McDermott -- Opening Statement: Trade Subcommittee Hearing on Customs Reauthorization

Trade Subcommittee Hearing on Customs Reauthorization

(Remarks as Prepared)

I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and thank all our witnesses for coming.

To start, I want to recognize the tremendous challenges faced by CBP and Acting Commissioner Aguilar. Your agency is tasked with protecting our borders from a range of security threats – a task that rightly became a central priority after 9/11. Your agency also has to facilitate legitimate trade in goods across our borders – a task that is all the more complex given the exponential rise in trade.

Since Customs was subsumed into the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, our Committee has expressed significant concern that CBP has not met this dual mandate, and we have pushed CBP to sharpen its trade focus – both through statutory mandates and through oversight.

Former Commissioner Bersin, and now Commissioner Aguilar, and key members of the CBP team, have worked to respond to our concerns and you have made real progress.

But, even with this progress, CBP is facing challenges with the trade side of its mandate.

We are working our way towards a customs reauthorization bill, so we are here today to understand the nature and origin of the problems, and to look for solutions.

There are three areas I hope we can focus on: (1) bringing the U.S. Government's system for processing imports into the 21st century; (2) ensuring CBP gets off the sidelines and fulfills its obligation to stop foreign companies from evading our trade remedy laws; and (3) ensuring that CBP can partner with our innovative companies to stop imports which undermine U.S. intellectual property.

On the development of CBP's computer systems – the need is clear. Our current system of processing imports is, simply put, inefficient. Importers submit duplicative data and paper documents to CBP and other regulatory agencies just to have their goods cleared at a port.

I come from a high-tech district – and just on the face of it, this redundant, paper based system not only costs importers time and money as they wait for goods to clear – but it also costs CBP and other agencies wasted time and money.

CBP's mismanagement of ACE's development hurt businesses, our economy and Congress lost some faith in CPB to get the job done. Now, I understand that in the past 2 years, CBP has taken good steps to get ACE back on track.

Today, I hope to get a better sense today of how real that progress is, and whether it is significant enough that the Committee should support continued development of the ACE/ITDS system.

I think an electronic, one-stop system for importers would the great trade facilitation benefits for businesses and, over time, could be a platform from which CBP can finally automate a range of other programs, such as "drawback" and "in-bond cargo".

On evasion of trade remedy laws, CBP's failure to act even when affected U.S. industries provide CBP with very specific information about evasion is unacceptable. The purpose of the AD/CVD duties is to level an unfair playing field which is harming our companies.

If CBP does not take adequate steps to collect those duties, CBP is allowing that harm to continue.

Finally, on protection of U.S. intellectual property, the Administration, ICE and CBP deserve credit for the work being done at the National IPR Center to target and stop infringing imports.

There are two areas where CBP should partner with our innovative companies to bolster this work. The first is effective implementation of a provision enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act to allow CBP to share details on products suspected of being fakes with the rights holders.

The second is giving CBP the authority to share illegal devices used to infringe on copyrighted works, such as video games, with the rights holders. I hope to work with the Administration and the Committee to address both these issues.

Thank you.

# # #