Janet Napolitano dove into the Congressional Hearing pool today making her first appearance as DHS Secretary before the House Homeland Security Committee. The nearly three hour session (which included two recesses for floor votes) was as much a listening session as it was a “listing” session where Members gave her their respective thoughts and concerns. From the future of FEMA to interoperability, here are some highlights.
The congressional mandate to scan 100 percent of all cargo coming into the United States has questionable security value and will assuredly disrupt the global supply chain process, further undermining American commerce, jobs and the economy at a time when the U.S. economy is already struggling.
This country is faced with a renewed commitment to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Our immediate answer is for more fuel-efficient cars. Well let me remind everyone that we already have the technology to move large numbers of people and things on our train system while greatly reducing the consumption of fuel. The problem is that we need more investment in the tracks and equipment that has served the nation for 150 plus years.
Implementing new cargo-scanning regulations that have questionable security value and will assuredly disrupt the global supply chain and further undermine American commerce, jobs and the economy at large seems like a remarkably bad idea.
The Age of Unity may indeed be upon us. The right-leaning Heritage Foundation and left-leaning Center for American Progress appear to be in significant agreement on at least one thing: The need for a BRAC-like commission of independent voices to review the tangle of homeland security laws and mandates issued in the frantic years after 9/11.
Yesterday, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff publically acknowledged the obvious when he announced that DHS will not meet the 2012 deadline set by Congress to scan every cargo container that comes in to U.S. ports. For those of us involved in the industry, the announcement is hardly surprising.
Congress should establish an independent, bipartisan commission to study the results of the mandate for 100 percent screening of shipping containers and air cargo. The commission should assess the likely threats and look into alternatives for securing global supply chains and report its findings after the 2008 presidential elections so Congress can return to the issue in early 2009 with the politics of the election behind it.
I see from yesterday morning’s press reports that House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson has written another letter to DHS asking about the status of the cargo screening mandate Congress has shoved down the throat of the aviation and maritime industries.
In recent years, Homeland Security officials have emphasized the need for a risk-based approach to cargo screening to provide a high level of security while also allowing for the free flow of goods into the United States through the international supply chain. Despite this success, Congress passed a law last year mandating the 100-percent screening of all cargo shipments coming into the United States. Rather than implementing such a restrictive mandate, Congress should consider collaborating with the private sector to find sensible alternatives for supply chain security. This is precisely the point that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made in a recent speech at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C., where he argued that the government should not try to “micromanage the business operations” of U.S. companies, but should look to partnerships between government and industry to protect the cargo shipment sector and our vital transportation infrastructure.
In the 2007 run-up to the vote on legislation mandating that 100 percent of all cargo be scanned before entering the United States, many in the private and public sectors were surprisingly quiet, especially considering the damage such a mandate will inflict on American trade. Looking back, it is clear that too many folks in both the private and public sectors were overly confident that Congress simply would not pass such an obviously self-destructive piece of legislation. Unfortunately, that confidence was misplaced. In Washington, political posturing often trumps common sense.
Sponsored by:
