributors...

...too many of their precious profits.

NGU.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Ah, it wasn't the RIGHT contractors, gotcha.

No mention of Halliburton in the bill anywhere, I suppose...

[blm]

15. Because it's not getting any media attention and they can get away with

it while the Dem activist base is preoccupied at yelling at Dem senators about a censure that has already moved into committee.

the GOPs are trying to sneak ANWR through, too.

[dogday]

8. The Party that is strong on security is the one

that voted for total inspection of all cargo, enuff said...

[EFerrari]

9. So, who is the genius that will finally flip the security meme?

Anyone?

It's just sitting there, waiting for you. :)

[Ufomammut]

10. The so-called "terrorists" ARE our gov, so why....

Should they want to blow more $ on a superficial guise? They've already done that w/airports. Besides, they need more $ for the "National Security State" surveillance infrastructure, which means our populace is their chief "enemy."

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

11. I wonder how much that cost whom to block that.

It's an expensive proposition but a good one if we are worried about security.

Who would be hurt by transparency in shipping large quantities of a product?

[slackmaster]

16. I'm sure it would be expensive, Tom, but HOW expensive?

And what is the cost of not doing it?

And the cost of alternatives?

Without numbers, any such proposal is going to be a non-starter.

[slackmaster]

14. Does anyone have a link to Rep. Nadler's cost-benefit analysis?

No proposed amendment that involves expenditure of public funds is complete without one. Or if he expected import/export companies to foot the bill, an analysis of what increased costs would be handed down to consumers.

Absent that, this is nothing more than sabre-rattling from both sides IMO.