Central component of 9/11 reform targeted in lame duck session

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups want Congress to overhaul a rule that all cargo shipped to the United States from foreign ports be scanned for security.

{mosads}The groups argue the requirement, a key element of the 2007 law implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, will raise costs for businesses by slowing international trade and could raise havoc on the U.S. economy.

They also argue security measures already in place make the scanning unnecessary. Requiring 100 percent scanning would do little to increase security but could cripple trade, the groups contend.

Supporters of the mandate say it is the best safeguard against the nightmare scenario of a ship sailing into the Globe Marine Terminal in Jersey City or another busy port with a dirty bomb or other devastating weapon. It passed Congress overwhelmingly five years ago: 85 to 8 in the Senate and 371 to 40 in the House.

When Congress approved the 9/11 Commission bill, it had hoped that the Department of Homeland Security would already be meeting the 100 percent scanning requirement.

But DHS isn’t close to meeting the goal.

As of the end of June, customs officials had scanned less than 5 percent of the millions of containers shipped to the United States.

It is difficult to imagine DHS meeting the new goal anytime soon, thought the 2007 law sets it out as a marker.

The business groups are backing legislation sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) that would grant the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive the 100-percent scanning requirement if certain conditions are met.

The panel has tentatively scheduled a mark-up of the legislation for November, according to a source tracking it.

Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the panel, said the markup schedule has not been set but added that Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) supports the bill and it is on a list of legislation that may be ready for consideration in the lame-duck session.

Those backing the 100 percent scanning requirement fear the Collins-Murray bill will be quietly added to must-past legislation in the lame-duck, and that hopes of meeting the stringent requirement will be lost for good.

“We believe there are people that are in opposition to the mandate and have been working to have it repealed or significantly neutered. It’s a variety of people. They argue the technology does not exist and that it’s not affordable. We believe we’ve answered all three of those questions,” said Stanton Sloane, CEO of Decision Sciences International Corporation.

Sloane’s company claims it has developed technology that can scan cargo containers in 30 to 35 seconds without kicking off the damaging radiation of x-rays. If so, it could be in line to make heavy profits if the 100 percent scanning requirement remains.

Approving the 9/11 Commission recommendations was a part of the House Democrats “six in 2006” campaign after they won the House, and remains politically important with key members of the party, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.).

In a statement commemorating the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Markey pledged to work with his colleagues to urge the homeland security department to “stop its delay sand meet the 100-percent scanning mandate consistent with the law.”

While Collins and Murray both voted for the 100 percent scanning requirement in 2007, it has opponents throughout Washington — including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“We have experienced first-hand the array of diplomatic, financial, and logistical challenges associated with even a limited scanning regime,” she wrote in a letter to Congress in May. “We conclude that the specific approach established under current legislation is neither the most efficient nor a cost-effective way to secure our nation and global supply chains against nuclear terrorism.”

The Chamber supports a multi-layered security approach, which would not depend on all cargo meeting a scanning requirement.

“The Chamber is a strong supporter of the multi-layered, risk-based approach as it is the most effective way to secure the country and facilitate legitimate trade,” said Adam Salerno, director of national security and emergency preparedness at the U.S. Chamber. “This approach includes supply chain security programs, risk-based targeting, scanning of high-risk containers and a series of other programs that both government and the private sector work together on.”

“The 100-percent scanning mandate abandons the risk-based model, and diverts critical resources away from programs that provide far greater security,” he added.

The National Retail Federation also supports language in the Collins-Murray bill allowing the department of homeland security to waive the scanning mandate if other security requirements are met.

“We’ve had a problem with it ever since it was introduced. We don’t think it adds to the multilayered risk based approach that the department of homeland security has established,” Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation, said of the scanning requirement.

“The pilot program has shown that it is wrought with problems. There are issues dealing with the technology itself, the implementation, the cost factor it’s going to have on the global supply chain,” he said.

A European Commission staff working paper estimates the scanning requirement could cost the European Union and the United States about 10 billion euros annually.

Sloane said he is aware of concerns that the U.S. Chamber and its allies may try to repeal and replace the scanning requirement in the lame duck.

“That’s something I have heard. It seems strange to me that anyone would like to do something to reduce the safety and security of the United States,” he said.