Washington, DC, April 25, 2006--The National Retail Federation urged a congressional committee to reject legislation that would require scanning of all cargo bound for U.S. ports, saying the term was not adequately defined and that the proposal could result in costly delays that would harm the nation’s economy.
“Efforts to require 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound containers are operationally infeasible and would likely cause unacceptably high economic costs and disruptions to the nation’s commerce,” NRF senior vice president for Government Relations Steve Pfister said in a letter to House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King, R-N.Y.
H.R. 4899, the Sail Only if Scanned Act, or SOS Act, sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., would require that 100 percent of cargo containers bound for U.S. ports be scanned in foreign ports before being loaded on vessels headed to the United States. The measure is expected to be offered as an amendment to H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act or SAFE Port Act, sponsored by Representative Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., during consideration by the Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday.
NRF notes in today’s letter that the Nadler bill does not define the word scan, which could mean any number of things--a scan using X-ray equipment, a full gamma ray scan such as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System, or the Integrated Container Inspection System (ICIS) used in Hong Kong. The bill does not detail who would perform the scans and provide results to the Department of Homeland Security, does not address who would pay for the equipment required and its operation, and does not address health concerns for port workers if gamma ray inspections are used.
Supporters of the legislation often cite the success of the ICIS program in Hong Kong, but NRF argued that the program relies on business practices and investments made by Hong Kong terminal operators. The same practices and investments may not be practical at smaller, less prosperous ports in other nations, NRF said.
“Efforts to unilaterally impose a similar scanning requirement at all foreign ports that process U.S.-bound cargo could lead to crippling delays because of lack of resources and capabilities among various ports,” Pfister wrote. Feeder ports such as those in Vietnam, Southeast and South-Central Asia and those in Africa “simply do not possess the capacity to scan and screen large numbers of containers because of physical limitations and lack of resources,” Pfister wrote. If containers cannot be scanned at feeder ports, the legislation could effectively require that they be unloaded off a vessel, scanned and reloaded at major ports such as Hong Kong or Singapore before heading to the United States.
In a separate letter also sent today, NRF urged a number of refinements to the SAFE Port Act measure, but called it “part of a legislative initiative that has endeavored for several months to take a reasoned and considered approach to the port and cargo security issue.”
Among the issues NRF addressed:
• NRF urged that Congress establish greater congressional oversight of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, Container Security Initiative and International Trade Data System regulatory programs rather than adopting the programs as statute. C-TPAT in particular is “still a work in progress” and the legislation could take away flexibility needed to make the program effective.
• Congress should provide adequate funding to the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection so that federal agents can conduct C-TPAT validations rather than using third parties to conduct the validations. If third parties are used, the House bill provides better clarification than the Senate bill on who would be eligible.
• Congress should hold hearings on the existing 24-hour rule for the submission of cargo infor
