• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Congress Gambled on 100% Scanning and Came Up Short

    The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing today on container security. The bottom line was that 100 percent scanning of containers is not possible or practical much to the surprise of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ). This conclusion was made after the Department of Homeland Security finished their report on the pilot program Secure Freight Initiative, where they employed scanners at three selected ports. Simply put, 100 percent scanning is not possible because the technology doesn’t exist. Not all shipments go through a gate at a port; many go through a process called transshipment, where the containers are transferred from one ship to another, without passing through a gate. This fact was supported by all three witnesses.

    Of course this information would have been a lot more useful, if Congress didn’t jump the gun and mandate 100 percent scanning before hearing the results of the Secure Freight Initiative. Senator Lautenberg at first asked whether DHS would meet the 2012 deadline. After Assistant Commissioner Ahern repeatedly expressed there was no way to tell because the technology doesn’t exist, the Senator switched tactics. He began claiming that DHS had said 100 percent scanning was possible during the debate prior to the bill. As Ahern prominently noted, that was never the case.

    Despite not being technically possible, witnesses spelled out a long list of reasons why 100 percent scanning was not favorable to enhancing security. The costs are not worth the gain. Even by scanning 100 percent of containers, Americans do not become 100 percent secure. It has already cost DHS, and DOE $30 million each to run this pilot program in 3 ports. There are well over 700 ports in the world. Meanwhile, other countries would have to pay $8 million per lane a year. The port in Hong Kong has 10 lanes. If that wasn’t enough to deter somebody, these costs don’t reflect those imposed to commerce. If the DHS were to implement 100 percent scanning, “commerce would come to a halt” as Ahern noted. In addition, countries have claimed that if the U.S. were to require 100 percent scanning, there would be reciprocity. Meaning the United States would have to scan every outbound container.

    With the excessive amount of information available about the capabilities and costs of scanning, Congress should reevaluate its decision on container security.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Congress Gambled on 100% Scanning and Came Up Short

    1. Dean , North Caroli says:

      it was well known by all of us in the industry of international logistics that 100% scanning was not possible, practicle nor would it have the intended effect desired. now we have spent 30 Million to come to conclusion that could have been, had been given and we are still giving at a round table discussion.

    2. james, New York says:

      how easy is it for a terrorist to smuggle a radiological weapon into our country? Way too easy. We're taking chances with our security, and that's not making us any safer.

      we only actually look at 5 percent of every container coming in to the u.S.

      Even if we only scan some containers coming into the country- at least we can avoid another 9/11 situation, by not shutting down the entire shipping system. we can be sure that at least those containers from ports that have scanning are safe.

      security is never a waste of our tax dollars, when our economy depends on it.

    3. Steve says:

      OK, so it cost eight million per lane per year, but how many containers per lane per year?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.