[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 21499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CARGO SCREENING SOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, last week marked the eighth anniversary 
of 9/11. Congress should honor the memory of that tragedy by 
solidifying its homeland security agenda. That means taking the right 
steps to keep the Nation safe, free and prosperous. At the same time, 
Congress should resist initiatives that do not actually improve 
security and impair international trade.
  The international maritime community has long voiced their concerns 
with the blanket application of the 9/11 law mandating 100 percent 
scanning of all U.S.-bound containers from more than 700 ports around 
the world. The countries that have raised concern include United States 
allies such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New 
Zealand and Singapore.
  H.R. 1, implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, 
called the public's attention to issues of supply chain security and 
the potential threats faced by this Nation and all of those with a 
stake in this supply chain.
  One hundred percent container scanning as a security tool may seem 
like an appealing way to ensure container security, but it is fraught 
with various operational and technical challenges. In addition, it 
provides a false sense of security, as the effectiveness of the 
analysts become degraded, given that there will be information overload 
and desensitization of the analysts.
  Requiring 100 percent scanning of all in-bound sea containers, more 
than 11 million containers annually, may be well-intentioned, but it is 
not feasible, given the current technology. A 100 percent scanning 
requirement could simply strangle commerce, have a significantly 
damaging impact on American manufacturing and cost a lot of jobs.
  The international flow of containers will also be slowed as a result 
of the severe bottleneck in busy ports. Similarly, U.S. ports such as 
Long Beach, New Jersey and Los Angeles will have their congestion 
problems exacerbated if the international maritime community makes 
similar reciprocal demands on the United States.
  One other important point: The backup in cargo traffic caused by 100 
percent scanning could inadvertently cause a higher security risk. 
Major delays in inspecting and processing containers would put the 
cargo in greater risk of tampering at the docks. 100 percent scanning 
will also bring about huge costs to port operators, shippers and ocean 
carriers. Costs incurred through such a requirement will eventually 
filter down to the very constituents that we are trying to protect. 
This will be essentially hurtful as consumers deal with rising prices 
and a weak economy.
  U.S. manufacturers, large and small, have a substantial interest and 
concern regarding the security of our Nation's ports and the safe 
transport of their products. This legislation would levy 
counterproductive Federal mandates on industry, unnecessarily increase 
costs, cause massive delays and disruptions in the global supply chain 
and ultimately cost American jobs.
  More can and should be done to secure our borders and supply chains 
against terrorist activities. H.R. 1, however, will impose additional 
cost burdens on the United States economy, both small and large, with 
the establishment of cargo security inspection protocols that rely 
simply on unproven technologies and that do not ensure security 
improvements that are commensurate with the expenses that would be 
incurred to implement these programs. This legislation will add 
uncertainty and costs to the international supply chain, severely 
impacting the flow of legitimate trade, but with little demonstrative 
improvement in security.
  My colleagues, there is an alternative approach which has broader 
international consensus, and that is a risk-based approach, coupled 
with the concept of total supply security along the chain. Such an 
approach, where all stakeholders in the supply chain undertake security 
measures to protect their cargo, is less duplicative and more holistic. 
A layered, risk-based, targeted approach to cargo security, rather than 
a one-size-fits-all, such as in H.R. 1, will provide more effective 
security with better utilization of limited resources.
  So, my colleagues, striking the proper balance between security needs 
and the free flow of legitimate trade will continue to be a challenge 
that will face all of us into the future. Unfortunately, slowing the 
international supply chain and adding significant costs by implementing 
unproven technologies is not consistent with the challenge today.
  Congress should rethink cargo screening mandates in H.R. 1 before 
more time, money and limited resources are wasted by the Department of 
Homeland Security.

                          ____________________