WASHINGTON—The House of Representatives passed legislation last month calling for 100 percent inspection of cargo on passenger airplanes by 2009. The bill also would require all ocean containers entering the United States to be machine-scanned and secured with seals that meet specified standards. And it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish standards for the scanning equipment and seals, including seals that can notify authorities when a container has been breached and track the wherabouts of the box—“as soon as such technology becomes available.”

H.R. 1, Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, is a key piece of the 110th Congress’ 100-hour package of legislation. It includes cargo-screening initiatives that were included in earlier bills that were never signed into law. The bill passed by a 299-128 vote, and it now awaits Senate approval.

Some members of Congress, including the bill’s sponsor, Homeland Security Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey, have long clamored for 100 percent inspection of cargo. But such measures have been rejected before, largely on the grounds that they would be impossible to implement without harming the economy.

That may prove to be the case once again, as cargo-security experts contend that 100 percent inspection is unrealistic and would be detrimental to shippers. “This [bill] is not a good idea because of how it may negatively impact supply chain operations around the world,” said Kelby Woodard, principal of Minneapolis-based Trade Innovations, a supply chain security and customs consultancy. “It does not make good security sense. We have built a system analyzing security risk and mitigating that risk, and now suddenly we are at 100 percent scanning?”

Woodard said that this approach would focus the country’s security resources on one particular solution, instead of focusing on getting the full benefits of existing cargo-screening programs developed under the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), the Container Security Initiative, and the SAFE Ports Act, among others.

If the bill should become law, shippers should prepare for disruptions, said King Rogers, executive vice president of SC-integrity, a provider of security technology and information services in Cook, Minn. “This is truly a logistical nightmare for cargo and container scanning,” he said. “I am not certain that this bill does a good job of defining what screening means. It will require a huge amount of capital to fund all of the scanning devices, and I am not sure who is going to pay for that.”

Rogers voiced skepticism about the technology platforms specified in the current version of the legislation. “As far as I know, no technology described in the bill really exists today,” he said.

Both Woodard and Rogers suggested that a multilayered approach to security may be the optimal way to go. Rogers also said that it makes sense to screen cargo that appears to present a risk based on established risk factors. In that case, he estimated, approximately 10 percent of cargo would need to be screened rather than 100 percent.

The bill does have some support in the transportation community. Capt. Joseph Ahlstrom, professor of maritime transportation at SUNY Maritime College, said he believes H.R. 1 is “a step in the right direction.” Whether the goal of 100 percent security is attainable now or in the future, though, is a question, he said. “The fact is, we do screen everybody who gets on a plane. If we can get the technology to screen all of the cargo moving in and out of the United States, then we are there. I think that technology is our limiting factor. The will is there, but the IT is not.”

Even Ahlstrom expects the bill to fail because it would create a chaotic backup that would not only harm the U.S. economy but would also create even more of a security risk.

At press time, it looked like his prediction might be correct: Rep. Bennie Thompson told the Associated Press that it appeared unlikely that the Senate would sign off on the bill because of the cargo-screening provisions.