Source: www.whitehouse.gov

The 9/11 Act passed by Congress in 2007 included the requirement to scan 100% of U.S. inbound containerized cargo. In the years since the law passed, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the international community have spoken out loudly in opposition to the mandate and the impact it would have on global trade, economic recovery and the negative effects on security. Despite this vocal opposition and the universal opinion that CBP will not meet the 2012 deadline, Congress keeps the mandate in place.

I believe recent comments by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce capture the heart of the argument. These provide a realistic baseline for moving forward with a reasonable approach to global security:

“A policy of blanket inspection misdirects limited resources away from programs with the greatest security benefits and places an unnecessary burden on the global supply chain. Since the passage of the 9/11 Act in 2007, it has become evident, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported, that the 100 percent mandate is impracticable and abandons the effectiveness of the multilayered risk based approach. Beyond the direct costs of implementation, the hidden costs contribute to greater supply chain delays and increased trade barriers. In light of the operational shortcomings of this mandate, keeping the law in place sends a confusing message to the international community and threatens U.S. credibility toward developing a viable trade security program.”

Primary concerns over this mandate, outlined below, have been shared with Congress by current and past leadership at DHS, the Governmental Accountability Office, and the international community. These concerns include:

• significant technical and affordability challenges with current technology;
• insufficient infrastructure at foreign ports;
• threat of reciprocity by the international community;
• strong opposition from U.S. trading partners;
• focusing the limited resources of Customs on an ineffective program;
• security that is actually diminished, not enhanced, and;
• substantial impact on global trade and economic recovery.

The United States should reach out to its trading partners to develop a comprehensive, multilateral supply chain security program that promotes trade and security on both sides of the transaction. We can accomplish these goals by furthering discussions on the WCO SAFE Framework and moving forward on mutual recognition.

The end game for business and government is to come up with a harmonized approach that both enhances the security of global supply chain operations and facilitates legitimate trade. Congress should end this unworkable mandate, and show the international community that they are serious about making real progress on this issue.