States. We disagree. As discussed in this report, a core element of the CSI program, specifically the extent to which U.S.-bound containers carrying high-risk cargo are examined at CSI seaports, is not addressed through CBP’s performance measures. Seaports are critical gateways for the movement of commerce through the international supply chain. The facilities, vessels, and infrastructure within seaports, and the cargo passing through them, all have vulnerabilities that terrorists could exploit. The containers carrying goods that are shipped in oceangoing vessels are of particular concern because they can be filled overseas at many different locations and are transported through complex logistics networks before reaching U.S. seaports. In addition, transporting such a shipping container from its international point of origin to its final destination involves many different participants and many points of transfer. The materials in a container can be affected not only by the manufacturer or supplier of the material being shipped, but also by carriers who are responsible for getting the material to a port and by personnel who load containers onto the ships. Others who interact with the cargo or have access to the records of the goods being shipped include, among others, exporters who make arrangements for shipping and loading, freight consolidators who package disparate cargo into containers, and forwarders who manage and process the information about what is being loaded onto the ship. Figure 1 illustrates many of the key participants and points of transfer involved from the time that a container is loaded for shipping to its arrival at the destination seaport and ultimately the importer. Several studies on maritime security conducted by federal, academic, nonprofit, and business organizations have concluded that the movement of oceangoing cargo in containers is vulnerable to some form of terrorist action, largely because of the movement of cargo throughout the supply chain. Every time responsibility for cargo in containers changes hands along the supply chain there is the potential for a security breach, and thus, vulnerabilities exist that terrorists could take advantage of by placing a WMD into a container for shipment to the United States. While there have been no known incidents of containers being used to transport WMDs, criminals have exploited containers for other illegal purposes, such as smuggling weapons, people, and illicit substances, according to CBP officials. Finally, while CBP has noted that the likelihood of terrorists smuggling WMD into the United States in cargo containers is low, the nation’s vulnerability to this activity and the consequences of such an attack are potentially high. In 2002, Booz Allen Hamilton sponsored a simulated scenario in which the detonation of weapons hidden in cargo containers shut down all U.S. seaports over a period of 12 days. The results of the simulation estimated that the port closure could result in a loss of $58 billion in revenue to the U. S. economy, along with significant disruptions to the movement of trade. The federal government has taken many steps to secure the supply chain, including the cargo in containers destined for the United States. While CBP officials at domestic seaports continue efforts to identify and examine high-risk imports arriving in containers, CBP’s post-September 11 strategy also involves focusing security efforts beyond U.S. borders to target and examine high-risk cargo before it enters U.S. seaports. CBP’s strategy is based on a layered approach of related initiatives that attempt to focus resources on potentially risky cargo shipped in containers while allowing other containers carrying cargo to proceed without unduly disrupting commerce into the United States. CBP has initiated most of these efforts, shown in table 1. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) has led U.S. efforts to detect radiation in cargo containers originating at foreign seaports. CBP uses this computerized decision support tool to review documentation, including electronic manifest information submitted by ocean carriers on all cargo destined for the United States to help identify shipments requiring additional scrutiny. ATS utilizes complex mathematical models with weighted rules that assign a risk score to each shipment based on manifested information. CBP officers review the rule firings that support the ATS score to help them make decisions on the extent of documentary review or examination to be conducted. CBP generally requires ocean carriers to electronically transmit cargo manifests to CBP’s Automated Manifest System 24 hours before the U.S.-bound cargo is loaded onto a vessel at a foreign seaport. Carriers and importers are to provide information to CBP that is used to strengthen how ATS assigns risk scores. The cargo manifest information is submitted by ocean carriers on all arriving cargo shipments, and entry data (more detailed information about the cargo) are submitted by brokers. CSI places staff at participating foreign seaports to work with host country customs officials to target and examine high-risk cargo to be shipped in containers for weapons of mass destruction before they are shipped to the United States. CBP officials identify the high-risk containers and request that their foreign counterparts examine the contents of the containers. CBP develops voluntary partnerships with members of the international trade community comprised of importers; customs brokers; forwarders; air, sea, and land carriers; and contract logistics providers. Private companies agree to improve the security of their supply chains in return for various benefits, such as a reduced likelihood that their containers will be examined. DOE installs radiation detection equipment at key foreign seaports, enabling foreign government personnel to use radiation detection equipment to screen shipping containers entering and leaving these seaports, regardless of the containers’ destination, for nuclear and other radioactive material that could be used against the United States and its allies. Pilot program at selected CSI seaports to scan 100 percent of U.S.-bound cargo containers for nuclear and radiological materials overseas using integrated examination systems that couple nonintrusive inspection equipment and radiation detection equipment. In January 2002, CBP began CSI to target container cargo at overseas seaports so that high-risk cargo could be examined prior to departure for the United States. More recently, Congress passed legislation affecting the CSI program, including (1) the SAFE Port Act enacted in October 2006 that established a statutory framework for CSI and, among other things, required a pilot program, now known as the Secure Freight Initiative, to determine the feasibility of 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound cargo containers at foreign seaports; and (2) the 9/11 Act enacted in August 2007, that, among other things, requires by 2012, the scanning of all U.S.-bound containers at foreign seaports with potential exceptions if a seaport cannot meet that deadline. For the CSI program, CBP officials stated that DHS expended about $138 million and $143 million, respectively for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2008 requested $156 million for CSI. CSI is now operating at 58 seaports in 33 foreign countries, as shown in figure 2. Appendix III lists the specific CSI seaports. According to CBP, the three core elements of CSI include (1) CBP identifying high-risk containers; (2) CBP requesting, where necessary, that host governments examine high-risk containers before they are shipped; and (3) host governments conducting examinations of high-risk containers. To integrate these elements into CSI operations, CBP negotiated and entered into bilateral, nonbinding arrangements with foreign governments, specifying the placement of CBP officials at foreign seaports and the exchange of information between CBP and foreign customs administrations. To participate in CSI, a host nation must meet several criteria developed by CBP. The host nation must utilize (a) a seaport that has regular, direct, and substantial container traffic to seaports in the United States; (b) customs staff with the capability of examining cargo originating in or transiting through its country; and (c) nonintrusive inspection equipment with gamma or X-ray capabilities and radiation detection equipment. Additionally, each potential CSI port must indicate a commitment to (d) establish an automated risk management system for identifying potentially high-risk container cargo; (e) share critical data, intelligence, and risk management information with CBP officials; (f) conduct a seaport assessment to ascertain vulnerable links in a port’s infrastructure and commit to resolving those vulnerabilities; and (g) maintain a program to prevent, identify, and combat breaches in employee integrity. As part of the arrangements with foreign governments participating in CSI, CBP most often stations teams of CBP officers at each foreign seaport to conduct CSI activities in collaboration with host government customs officials. While the number of CBP officers stationed at CSI seaports varies by location, typically a CSI team consists of (1) a CSI team leader, who manages the team and monitors the relationship with the host country; (2) CBP officers, who target high-risk cargo and observe (where possible) the host government’s examination of containers carrying the cargo; (3) an intelligence research specialist, who assimilates data to support timely and accurate targeting of containers; and (4) a special agent responsible for CSI-related investigations at the seaport. According to CBP, it is ideal for the CSI team to be located in close physical proximity with host government customs counterparts to facilitate collaboration and information sharing. However, CBP officials also stated that the agency uses CBP officers stationed at the NTCC as needed to support the CBP officers located at the CSI seaports.