House Passes 9/11 Commission Recommendations

[Conan]

Dems just passed the recommendations with 300+ votes. I wonder if my rep voted for it. He will get a letter if he didnt. (My rep is insane)

[Conan]

Scott Garrett did not vote for these recommendations. He'll get a beating in the newspapers tomorrow. I wonder what sorry excuse he has.

[TheresNoMoney]

Why do the 128 Republicans who voted against this bill hate America and want the terrorists to win?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The majority of the Republicans voted no. What a bunch of nutcases.

[Conan]

I also have an insane rep who most likely voted against the recs too. Unfortunately most people where I live don't mind these types of politicians and his vote will barely get a mention in our pro-conservative, pro-corporate local paper.

My district isnt even conservative. Parts are but the majority isnt. This is NJ and I have one of the 30 most conservative lunitics representing me. The problem with my district is most people dont know where he stands in Bergen county where most of the votes come from. The republicans there just see R and they are mostly really rich Reps there so they dont care. He's bound to be gone by 2012 though or get a primary challenge. The district is moving left as New Yorkers are moving in.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps some voted against H.R. 1 because it includes portions such as Title V (relating to scanning every single cargo container) that are impractical and will result in cycle after cycle of the administration reporting that they haven't been able to do it yet.  It also for some reason doesn't include any of the changes that haven't been implemented yet that would affect Congress.

While it has some good points, the bill as it currently stands is as bad an example of partisan issue manipulation as has ever been.  Hopefully the Senate will take the time to make this bill something practical and useful.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Perhaps some voted against H.R. 1 because it includes portions such as Title V (relating to scanning every single cargo container) that are impractical and will result in cycle after cycle of the administration reporting that they haven't been able to do it yet.  It also for some reason doesn't include any of the changes that haven't been implemented yet that would affect Congress.

While it has some good points, the bill as it currently stands is as bad an example of partisan issue manipulation as has ever been.  Hopefully the Senate will take the time to make this bill something practical and useful.

Nonsense Ernest, it's so much easier to attack the Republicans now rather than wait a bit for real progress to be made.

[Padfoot]

It's not surprising to me that so many Republicans voted against it.  I much rather like to know which ones voted for it.  Where can I check this.  The House website seems to have been overhauled and I'm having trouble poking around.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll015.xml

[Smash255]

My sack of crap Congressman actually did something good for once.

[True Democrat]

My Republican Congressman voted in favor.

[MasterJedi]

Perhaps some voted against H.R. 1 because it includes portions such as Title V (relating to scanning every single cargo container) that are impractical and will result in cycle after cycle of the administration reporting that they haven't been able to do it yet.  It also for some reason doesn't include any of the changes that haven't been implemented yet that would affect Congress.

That's really the only reason to vote against it. Some airlines that ship cargo said that if it passes they'll have to stop doing a lot of domestic routes because of the time this will take and how transporting the cargo subsidises the passenger routes.

My Congressman did vote for it though.

[Democratic Hawk]

Of the 14 most 'vulnerable' (i.e. those elected to open or incumbents re-elected with margins of less than 3%) House Republicans , 10 voted in favor (Buchanan, Hayes, Pryce, Schmidt, Gerlach, Ferguson, Walsh, Porter, Roskam and Reichert) and 4 against (Wilson, Cubin, Musgrave and Drake)

Dave

[MODU]

Why do the 128 Republicans who voted against this bill hate America and want the terrorists to win?

One of the items included with the bill is the full inspection of incoming containers which is unrealistic.  As I explained over two years ago, the full inspection of shipping containers is too costly and time consuming, which would have a major impact on the global economy.  This is why this provision was not acted upon originally, and probably why some of the 128 voted against it (those who actually thought the whole process out).  Additionally, the bill passed yesterday did not state how they will be funding this, since the significant costs associated by full inspection will have to be covered by the government because the port associations will not be able to afford the huge number of new hires required to pull this off.

Of course, no one ever expected the new Congress to actually "think" about what they were doing.  They could have at least called the industry leaders and ask for their input on what impacts their bill would have. 

[Nym90]

Yeah, the cargo inspections will be expensive, and I'm not at all certain I support that provision. Perhaps randomly inspecting say 10 percent of all containers would be sufficient.

But I don't see why that one provision would be bad enough to offset the positive effects of the rest of the legislation.

I also don't see why this is a worse way to spend money to fight terrorism than, say, the Iraq war is. Fighting terrorism does cost money, and I think it makes a lot more sense to spend it protecting our own borders and our own domestic flights (which is of course how we were struck on 9/11, not by any foreign government) rather than fighting in Iraq.

[MODU]

But I don't see why that one provision would be bad enough to offset the positive effects of the rest of the legislation.

This is why the "recommendations" by the 9/11 commission were not fully enacted to begin with.  "Recommendations" are not "requirements," though that is how the Pelosi platform used it during their campaign.  Fortunately, without funding assigned to the bill, the bill doesn't do anything other than to express Congressional goals.

[Conan]

Why do the 128 Republicans who voted against this bill hate America and want the terrorists to win?

One of the items included with the bill is the full inspection of incoming containers which is unrealistic.  As I explained over two years ago, the full inspection of shipping containers is too costly and time consuming, which would have a major impact on the global economy.  This is why this provision was not acted upon originally, and probably why some of the 128 voted against it (those who actually thought the whole process out).  Additionally, the bill passed yesterday did not state how they will be funding this, since the significant costs associated by full inspection will have to be covered by the government because the port associations will not be able to afford the huge number of new hires required to pull this off.

Of course, no one ever expected the new Congress to actually "think" about what they were doing.  They could have at least called the industry leaders and ask for their input on what impacts their bill would have. 

So how much is your life worth to you? I live close to the biggest city in America and one of the biggest ports in the world. Don't tell people our cheap imports from China our worth more then their lives. Anyway, if it does cause difficulty, maybe those things can be made here instead of in another country.

[MODU]

So how much is your life worth to you? I live close to the biggest city in America and one of the biggest ports in the world. Don't tell people our cheap imports from China our worth more then their lives. Anyway, if it does cause difficulty, maybe those things can be made here instead of in another country.

Considering that I:
A) live in the DC area
B) work a mile from the Pentagon
C) served in the military
D) sailed commercially aboard containerships
E) I've even docked/anchored at Port Elizabeth a few times

I believe I have a slightly better understanding of the whole process and the costs involved.  I am under the assumption you did not read the thread which I linked to, so let me give you a quick summary of how container security is handled.  The US knows each port around the world which inbound containers are loaded aboard ships.  At the foreign ports which are considered to be high-risk, there are inspectors at those facilities which supervise the loading and sealing of containers before they are loaded aboard the ship.  For low-risk ports, the responsibility of inspection reside in the hands of the local government (as we do it domestically).  When the containers reach US waters, vessels deemed to be at risk are stopped in open water and are inspected with radiation detectors and hands-on screening when necessary.  When the ship reaches the port, all inspection reports from the various international ports are submitted for review to identify anything that might be out of the norm.  While the containers are being off-loaded, random hands-on and X-ray screening of containers are conducted.  Overall, it is a very safe and effective operation.

Addressing your concerns:  As far as how much is my life worth, that is a weak premise to base your argument around.  In your case, most of the goods coming into NJ are of European and African production, not Chinese, so you don't have to worry about Cheap Chinese imports.  Could we produce cheap Chinese products here?  Sure, but they won't be cheap nor Chinese.

[Boris]

So how much is your life worth to you? I live close to the biggest city in America and one of the biggest ports in the world. Don't tell people our cheap imports from China our worth more then their lives. Anyway, if it does cause difficulty, maybe those things can be made here instead of in another country.

Considering that I:
A) live in the DC area
B) work a mile from the Pentagon
C) served in the military
D) sailed commercially aboard containerships
E) I've even docked/anchored at Port Elizabeth a few times

I believe I have a slightly better understanding of the whole process and the costs involved.  I am under the assumption you did not read the thread which I linked to, so let me give you a quick summary of how container security is handled.  The US knows each port around the world which inbound containers are loaded aboard ships.  At the foreign ports which are considered to be high-risk, there are inspectors at those facilities which supervise the loading and sealing of containers before they are loaded aboard the ship.  For low-risk ports, the responsibility of inspection reside in the hands of the local government (as we do it domestically).  When the containers reach US waters, vessels deemed to be at risk are stopped in open water and are inspected with radiation detectors and hands-on screening when necessary.  When the ship reaches the port, all inspection reports from the various international ports are submitted for review to identify anything that might be out of the norm.  While the containers are being off-loaded, random hands-on and X-ray screening of containers are conducted.  Overall, it is a very safe and effective operation.

Addressing your concerns:  As far as how much is my life worth, that is a weak premise to base your argument around.  In your case, most of the goods coming into NJ are of European and African production, not Chinese, so you don't have to worry about Cheap Chinese imports.  Could we produce cheap Chinese products here?  Sure, but they won't be cheap nor Chinese.

So wouldn't it be ridiculously easy for terrorists to smuggle a nuclear weapon through a "low-risk" port? And how exactly do they determine the risk of a foreign port? Okay, the obvious ones would be Middle-Eastern ports, but in theory, couldn't Al Qaeda merely move a nuclear weapon to either North Africa or Western Europe and then ship it into the United States? Do vessels from low-risk ports also undergo radiation screening and random searches?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Summary
http://ushousedigest.wordpress.com/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MODU]

So wouldn't it be ridiculously easy for terrorists to smuggle a nuclear weapon through a "low-risk" port? And how exactly do they determine the risk of a foreign port? Okay, the obvious ones would be Middle-Eastern ports, but in theory, couldn't Al Qaeda merely move a nuclear weapon to either North Africa or Western Europe and then ship it into the United States? Do vessels from low-risk ports also undergo radiation screening and random searches?

No, it wouldn't be easy since low-risk ports are in places such as the UK, EU, Japan, etc . . . countries developed enough with proper security, just like ours.  As far as vessels being screened for radiation, yes, they are.  There are sensors at most ports (either in the form of hand-held or environment-sensing) that will pick up an increase in radiation levels.  Additionally, shipping documents indicate where a container is from/sealed.  It is not as if someone loads a partial container in Egypt, then the someone adds more goods into the same container in Italy, and then it is sealed in France. 

[Conan]

So how much is your life worth to you? I live close to the biggest city in America and one of the biggest ports in the world. Don't tell people our cheap imports from China our worth more then their lives. Anyway, if it does cause difficulty, maybe those things can be made here instead of in another country.

Considering that I:
A) live in the DC area
B) work a mile from the Pentagon
C) Doesnt mean anything
D) sailed commercially aboard containerships
E) I've even docked/anchored at Port Elizabeth a few times

I believe I have a slightly better understanding of the whole process and the costs involved.  I am under the assumption you did not read the thread which I linked to, so let me give you a quick summary of how container security is handled.  The US knows each port around the world which inbound containers are loaded aboard ships.  At the foreign ports which are considered to be high-risk, there are inspectors at those facilities which supervise the loading and sealing of containers before they are loaded aboard the ship.  For low-risk ports, the responsibility of inspection reside in the hands of the local government (as we do it domestically).  When the containers reach US waters, vessels deemed to be at risk are stopped in open water and are inspected with radiation detectors and hands-on screening when necessary.  When the ship reaches the port, all inspection reports from the various international ports are submitted for review to identify anything that might be out of the norm.  While the containers are being off-loaded, random hands-on and X-ray screening of containers are conducted.  Overall, it is a very safe and effective operation.

Addressing your concerns:  As far as how much is my life worth, that is a weak premise to base your argument around.  In your case, most of the goods coming into NJ are of European and African production, not Chinese, so you don't have to worry about Cheap Chinese imports.  Could we produce cheap Chinese products here?  Sure, but they won't be cheap nor Chinese.

You say you've been on container ships. Now you should know how unsecure they are. Many chinese products do come through Port Newark, in fact most of the containers you see piled up have the company's name right on it (the chinese company Hanjin(edit: the company is actually south korean)) You say it would cost to much to run these things through radioactive scanners or other devices and you are against it, so therefore your life is worth less then the cost to search these. You are living in a pre-9/11 mindset where the status quo is good enough. I'm sure air port security had an overall safe and effective operation at Logan too.

Edit: K-Line also in Port Newark, which is Japanese.
APL based in Singapore
Evergreen based in Taiwan

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=657

China continues to be the port’s largest trading partner, accounting for 19.9 percent of the port’s activity. Trade with China grew 30.5 percent in 2004. In addition, Asia continues to be the port’s largest origin-and-destination market for containerized cargo, with a 43.2 percent share.

[MODU]

You say you've been on container ships. Now you should know how unsecure they are. Many chinese products do come through Port Newark, in fact most of the containers you see piled up have the company's name right on it (the chinese company Hanjin(edit: the company is actually south korean)) You say it would cost to much to run these things through radioactive scanners or other devices and you are against it, so therefore your life is worth less then the cost to search these. You are living in a pre-9/11 mindset where the status quo is good enough. I'm sure air port security had an overall safe and effective operation at Logan too.

Edit: K-Line also in Port Newark, which is Japanese.
APL based in Singapore
Evergreen based in Taiwan

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=657

China continues to be the port’s largest trading partner, accounting for 19.9 percent of the port’s activity. Trade with China grew 30.5 percent in 2004. In addition, Asia continues to be the port’s largest origin-and-destination market for containerized cargo, with a 43.2 percent share.

For starters, I was being sarcastic with you regarding Chinese goods, but since you are addressing the company names, I'll provide some information for you.  Yes, those are Asian shipping companies, but they do not carry only Asian goods.  That would mean that APL (American Presidents Line) only carries US goods, therefore they are full leaving the US, but come back empty-handed.  In this case, the Asian carriers are operating in a global market, and as such, have global shipping routes.  A similiar example would be UPS who does global deliveries as well as regional EU and Chinese deliveries.  Additionally, Newark and Elizabeth are both part of the intermodal shipping network, meaning that containers coming in from Europe are brought into the port, loaded aboard single and double-stack trains, transported across the US to the West Coast, and loaded back aboard ship to continue on their journey.  It is a quicker and more cost-effective process than travelling the added days through the two canals.

Now, as far as "you say that it would cost too much to run these things through radioactive scanners or other devices and you are against it," that isn't what I said.  I said 100% inspections would be too costly.  To start with, you would have to increase the number inspectors by at least 10 fold in order to keep up with the number of containers entering/leaving the ports.  Secondly, you would have to increase the acreage of the ports in order to errect enough inspection stations for these inspectors to do their job.  Third, the electronic scanners are quite expensive when added on top of the number of personnel and land expenses.  Lastly, even with all of this in place, 100% inspections will slow down international shipping times due to port delays and container delays, resulting in the breakdown of our modern just-in-time delivery systems which businesses rely on and, as in the cases of produce, increased costs to buy more refrigerated containers in the attempts to reduce spoilage.  So, you inexpensive computers, cars, clothing, food, flowers, etc will increase in cost and quite possibly put some small businesses out of business. 

As far as me living in a pre-9/11 mindset is quite silly.  Obviously you haven't been paying attention to my posts over the past 2+ years.