although I am not a truck driver, I think it's clear that the overreactions
to 911, to quote the last sentence of the article, have ALREADY done more
damage to the USA than all AlQaeda attacks combined, both in terms of
monetary costs and in terms of ill will, lost opportunity, and hassle.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,

Since I know that some of you do considerable long distance hauling, I
thought you might find this interesting.

What is your opinion of this?

TMT

----



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ntiterrorrules

Truckers bristle at anti-terror rules

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Con-Way Transportation Services' truck drivers mostly haul common
household products such as house paint and nail polish - potentially
hazardous to the environment if a truck tipped over, but hardly weapons
of mass destruction.

Yet the company's 12,000-plus drivers soon will have to submit to
fingerprinting and FBI background checks to drive their goods around
the country. The checks are part of a new anti-terrorism program
ordered by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The
program is aimed at making sure no one out to do harm can get hold of
potentially lethal loads of hazardous substances.

Beginning May 31, the 2.7 million truckers who haul materials that the
government deems hazardous will face immigration and criminal
background checks before they can renew special commercial licenses.
The licenses allow them to haul everything from explosives and
radioactive medical waste to Bic lighters and household cleaning
products.

Drivers' names already are checked against government lists of known
and suspected terrorists. The new requirement will affect two-thirds of
all truck drivers in the USA.

Screening out 'bad guys'

Mark Hatfield, spokesman for the Transportation Security
Administration, says the requirement will help "screen out potential
terrorists or bad guys" who might try to use a truck loaded with deadly
materials to launch an attack.

"The idea of targeting hazmats, whether it's truck or rail, is an area
our intelligence points to, and it's driving the work we do," he says.

But trucking companies and associations criticize the program, which
has been in effect since Jan. 31 for drivers seeking
hazardous-materials licenses for the first time. They say it's a
costly, unnecessary burden for drivers and question whether it will
enhance security.

The new requirement would do nothing to stop someone from attacking,
stealing or hijacking a truck loaded with deadly chemicals. Nor would
it have stopped Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh or the 1993 World
Trade Center bombers, who rented vans and loaded them with explosives.

Jeff St. Pierre, head of security at Quality Distribution, a
Tampa-based trucking company whose 3,200 drivers haul hazardous
materials, says his company "cannot determine" whether the new rule
will have any impact on security. But he says company officials are
"very concerned" that the new rules will add to the shortage of drivers
nationwide and cause delays.

The licenses cost $94 in most states. Once a driver submits his
fingerprints at an approved collection center, it takes a week to two
months to get approval back from the federal government. In several
states, there's only one place where drivers can get their prints
collected; it can take a day or more to get there and back.

"We've already experienced drivers saying, 'I'm not going to go through
this. I'll go work for Wal-Mart where I'll haul paper towels and power
tools,' " says Cliff Harvison, president of National Tank Truck
Carriers, which represents 210 trucking companies that employ about
40,000 drivers with hazardous-materials licenses.

"We're going to have to respond by increasing recruiting efforts and
increasing driver pay to make it worth their while," Harvison says.
Those costs will be passed on to consumers. "Ultimately, that's going
to result in higher prices on the shelves and at the pumps."

Bob Petrancosta, director of safety and environmental compliance at Ann
Arbor, Mich.-based Con-Way, says his company's drivers are required to
have hazardous-materials licenses even though they haul mostly
"non-threatening" substances.

A 'huge and complex task'

Con-Way has decided to pay the cost of the background checks.
Petrancosta estimates it will cost the company $2 million over the next
three years. He says he understands the concern behind the new rule but
suggests the government should not be applying it to drivers such as
Con-Way's who haul only "typical consumer commodity products."

Drivers and trucking companies aren't the only ones paying for the new
program. In January, the Congressional Research Service reported to
Congress that the new security requirements will cost taxpayers $72.4
million in the first five years. "It is recognized by all ... that this
investment is inherently limited in its impact," the report said.

In 34 states, a TSA contractor is taking the prints and sending them to
the FBI. State officials in the rest have chosen to do the work
themselves.

The report warned that it will be a "huge and complex task" to
fingerprint and check 2.7 million drivers and said the system has been
plagued by delays. It predicted "hundreds, maybe even thousands" of
drivers would dispute their disqualifications each year, prompting a
lengthy appeals process.

A driver would be disqualified for life if he was convicted of crimes
including terrorism, espionage, unlawful possession of explosives,
arson or improper transportation of a hazardous material. He would be
disqualified for at least seven years for a host of other crimes,
including robbery, smuggling, fraud, rape and kidnapping.

Is it worth the cost?

Since drivers seeking new licenses began applying through the program
in January, the government has denied fewer than 100 applications out
of 15,000. None of the denials has been for reasons related to
terrorism, Hatfield says. But there have been at least two instances in
which foreign applicants were found to be using fake documents, he
says.

Homeland security consultant Randall Larsen says the new rule, mandated
by Congress as part of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001, isn't worth
the cost.

"If we're not careful, our over-reactions to 9/11 could become a
greater threat to the American economy than al-Qaeda," Larsen says.
"Wasting money with good intentions makes us no more secure."