December 2008 USA New Yorker opinion

An expert on defense and military matters at the CATO Institute – a well known Washington, DC think tank – Benjamin Friedman, has suggested that spending on Homeland Security will likely increase under the new administration. But even under the outgoing Republican government, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be coming through with a healthy dose of spending for “Round 9” of the Port Security Grants program – now administered by FEMA.

For the second year in a row, the DHS will be awarding almost $400m to ports to spend on their security infrastructures. Since its inception, the program has evolved towards risk-based awards, as common sense would dictate.

More money on fences, lighting, entry systems and the like is a good thing because of the need for ports to harden and protect their perimeters.

However, where supply chains are involved, some problems require finesse. The Democratic US Congress passed a bill in 2007 meant to implement recommendations contained in the “9/11 Commission” report, including 100% scanning of inbound containers by 2012.

But, the technology to scan those millions of boxes, without slowing them down, is not widely available. Manpower, in the form of skilled inspectors to implement the rules, does not exist either. The DHS, chastened by its dismal Trade Workers’ Identification Card experiences, recognises that Congressional rules may be passed even though suitable technologies are not ready.

Quite sensibly, the DHS has opted for a different approach to cargo security. The program, known as “10 plus 2”, would employ advanced data analysis to identify risky cargo, rather than the blunt force “100% scanning” approach.

In a recent web memorandum on the subject, the Heritage Institute’s Dr James Carafano, another Washington DC think-tanker, says: “…the results of the DHS pilot project [the three port scanning test launched in the 2006 Safe Ports Act] and Congress’s own Government Accountability Office have concluded that the 100% mandate will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement and could significantly damage trade while adding minimal additional security value.”

As we transition to the Obama administration, hopefully its team might talk sense into a Congress that sometime treats maritime security with emotion rather than common sense.