GovernmentExecutive.com

Faced with a looming congressional mandate, current and former Homeland Security Department officials on Wednesday argued against requiring the government to scan all cargo containers before they are shipped to the United States.

At a forum on container security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner W. Ralph Basham and Robert Bonner, who previously led CBP, jumped into the debate over pending legislation that would require the department to ensure that all containers are scanned abroad.

Democrats tucked the mandate into a bill to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The bill could go to House and Senate negotiators this week.

"At CBP, we believe this concept is fundamentally flawed," Basham said of the mandate. "Since 9/11, we have created a risk management system that is currently performing the task of separating high-risk from low-risk shipments very credibly."

The mandate likely would require Homeland Security to verify that each container is scanned for radiation and given an X-ray image scan to determine if it contains any suspect objects. Basham noted that 11 million containers enter the United States each year, a number that could triple within two decades.

"The impact on the flow of commerce would be enormous and the result would be lower profits and higher transportation costs for U.S. imports," he said.

He added that Homeland Security is currently testing programs at three foreign ports to determine if technology exists -- and if it is feasible -- to scan all containers.

"At a minimum, Congress should be willing to wait until we have the results of the overseas scanning pilot currently underway at the three ports," Basham said. "The pilot will give us information on the technical feasibility of 100 percent scanning."

Democrats argue that technology does exist to scan all containers and it will take a congressional mandate to force the government into action.

Bonner also spoke against the mandate. He said the test programs are being done at three smaller ports, and he is not convinced they will yield enough information to determine the feasibility of scanning containers at larger ports. He said radiation scanning might be feasible, but resolving false alarms on X-ray scans likely would create an enormous burden.

Bonner, however, acknowledged the threat that cargo containers could pose. "The greatest vulnerability in my judgment ... and the greatest risk to our ports comes from what moves from abroad and through those ports."

Bonner and Basham said they favor increasing layers of security for cargo containers. To that end, Basham said CBP will issue proposed rules "very soon" for container security devices. The devices would turn containers into "smart boxes" by alerting Homeland Security officials if they are tampered with, Basham said. He said CBP will conduct testing of the devices for up to 90 days and then, if they prove to work, incorporate them into its security regime.

It has not yet been determined, however, whether the government will require industry to use the devices, Basham said.

COMMENTS

• Let's see if I can get this straight... DHS has no problem insisting that millions of US citizens get passports - at $100 a pop - so they can travel across the Mexican and Canadian borders. Despite dumping this massive workload on Dept of State, they insist it is necessary to protect the nation from foreign terrorist threats. At the same time, DHS resists screening of airline cargo. As for shipborne containers - which is the subject of this proposed legislation - DHS admits a container has a 1 in 20 chance of being checked in any way before it leaves the dock and hits the highway or railroad track.(That's what 5% really means). Guess it's clear that DHS is ready to impose costs on citizens, but loath to address bigger risks associated with cargo that might cost business a few more bucks out of their profits. OldTar Posted July 12, 2007 9:04 AM
• I bet if we threw $12 billion a month at this problem that we'd be able to protect America. That's what we're spending on Iraq - where the government over the past six months have achieved NONE of their requested political benchmarks. Our military commanders have said time and time again that this civil war cannot be resolved by the military. It requires the government to reach a political resolve between the warring factions. Iraq's response to America ... We're going to take a month vacation. Take care of our country until we get back. Our borders and ports remain insecure six years after 9/11. Come on, America, wake up to the threats. These terrorists are serious about killing Americans! We need to do whatever it takes to secure our country! Doc Posted July 11, 2007 8:53 PM
• I wonder if the terrorists read this website, 'cause if they do we're in big trouble! Why, simply because this nation is seemingly oblivious to their threats. Can't screen people coming in, can't stop illegal infiltrators, can't look at cargo, can't, can't, can't! The halcyon days (days)of pre-9/11 are gone, but the naive and childish attitudes of the American public persist. Even the Bush lackey, Mr. Chertoff is worried, but nobody listens. Wake up America, we're still losing! US Customs Senior Inspector (Retired) Posted July 12, 2007 8:28 AM