GovernmentExecutive.com

A system used by the Homeland Security Department to help inspectors identify high-risk cargo coming into U.S. seaports needs improvement in order to better screen for weapons of mass destruction, according to a new report.

In a summary report released this week, the Homeland Security Department's inspector general found deficiencies in an inspection system used by the Customs and Border Protection Bureau.

Called the Automated Targeting System, it is used by CBP inspectors at domestic and foreign ports to help identify high-risk cargo containers for inspection. About 9 million containers arrive annually at U.S. seaports, making it impossible to physically inspect each of them without hampering the flow of commerce.

The full report is classified. But, according to Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., who lead the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the report concluded that the container information supplied to ATS was insufficient and CBP has failed to improve the system.

The lawmakers said the report shows that DHS still knows far too little about the contents of cargo containers.

"Customs and Border Protection has touted its targeting system as key to its approach to container security, but much more remains to be done to improve the way we examine containers coming to our ports," the senators wrote in a press release. "While CBP had to roll out this system quickly following the 9/11 attacks, it must strive to continually enhance the capabilities. We urge DHS to address the deficiencies identified in the IG report as quickly as possible."

Physical controls over containers selected for examination also need to be improved, the IG report stated. The report made several recommendations, all of which CBP agreed need to be addressed.

"The overseas segment of the supply chain is the most problematic since it includes all initial handling and movement of the containers from the loading of the container to placing the container onboard a U.S.-bound vessel, and is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government," the report added. "Improved security over this segment of the supply chain requires leveraging the authority of foreign governments through diplomacy."

COMMENTS

• To SSA ICE - Wow Customs Patrol Officers - what a great outfit they were. I am an old INS II and I noticed the same thing. More passengers and employees but fewer fraud intercepts. Can one look at this in light of the composition of your average wal-mart workforce and say honestly that the shortcuts have resulted in deterrence? Until you get back to developing the old sweats who knew what they hell they were doing on a local basis and applied it we are less than than the sum of our parts. I wonder if all primary inspection is going to be done by machines one day soon. Training and deployment of new officers makes me think so. Stamp Monkey Posted August 10, 2005 11:53 AM
• Yes, yes, and yes! I've been there, done that! The wonderful term 'selectivity' we used to use simply means not enough personnel to do the job right, so we (gasp), profile, or outline, or whatever. The bottom line is the the DHS is a REALLY BAD JOKE, and America will suffer for it. Each job in the DHS pantheon is a separate, and distinct career. When you hire (1)person for a DHS officer, you expect "one face at the border". What a bad joke...The next time you go to a hospital, ask about this naive and childish concept, and see if the ward nurse can perform a heart bypass operation, or the doctor can give you your medications regularily. The US government is not private industry, which is currently flawed, and corrupt. Remember the historic quote: "The love of money is the root of all evil". Case closed. GovExec.com reader Posted August 8, 2005 10:43 PM
• I began my federal career as a U.S. Customs Inspector in a major American seaport over 25 years ago. At that time, Customs had inspectors stationed on every working pier, as well as special units that profiled incoming cargo shipments and conducted intensified inspections for narcotics and other contraband. ALL shipments were examined, to some extent. Usually this meant opening one or more boxes at random, or pulling out samples for the import specialists. EVERY container was opened for a tailgate examination, which often revealed discrepancies between what the manifest and invoice said, and the way the cargo actually appeared to the practiced eye of an inspector who knew from experience what usually came in, from where, and to whom. Any deviation was noted, and inspected as necessary. Suspect shipments were subjected to more intensified examinations, including stripping containers, or examining every piece if necessary. Then Customs, under pressure from big business and Congress, decided that this was too time-consuming, and expensive, although the real delays at the docks were due to the clerks of the ILA, not Customs. The Automated Commercial System, or ACS (soon to be known to us as the "Anyone Can Smuggle" system) was instituted, and cleared shipments automatically. Even shipments that were flagged as being worthy of examination, due to intelligence or other factors, were often released electronically. In addition, inspectors were pulled off the piers, and put on nomadic roving teams, resulting in less deterrence to smugglers, cargo thieves, and illegal alien stowaways. Not to mention the dissolution of the Customs Patrol Officers, whose renowned ship searching expertise is sorely missed, as is their presence at the pier gates to search crewmembers, longshoremen, and visitors. Many narcotics, stolen cargo, and other seizures were made then, but few are now, in spite of increased cargo volume. Are we really any safer today, with all this high-tech? I have yet to see a computer make a seizure or an arrest. There is no replacement for a trained and experienced Customs (or now CBP) officer on the front lines, defending this nation at the border. GovExec.com reader Posted August 8, 2005 4:46 PM