[Senate Hearing 107-341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-341
NORTHERN BORDER SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
OCTOBER 3, 2001--WASHINGTON, DC
DECEMBER 5, 2001--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-844 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terry Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia TED STEVENS, Alaska
(ex officio) (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Chip Walgren
Nicole Rutberg
Pat Raymond (Minority)
Lula Edwards (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, October 3, 2001
Page
Statement of Robert C. Bonner, Commissioner, U.S. Customs
Service, Department of Treasury................................ 1
Opening statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan..................... 1
Statement of Senator Mike DeWine................................. 4
Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy............................ 4
Statement of Senator Conrad Burns................................ 5
Statement of Robert C. Bonner.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Statement of James W. Ziglar, Commissioner, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Department of Justice.................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Statement of Senator Patty Murray................................ 19
Prepared statement of Colleen Kelley, President, National
Treasury Employees Union....................................... 42
Prepared statement of Senator Carl Levin......................... 43
Questions submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan................... 44
Questions submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski............... 52
Questions submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell........... 52
Wednesday, December 5, 2001
Opening statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan..................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Statement of Hon. Charles Schumer, U.S. Senator from New York.... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Statement of Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator from Michigan.... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Statement of Hon. John Hoeven, Governor, State of North Dakota... 66
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Statement of Hon. Howard Dean, Governor, State of Vermont........ 70
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Statement of Hon. Dick Posthumus, Lieutenant Governor, State of
Michigan....................................................... 72
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator from New
York........................................................... 78
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Statement of Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg, Chairman,
Homeland Security, Adjutants General Association of the United
States......................................................... 81
Statement of Major General Michael Haugen, Adjutant General of
North Dakota................................................... 81
Prepared statement of Senator Carl Levin......................... 84
Prepared statement of Senator Judd Gregg......................... 86
Prepared statement of Judy Martz, Governor, State of Montana..... 87
Prepared statement of Gary Locke, Governor, State of Washington.. 89
Prepared statement of George E. Pataki, Governor, State of New
York......................................................92
(iii)
NORTHERN BORDER SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Treasury and
General Government,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:32 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan and DeWine.
Also present: Burns, Leahy, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
U.S. Customs Service
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BONNER, COMMISSIONER
opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. This hearing will come to order. This is
the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal and General Government of
the Senate Appropriations Committee. We welcome the two
witnesses who have joined us, Commissioner Bonner, the Customs
Commissioner, and Commissioner Ziglar, the Commissioner of the
Immigration Service.
This hearing is to discuss the issue of border security,
and especially today we will talk about northern border
security. It is my intention to hold a series of hearings on
border security. While there are questions and interesting
things to talk about a wide range of security issues dealing
with our borders, I want to especially this morning at today's
hearing talk about northern border security.
All of us know that the tragic events of September 11 have
persuaded this country that we must do much, much more to make
sure that we protect the security of our country. A country
cannot and will not be secure unless it has secure borders. We
are a free country with substantial traffic, and freight, and
people coming across our border, and we do not want to change
that. By the same token, we want to make sure that we keep out
of this country those who are not supposed to come in, and
especially that we are vigilant in trying to determine and
detect those who are suspected terrorists who we want to
prevent from coming into our country.
Both of the agencies that will testify here today stand on
the front lines of protecting our borders. In my home State of
North Dakota, and my colleagues at the dais all represent
States that border Canada on the northern side, we have remote
border crossings. Every day we have a few people, in most cases
one or two people, standing guard, vigilant in trying to make
sure that those borders are secure.
The agencies here stand shoulder to shoulder at our border
stations. I was at one in Pembina, North Dakota on the United
States-Canadian border last Friday and I must tell you that
those who are serving our country at these remote sites at the
ports of entry between the United States and Canada are very
committed and serve our country very well. They carry out a
very substantial task for this Nation, to ensure the safety of
our republic by protecting our borders. As I said, if we do not
have basic control of our borders then we stand very little
chance, in my judgment, of keeping terrorists out of this
country.
I have long believed that the northern border of our
country is particularly vulnerable and I want to talk about
that today. The northern border extends nearly 4,000 miles, and
as I have stated many times, it is woefully understaffed. I was
at the port of entry in Pembina when I heard loud and clear,
not only from Federal workers at Pembina but also local law
enforcement agencies that they just need more people. Kittson
County, Minnesota Sheriff Ray Hunt said, a big part of the
solution is to put more people out here. Very simple, but
clear.
Even if we had more staff, in many cases we lack the
infrastructure necessary to adequately and safely screen the
millions of passengers and trucks and tons of cargo which enter
this country every day. As I understand it, about 340,000
vehicles entry this country from all ports every single day;
58,000 carriers of cargo enter this country every single day;
and 1.3 million people come across our borders every single
day. The agencies here are agencies that are required every day
to be there to evaluate whether people have the right to come
into this country, who they are and what their business is.
Now my concern about the northern border, and I suspect it
is shared by a number of my colleagues, is that we are not only
understaffed but we lack the necessary facilities. I have an
orange cone here which represents the security at a good number
of our northern border ports of entry. This orange cone, as you
might imagine, is inexpensive. It is also ineffective.
I was told on Friday at one of the ports of entry in North
Dakota that some people, when they enter this country after
10:00 at night and this orange cone is placed in the middle of
the road, some people actually get out of their car and move
the cone and then drive through it. Others have no such
courtesy. They come whipping through at 60 miles an hour and
just shred the cone. But at 10:00 at night when a number of
these border stations close and they put a cone in the middle
of the road, this is America's security at a border crossing.
It is not enough. It is not enough to protect this country.
So let me just show a couple of charts.
Senator Leahy. At least you get a reflector. We do not get
a reflector.
Senator Dorgan. I will show you a couple of others.
Actually at some ports of entry they have done better than one
orange cone; they put up multiple orange cones. In the second
port of entry I will show you what else they do. If they want
to go higher tech than an orange cone, we have a stop sign on a
small metal gate telling people that this port is closed and
you really ought to turn around or you might get fined.
My point is not to make fun of anybody. It is simply to
say, this represents the ability that the resources offer these
agencies to conduct their business at these ports, and it is
not enough.
Now well before the attacks of September 11, we in the
Senate had been talking about this on the Appropriations
Committee. In fact in this Subcommittees mark we included $25
million in additional resources this year for something that I
called the Northern Border Initiative, to hire additional
agents, inspectors, canine enforcement teams to enforce our
trade laws and protect our borders. I understand that the
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee also
provided a substantial amount of money for the INS hires and
infrastructure needs.
Of course, in light of the events of September 11 this, in
my judgment, is merely a down payment. I am sure a much, much
larger requirement is in store for the Customs Service and INS
and I expect we will hear some about that today.
Let me be quick to say, your agencies are not without
tools, from long range patrol aircraft and marine vessels, to
advanced technology with which to examine the incredible volume
of cargo entering our 301 ports of entry. We commend you for
doing a seemingly impossible task. What you lack in manpower,
technology, or infrastructure you make up in innovation and the
sheer determination of many wonderful inspectors and agents
around the country.
But it is not enough. We have asked you here to discuss
these efforts and your needs. One major question is how the
additional emergency funds we provided a few weeks ago in
response to the attacks might be allocated; see whether you
have some information about that. We assume that your agencies
are weighing in with the Office of Management and Budget and
the Administration in making a strong case for the additional
resources. We want to help you meet your needs because we want
to help make our border secure.
As I indicated, we are aware that after September 11 you
redoubled your efforts at the borders, the seaports, and the
airports. Every person I talked to from your two agencies at
the border has been working long, long hours for many, many
days and I deeply admire their commitment. I know your
resources are stretched from this effort so I have asked you to
discuss with us the northern border security needs today.
The American people, as all of us know, need confidence
that we are going to prevent future acts of terrorism by being
very vigilant among our border ports of entry to make sure
those who should not come into our country are not getting into
our country. So let me thank you for being here.
As I indicated earlier, we will have additional hearings.
There is a southern border. We, of course, have had more
resources at the southern border dealing with immigration,
drugs and terrorism. And we will also explore that at a future
time. But, I would like especially today to talk about the
northern border issues.
We are joined by a number of my colleagues and I would like
to recognize them. Senator DeWine was here first. Senator
DeWine?
statement of senator mike dewine
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because
I am looking forward to hearing the testimony from our
witnesses. I want to thank you for holding this hearing this
morning.
As you point out, for any number of reasons, our focus on
our border has been primarily in the South. Events of the last
several weeks have shown us the importance of that northern
border. We have a tough challenge as a country. A tremendous
amount of, not only traffic, but goods go through that northern
border as well as our southern border. We have to balance the
security interests of this country along with the economic
needs of our country. Obviously if it is a choice between the
two, security must come first.
I look forward to having the opportunity to question both
of our witnesses today, Mr. Chairman, about some of these
particular questions in regard to our northern border. Thank
you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Leahy?
statement of senator patrick j. leahy
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Senator Campbell for inviting me to come here even though--
I am on the full committee; not on this subcommittee. I just
want to make a couple comments. I am delighted that
Commissioner Bonner and Commissioner Ziglar are here. They
bring a great deal of expertise and knowledge to this
situation.
You point out the lack of staffing on the northern border
and I could not agree with you more, Mr. Chairman. We do have
lack of both resources and staffing on the northern border. My
home State of Vermont has seen huge increases in Customs and
INS activity since the signing of NAFTA. The number of people
coming through our borders has risen steeply over the years and
our staff and our resources have not.
I am very familiar with the border. I live less than an
hour's drive from the border in Vermont. I go across it quite
often and have a pretty good sense of what we have there. I
usually hear, when I go through, from the people at the border
crossings, our two major ones at Derby Line and Highgate
Springs. I cannot tell you how many times the Customs employees
there have talked to me about the need for more people. I have
heard very similar to what Senator Dorgan has heard in North
Dakota.
There seems to be this disconnect between what the people
who are on the job, in the field say they need and what we hear
in Washington on the organizational charts of what they need.
There is an awful lot of difference. These attacks make these
differing views even more troubling. Make them more obvious,
but they make them more troubling.
I do not pretend that Vermont is the only northern State
with this problem. Every one of our northern States--we have
4,000 miles of our northern border. There are 1,773 Customs
agents. We have a 2,000 mile long southern border. We have
8,000 agents along that border. About five times more along the
southern border which is only half the length of our northern
border. The INS has similar discrepancies.
Frankly, it seems to me the entire upper tier of our
country has lost out to the southwestern border and the
stalemated war on drugs. When we see what happened September
11, we know how crucial it is to even things out.
I commend the leadership of this committee. Before
September 11 they added $25 million to increase Customs agents
in the North. It is desperately needed.
Now the anti-terrorism bill that is working its way through
the Judiciary Committee has a section--I would ask you both to
take a look at it. I have every reason to believe it will be in
the final package because it will be accepted before we have
the final package. It triples the number of Border Patrol
agents, INS inspectors, and Customs Service personnel in each
northern border State. It directs $50 million for INS and $50
million for Customs to improve technology and acquire
additional equipment for use on the northern border. It waives
the cap on the number of full-time employees that can be
assigned to the INS as applied to the northern border. It
allows the Attorney General to authorize additional overtime
pay for INS officers to ensure that experienced personnel are
available. And it gives INS access to criminal history record
information contained in the FBI's National Crime Information
Center databases.
So I want you to take a look at that. I think you are going
to find it is going to help you a great deal. I have been
pleased by a number of members of the Judiciary Committee in
both parties, whether they are from the north or not, who have
joined onto that. I think it is going to help you and I want
you to take a look at it. Afterwards, get back to me or my
staff, let me know what you think about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Leahy, thank you very much.
Senator Burns?
statement of senator conrad burns
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
for holding this hearing. When you say there is almost 4,000
miles of Canadian border, let me tell you, I represent a State
where 25 percent of that border is between us and Canada. I
think it presents unique problems for not only the Customs
people but the Immigration people, especially in North Dakota
and Montana because we are similar. We have similar cultures.
The border has always been porous. In other words, the
chairman held up the cone today and talked about this is our
security. He should have gone on and said that they do not have
to run over the cone. In fact they do not even have to go to
the cone. They can just go 100 yards to the right or left and
go across the border. We have farmers in Montana that farm both
sides of the border. They farm in Canada. They also farm in
Montana. There are country roads that have no barrier at all in
crossing between the United States and into Alberta or
Saskatchewan.
So we have a unique problem on our northern border. I think
we will have to ask our questions, yes, we like them secure,
but we also like them so that they work. I think the chairman
has done something that is very important here, that the more
people we have and can give us more flexibility in those
crossings and make them more facilitate commerce and what we
have to do on both sides of the border, because we do go back
and forth a lot.
I think we will have to ask a lot of questions of the two
gentlemen that are in front of us today about will we shift
away from video inspection and consequently more on
concentrated of human staffing? Are we going to get away from
that? Montana, we got gates that will not close. They are
rusted open, so to speak, and the facilities are not good. And
we have people that are really over-taxed as far as deployment
of their duties. They are standing 12-hour shifts and these
type things. So the concentration of the traffic is going to
have to be facilitated also.
But we have unique situations. It is because we have
similar cultures that we do not think before--the agriculture
in Montana and North Dakota is similar to the ones that are in
Alberta and Saskatchewan. So we are faced with that. And we
exchange with the movement of livestock, the movement of farm
machinery, the movement of a myriad of things, goods and
services that are used, I would say, within 20 or 30 miles of
the border either side of it. So we have to look at those
things too.
So these hearings are essential. They are very important.
Just like I said, the security of the country has to be looked
at first. We know that it is going to inconvenience some of us,
but I think it is an inconvenience that the American people are
willing to accept at this time in order to protect our borders.
Because we know one thing, terrorism is faceless. It is also
gutless. And it moves between Nations without we even seeing
them. We know that movement in and out of the country, and the
freezing of their money and their accounts is something that is
going to slow them down a little bit. But it will not make us
100 percent safe. That is a very serious challenge that this
country has to face.
So I thank both you gentlemen for what you do. I thank the
chairman for holding this hearing, keeping in mind that it is
bigger than just a cone. There is a lot of dirt between light
bulbs out there, and that is where these people operate. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Burns, thank you very much.
Let me again say that the attack on September 11 was an
attack on freedom everywhere. I should have mentioned, and did
not in my opening statement, that Canada is a good friend of
ours. We have a long, common border. We have a great deal in
common. Canada also cherishes its freedoms. The attack on the
World Trade Center was on a center that really represented the
world. It was an attack on all free countries in the world, and
Canada shares a common purpose with us.
I want to say that when we talk about the northern border,
it must be, in my judgment, in close cooperation with the
Canadians in order for us to do what we need to do on the
northern border to prevent terrorists from moving back and
forth across our border. We had a circumstance in Port Angeles,
Washington which could have resulted in dramatic terrorist acts
against this country that was foiled. That is up on the
Canadian side, and coming into this country they apprehended
the person that was going to commit terrorist acts. But that is
just an example of what can happen in the future, and it is an
example of why we must be vigilant.
Finally, let me say again, America cannot effectively
combat terrorism if it first does not control its borders. Very
simple, but plain. Our country cannot effectively combat
terrorism if it does not control its borders. That is what this
is all about.
Now let me introduce Commissioner Bonner. Commissioner, you
have a long history of service to our country. We appreciate
your being here. You have just been confirmed by the Senate. I
was pleased to be supportive of that confirmation, and we are
pleased that you have assumed the role of leader of the Customs
Service at this point. Why don't you proceed? Your full
statement will be made a part of the record. Following that we
will hear from Commissioner Ziglar and then we will open it up
for questions.
statement of robert c. bonner
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan, and Senator DeWine.
I want to thank you for the invitation, Mr. Chairman, to
testify before this committee today, particularly with respect
to the issue of securing America's northern borders.
This, as you know, is my first appearance before the
committee. In fact it is my first appearance before any
committee of Congress since being sworn in as the commissioner
of Customs a week ago last Monday. Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank you for your support in accelerating my confirmation both
here and in the Senate.
I have submitted a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and
with your permission what I intend to do is simply to summarize
or highlight a few things that I said in the prepared
statement.
First of all, as the guardian of the Nation's borders,
Customs unquestionably has a big role to play in the struggle
against the forces of terror, terrorists, and the implements of
terrorism, in the struggle in which our country is now engaged.
The U.S. Customs Service, I think it is fair to say, is a
vital link in the chain of homeland security, and in light of
the attacks on our country on September 11. I certainly am
committed to do everything in my power to secure our borders,
all of our borders, against terrorists and the implements of
terrorism. And to do everything in my power to see that our
borders are secure, both our land border with Canada, a long
4,000-mile land border, as well as our seaports and our
airports. That is certainly my highest priority, and I can
assure this committee that is the highest priority of the
Customs Service.
The northern border is a major focus of our efforts. Given
this country's historic partnership with Canada--Mr. Chairman
you just mentioned that--the length of that shared border, and
the huge flow of travel and trade that crosses between our two
Nations we must work together, now more than ever, with our
Canadian partners to increase protection of our mutual
interest.
I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the
strong cooperation between the United States Customs Service
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, particularly I
might say, with Commissioner Ziglar's service in these past
several weeks.
Customs has consulted closely with Commissioner Ziglar and
his staff, for example, prior to the implementation of a Level
1 alert that was put into effect on the morning of September
11, very shortly after the attacks occurred on our country in
New York and on the Pentagon that morning. We have monitored
the effects of our increased security as a result of the Level
1 alert together in order to minimize traffic and delays, while
at the same time maintaining the level of security that is
commensurate with the threat.
We have also stepped up our efforts between Customs, the
INS, and the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs to
ensure that information gathered through the advanced passenger
information system, which is our database on arriving
commercial air passengers, is exchanged between our agencies in
a timely and secure way.
Turning to Customs' efforts on the northern border, Mr.
Chairman, as you know the Customs Service was addressing
security along our border with Canada well before the attacks
of September 11. The arrest, as you alluded to a moment ago,
the arrest of an Algerian terrorist known as the millennium
bomber, Ahmed Ressam, by Customs inspectors at Port Angeles,
Washington, which was less than 2 years ago, set into motion a
number of measures to bolster security on our northern flank.
This subcommittee was instrumental in helping Customs to
implement those initiatives.
However, in my judgment, we clearly must do more in light
of the terrorist attacks of September 11. We are currently
working with the Department of the Treasury and the
Administration to ensure that the challenges faced by Customs
are addressed as part of the Administration's counter-terrorism
supplemental bill. This funding will help us to address both
our workload and the national security needs that have been
clearly underscored as a result of the attacks on September 11.
As I mentioned, as part of our response to the terrorist
threat U.S. Customs went to a Level 1 alert immediately
following those attacks for all Customs personnel at all ports
of entry into the United States. That is the highest state of
alert, calling for sustained, intensive, anti-terrorist
operations. We are still at Level 1 alert today. I might say,
we are likely to be at Level 1 alert at least for the
foreseeable future.
All ports of entry have increased vehicle, passenger,
cargo, and mail examinations that are commensurate with the
threat at their particular location. We have suspended
dedicated commuter lane programs and remote inspection
reporting systems. Every port of entry has been ordered to be
staffed, and it is certainly my goal----
Senator Dorgan. Can you repeat that last point? You
suspended----
Mr. Bonner. Yes. Customs has suspended dedicated commuter
lane programs and remote inspection reporting systems. They are
inadequate, in my judgment, to maintain the security that we
must maintain at our northern border. Every port of entry has
been ordered to be staffed with at least two officers. That is
24 by 7. That is, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Nearly 100
additional Customs inspectors so far have been temporarily
detailed to northern border posts by the Customs Service to
ensure that this minimum applies to even our remotest ports of
entry.
No point of entry or port of entry into the United States,
in my judgment, at this time can be left unsecured. I think it
is time that--certainly, Mr. Chairman, I want to retire those
orange cones. At least I think it is time that we do that.
While Customs is sustaining a Level 1 alert through these
measures, the fact is that we are expending an enormous amount
of overtime, far beyond normal times. We are asking our people
to work much longer and harder hours as, Mr. Chairman, you
learned yourself when you were up in North Dakota on Friday. I
am concerned that just the amount of hours is going to lead to
some burn-out of our good Customs inspectors that are manning
these ports of entry.
We are also asking for the public and the trade
communities' patience as we work to protect our country from
the immediate threat. Responsibility for America's safety must
be shared by all. I am pleased to report that despite some
initial concerns about the Level 1 alert causing inordinate
delays--and they were causing, by the way, very, very long
delays, particularly at the Michigan border entry points. I am
talking about the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, Port Huron, and
so forth.
We have in fact, within 4 or 5 days, succeeded in reducing
substantially the wait times at the border to levels that right
now are at or near what they were prior to September 11 while
still being at a Level 1 alert. We have done that through
working with the industry and coming up with some very good
initiatives. The Customs Service has come up with some very
good initiatives that have been helpful to alleviate those wait
times.
That has involved consultation and cooperation with our
partners in the business community, particularly, by the way, I
might say the U.S. automobile manufacturers. That was, in my
judgment, also very instrumental to our success in reducing
those very lengthy wait times that resulted from a Level 1
alert right after September 11.
We will continue to work with the private sector to devise
solutions that meet the needs of business without compromising
our national security. The $25 million for northern border
staffing provided, Mr. Chairman, by the Senate-passed version
of our fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill will help Customs
to meet its manpower needs. But I certainly will continue to
explore and am exploring the other options and requirements
that are necessary to strengthen our security along the
northern border.
While our highest priority must be the security of our
Nation's borders and its ports of entry, efforts to modernize
the Customs Service must continue. Certainly that includes the
development of the automated commercial environment, or the ACE
program. I look forward to working with this committee with
respect to continuing that infrastructure improvement at the
U.S. Customs Service.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we are fully committed
to the fight against terrorism, and to the security of our
borders, both north and south. We look to our trusted friend
and partner, Canada, to assist us. In fact I might say that one
of the very first calls that I received after assuming my
duties as the Commissioner of the United States Customs Service
came from Rob Wright, who is the Canadian customs and revenue
commissioner. Commissioner Wright pledged his support and
cooperation of Canada, Canadian customs, in working with us to
prevent terrorism and the implements of terrorism from crossing
our northern border. I am planning to meet, by the way, with
Commissioner Wright soon and will personally discuss with him
our joint security efforts.
prepared statement
This subcommittee has also been of invaluable assistance to
Customs in the past and I expect will be more so in the future
as we work to protect America against terrorism. I look forward
to working with you, Mr. Chairman, Senator DeWine, with the
subcommittee in the future and I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have of me.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert C. Bonner
Chairman Dorgan, Senator Campbell, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for your invitation to testify on the role of the United
States Customs Service in securing America's Northern Border.
This is my first appearance before the Congress as Commissioner of
U.S. Customs, an office I am extremely proud to hold.
As the guardian of our Nation's borders, Customs has a major role
to play in the great struggle against the forces of terror in which
America is now engaged.
The Customs Service is a vital link in the chain of Homeland
Security. We will continue to do everything in our power to strengthen
America's defenses all along our frontiers.
Of course, the Northern Border is a major focus of our efforts.
Given the United States' historic partnership with Canada, the breadth
of our shared border, and the immense flow of travel and trade between
our two Nations, we must work together to enhance the protection of our
vital interests at this critical time.
I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the fine
cooperation between Customs and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service over these past few weeks.
Customs consulted closely with Commissioner Ziglar and his staff
prior to implementation of the Level 1 Alert put into effect following
the monstrous terrorist attacks of September 11.
We have continually monitored the effects of our increased security
measures together to minimize traffic and travel delays.
We have also stepped up efforts between Customs, the INS, and the
State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs to ensure that
information gathered through the Advance Passenger Information System,
our database on arriving commercial air passengers, is exchanged
between our agencies in a secure and timely way.
Turning to Customs efforts on the Northern Border, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, the Customs Service was addressing security along our
frontier with Canada well before the attacks of September 11.
The previous arrest of an Algerian terrorist, the millennium bomber
Ahmed Ressam, by Customs inspectors at Port Angeles, Washington, in
December 1999 set into motion a range of measures to bolster security
along our northern flank.
This Subcommittee was instrumental in helping Customs to implement
those initiatives. However, we clearly must do more in light of the
recent terrorist attacks.
Customs is currently working with the Department of the Treasury
and the Administration to ensure that the challenges faced by the
agency are addressed as part of the Administration's counter terrorism
supplemental bill. This funding will help us to address both our
workload and national security needs.
Trade and travel between the U.S. and Canada has jumped
dramatically since the implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement in 1994.
Protecting our expanding economic ties with Canada, while
preventing terrorists from exploiting increased traffic flows, is our
goal on the Northern Border.
As part of our response to the terrorist threat, U.S. Customs
implemented a Level One Alert immediately following the attacks for all
personnel and ports of entry. This is our highest state of alert,
calling for sustained, intensive anti-terrorist operations.
We remain at Level 1 alert today.
All ports of entry have increased vehicle, passenger, cargo, and
mail examinations commensurate with the threat at their location.
We have suspended dedicated commuter lane programs and remote
inspection reporting systems.
Every port of entry has been ordered to be staffed with at least
two officers, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Nearly 100 additional Customs inspectors have been temporarily
detailed to northern border posts, to ensure that this minimum applies
even to our remotest ports.
While Customs is sustaining the Level one alert through these
measures, the fact is we are expending a vast amount of overtime,
asking our people to work much longer, harder hours.
We have also been asking for the public's and the trade community's
patience as we work to protect our Nation from the immediate threat.
Responsibility for America's safety must be shared by all.
I am pleased to report that, despite initial concerns about our
Level One alert placing an undue burden upon normal border flows, we
have in fact succeeded in reducing waiting times at the border to the
levels they were at prior to the September 11 attacks.
Enhanced cooperation with our partners in the business community
was instrumental to our success. We pledge to continue to work with our
partners in the private sector to devise solutions that meet the needs
of business and our national security.
The $25 million for Northern Border staffing provided in the
Senate-passed version of our appropriations bill will help Customs to
meet its manpower needs. We will continue to explore other options to
strengthen security along our northern frontier.
I should also add that, while our first priority will be the
security of the Nation's borders and its ports of entry, efforts to
modernize the Customs Service will continue.
The development of the Automated Commercial Environment, or
``ACE,'' is essential to Customs' ability to protect America and its
commerce well into the future.
I look forward to continuing Customs work with the Subcommittee on
ACE development, which will harness the promotion of commerce and the
strengthening of our national defenses.
Mr. Chairman, the Customs Service is fully committed to the fight
against terrorism and the security of our borders, north and south.
We will look to our trusted friend and partner Canada to assist us
every step of the way.
One of the very first letters I received upon being confirmed as
Commissioner of Customs came from my direct counterpart at Canada
Customs and Revenue, Commissioner Rob Wright.
In keeping with the tradition of partnership that has always marked
the relationship between our two agencies, Commissioner Wright pledged
the full support and cooperation of Canada Customs in preventing
terrorists and the implements of terrorism from transiting our northern
border.
I plan on meeting with Commissioner Wright very soon to further our
joint security efforts.
Of course, we will continue to seek the guidance and support of
this Subcommittee.
I know that your assistance has been invaluable to Customs in the
past, and that it will be all the more so in the future as we work to
defend America from the terrorist threat.
I want to thank the members of the Subcommittee again for this
opportunity to testify.
I look forward to working with you; and I would be happy to answer
any questions you might have.
Senator Dorgan. Commissioner Bonner, thank you very much.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR, COMMISSIONER
Senator Dorgan. We also are joined by Commissioner Ziglar,
the Commissioner of the Immigration Service. Commissioner
Ziglar, as all of you know, was an officer with the U.S.
Senate, the Sergeant-at-Arms. I was pleased to be supportive of
your nomination, and pleased that you are in your current post
at this time. We would like to hear your statement. We will
include the entire statement as part of the record and you may
summarize.
Mr. Ziglar, welcome.
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator DeWine. It
is a real honor to be here today to discuss with you northern
border security. As I mentioned to you when I first walked in
here, I am particularly pleased that my first appearance back
on the Hill in an official capacity at INS is before the
Senate. I enjoyed very much my 3 years as Sergeant-at-Arms and
I will be forever grateful for that opportunity.
I have submitted a much longer statement which I would
appreciate having in the record.
First I would like to take a moment to recognize the many
employees of the INS who have performed superbly during this
past few weeks of crisis, and before that time. In my 2 months
now in the job, I have found this organization to be a very
solid and professional organization that has both the will and
the determination to make some of the very needed changes that
we have, both internally and in the aggregate with respect to
security on our borders.
I think it is worth noting that the INS bears a very heavy
burden that most Americans do not recognize. As Commissioner
Bonner pointed out, the INS and the Customs Service share
responsibility at the ports of entry throughout the country and
along our borders. What most people do not know though is that
the 6,000 miles of land border that we have here, 4,000 of
which are along the Canadian border, the northern border, the
INS and the Border Patrol have sole responsibility for those
points between the ports of entry. That is a pretty heavy
burden.
I think most Americans do not realize something that you
pointed out, if you do the math, Mr. Chairman, is that over 500
million people cross our borders every year. Now what most
people do not realize is that most of those people come through
our borders on either visa waiver programs or other exemptions
to visas. What most Americans do not realize is that the INS is
not the agency that issues visas to foreigners wanting to come
into this country. What most Americans do not realize is that
the INS has less than 5,000 inspectors to handle those hundreds
of millions of people crossing our border in conjunction with
the Customs Service.
What most Americans do not realize is that we have about
2,000 investigators and intelligence officers who are
responsible throughout the country for dealing with
undocumented aliens, or as some like to call them, illegal
aliens; those that over-stay their visas or are otherwise out
of status, smuggling rings, which are a major problem in this
country, human smugglers bringing people into the country, and
of course, criminal aliens. We have a very small force to deal
with all of those different issues within the INS.
So as I have noted, Mr. Chairman, the INS has a very heavy
burden to bear when it comes to the border and with respect to
the interior of this country.
The tragic events of September 11 have clearly pushed
border management and border security onto center stage. I am
here to talk about northern border security, but I would like
to point out that we have a need for sound operations on all of
our borders, and that includes both intelligence gathering,
effective intelligence gathering, and interior enforcement. You
have to have a seamless network if you are really going to, in
effect, protect your borders.
To combat terrorism and to combat other types of criminal
activity, we have got to have effective cooperation from U.S.
agencies and our international partners. I must say that the
cooperation among the FBI, the INS, and the Customs Service,
certainly in this period of the last three weeks has been a
very good model for what I think we can do in the future.
We have a very special long term relationship with the
Customs Service as a result of the fact that we share
responsibility at the ports of entry. But in recent weeks, I
can tell you that that has been a particularly close
relationship in terms of exchange of data, coordinating our
activities at the ports, and deploying personnel. Commissioner
Bonner referred to it a few minutes ago and I would like to
echo what he said. It has been a very pleasant start to both of
our new tenures in office.
I would like to turn to the northern border specifically
now, and first I would like to address what I think is a common
misperception, that the northern border is totally undefended
and totally unprotected. The fact is that we have 965 Border
Patrol agents, inspectors, and other personnel--and I am
speaking for INS--on the border as we speak. Obviously, Customs
has folks there that we share responsibility with. These people
do an excellent job at what they do, and they do that quite
often at great personal risk, as you know. However, we need to
do a lot more. But that is a far cry from saying that we are
doing nothing on the northern border.
I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about
our relationships with the Canadians. It has been a very
productive and a very friendly and cooperative relationship.
Let me give you an example. In the first 6 months of this year
we have apprehended 8,000 criminal aliens on all borders of the
United States. Four thousand of those have been apprehended on
the northern border, notwithstanding the significant difference
in resources between the southwest border and the northern
border.
The reason for that in large part is because of the
relationship we have got with the Canadians in terms of
intelligence sharing and other information sharing. They have
been extremely helpful to us in our ability to detect and
apprehend criminal aliens on the northern border. There are a
number of other examples such as that, but the point is that it
is a good relationship and it is a relationship that works. Yet
we can still do a lot more with the Canadians.
In looking at the northern border, as you so well know,
this is a situation where there is not a one-size-fits-all
remedy to the problem. What might work on the southwestern
border may not work on the northern border. Particularly, given
the fact that you have got 4,000 miles of very, varied rugged
terrain there is absolutely nothing to say that one situation
or one remedy is going to work. We have got to move our
remedies according to the terrain that we are dealing with.
But I will tell you, there are two elements that are needed
no matter what you do. The first element is expanded and
enhanced use of advanced technology. The second one is more
coordination and more cooperation on both sides of the border.
Those two things I think are essential regardless of what the
remedy is.
Technology is an important force multiplier that provides
real-time information to our inspectors, our agents, and others
that are on the border. It allows them, like I say, in a real-
time way, to deny unlawful entry to those that we do not want
in this country, and also to facilitate the flow of commerce.
You mentioned that, Mr. Chairman, and as you know I have a
business background so I always think in those terms.
I have got to tell you, the one thing that troubles me is
that if we ever get to the point that we want to build a wall
on our borders, what we will do is we will destroy the
economies of both our country, Canada, and Mexico. So we have
to figure out a way to secure our borders and yet facilitate
the flow of commerce.
I urge you, and I know you have and I know in a number of
pieces of legislation you are already addressing this, but I
urge you to give careful consideration to the use of technology
as one of the remedies to the problems that we have on the
borders. The INS is working both through our domestic and our
international partners to improve the border security. But I
can also tell you that we are working to improve our processes
within the INS. Well before September 11 we were making serious
progress on developing strategies to improve how we do our
business.
As part of the restructuring of the INS which the Congress
and the President gave me as a mandate--certainly I got that
message going through confirmation. As part of that process I
have reached out to our employees and others for ideas about
how we can do our business better. I have got to tell you, we
have gotten a lot of great ideas, particularly from the inside,
and we are still in the process of evaluating some of those
ideas.
But within the context of what we believe is doable and
what is currently doable and what is effective there are a
number of measures that we are working on with the
Administration to implement as we speak. I am only going to
talk about two or three here, but in my written text is a much
longer list of things.
One, obviously, is increasing the number of Border Patrol
agents, inspectors, investigators, and intelligence agents.
Also equipping those folks with the kind of technology that
will multiply their ability to do their jobs effectively.
Second, we want to expand our access to biometric ID
systems such as IDENT. I know, Senator DeWine, you have been
quite interested in that particular system. We are looking at
requiring air carriers to provide us with advance passenger
information before boarding passengers so that we can
intercept, before they come into this country, passengers who
are terrorists, criminals, or others who are inadmissible into
the United States.
We also want to expand our lookout system to all parts of
the INS system. That way we have more than one opportunity to
detect somebody who is in the country or about to come into the
country that is not admissible.
We also--and this is very important. We are in the process
as we speak of upgrading our infrastructure, our information
technology infrastructure, and our data sharing infrastructure
so that that information would be, again, available on a real-
time basis to inspectors, adjudicators, and our investigators
as well as other appropriate law enforcement agencies, so that
we have a much better coverage on those people that we are
attempting to detect who are trying to get into this country.
Mr. Chairman, one thing that I would like to highlight, and
that is that we have a real problem at the INS that most other
agencies do not have, and that is the overtime cap. It is now
becoming a real problem for us. It is on a calendar-year basis
and it is a number that we cannot go over with respect to our
employees. We now find ourselves, with respect to a lot of
employees, just because we have been understaffed, hitting that
overtime cap and it is only the beginning of October.
We are now having to shift personnel around in order to
find people who are not at the cap, moving them around. It is
getting to be expensive and inefficient. I know that that is in
the terrorism bill that the Administration is working on with
Congress, but that is a critical item. If for some reason that
legislation is not going to move quickly, we would sure like
another vehicle to get that done if it is possible, because we
really do have a problem.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, we must increase security, no question about
it. But in doing so, we must not forget what made this country
great. It is our openness to new ideas and to new people, and a
commitment to individual civil liberties, shared values,
innovation, and the free market. If in response to the events
of September 11 we sacrifice those things in search of
security, then the terrorists will have won and we will be left
with neither security nor freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James W. Ziglar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on ``Northern Border Security.'' This
is my first appearance before the Congress since assuming the post of
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization. I am pleased that the
Senate provided my first opportunity to return to Capitol Hill in an
official capacity. I very much enjoyed my tenure as the Senate Sergeant
at Arms from November 1998 to August 2001. It was an experience and
opportunity for which I will be forever grateful.
Although I have served as Commissioner for only two months, I have
not viewed that as a liability in responding to the tragic events of
September 11, primarily because of the highly professional career
public servants who have provided me with mature advice and assistance.
These tragic events, however, have provided an opportunity for me to
examine, with a fresh eye, the management, personnel, technology, and
policy capabilities of the INS.
Most Americans do not realize the challenges that we face. More
than five hundred million people cross our borders every year; and the
vast majority of those five hundred million enter the United States
through visa waiver programs or other exemptions from the normal visa
process; most Americans do not realize that it is not the INS that
issues visas to foreigners who wish to visit the United States; the INS
has 4,775 inspectors to process these hundreds of millions of visitors
who arrive at our borders every year; the INS has 1,977 investigators
throughout the country who are available to deal with persons who have
entered illegally, have overstayed their visas or otherwise have
violated the terms of their status as visitors in the United States.
Despite the workload challenges and accomplishments of the INS, changes
are still needed to ensure efficient and effective operations. The
structure of the organization and the management systems that we have
in place are outdated and, in many respects, inadequate for the
challenges we face. Our information technology systems must be improved
in order to ensure timely and accurate determinations with respect to
those who wish to enter our country and those who wish to apply for
benefits under our immigrations laws. The management restructuring of
the INS is on its way-a mandate the President and the Congress have
given me-and the improvement of our information technology systems is
being planned and can be accomplished with the help and support of
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to send a
message to the men and women of the INS and to the public for whom they
work: I have never been so proud of a group of people with whom I have
been associated as I am of our Special Agents, Detention and
Deportation Officers, Inspectors, Intelligence Officers, Border Patrol
Agents, Attorneys, and numerous other individuals both at headquarters
and in the field in response to the events of September 11. Within
hours of the attacks, the INS was working closely with the FBI to help
determine who perpetrated these crimes and to bring those people to
justice. Within 24 hours, under ``Operation Safe Passage,'' INS
deployed several hundred Border Patrol agents to eight major U.S.
airports to increase security, prevent further terrorist incidents and
restore a sense of trust to the traveling public. At America's ports of
entry, INS inspectors continue to work tirelessly to screen arriving
visitors, while encouraging the flow of legitimate commerce and
tourism. Meanwhile, despite the tragedies and the disruptions, our
service operations have managed to complete over 35,000 naturalizations
nationwide and process thousands of other applications since September
11. America should be proud of the extraordinary effort of these men
and women.
a new focus on our borders and intergovernmental cooperation
The tragic events of September 11 have pushed the security and
management of our borders onto center stage. While I am here today
primarily to discuss the northern border, we must keep in mind the need
for sound operations on both borders. Moreover, we must remember that
the various agencies of the U.S. government must work together, and
with our allies, to achieve a safer and more prosperous America and
world. I think the excellent cooperation between INS, the FBI and the
U.S. Customs Service, particularly during this crisis, is an example of
that necessary cooperation. We have a special relationship with the
Customs Service due to our shared responsibilities at the ports of
entry. In recent weeks, we have worked especially closely with them in
coordinating and consulting on security status at ports of entry,
exchange of information and data, and the deployment of personnel.
the northern border
I would like to begin by addressing what appears to me to be a
common misperception about our northern border, namely that it is
``unprotected'' and ``undefended.'' The fact is that we presently have
approximately 965 Border Patrol Agents, Inspectors and support
personnel on the northern border. They do an excellent job in carrying
out their responsibilities. However, more could be done along the
northern border. The good news is that we have an important partner on
the northern border who has been very helpful --and that is Canada. For
example, due in part to the excellent system Canada has put in place to
share information with us, in the first six months of fiscal year 2001
more than 4,000 criminal aliens, or half of all criminal aliens
intercepted at all United States ports of entry, were caught at
northern border ports. There are numerous other examples where
cooperative efforts with the Canadians have helped protect the northern
border. Nevertheless, there is plenty of room for improvement.
The focus of the last few years has been on the southwestern
border. As a result, the growth in INS resources has continued to be
deployed to stop the illegal flow of immigration in this area. We have
made dramatic improvements along the southwestern border and have
gained control in many areas and we will be looking at how to deploy
the additional 570 Border Patrol agents that the President proposed and
the House and Senate have supported.
Today, the INS has 498 inspectors at northern border ports of entry
and 334 Border Patrol Agents assigned to the northern border. Of the
113 northern border ports, there are 62 small ports that do not operate
on a 24-hour basis. About 35-40 percent of these select ports process
fewer than 30 thousand entries per year, but still require the
dedication of valuable resources. In addition, it should be noted that
the INS and the U.S. Customs Service share responsibility for staffing
primary inspection lanes at many land border ports. However, when
secondary inspections are necessary, primary inspectors often must
temporarily close down lanes, thereby disrupting the regular flow of
individuals and commerce across the border.
Currently we are reviewing any security deficiencies, our
enforcement posture at ports of entry, and how to facilitate the flow
of commerce to determine how we can improve. Resources could be
assigned as needed to allow for (1) implementation of special
initiatives with U.S. Customs and with Canada at higher risk ports; (2)
conducting more thorough primary inspections without impeding traffic
flow; and (3) engaging in targeted control processes to apprehend
violators, including criminal aliens and suspected terrorists.
Technology can also play a critical role and has proven to be a
``force multiplier'' that can provide detailed, real time information
concerning border activity. This is essential to border enforcement
operations given the threats and challenges are different all along the
northern border, and different challenges require different approaches.
Our shared border with Canada runs nearly 4,000 miles and is filled
with rugged terrain. Advanced technology can also help inspectors
fulfill their dual mission of preventing unlawful entry and
facilitating the movement of legitimate tourism and commerce.
steps to improve security
Even before September 11, we were examining how we can improve the
INS, at all levels. As part of our restructuring initiative, I
encouraged our employees at all levels to think ``outside the box'' as
to how we can better accomplish our mission. They responded with a
number of creative ideas, some of which we are still evaluating.
However, within the context of what is already known to be ``doable''
and effective, we are considering a series of solid measures that would
strengthen our enforcement capabilities. We are working within the
Administration to determine how to implement these measures. Some of
our ideas are as follows:
Border Patrol
As requested in the President's budget, increase the number of
Border Patrol agents and support staff along the northern border, while
not neglecting the continued needs along the southwest border. Such
increases should also include necessary facilities infrastructure and
vehicles.
Provide additional agent support equipment and technology
enhancements. Unfortunately, neither the Senate nor the House currently
is funding the President's request at $20 million for ``force
multiplying technology.''
Expand access to biometric identification systems, such as IDENT.
Inspections
In the Inspections area, as we proposed in our fiscal year 2002
budget, we believe we should increase the number of Inspectors at our
Ports of Entry.
Require inspection of all International-to-International Transit
Passengers (ITI) so that all travelers who arrive in the United States
are inspected and clearly identified.
Information and Technology Initiatives
Require carriers to submit Advance Passenger Information before
boarding passengers (whether the passenger is heading to the United
States or attempting to depart the United States) to prevent known
terrorists, criminals, and inadmissible passengers from boarding.
Make Advance Passenger Information data more widely available to
law enforcement agencies, enhancing the ability to identify potential
threats prior to departure for or arrival in the United States, as well
as to prevent the departure of individuals who may have committed
crimes while in the United States.
Implement the National Crime Information Center Interstate
Identification Index (NCIC III) at all ports-of-entry so that aliens
with criminal histories can be identified upon arrival in the United
States. NCIC III should also be available at all consular posts, INS
service centers and adjudication offices to help identify aliens who
pose a potential threat.
Improve lookout system checks for the adjudications of applications
at INS service centers.
Improve INS infrastructure and integration of all data systems so
that data on aliens is accessible to inspectors, special agents,
adjudicators, and other appropriate law enforcement agencies. This
initiative is ongoing.
Personnel Issues
Waive the calendar-year overtime cap for INS employees to increase
the number of staff-hours available by increasing the overtime hours
people can work. This proposal is included in the Administration's
Terrorism Bill.
Other Initiatives
Re-examine and potentially eliminate the Transit Without Visa
Program (TWOV) and Progressive Clearance to prevent inadmissible
international passengers from entering the United States.
Reassess the designation of specific countries in the Visa Waiver
Program to ensure that proper passport policies are in place. This
initiative will require the concurrence of and joint participation by
the Department of State.
Share with the Department of State visa data and photographs in
electronic form at ports-of-entry so that visa information will be
available at the time of actual inspection.
Evaluate alternative inspection systems that allow for facilitation
of low risk travelers while focusing on high-risk travelers.
And review the present listing of designated ports-of-entry, in
concert with the U.S. Customs Service, to eliminate unnecessary ports.
This will allow the INS to deploy more inspectors to fewer locations
making for a more efficient use of resources.
database improvements
In addition to the measures cited above, I have instructed my staff
to move forward expeditiously on two database improvement projects
mandated by Congress. While neither of these are panaceas, they would
represent improvements over the status quo. First, there has been much
attention paid to student visas in recent weeks. Today, the INS
maintains limited records on foreign students and is able to access
that information on demand. However, the information is on old
technology platforms that are insufficient for today's need for rapid
access. That is why we are moving forward with the Student Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEVIS), formerly known as CIPRIS.
Objections primarily by the academic establishment have delayed its
development and deployment. However, with the events of September 11,
that objection has virtually disappeared and INS plans to meet, and
hopefully beat, the Congress' date of 2003 to start implementation of
SEVIS with respect to all foreign nationals holding student visas. I
hasten to add that there is a critical need to review and revise the
process by which foreign students gain admission to the United States
through the I-20 certification process.
Second, substantial attention also has been paid to entry and exit
data. Currently, INS collects data on the entry and exit of visitors.
However, the data first must be transferred by hand from paper to
electronic form. This is an extremely inefficient way of processing
data and delays access to the data by weeks and months. Knowing who has
entered and who has departed our country in as timely a manner as is
possible is an important element in enforcing our laws. The Data
Management Improvement Act, passed in 2000, requires INS to integrate
entry-exit data collection in electronic form at airports and seaports
by the end of 2003, and at the 50 largest land ports of entry by the
end of 2004. The legislation also requires a private sector role to
ensure that any systems developed to collect data do not harm tourism
or trade.
cooperation with canada and mexico
Finally, I would like to say a few words about our Nation's
relationship with our neighbors, Canada and Mexico. I would like to
thank the Canadian people for opening their hearts to United States
citizens and others who were temporarily unable to return to the United
States as a result of the tragic events of September 11 and the
resulting diversion of flights to Canada. I would also like to thank
the government and people of Mexico for their help in this crisis, both
in the law enforcement area and in also ensuring that planes could be
diverted safely to Mexico during the crisis.
The United States and Canadian tradition of cooperation and
coordination has been long-standing, and is critical to the security of
the northern border. This tradition was further promoted with the
United States-Canada Accord on ``Our Shared Border'' on February 24,
1995. Along with commercial goals, the Accord also addresses common
security issues.
The United States and Canada coordinate anti-terrorist efforts
through the Bilateral Consultative Group on Counter-Terrorism (BCG).
Established in 1988, the BCG annually brings together senior policy
representatives from agencies and departments involved in the fight
against terrorism. In addition, inter-agency and interdepartmental
cooperation goes on daily between officials on both sides of the border
to advance practical, on-the-ground cooperation. As further evidence of
cooperation and support during this time of crisis, the Government of
Canada has pursued a number of initiatives since the events of
September 11, including taking measures to tighten its asylum process
and further enhancing its intelligence sharing with the State
Department and the INS. We are grateful for Canada's help and support.
looking ahead
It has been said that after September 11 ``everything has
changed.'' I hope that is not true. America must remain America, a
symbol of freedom and a beacon of hope to those who seek a better life
for themselves and their children. We must increase our security and
improve our systems but in doing so we must not forget what has made
this Nation great--our openness to new ideas and new people, and a
commitment to individual freedom, shared values, innovation and the
free market. If, in response to the events of September 11, we engage
in excess and shut out what has made America great, then we will have
given the terrorists a far greater victory than they could have hoped
to achieve.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Ziglar, thank you very much.
We are joined by my colleague, Senator Murray, from
Washington. Senator Murray, did you have a statement you wished
to make?
Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, first of all thank you very
much for having this hearing. I really appreciate the
opportunity to focus on the northern border, which obviously
you and I share concerns about. I appreciate both Mr. Bonner
and Mr. Ziglar being here to discuss this issue.
Clearly, the attacks of September 11 have left all of us
looking at every possible security measure. I appreciate your
remarks regarding how we have to make sure we have that
security, but also not shut down our borders to commerce. This
is extremely important in my home State of Washington. With
passage of NAFTA we have seen cargo entering the United States
through Canada increase by 162 percent in the last decade. We
do not want to stop that as a result of this, but we want to
make sure that the people who should not be crossing the
border, do not get across.
That is why increasing the security guards on our Border
Patrol are absolutely essential now. We have to focus on that
and new technologies to make sure that the crossings move
expeditiously but still provide us the kind of security we
need.
I would be remiss if I did not point out, as I think Mr.
Ziglar just did, that our relationships with Canada are very
good. I just want to take this opportunity to thank Canada for
their tremendous help on September 11. I believe they took over
400 of our airplanes in Canada on September 11.
My daughter who is in college, a roommate of hers was
returning from Japan to Seattle, was an hour out and was
diverted first to Vancouver, could not land there, and ended up
in Yellow Knife, somewhere north in Canada, as he told her, and
spent 3 days there, and had a caribou barbecue, and was taken
quite good care of.
So I know that Canada really was helpful in many ways. We
do owe them a thanks for that. We want to continue to have that
good relationship. We want to work with them in really good
ways, but we want to make sure that our borders are safe and
secure.
I look forward to the question and answer period, and
again, really appreciate both of you focusing much-needed
attention on the northern border as we look at these security
issues.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray, thank you very much. Let me
ask a series of questions and then I will call on my
colleagues. I have a number of them I want to go through, but
we want to allow everyone to ask questions.
First let me ask about resources, which I know is always a
very difficult question because administrations often have
their own version of how you balance resources between
agencies. But one of the things that we have talked about this
morning is the need for additional resources on the northern
border. Perhaps on all borders, but we are talking about the
northern border and the need for additional resources.
Can you give me some notion from both Customs' viewpoint
and also INS what the Administration's position is with respect
to additional resources, and adding additional resources,
particularly with respect to the northern border?
Northern Border Security Needs
Mr. Bonner. I was counting on Mr. Ziglar to go first on
that one, so I can learn how he is going to handle that.
Mr. Ziglar. I would be glad to. We are in the process, Mr.
Chairman, of discussing with the Administration, OMB and
others, the needs and the priority for the needs that we have.
The Administration, I can safely say, recognizes that we need a
lot more resources, certainly from an INS standpoint. While I
have not intervened on behalf of the Customs Service, I know
that they feel the same way about Customs, that we need more
technology, we need more personnel, we need to do a lot of
things to enhance border security. So I can tell you that we
are trying to sort out now what is the priority, and how do you
apply them, and how do you phase them. But there is no question
about that.
I might add that well before September 11 the INS had a
four-phased border control strategy that recognized--this goes
back into the mid-1990s--recognized that we needed to do a lot
more on the border, and have been implementing that. Now
obviously, the southwest border has gotten an inordinate share
of those resources, and frankly when you look at the problems
on the southwest border you understand why that priority was
there.
However, the INS recognized also that we needed more
resources everywhere. A border control strategy was put in
effect and would have over the next 4 years or so increased our
complement, for example, of Border Patrol agents alone by about
40 percent. So this is not new news to us and the
Administration is quite aware of the need for more resources,
from our perspective.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Bonner?
Mr. Bonner. As Commissioner Ziglar said, in the case of the
United States Customs Service I am working with the Department
of the Treasury and with OMB and the Administration to discuss
the issues and the implications, particularly of September 11,
on resource needs. That includes resource needs on the northern
border.
As I have indicated in my statement to this committee, we
have a situation in which I certainly believe that the northern
border security needs to be strengthened, needs to be hardened.
I am saying right now that certainly seems to be true for the
foreseeable future, so I think we need to plan for that. So I
am having those discussions.
As far as the northern border is concerned, I have taken a
substantial number of U.S. Customs inspectors and assigned them
to the northern border. This is very much robbing Peter to pay
Paul to do that. That number, by the way, is not, I do not
think, adequate. But that is to beef up our security
immediately in light of the events of September 11. We also, as
I have indicated, cannot sustain the levels of overtime that
Customs inspectors are working at our borders.
So there are certainly some staffing implications with
respect to what is necessary here that I am addressing with
Treasury and the Administration. There are, as Commissioner
Ziglar indicated, also I think certainly some--this is a
situation in which we want to consider doing something with the
facilities. Some of that is simply doing things that would
strengthen the security of the northern border ports of entry.
So there are some infrastructure costs that certainly are going
to be associated with that.
Need for inspection technology
Lastly, I am certainly a believer in deploying technology
and equipment, non-intrusive inspection technology and
equipment on a wider basis that is more geared to the threat
that we are facing, as a result of September 11. That is the
introduction of terrorists into the United States, across, the
northern border, with implements of terrorism.
We need to in my judgment, increase and upgrade our ability
to respond. The key is technology. It also may be a higher and
better use of canine teams that are trained to inspect things
other than just drugs and currency.
Senator Dorgan. So it is safe to say that both of your
agencies are requesting of OMB additional resources?
Mr. Bonner. I think that would be fair, yes.
Mr. Ziglar. Very safe to say.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask, of the $20 billion that
Congress appropriated in the last 2 weeks to deal with these
terrorist events, that $20 billion will be used to strengthen a
range of things that are necessary to deal with our Nation's
security. Are those the resources that your agencies are trying
to call on with respect to OMB and the Administration's
decisions about how to use that money?
Mr. Bonner. Yes, they are. At least that is my
understanding, this would be part of the supplemental counter-
terrorism funding.
Replacement of six world Trade Centers
By the way, I think perhaps part of that funding is also
certainly needed by Customs to replace our facilities in New
York. As you know, a U.S. Customs house was located at Six
World Trade Center. It was an eight-story building right next
to the north tower and it was destroyed as a result of the
attacks. We had the largest number of Customs Service personnel
in that building outside of Washington. There were almost 800
Customs Service personnel, both Customs agents, Customs
inspectors, Customs freight specialists, the lab, and so forth.
There is also some funding that is just to cover
essentially the extraordinary short term cost of repair and
replacement and getting back and operating. Then there is the,
what do we do now in terms of better responding to the
terrorist threat, to secure our borders.
Emergency Supplemental funding Request
Senator Dorgan. The issue here is not just about resources,
but that is an awfully important issue, and that is why I am
asking these questions first. I have a range of other
questions. Are you able to share with us your recommendations
to OMB at this point? Since September 11, and even before, but
especially since September 11, I assume both agencies have
taken a hard look to evaluate what do we need to do to beef up
our presence at the borders in order to give our country more
assurance that we are keeping known and suspected terrorists
out, and providing adequate security at our borders?
Can you give us any notion of what your request might be of
OMB, increases in agents, increases in inspectors, and so on?
Mr. Bonner. I certainly do not want to get into the details
of that because those are issues that I actually will be
discussing within the Department of the Treasury actually this
afternoon. But certainly they include Customs inspectors. That
would be part of the issues that I am going to be discussing as
to the adequacy of the numbers of United States Customs Service
inspectors, as well as Customs special agents. It includes, to
some degree, canine teams and better deployment of those. It
includes equipment, technology, and heightened security through
essentially infrastructure measures that go beyond orange
cones.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Bonner, there are two ways for your
agency to get help. The same would be true with INS. One is to
appeal to the Office of Management and Budget, and the second
is to get help from Congress. In order for us to evaluate what
we think the priorities must be, and the resources we believe
ought to be made available, we are going to need, I think at
some point from your agencies, what is your assessment of the
additional resources that you need in order to employ the
security on the borders that we believe is appropriate and
important?
I respect that you are talking to OMB this afternoon, or
you have ongoing discussions. But I also hope you might share
with us, what are your needs? What do you think we need? Do you
clearly know that we do not want to leave ports at this point
empty at 10:00 at night? You indicated you have moved 100
Customs officers up to the northern border. I understand even
though those ports are not open you have people at those
locations. But that is temporary, as you indicated. You have
taken them from another part of the country.
So I would hope that both of you would give us your best
assessment of what your needs are. OMB may or may not satisfy
those needs, but Congress will have something to say as well
about how we assess those needs and what we want to do to
respond to them.
Mr. Ziglar?
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to address that.
The commissioner has highlighted some of the same things, of
course, that we are interested in. We have also moved
inspectors up to the northern border, and as the commissioner
knows, we actually share primary jurisdiction at a number of
these places. So where he gets a strain, we get a strain. It is
one of those kinds of relationships.
We are in discussions with OMB, but certainly some things
are obvious on their face and my longer, written testimony
ought to give you some hints of some of the things that we feel
are in there. Obviously, more personnel at the Border Patrol
level and the inspector level is absolutely necessary so that
we can, along with Customs, at the ports of entry fully staff
these folks. We also need more personnel for those parts of the
border that are Border Patrol jurisdiction.
But personnel alone is not going to do that given 4,000
miles of border. We are going to have to have a web that
includes some advanced technologies, whether it is surveillance
technology, or it is sensing technology, or anything from
aircraft to marine vessels to that sort of thing. We need to
create more of a net so that we can use communications and
people in order to do that. So that is an important part of
what we are asking for.
We also, in general, are very interested in moving along
more rapidly advancement of our information technology and the
sharing of that information, whether it is with the State
Department or the FBI or the Customs Service or anyone else. We
need to have more information that is available to all the
agencies that have some responsibility on the border. Certainly
our system is only one of those systems, but our system needs
to be integrated with the other systems. We need to all have
platforms that work.
So that is something that we have been very focused on. In
fact it is an initiative we had already started before
September 11. But like everything else, resources are hard to
come by sometimes and that is one of the things that we
definitely want to have.
Border security
Senator Dorgan. I am going to call on Senator DeWine in a
moment. One last question, and I may have a series of others
later.
How confident should the American people be today,
Wednesday, that the resources you have at all of our borders,
but especially our Northern borders, are being employed in a
manner that will allow you to identify and keep out of this
country known and suspected terrorists?
Mr. Ziglar. My personal view is they can have a high degree
of confidence. Our people are working very hard. They are very
diligent. They are very alert. They are resource drained, there
is no question about it.
But I will tell you, there have been and will continue to
be some superhuman efforts by our folks and by the Customs
folks to make sure that our borders are secure. I feel very
confident, personally.
Senator Dorgan. Are your people working 12-hour days at
this point?
Mr. Ziglar. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Commissioner Bonner?
Mr. Bonner. Well, I share Commissioner Ziglar's confidence.
I do have a level of confidence that certainly we are doing
everything we possibly can to secure our border against
terrorists coming across, or the implements of terrorism.
Temporary staffing details
Based upon my briefings, I guess I am concerned with the
adequacy of that, how we are going to be able to do that on a
sustained basis given the fact that the U.S. Customs Service is
certainly stretched incredibly thin right now.
By the way, that I could get 100 inspectors there is hardly
adequate to address the problem. If I suggested it was, let me
disabuse everybody of that notion. That was just what I could
do as quickly as I could in terms of reassigning some
inspectors so there would be some relief up there for all of
the inspectors that are working hard and overtime.
But I have also been tasked to send between 400 and 500
U.S. Customs inspectors. These are the uniformed inspectors
that are at the ports of entry and the airports and the
seaports and the like. These uniformed inspectors are working,
by the way, side by side with Border Patrol from INS and the
U.S. Marshals Service at our airports, overseeing ground
security at screening points at our major airports in this
country. We started that also shortly after September 11. So
that is another 400 to 500 inspectors that have been detailed
for that.
To my knowledge, they have not been relieved by the
National Guard. The National Guard has been brought in to man
other airports and provide a presence there.
We also have contributed 125 Customs special agents to the
Air Marshal Program, along with other agencies, DEA and others,
who are contributing to that effort so that we immediately have
a vastly expanded Air Marshal Program that is in place as we
speak. So we are also having that phenomena.
Customs air program Taskings
The Customs air wing, which as you know is a formidable
asset of this country, has now been asked by the Air Force, by
NORAD, to provide security protection over certain zones of the
United States. So it has been taken away from its other tasks
in the Caribbean and the Southwest border and elsewhere. I am
talking about the P-3AEW surveillance aircraft.
So we are being pulled in a lot of directions here and we
are stretched thin.
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, let me make sure that I was not
misunderstood. I do believe that we have a high degree of
confidence, and should have. I agree with the Commissioner that
the reason I feel that way is I know how hard the folks are
working, how diligent in work they are.
Over time, like the Commissioner said, our people burn out
and we are stretched very thin. So that degree of confidence
will go down very rapidly if we do not get additional resources
to be able to maintain that level, if you will.
Customs inspector capabilities
Mr. Bonner. If I could just add one thing, too, that does
give me some confidence and I think should give the American
public some confidence. That is that we do have, both INS but
Customs inspectors like Diana Dean, up at the State of
Washington at Port Angeles. I mean, they are highly trained to
spot suspicious or abnormal behavior, as you know.
It was without intelligence, although we certainly ought to
be increasing our intelligence. But without intelligence it was
a cold hit that that Customs inspector spotted a terrorist,
unquestionably, who planned to bomb Los Angeles International
Airport with others. He was arrested. That actually led to the
exposure and the prosecution of other members of that terrorist
ring.
So that is what gives me at least some degree of
confidence, is that we have people like the Customs inspector
in the State of Washington, who are on the highest level of
alert now with the Level 1 alert throughout the Customs
Service.
Customs aircraft not armed
Senator Dorgan. You indicate Customs air assets and you are
talking about security. They are used for surveillance, they
are not armed?
Mr. Bonner. No, these would be surveilling and would be
able to track aircraft now in regions of the United States.
They are providing coverage that was needed to support the Air
Force.
Senator Dorgan. The Air Force is flying missions. Their
missions are being flown with fighter planes that are armed. I
just wanted to make sure, yours are surveillance.
Mr. Bonner. They also have surveillance aircraft, too. So
we are supplementing theirs.
Senator Dorgan. Senator DeWine.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
thank both of our witnesses. Your testimony has been very
helpful.
Mr. Ziglar, in law enforcement there is nothing, in my
opinion, more important than good information. We have
developed, over the last few years, an unbelievably good system
of technology. It is something that has sort of been one of my
pet projects going back in time when I was a county prosecutor
in the 1970s, when we did not have much of it.
We have developed these systems, the IAFIS system, for
example, that you and I have talked about. As it is important
in criminal investigations, obviously it is also applicable and
very, very important in regard to national security questions.
It has a great deal of applicability to the INS, to Customs, to
what you all do every single day. So I congratulate you for
your emphasis and your testimony this morning on that.
I notice, in your written statement, that you talk about
some of the things that you want to do and are doing. One is
implement the National Crime Information Center Interstate
Identification Index--this is, of course, the NCIC--at all
ports of entry so that aliens with criminal histories can be
identified upon arrival in the United States. NCIC should also
be available at all consular posts, INS Service Centers, and
adjudication officers to help identify aliens who pose a
potential threat.
My question to you is what does this Congress do to make
sure you have got every single penny that you can spend
effectively in the next several years to get this done and to
get this moving as far as we can go?
You have pointed out, very correctly, that you do not
control what goes on at the consulates. Someone goes in and
gets a visa, for example. That is not your department, that is
the State Department. But it is the integration of all this
information.
I think one of the things that is most troubling to the
public and most frustrating to all of us is that sometimes one
part of our government knows something and another part does
not have that same information.
So what do we do to make sure that you have got everything
that you need, so you can totally utilize the great technology
that we have today? A lot of the system, as you know, is
already built. It is a question of making sure that you are in
to it and we continue to grow the system.
Mr. Ziglar. Senator, from what I can see, in the 2 months I
have been in this job, the Senate certainly--which I have, of
course, more familiarity with--could not be more supportive in
terms of our doing these kinds of things before September 11.
We are re-looking at a lot of these issues on a more
expedited basis, in terms of trying to integrate our systems.
The NCIC issue is a very important issue, because up until
recently we did not have access to what was called NCIC III
information. We had the warrant information. But it is the NCIC
III information that really would be helpful to the consular
post abroad, as well as ourselves, in our adjudication process.
Senator DeWine. Which is more sophisticated information?
Mr. Ziglar. Right.
Senator DeWine. More details, more information?
Mr. Ziglar. Right. Yes, sir. Not just somebody that there
is a warrant outstanding on, but background criminal
information. That information is incredibly important in making
judgments about the admissibility of people. We need to have
that spread out through our systems. There needs to be a lot
more integration between ourselves and Customs and everyone
else, in terms of just the platforms being able to data share.
And I think that is something that I talked about in my
opening remarks, that is one of my priorities, our priorities.
And I know the Administration is very concerned about that and
very focused on that.
Senator DeWine. We just want to make sure, Commissioner,
that we continue to push forward, that you have the money that
you need to do this. We are asking people to make judgments and
you used absolutely the correct term. We are asking people to
make judgments. They are only human. They can only make
judgments based upon information.
Let us say you have a young Foreign Service officer in x
country and someone comes in and they want a visa. That Foreign
Service officer, he or she only has what they have. We, as a
government, I think, we as a country owe them and owe ourselves
as much information as we have. And that is a lot more than
that Foreign Service officer is getting today.
If you look at the non-immigrant visa application, it is
all self filled out. They ask you if you are a terrorist in
here, and a few other things. I am not making fun of it. Each
question has a reason and I am not saying that there is
anything wrong with that at all. But we just need to make sure
that our folks, who are making those initial decisions about
the granting of the visa, have all the information that they
can have.
What do we do about the people that you talked about a
moment ago, who come to this country legally. They get a
student visa, they are here for some purpose. And then they go,
as you say, the term of art is out of status. Or the way we
might say it is they just stayed too long. They stayed longer
than they are legally entitled to.
How do we keep track of them? What do we do? If you look at
what has happened, just anecdotally, reading the newspapers,
what has happened in this investigation, we find that people
are apparently out of status. When we start looking at the big
picture we know that, as a practical matter, we are not
tracking these people. They are out of status and they are just
out of status.
How big a problem is that, to begin with? Is it a problem?
And what, in the long run, do we do about it?
Mr. Ziglar. It is a problem with a question. It is also a
very difficult problem to deal with, because it is very easy to
come into this country and disappear and not be found.
Now one of the things that the Congress has asked us to do,
and we are in the process hopefully of doing this, is to have
an effective entry/exit data system. We have a system already
that is called NEES. But it is really not a real-time system.
It is paper to electronic delivery. It depends on the airlines
to enforce it. There are a lot of things that cause big gaps in
that system.
We need to be able to know whether or not when somebody
comes in they have departed. That will then tell us he has
overstayed. And that will give us an opportunity right there to
try to identify those situations that could be potential
problems.
The intelligence business, I believe, and the expansion of
the intelligence business, certainly from an INS point of view,
as well as the investigators, would also help us. I mean, we
have had to allocate our priorities to first tracking criminal
aliens that we know are in the country that have committed
crimes and that we need to get them off the streets because
they are people who could create harm.
Second, we have been in the position of having to battle
human smuggling rings. That has taken an enormous amount of
time, but it has also been the source of an enormous amount of
illegal entry into this country. Those people are bringing in,
who knows who they are bringing in. So we have been battling
those folks.
Plus the fact that there is certainly a humanitarian aspect
to battling the human smuggling rings, because these are not
nice people and they kill people at random and we are trying to
protect human life whether it is American human life or others.
So that is where our less than 2,000 investigators have had to
spend their time. We need a lot more of those folks if we want
to address the overstay problem effectively.
I mean, the only real effective way to ever do that would
be everybody comes in the country, put a chip in them, and have
a homing device. But this is America and I do not think we
would do that.
Senator DeWine. Let me continue on this technology on one
more issue that you and I talked about the other day. That is
taking technology one step further, which we can do today if we
want to. That is to take the IAFIS system, the fingerprint
system, and integrate that into your system. In other words,
you could conceivably, someone comes for a visa, give the
fingerprint, it goes into a central databank. You could compare
that when that person hit the border to make sure that was the
same person that was coming in. You could do all kinds of
things that you wanted to do with that.
Is that something we can at least explore and see what the
potential is there?
Mr. Ziglar. Senator, we are doing more than exploring it.
Within the next couple of months, the first workstation that
will combine the IAFIS and the IDENT system will be online. As
you know, IDENT is a 2-finger, whereas IAFIS is a 10-finger,
and there is a certain problem with integrating those systems.
But we have been working hard at trying to come up with a
common work station that will access both of them. We will be
online, I think, in the very near future, the next couple of
months.
Senator DeWine. That is on a trial basis or a limited basis
then initially?
Mr. Ziglar. We think this is an effective system. It is
just now a question of deploying it and the resources.
Senator DeWine. In conclusion, on this whole issue of
technology, it just seems to me that if we were a business, and
our business was to let people in the country that we want in,
protect people's rights, but at the same time protect the
security of our country, we would have the best technology
because it would be cost effective. It would work. And it is
available today.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we do not, I think
we are moving in the right direction. I congratulate you with
what you have been doing. But I think the fact that we do not
have that yet today is not good. And we have to run this like
we would run a business, if this was our priority.
Let me ask one final question. I want maybe to give us a
little perspective because I think sometimes we miss maybe the
priorities. I would like for you to set some priorities.
According to your office, last year, and you mentioned this
a moment ago, we had 529.6 million individual crossings of our
borders; 437.9 million of those crossed at our land borders; 80
million crossed through our airports; and 11 million crossed
through our seaports. Roughly a third of all of these are
American citizens, of course, and not aliens. Nonetheless, all
of these individuals are subject to inspection by INS and
Customs.
With those groups of individuals, where does the emphasis
go? Who do we worry most about? You pointed out to me, when we
talked the other day on the phone, that the visas are a
relatively small number, and you have got visas waivers. Do you
want to just discuss that, as my last question? The Chairman
has been very patient, and I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. But
just to put this in perspective for all of us?
Mr. Ziglar. Can I make a comment about something you said
earlier and then address that?
Senator DeWine. Sure. I always worry about that when you do
that, it means you have had time to think about it.
Mr. Ziglar. I know this is probably a sacrilege for me to
make such a comment, but you are absolutely right about the
notion that if we were a business we would be using the
advanced technology, and we would be at the cutting edge, and
all of that sort of thing. I come out of the business world, as
you know.
The procurement process, the decision making process, the
competitive bid process--and I am not against competitive
bids--all of those things make it very difficult to employ
technology in a time frame that does not make it obsolete by
the time you have gotten through all of this process. People
are scared to make decisions because they are afraid it will be
the wrong decision.
I am one who just makes decisions and as long as more than
half of them are right, I feel pretty good. But we need to
streamline the way we employ and deploy technology in the
government, if we want to do this on a business-like basis.
Because we really have wound ourselves around our own axles
quite often in the way we do that. Enough said for that.
Senator DeWine. I appreciate that. Priorities and visas and
the ones that are waivers. Can you sort any of that out for us,
as far as just big picture priorities?
Mr. Ziglar. I think you clearly have categories of
individuals that would be low priority people. This is
something I think I mentioned in my long written testimony, and
that is that you have got a lot of folks that go back and forth
across our borders all the time, that are what I call low risk
travelers. And yet in the rush to beef up security, I am afraid
that we catch those low risk travelers in this net. I think
using for example biometrics, which you are very interested in,
with respect to those low risk travelers would be a very good
way for us to deal with them so that those people that are not
frequent travelers, are not low risk travelers, they get more
time to be inspected at the border.
I have got friends that commute back and forth to London in
the investment banking business and it is a hassle every time
they come in. We need to be able to segregate out the different
risk profiles, if you will, of the travelers. I do not mean
racial profiles but risk profiles of travelers, in order to be
more effective and move people through.
Let me make one comment. As you may or may not know, I am
sure you do, by statute we are required to have processed
everybody off of every international flight that comes in
within 45 minutes. When we have a Boeing 747 coming in from
wherever, the notion that we have to get them through the
process, and the Customs Service and ourselves are subject to
this, in 45 minutes, it does not give us a whole lot of time to
really spend time with these folks.
We pick them up because we have got people who have got
very keen eyes and are very well trained in this, and put them
in the secondary, but I will tell you what, it is a problem
when you have a statutory mandate to meet that and we are
constantly trying to observe the law.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator DeWine, thank you. Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciated Chairman Dorgan asking you both about new resources
because I think they are absolutely critical. Our Customs, our
Border Patrols, every one is only as good as the people we
have. If we are asking them to do 12-hour shifts in a very
stressful time, when the Nation is very conscious and we are
all expecting them to do their job to prevent something in the
future, we cannot ask them to do that very long and have them
do it effectively. We will lose people and they will lose their
ability to do the job well.
We need to know as quickly as possible what resources both
of you need in order to staff adequately, have good people,
have them trained, and have them not doing 12-hour days, so
that we can do the best job possible. So I encourage you to, I
know you are meeting with OMB, but to get back with us and work
with us as soon as possible.
I do want to thank Senator Dorgan for his work on the
Treasury bill and increasing new Customs resources. It is a
step in the right direction, but clearly this is an arena we
need to really, really focus on. So we want to work with you on
that.
I also have to mention transferring resources. In my 9
years in the Senate, I have constantly fought INS transferring
border agents to the southern border. Now, after September 11,
can I get your commitment not to do that again?
Mr. Ziglar. We actually have been moving people up to the
northern border since September 11.
Senator Murray. And you are leaving them there?
Mr. Ziglar. We have clearly asked for more agents. We have
eight more agents in the 2002 budget, but clearly that
allocation will be examined in light of September 11.
As I mentioned earlier, Senator, and you may have come in
after, clearly one of the things that we are interested in is
increasing our personnel, not just Border Patrol agents but
inspectors and support personnel and personnel who can deploy
and maintain and know how to utilize some of these advanced
technologies like remote surveillance and sensing equipment and
things like that.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that. We know that the person
who was stopped in Port Angeles 2 years ago was apprehended
because of an agent was alert. We need to make sure we have
people who are capable and alert, and we really need to beef up
the patrols. And we need to not continually moving people back
and forth from border to border, wherever the current focus is.
We need to have people who are trained for the specific jobs at
those borders. So I hope we can keep your commitment on that.
I appreciate what you just said, Mr. Ziglar, about low risk
travelers. We have a lot of commerce and people who go back and
forth across our border in Washington State, British Columbia,
on a constant basis that I would consider low risk. We
fortunately successfully repealed Section 110 of the
Immigration Bill last year. It was poorly thought out and we
did not have the technology to put that kind of requirement in.
We did not have the personnel and we did not have the resources
to implement it.
You mentioned the importance of keeping the border open and
working and I agree. Section 110 really was counter to the
spirit of that.
Can you tell the Subcommittee whether the INS is now
revisiting the Section 110 issue?
Mr. Ziglar. I do not think so.
Senator Murray. You do not think so? I hope that we do not
go back to just putting in place something that is totally
unworkable, that we do not have the resources for, we do not
have the technology for, and all we do is shut down the border
and we do not do anything about the high risk folks. We just
make it harder for the low risk folks who are going back and
forth.
Mr. Ziglar. I did not mean to give you a flip answer. I
mean, in the context of 110, we are looking at all of the
modalities of getting people across the border in an
expeditious fashion. I can tell you that working with the
Customs Service just in the last couple of days we have been
examining ways to increase the flow and yet make sure that we
get an eye on everybody that is coming across.
We put out some field guidance just last night with respect
to how we are going to manage the flow across the border
between the Customs Service and ourselves. So I understand your
issue.
Senator Murray. Can you share with us what that was?
Mr. Ziglar. I would be glad to, Senator. I would prefer not
to do it in an open forum, how we plan to do it.
Senator Murray. Okay, sure.
Let me ask you another question. The people who get the bad
guys at the border only do it because they have either really
good instincts or very good information. Are there any new
protocols between your agencies, between the airports and the
ports of entry and the intelligence community about the
information you both need in order to make sure your agents and
your folks are getting what they need on the ground?
Mr. Ziglar. There is a very serious ongoing discussion
about developing that working relationship on data.
Senator Murray. Has there been a good working relationship
before or are you talking about having one?
Mr. Ziglar. I think it has. I would have to say, in all
honesty, from my 2 month perspective in this job, that it has
been very strong in some places and it has been spotty in
others. It has been inconsistent, I would guess would be the
way that I would generally describe it. What we really need is
a more consistent platform of sharing information.
Senator Murray. And we are working on putting that
together?
Mr. Ziglar. Absolutely.
Need for improved intelligence collection and coordination
Senator Murray. Mr. Bonner, for your agency, as well?
Mr. Bonner. Well, I think you are absolutely right, that we
need to ratchet up our efforts with respect to intelligence. It
is not just sharing intelligence. It is having intelligence to
share. So one of the things certainly I am looking at, at the
United States Customs Service, is our intelligence capability
in terms of collecting, gathering, the ability to task out
requirements that are going to be useful to the Customs Service
and useful to the INS as well, in terms of people, goods or
cargo entering the United States.
I will say this, I think this is unprecedented, but I am
getting daily morning briefings from the intelligence community
with respect to threat assessments that would be important for
me, as the head of Customs, to know about so that we can use
that information better in terms of assessing risk and
targeting.
Senator Murray. So this is an improvement since September
11, that you are actually getting this information?
Mr. Bonner. I asked for it, and apparently it had never
been given before. Now the question is getting it, and now
there is a second question, and that is making the information
more useful. There are a lot of intelligence needs out there,
but I cannot think of any higher than preventing weapons of
mass destruction, biological or chemical weapons from entering
the country through cargo or passengers.
And so this is an important area. I am getting it. The
question is perhaps how do we do a better job of requesting the
information and having it gathered specifically, so border
protection agencies such as Customs and the INS can do a better
job of targeting.
We have to do it ourselves, too. Frankly, I have been in
Federal law enforcement before. Just in my limited perspective,
which has not been very long, I can certainly say that when you
have an event like September the 11, there are not any badges
out there. In terms of the law enforcement community, there is
active, vigorous sharing of information between the Federal law
enforcement agencies. Not just Customs and INS, but the FBI and
other law enforcement agencies.
We probably need to look at some systems so that this
remains, so that this just is not a temporary phenomenon. But
it has never been better, in terms of the exchange of
information. So I am looking at ways, how do we regularize that
on some systems-wide basis, both to make sure that the right
people have the right information at the right time, and that
we are also gathering information that is useful.
Because it is somewhat mythical, by the way, and perhaps we
know, I mean that we have as much information as I think we
could have if we did a more intelligent job, both through the
intelligence function which is in the Office of Investigation,
and elsewhere in our government.
Mr. Ziglar. Senator, now that Commissioner Bonner has
mentioned it, I too get those briefings in the morning after
September 11 and that information now comes to the INS and to
our intelligence area, as well as to me personally. It has been
very helpful, not only just to know some specifics but to have
a better picture of what is going on and how, as a manager of
an agency, I can respond to that picture as well as to the
specifics.
Communication with canada
Senator Murray. I think that is really critical to have
that information and use it specifically. I am also curious
about whether or not you have had better communication with
Canada. We know their asylum laws are fairly liberal. We know
we have had several entries now. Are you working better with
Canadian authorities and their information people so that we
have a better chance at the border?
Mr. Bonner. You missed my opening remarks but one of my
first calls was from Rob Wright, who is the Canadian
Commissioner of Customs. I plan to meet with him very soon to
discuss these issues. I know they are being discussed. I know
we have had a good cooperative relationship, the U.S. Customs
Service has, with its Canadian counterparts. They have been
very responsive, from everything I have heard, since the
attacks on September the 11.
But it is certainly something that I am going to be tending
to, very early on in my first weeks here as the Commissioner of
U.S. Customs.
Mr. Ziglar. Very definitely. I also reflected that in my
opening remarks, that the relationship with Canada is good and
has gotten a lot better since September 11. Definitely.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
hearing and I look forward to working with you and our agencies
to get the resources, the people, the technology in place on
the border so that our economy is not good by this, our goods
and people can get back and forth, but we do have better ways
to make sure that the people who come in this country are the
ones that are good for us to have here.
Thank you very, very much.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Murray, thank you. I have a number
of other questions. Let me focus on a couple of things.
First, this is an extraneous but related issue and neither
of you are able to carry the message I want to send but I
nonetheless want to say this at this hearing. I have had a
dispute with an agency of the Treasury Department that you
referred to, OFAC, Office of Foreign Asset Control, whose
mission in my judgment is to be tracking international
terrorists. In recent months they have been sending fines to
people that have been traveling in Cuba.
One I spoke to from Illinois, a retired teacher, who
answered an advertisement in a Canadian bicycling magazine and
she took a--this is a retired woman who took a bicycling trip
in Cuba. A year-and-a-half later, because Customs and OFAC
compare notes, she got a $9,500 fine.
In August, prior to September 11, my message to the
Secretary of the Treasury and the OFAC was to track terrorists,
not little old ladies from Illinois who are riding bicycles in
Cuba. My hope is that somehow perhaps--you are not in the
position to be telling the Secretary of the Treasury to do
that, but I can do that in this open forum and will do so in
other ways as well.
Security deals with a full range of instruments and one of
them is, in Treasury, called OFAC. You referred to it, in fact,
yesterday morning in your interview on NBC, Commissioner. I
have kind of a burr under the saddle with what has been going
on with the use of OFAC resources, trying to track down retired
folks riding bicycles in the country 90 miles to our south.
Having said all that, and feel better because of it----
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, I do not work for the Secretary
of Treasury, would you like me to tell him?
Customs-OFAC money laundering
Mr. Bonner. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to pass that
message on, just as long as you understand that that is not a
U.S. Customs issue.
The reference I made, as you may know, yesterday to OFAC
was the fact that the U.S. Customs Service, because of its
formidable expertise in the money laundering area, a lot of
that from drug money laundering, is working on a number of
levels. But including OFAC, with respect to the initiative at
the Treasury that has to do with foreign terrorist asset
tracking, Senator. So we are ratcheting up Customs agents to
work in the money laundering area and to attack the financial
crime and the financial wherewithal of terrorists to support
terrorist activity in the United States, or anyplace else in
the world.
In that sense, OFAC is part of that initiative at the
Treasury Department. Just to clarify that for the record. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. You are correct. OFAC and FinCen at
Treasury are both very important in tracking the money flow. In
first week of August what I said to OFAC was track terrorists,
do not track little old ladies that are riding bicycle with a
Canadian bicycle club in Cuba.
Mr. Ziglar, by all means, be my guest and report back to me
if you would.
Detail of customs agent to the sky marshall program
Let me ask about the sky marshals. Commissioner Bonner, you
are now moving to employ some sky marshals. You do not have
additional resources, so that is obviously coming out of your
resource base, as well. Tell me what that does to Customs
presence on the borders?
Mr. Bonner. Well, it does a number of things because these
are Customs special agents, by the way, that are being detailed
and have been detailed to the expanded and ramped up air
marshal program. So, as you know, our Customs special agents
are very important in terms of working with the inspectors, the
uniformed inspectors at the border to follow up on
investigations. Part of this is outbound, things going out of
the United States, weapons, sensitive technology and the like.
So it is impacting on our ability to investigate
nationally, and obviously this is also going to have an impact
on the northern border.
The Customs Service, as you know, Mr. Chairman, has had a
history of running the sky marshal program for 3 or 4 years
back in the 1970s. So we do have a history. We, in fact, have
some of the members of my senior staff at Customs who started
off their careers with the U.S. Customs Service as sky
marshals. So we think we can make a contribution to that.
What our ultimate contribution is going to be, that is in
the hands of others, not me, in terms of what the evolution is,
in terms of what we do to restore not just public confidence in
air security but to make commercial aviation, in fact, safe in
this country again. Obviously we are taking some steps right
now to contribute to that effort. And I am sure soon I am going
to be speaking to Governor Ridge further on those kinds of
issues.
I actually had a phone call with him last week and plan to
get together with him very soon to discuss a whole range of
homeland security issues that include, of course, commercial
aviation or air passenger safety issues.
Advance passenger information system
Senator Dorgan. Having border security does not necessarily
provide assurance that we will not see acts of terrorism or,
for that matter, terrorists enter this country. But you cannot
possibly have a system that prevents it if you do not begin
with border security, or at least attempts to prevent it if you
do not begin with the issue of border security.
The Attorney General released the names and pictures of, I
believe, 19 terrorists who he believed were part of this sky-
jacking crew that sky-jacked the four commercial airliners that
crashed on September 11. Have you all looked at those 19 from
the standpoint of how they arrived in this country? Which of
them arrived in contravention of current laws and policies?
Which of them got into our country while being suspected of
activities that we would be concerned about?
In other words, your agencies are obviously concerned about
who is coming into this country. Who do we want to prevent from
arriving in this country? We now know there are 19 people who
arrived who hijacked these commercial airlines. So I am
wondering, have you taken a look at that and evaluated how they
got here?
Mr. Bonner. Let me just start, if I could, because there
are two aspects to that it seems to me. First of all, just to
tell you, Mr. Chairman, as I believe you know, that Customs
gathers advanced passenger information on a system, so it is on
a database. I actually, before I was sworn in as the
Commissioner of Customs, I was a consultant to the Secretary of
the Treasury at the Treasury Department. I evacuated the
building, I went over to the Secret Service command center.
But I know that within an hour, Customs had pulled the data
from all four airplanes that had been hijacked, that it had
tentatively identified from the air passenger information
system data, I think at least 17, 18 or so of the probable
terrorists, just the suspects. Within an hour of the attack on
the Pentagon. And also had been able to identify, running it
against systems and other intelligence, identified at least
some of those people as being associates and connected with
Osama bin Laden. That was done within the first hour.
I mention it because I want to illustrate the importance of
having advanced passenger information. In this case, these were
domestic flights so there was no pre-screening of anybody
getting on there. But because we had a relationship with the
airlines, we immediately had the information downloaded into
our system. We could immediately provide that to the FBI as at
least a substantial indication of who the probable terrorists
were on each one of those flights. And that at least some of
them had a connection with Osama bin Laden.
So that does not get to your question. The next question
you asked is how did they get into the United States to begin
with. I do not mean to refer that one to Commissioner Ziglar
particularly, but I am going to.
Senator Dorgan. But before you do, I understand the
Advanced Passenger System relates to about 85 percent of the
flights. So you have about 15 percent of the flights on which
you do not have the information.
Mr. Bonner. This is something that I would like to point
out, that right now that program, Customs getting a download of
Advanced Passenger Information, the so-called APIS system, we
get it voluntarily from the foreign airlines that fly into the
United States and U.S. airlines. These are the international
flights. It is on a voluntary basis. We get, on a voluntary
basis, about 85 percent of the data.
I think, in light of September 11, that is unacceptable,
that we should have 100 percent of that data on arriving
passengers into the United States.
Senator Dorgan. Do all domestic domiciled carriers provide
information on all flights at this point?
Mr. Bonner. By the way, APIS is international flights, just
so we understand that. Most of them do, Mr. Chairman. There
are, as I understand it, at least several foreign airlines
currently that do not provide us with that data. And I think,
by the way, this is my view of the world, that foreign flag
airlines that do not provide that data, it would probably be a
good idea to have some legislation that would prevent them then
from flying into the United States.
In other words, I think if a foreign flag airline wants to
fly into the United States, I would like to see that mandatory,
a requirement that they provide the advanced passenger
information in electronic data form to Customs. We, by the way,
share this with the INS and so forth.
I am not sure, I think the U.S. airlines are pretty good
about this. There may be at least one U.S. airline, I am not
sure and I do not want to name it without being sure, that does
not provide this because it does have the information in an
electronic format to provide it. But I think this is something
that we certainly should be seriously considering making the
provision of that information, certainly on arriving
international flights into the United States, a requirement for
all airlines that are engaged in international commercial air
transport.
Senator Dorgan. The list I have, for example, does include
one U.S. carrier. It also includes international carriers that
do not transmit this information, which include Saudi, Kuwaiti,
Royal Jordanian, Egypt Air and Pakistan International. Is that
your understanding?
Mr. Bonner. That is my understanding.
Senator Dorgan. I think your suggestion is one that we
should take seriously. Of course, this week we are trying to do
this airport security bill. The legislation is now being worked
on. It may well be that we will want to consider adding a
provision.
It seems to me, you made a point about this program and I
agree with it, it is a critically important program. But if you
are missing that 15 percent, and that 15 percent for example
includes some very large carriers in the Middle East, you are
missing a lot. So let me take seriously your suggestion and see
this afternoon if we might take a look at that piece that we
could include this week.
Now let me turn to Mr. Ziglar because he handed off the
more difficult part of that question to you. My question was of
the 19 people that are suspected or known hijackers of the four
airplanes, have we taken a look at how they entered this
country? My understanding from some press reports is that most
of them came to this country through some legal mechanism. But
have you taken a look at that?
Mr. Ziglar. The answer to your question, Senator, is of
course we have. We would be negligent if we had not. That
information is part of the overall investigation and it is not
information that I am at liberty to disclose, but we clearly
know. I am sure some of it has been pieced together by the
press but I am really not in a position to comment on it.
May I make a comment, though, about the Commissioner's
point on the APIS system, which a number of us get that
information off of that system. As you point out, it is about
80 to 85 percent inclusive of people coming in. In both my
written and my oral statement I made a suggestion that we
require airlines to report that.
But let me take it one step further than that, and that is
what is in my written statement. That is that we would like to
require the airlines to send us their passenger list before
they board people, and then obviously they confirm it once they
board. But if we get their passenger list as they are building
their passenger list, that gives us time to do a thorough look
at everybody on that passenger list, as opposed to the way it
is now, once they are in flight quite often they transmit the
manifest to us and then we have a couple of hours or so to take
a look at it.
The Australians, for example, have done a very effective
job of doing it that way. There are others that are
implementing it now. Australia only has six airports and they
have got 20 million people, but the fact is that an American
technology firm put that system in place for them.
I think that requiring these airlines to do it both before
boarding as well as then confirm who is on the plane would be a
very effective way for us to stop them before they get on
potentially. Or if they do get on somehow, at least know who
they are before they come in.
Mr. Bonner. I certainly concur with that assessment of
Commissioner Ziglar.
Mr. Ziglar. That is actually a high priority for us,
Senator, and that is why it is reflected in my written
testimony.
Senator Dorgan. We will make a note of that and begin
working on that with my colleagues on the relevant committees.
Commissioner, let me go back to a point you made in your
testimony that relates to this question of the 19 hijackers.
Now I understand your point about their identity and who they
are and how they might have gotten in. I understand that there
are certain things with respect to the investigation we cannot
discuss.
But let me also ask the question that I think relates in
some ways to it. People come into this country on a legal visa,
they achieve a visa somewhere, get on a plane, and head to the
United States. They get off the plane and they are allowed to
be here for a certain length of time and then they just
disappear into the noontime crowd in Chicago and New York and
you do not see them again.
One of the significant job of the Immigration Service is to
try to resolve those cases, I assume. It is almost an
impossible job. Tell me about the resources you devote to that.
Because of its increasing urgency these days, I mean those
folks that just disappear into that big crowd at noontime in a
big American city, might well be folks here with an intended
purpose that is what we are trying to prevent, some sort of
terrorist act.
So tell me about the job the Immigration Service has. It
does not matter whether those folks are coming in to the
northern border or through an airplane or some other device.
How do you deal with that, the overstaying of the visas?
Mr. Ziglar. As I mentioned in my answer to Senator DeWine's
question, we have something slightly under 2,000 investigators
and if you put all of our intelligence people together we have
2,000 people that have the responsibility for interior
enforcement. That is what we call it.
Those 2,000 people are tasked to track down criminal aliens
that we know are here that create a danger to the community.
That is a priority. Breaking up human smuggling rings that are
bringing who knows how many people into the country through
smuggling operations. That is also very important because of
both the humanitarian side, but more important about the
numbers of people that they are bringing in.
That leaves us very few, if any, resources frankly to go
after the overstay problem. We occasionally will get referrals
from other law enforcement agencies that we use that
information to go put those people into proceedings.
One of the ways of dealing with this, there is several
fronts. One of the ways, as I mentioned earlier, is to have an
effective entry-exit system where we can monitor who has not
left in compliance of the terms of their visa. So we know they
are still in the country. So then we can put them in some kind
of lookout.
Senator Dorgan. Do you not have that now?
Mr. Ziglar. Well, we do have an entry-exit system. It is
mostly voluntary. It is only deployed at four airports because
the resources have not been there. And frankly, it is so
antiquated technologically now that we need to go to a more
effective system, not dissimilar to what the Australians have.
Senator Dorgan. Let me understand. If I enter this country
through Portal, North Dakota and I am here on a visitor's visa
and I am allowed to be here how many days, 60 days?
Mr. Ziglar. Let us say 90 days.
Senator Dorgan. At the end of 90 days I am gone. You have
no idea where I am and I am not leaving. So when do you know
that I have overstayed my visa? Or do you not?
Mr. Ziglar. I may know if I can match up your two I-94s,
assuming that the I-94 is collected and that it is reported.
That is the problem. We do not have a consistent system on
this.
We are building a new system. We were mandated to do that
by Congress.
The other thing, though, Senator, that has been talked
about a lot is the tracking of students. Obviously that is an
issue. The SEVIS system, which is again something that was
mandated by Congress to be in effect by 2003, has been the
subject of a lot of push back, particularly by the academic
establishment, not wanting the fees to be collected against
students and not wanting to have to report a student if they
drop out or they do not show up and that sort of thing.
Well, that objection seems to have disappeared since
September 11 and I have just recently, a couple of weeks ago,
published regulations with respect to how we are going to
collect the fees which have to support the system, have to pay
for it. So we are moving along nicely on that. And that will be
an effective tracking system for an awful lot of folks that
come into this country that overstay their visas.
Senator Dorgan. I want to ask two additional questions and
then thank you very much for your appearance. I know that you
have many other things to do. One is very simple. I know that
you come here and must speak for the Administration. After all,
that is who you work for and it would be not very smart if you
came here saying here is what the Administration says but here
is the way I feel about things. And you are both new and both
smart.
I would like, however, and I believe my colleagues in
Congress would like, to receive your assessment of what your
resource needs are. We will hear from the Office of Management
and Budget what it thinks it will allow you to request. I
understand that.
But Congress also, in my judgment, should have your best
notion of what kind of resources you think is needed by your
agencies to give us the coverage and protection you think we
need, both from the standpoint of customs and immigration. That
may well be different than the Administration, through OMB,
says here is what we will request because here is what fits
into what we think our strategy is.
I understand that is a delicate thing to ask, but I really
think Congress needs that at this point. Our judgment might be
different than the Administration's judgment. I do not know. It
might not be. But in order to have the ability to make that
judgment, we should have the advantage of seeing your
recommendations unvarnished, if you are able to do that.
Now you are going to have to go back and perhaps ask some
people, but please consider submitting that to this
subcommittee because we have not yet gone to conference. I have
met with Congressman Istook, the Chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee in the House on these issues yesterday. I am very
interested in getting that unvarnished judgment from you.
Homeland security
The second point, and the last point, homeland security. I
assume that with Governor Ridge assuming that job very soon,
that both of your agencies will have a significant relationship
to Governor Ridge and homeland security. Have you thought about
that? Has there been discussion inside the Administration about
what that relationship might be? Can you describe that for me,
if there has been some discussion?
Mr. Bonner. I am so new in this town, or being back in this
town, Mr. Chairman, all I can say is I have had a very
preliminary conversation with Governor Ridge. That was last
week, which was my first week as the Commissioner of the U.S.
Customs Service. And ultimately, I think it is fair to say that
besides offering Governor Ridge the full support of the Customs
Service with respect to the important task he is undertaking,
as far as how that will be structured and how that is going to
be shaped, what his authority will be, and those kinds of
questions, that is something that I know is being certainly
discussed between Governor Ridge and the President. I do not
feel comfortable expressing a view, even though I may have one,
on how that should be structured.
He is going to have an important task and I think it is
fair to say that both Commissioner Ziglar and I are going to be
working very closely with Governor Ridge. He does strike me as
certainly the right person at the right time for that
particular task. It is something that I think ultimately will
be helpful to making sure that we do have the kind of border
security that this country requires, in light of the September
11 attacks.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Bonner, thank you for that answer.
I will put in writing that previous point, asking for your
assessment of the resources needed and I would hope you would
respond to that. Commissioner Ziglar, I will put it in writing
to you, as well, and hope that you will respond fully if you
can.
And would you be willing to respond to the question about
homeland security?
Mr. Ziglar. I think as Commissioner Bonner pointed out,
this is in its very infant stages, in terms of discussions.
Certainly INS has been the subject of a number of studies over
the years, the Hart-Rudman Commission and others, about how it
would fit into a bigger, broader border security mechanism.
I have not personally talked to Governor Ridge, yet. I know
that we will be meeting relatively soon. I think it is a little
early to say exactly what the impact will be.
Mr. Chairman, may I make one last comment? It was triggered
by the notion about the sky marshals, which I think is a great
idea. But the formation of the sky marshal core, the increase
in the sky marshal core, is exacerbating a bit of a problem
that we have at INS both on the Border Patrol and the
inspection side. In a word, let me tell you what it is.
Our Border Patrol agents are at the journeyman level. Those
are the people that have reached that career level. Unlike most
Federal law enforcement people where the journeyman level is a
GS-12, ours are stuck at a GS-9. That has created a real
problem for us with respect to other Federal law enforcement
agencies recruiting our people away from us because they can
get a higher level of pay and better benefits, in effect,
through the retirement system by going to a higher journeyman
level.
That is truly exacerbated by the sky marshal situation
because that is going to be a premium situation for them. In
fact, just yesterday we had three of our guys leave to go join
the sky marshals and we know, our intelligence tells us that
are attempting to go because it is better pay and it is,
frankly, better working conditions.
The other situation that we have is with our inspectors.
Here are people who we put through the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Academy. Here are people that carry guns. Here are
people that are law enforcement, they have arrest powers. They
are expected to do their law enforcement function. And yet,
they are not Federal law enforcement agents under Section 6(c).
What that means is that they do not have the same law
enforcement benefits as other Federal law enforcement agents
do. Their pay scales are different. Their retirement is
different. And frankly, it does a couple of things. It hurts
their morale tremendously and, if you will, their self-esteem.
But more than that, it makes them again targets of other
Federal law enforcement agencies to come and get them, because
we trained them very well.
That is something, that parity issue is a very difficult
problem and it is going to be a more difficult problem for us
as we go along. I happen to feel fairly passionately about
that. I wanted to, since the Judge opened the door about sky
marshals, I wanted to make that one last point.
Senator Dorgan. Let me make a couple of comments, as well,
as we close. Senator Campbell, who is the ranking member of
this subcommittee, was going to be with us today but he was
detained by other business. He is someone who has worked
closely with me on these issues, and we will have additional
hearings and he will be an integral part of them. He is a
critical part of this subcommittee. I appreciate his work and
his counsel.
I have a number of questions for the record that I am going
to submit, and Senator Campbell has questions for the record
that we hope both agencies would respond to.
Prepared statements
We will include a record statement provided to the
Subcommittee from Colleen Kelly, the President of the National
Treasury Employees Union, as well as one submitted by Senator
Levin.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Colleen Kelley, President, National Treasury
Employees Union
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking member Campbell, thank you for the
opportunity to provide this testimony. As President of The National
Treasury Employees Union, I am proud to represent the over 13,000
Customs Service employees who serve as the first line of defense
against terrorism and the influx of drugs and contraband into the
United States. In light of the recent tragedies at the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center Customs personnel have been called upon to implement
heightened security procedures at our land, sea and airports.
Customs personnel are working under heightened Level 1 border
security as a result of the tragedy of September 11, 2001. They are not
only continuing to do their normal duties but they are also assisting
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Marshal Service
at security checkpoints in all major airports. Customs personnel
assisting the FAA and U.S. Marshals have provided invaluable assistance
during this heightened state of awareness all around the country.
A fact that must not be lost is that the workload of the Customs
Service employees has dramatically increased every year including more
commercial entries that must be processed, more trucks that must be
cleared and more passengers that must be inspected at the 301 ports of
entry. There has been a relatively small increase in personnel
worldwide, despite the dramatic increases in trade resulting from
NAFTA, the increased threat of terrorism, drug smuggling and the
opening of new ports and land border crossings each year. In 2000,
Customs Service employees seized over 1.5 million pounds of cocaine,
heroin, marijuana and other illegal narcotics--as well as over 9
million tablets of Ecstasy, triple the amount seized in 1999. Customs
also processed nearly 500 million travelers last year, including 140
million cars and trucks and over $1 trillion worth of trade. This
number continues to grow annually, and statistics show that over the
last decade trade has increased by 135 percent.
In addition, Customs employees have become responsible for
preventing international money-laundering and arms smuggling. Yet, the
Customs Service has confronted its rapidly increasing workload with
relatively static staffing levels and resources. In the last ten years,
there have not been adequate increases in staffing levels for
inspectional personnel and import specialists--the employees who
process the legitimate trade and thwart illegal imports.
It's very clear that funding must be increased to allow Customs to
meet the challenges of the future. In recent years Customs has seen a
decrease in the level of funding, relative to other Federal law
enforcement agencies, even while having significantly higher workloads
and threats along America's borders. Customs' recent internal review of
staffing, known as the Resource Allocation Model or R.A.M., shows that
Customs needs over 14,776 new hires just to fulfill its basic mission
for the future. The Administration and Congress must show the men and
women of the Customs Service they respect and support the difficult and
dangerous work these officers do 365 days a year by providing increased
funding for the Customs Service.
NTEU recommends deploying the new hires to our Nation's ports of
entry along the area ports on the Northern Border where some ports are
unmanned and where the threat of international terrorism has forever
changed the landscape. We must also deploy new hires along the busy
Southwest land border where wait times hinder trade facilitation and
drug smuggling is at its peak. In addition to the busy land borders,
NTEU recommends focusing attention on the seaports and airports across
the country. The understaffed and overworked inspectors at the U.S.
seaports and airports currently contend with corruption, theft and
safety issues that are a direct result of the lack of staffing. As one
Southwest Border Senator aptly phrased it: ``U.S. seaports and airports
are under siege by smugglers, drug traffickers and other criminals, yet
law enforcement agencies that regulate them are understaffed and
outgunned.''
This year, Congress acknowledged the shortage of staffing and
resources by appropriating additional money for staffing and other
resources for Customs, but it is not enough. Quite simply, the
resources have not been provided for Customs Inspectors', Canine
Enforcement Officers and Import Specialists to adequately do their
jobs. With the new challenges facing the Customs Service since
September 11, 2001 this is an untenable situation that must be
addressed immediately.
Another important issue that must be addressed is law enforcement
status for Customs Inspectors and Canine Enforcement Officers. The U.S.
Customs Service Inspectors and Canine Enforcement Officers continue to
be the Nation's first line of defense against terrorism and the
smuggling of illegal drugs and contraband at our borders and in our
ports. Customs seizes millions of pounds of narcotics annually. Customs
Service Inspectors have the authority to apprehend and detain those
engaged in terrorism, drug smuggling and violations of other civil and
criminal laws. For example, it was Customs Inspectors who stopped a
terrorist attack planned for New Years Day 2000 by identifying and
capturing a terrorist with bomb making material as he tried to enter
the country at Port Angeles, Washington.
Canine Enforcement Officers and Inspectors carry weapons, and twice
a year they must qualify and maintain proficiency on a fire arm range.
Yet, these Inspectors and CEO's do not have law enforcement officer
status. They are being denied the benefits given to their colleagues
who they have been working beside to keep our country safe. Customs
employees face real dangers on a daily basis, granting them law
enforcement officer status would be an appropriate and long overdue
step in recognizing the tremendous contribution Customs personnel make
to protecting our borders from terrorism and drugs. I ask for the
Subcommittee's support on this issue of fairness.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
Customs Service employees on these very important issues
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Carl Levin
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony today on northern border security
issues. I appreciate the Subcommittees' efforts in the fiscal year 2002
appropriations bill to provide $25 million specifically for a Northern
Border hiring initiative to increase staffing along the northern U.S.
border. I urge members of the Subcommittee to fight to retain this
Senate position in Conference with the House since it has become doubly
important for this Northern Border initiative to move forward in light
of the increased security demands on our borders.
I also appreciate the Subcommittee's recognition that Southeast
Michigan is one of the largest commercial trade corridors in North
America and among the busiest ports in the country and growing and
recommendation that Customs give a high priority to funding sufficient
staffing at the Southeast Michigan for fiscal year 2002. You have also
recognized that the port of Detroit is unique because it includes an
airport, a seaport, a tunnel, and bridges along a busy international
border. Southeast Michigan is home to 5 international border crossings:
2 bridges and 3 tunnels. Detroit's Ambassador Bridge is the busiest
border crossing in the entire country and the Blue Water Bridge in Port
Huron is the third busiest northern border crossing.
Prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the port was already
significantly understaffed both by Customs and INS personnel. For
example, the Commerce Justice State Appropriations Report written well
before September 11 states that the Detroit bridge and tunnel port of
entry is understaffed by a whopping 151 people. The port of Detroit and
Port Huron now face much greater needs.
In the aftermath of September 11 tragic events, security has
necessarily been tightened at all our borders. This includes the border
crossings at the port of Detroit, including the Ambassador Bridge, the
Detroit-Windsor Tunnel and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. The
U.S. Customs Service is now inspecting every vehicle and almost every
truck crossing into the United States at these ports of entry after
such a terrible breach of our Nation's security. We faced these
increased security requirements with severely low staffing levels and
the result was gridlock at one of the most important commercial
corridors in the country.
These ports of entry are important commercial routes for the
transport of the just-in-time delivery auto parts to American auto
manufacturing plants which are supplied from Canada and elsewhere.
Just-in-time delivery means an industry must have the ability to move
its product quickly from point to point. An unfortunate side effect of
the tightened security is that delays of up to 12 hours in some cases
have occurred at the bridges and tunnel. This has meant that the just-
in-time delivery systems that the manufacturers rely on have broken
down. As a result, assembly plants in the United States do not have the
necessary parts and many have shut down. Others may have to shut down
soon for lack of parts.
This backup at our northern border, particularly in the Detroit
area, during these extraordinary times highlights and aggravates an
existing and chronic problem of under-staffing of Customs inspection
and INS personnel at the port of Detroit and along the Northern border
in general. Congress was beginning to address this shortfall before the
terrorist attacks and the subsequent need for increased security
exacerbated the problem.
With the help of dedicated law enforcement officials working
overtime, the Michigan National Guard, and volunteers, Detroit has
managed to piece together a temporary arrangement to make things work
better at the port of Detroit in order to keep commerce and trade
going. However, this is just a temporary and fragile fix. For example,
the national guard may be called elsewhere, such as at airports or
deployed overseas. That could mean going back to 12 hour delays and
that is unacceptable.
We need to find a permanent solution to the manpower shortfall at
the port of Detroit and other Northern border ports so that they are
able to perform the required security inspections to protect our Nation
without causing unreasonable backups that hurt our economy. The
National Customs Automation Program (N-CAP), a pilot program is one way
of reducing the traffic backups and assisting Customs in its cargo
inspection process. N-CAP was implemented as a pilot program under the
Customs Modernization Act and has proven to be a highly effective tool
for facilitating safe and efficient cargo tracking and inspections. The
program was implemented at only three borders, Detroit, Port Huron and
Lorado. It should be expanded.
In addition to expanding N-CAP, solutions should include dealing
with overtime issues and costs, compensation for our law enforcement
volunteers, developing and implementing an adequate technical
infrastructure and getting the posts permanently and adequately staffed
with Customs and INS officials so that we don't have to rely on
temporary fixes.
We should be vigilant in inspecting and protecting our Nation's
border. But we should also be sure that we commit adequate resources to
preform these inspections without hurting our economy in the process.
It makes good domestic security sense and it makes good economic sense.
Senator Dorgan. We had a number of Senators who wished to
make appearances today and make statements, and come as
witnesses. We have held that off because I wanted to have the
two commissioners have the opportunity to discuss this at this
first hearing.
But let me conclude where I began, to say that Commissioner
Bonner said that he hopes to get rid of these orange cones. I
think all of us understand, this is simply an orange rubber
cone. It is not security. And yet tonight, when all of us are
getting ready for bed, standing sentry on the Northern Plains
at border ports all across America will be this rubber orange
cone. And frankly, I will not sleep much better because of it
and, I expect, neither will the Commissioners of the Customs
Service or Immigration Service.
So let us join together to evaluate how we might boost
security, especially in the light of September 11, and provide
better security than an orange rubber cone can give us, at
northern entry ports especially.
Additional Committee Questions
Let me thank both of you. You indicated you are both new.
We know that. We have just recently confirmed the two of you.
You have inherited a pretty sizeable job, one neither of you
expected when you made yourself available for these jobs. But
you both have backgrounds that give those of us in the Senate
great confidence, and I appreciate very much your willingness
to testify here today before this Senate Subcommittee.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department of the Treasury for response
subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
custom service
Question. Please provide a complete breakdown of what the Customs
Service requested through the Department and/or OMB that was to be
included in the $20 billion supplemental package.
Answer. A chronological comparison of Customs proposals developed
in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are presented
below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13-Sep 26-Sep 10-Oct Funds
proposal request request received \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary WTC operations......................................... 25,500 25,500 25,500 25,500
Permanent replacement for WTC equipment including full service 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000
laboratory......................................................
OFO Inspectors for increased security @ high risk ports for 5 5,000 5,000 8,000 29,000
additional weeks................................................
Northern Border Inspectors/Agents for 6 weeks.................... 6,000 6,000 9,000 29,000
Air Support (Counter-terrorism & airspace security) @ $700k/day.. 21,400 21,400 21,400 21,400
Anti-Terrorism................................................... 125,000 316,620 316,620 0
Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)...................... 28,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Biometric Standards.............................................. 25,000 25,200 0 0
Commercial Backup Facility....................................... 30,000 25,300 25,300 0
Enhanced Security at Newington Data Center \2\................... 1,500 0 0 0
Foreign Operations Staffing...................................... 25,500 30,433 30,433 0
Homeland Security (Air Program) \3\.............................. 39,000 39,000 0 0
INET--Case Management............................................ 32,000 33,000 0 0
Infrastructure Enhancement at all Customs Facilities \4\......... 123,000 0 0 0
Maritime Port Security \5\....................................... 161,000 161,000 229,315 0
National Data Center Relocation.................................. 45,000 45,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS......................................... 719,900 778,453 710,568 149,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To date, Customs has received $35.7 million as follows: $14.7 million for Air Program taskings; $15.0
million for replacement of office equipment and furnishings; and, $6.0 million for Agent and Inspector
overtime. The President's October 17, 2001, Supplemental proposal included $114.2 million as follows: $52
million for Agent and Inspector overtime and TDY costs; $37.5 million for replacement of World Trade Center
equipment and furnishings; $18 million for the Advanced Passenger Information System; and, $6.7 million for
Air Program Taskings. Congress must pass an appropriations bill before these funds become available.
\2\ Merged with the Commercial Backup Facility for Newington Initiative in the September 26 and subsequent
version of the Supplemental.
\3\ Original Homeland Security proposal consisted of $87.5 M for TARS and $39.0 M for PDD-62 Air Branch. Only
PDD-62 Air Branch was included in the September 26 version.
\4\ Infrastructure request @ $125.0 M was merged with Anti-terrorism in the September 26 and subsequent version
of the Supplemental.
\5\ October 10th version includes an additional $67.8 M for Phase 2 of the Maritime Port Security Initiative.
Question. What steps are involved in moving to a Level 1 security?
Could you sustain this indefinitely?
Answer. Since September 11, 2001, Customs has been operating at
Alert Level 1. This alert level can be immediately enacted and entails
implementing the following actions on an appropriate basis,
commensurate with threat:
--The full deployment of personnel and equipment to perform increased
intensified passenger, cargo and mail examinations, and staff
ports of entry with a minimum of two officers, 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week.
--The establishment of multi-disciplined command centers,
implementation of Continuance of Operations Plans (COOPS); and
increased security procedures at government facilities (i.e.
perimeter checks, identification checks, restrictions on
parking, etc.)
--Increased utilization of Special Agents and Air and Marine assets
to perform increased investigative operations commensurate with
threat.
--Coordination of security and bomb detection efforts with State and
local law enforcement.
Alert Level 1 operations can not be maintained indefinitely.
Implementing Alert Level 1 has significantly intensified operations and
depleted existing Customs resources. Customs has achieved Alert Level 1
operations through a combination of the re-deployment of existing
personnel including temporary details, increased expenditure of
overtime funds, and the assignment of personnel to exhaustive 12-16
hour workdays on a regular and recurring basis.
Question. What is the envisioned role of Customs in aviation
security and airport security?
Answer. Customs will always have a role in aviation security due to
our inspectional, enforcement and regulatory responsibilities. As of
now, we control international inbound and outbound flights as to their
landing and clearances for Customs examination. We also manage airport
access relative to international arrival areas for passengers and
cargo. The Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) is a voluntary
program that has been in existence for more than 10 years. Under this
program air carriers that are participating send advance identifying
data on passengers (name, date of birth, nationality, travel document
number) to Customs while the aircraft is en-route to the U.S. As
needed, Customs takes the appropriate law enforcement action(s) on
passengers that pose a security or smuggling threat.
Question. How many agents have been detailed to the Air Marshal
Program and what is the impact on your regular duties nationwide? What
is the most appropriate agency to house the Air Marshal program?
Answer. Customs has detailed 125 enforcement personnel to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Marshall Program. The
Department of the Treasury is managing the resources which Customs and
other Treasury Bureaus have detailed to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). All comments relative to the Treasury commitment
should be addressed to the Office of the Under Secretary. As to impact
on Customs investigative operations, we are coping with this
redeployment just as every agency had to cope with more immediate
taskings due to the events of September 11, 2001. It would
inappropriate to comment as to which agency should ultimately have the
Air Marshal Program as this is a decision for the President, and he has
not made the final decision.
Question. What are Customs plans to meet the current challenges of
ensuring the safety of the American people without hampering the
movement of commercial traffic through our borders?
Answer. In order to ensure the safety of the American people the
Customs Service is currently operating under terrorism Alert Level 1
status. This alert level requires that all ports of entry immediately
increase vehicle, passenger, cargo, and mail examinations commensurate
with the threat at their location. Anti-smuggling and outbound
operations have been increased as well, and non-essential operations
have been suspended. Furthermore, Customs immediately reviewed and
suspended several programs and practices in order to redirect resources
to ensure the steady movement of commercial traffic.
Additional steps taken by Customs to ensure the safety of the
American people without hampering the movement of commercial traffic
include the staffing of all land border ports with a minimum of two
officers per shift, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
(7242). Because many Northern land border ports of
entry are not normally staffed 7242, nearly 100
additional Customs Inspectors have been temporarily detailed to
Northern Border ports of entry to provide adequate coverage. Customs is
closely monitoring commercial and privately owned vehicle (POV) traffic
wait times, and posting this information twice daily on the Customs
Website.
Question. What locations on the Northern Border currently maintain
VACIS systems? Is there a plan being developed on acquiring additional
systems to help alleviate commercial congestion due to increased
inspections of goods?
Answer. Funding for deployment of large Non-Intrusive Inspection
(NII) technology systems on the Northern Border has been limited, and,
to date, there are no VACIS systems deployed on the Northern Border.
However, three Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems (VACIS) have been
identified for deployment to the Northern Border at the following
locations: Detroit, Michigan; Lewiston, New York; and Champlain, New
York.
Another $10 million under Public Law 106-554 has been released for
the purchase of Mobile X-ray Vans for the following locations:
Alexandria Bay, New York; Champlain, New York; Highgate Springs,
Vermont; and Pembina, North Dakota.
The events of September 11, 2001, further underscored the
importance of Northern Border security and 3 Mobile VACIS systems were
identified for redeployment to the Northern Border at the following
locations: Blaine, Washington; Detroit, Michigan; and Ogdensburg, New
York.
Increased Customs inspectional resources and equipment on the
Northern Border would enhance our capabilities to detect and seize
explosives and other implements of terrorism through the inspection
process as well as maintain heightened alert operations. The use of
various forms of NII technology will allow enhanced enforcement to
coexist with the timely processing of legitimate trade and travel.
Question. In the past, we have spent millions of dollars investing
in new technology only to decide that it would be ineffective and
problematic given the challenges we now face, such as the Remote Video
Inspection Service (RVIS). What new or existing technologies are being
considered for the northern border to address the current threat?
Answer. Increased Customs inspectional resources and technologies
on the Northern Border would enhance our capabilities to detect and
seize narcotics, weapons of mass destruction and other illegal articles
and instruments used in support of terrorist activities. Along with
large-scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology such as the
VACIS, Mobile VACIS, and Rail VACIS systems, we are considering a
mixture of portable technologies such as particle detectors, personal
radiation detectors, isotope identifiers and X-ray imaging devices, for
deployment to the Northern Border
Question. Both Customs and INS face significant infrastructure
challenges on the Northern Border. For example, in my own state (North
Dakota) the facilities at the Portal Point of Entry do not meet the
needs of Customs or INS. These deficiencies are all the more glaring
when Customs and INS facilities are compared to those used by their
Canadian counterparts. What plans are in place to work with GSA to
reinvigorate the construction of these facilities along the Northern
Border?
Answer. Customs is working jointly with INS, Agriculture's Animal &
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the General Services
Administration (GSA) to identify immediate and long-term facilities
requirements along the Northern Border.
--This joint effort produced a Ports of Entry Infrastructure
Assessment that was presented to Treasury, OMB, and the Senate
and House appropriations committees who initially requested the
report.
--The scope of this Assessment included both the Northern and
Southern Borders. The Assessment identified a total of 858
projects at a cost of $834 million.
--Within North Dakota, the Assessment identified Portal as requiring
a new facility at a cost of $12.5 million. Five other North
Dakota crossings were identified as requiring new facilities at
a cost of $20.1 million. Overall, the 18 crossings in North
Dakota were identified as requiring a total of $49 million in
new facilities and other essential infrastructure improvements.
--Across the entire Northern Border, the Assessment identified $280
million in requirements to replace aged facilities and improve
traffic and cargo processing.
--The Assessment found that 32 of the 128 Northern Border crossings
(including all six North Dakota crossings) require total
replacement. These facilities date from the 1930's.
--Sixteen of the 32 new facility requirements have been incorporated
in a 5-year Long-Range Plan (LRP) developed by the Border
Station Partnership Council (BSPC). Two of the 16 in the LRP
are in North Dakota. The BSCP includes representatives from the
Federal Inspection agencies (Customs, INS, APHIS and FDA),
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the GSA.
--Limited funding available through the Federal Building Fund has
restricted the ability of inspection agencies and GSA to move
forward with vigor.
--The FIS agencies and GSA are prepared to move forward to
reinvigorate the facilities infrastructure to better support
our Northern Border missions.
Question. It is my understanding that only 85 percent of
international flights provide advance passenger information to the U.S.
Customs Service prior to arrival in the United States. What can be done
to get the remaining airlines to comply with this policy and how would
this information and domestic flight information aid you in your agency
objectives?
Answer. The Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) is a
voluntary program that has been in existence for more than 10 years.
Under this program air carriers that are participating send advance
identifying data on passengers (name, date of birth, nationality,
travel document number) to Customs while the aircraft is en-route to
the U.S. The APIS system received data on 87 percent of inbound
passengers, excluding passengers precleared overseas, in September
2001, which is the highest rate ever achieved. All major U.S. flag
carriers and most major international carriers participate in the APIS
program. American, United, Delta, Continental, Northwest, U.S. Airways,
Alaska, British, Lufthansa, Air France, Aero Mexico, Air Canada, Japan,
and Quantas are just some of the airlines that participate in APIS. A
total of 94 air carriers have signed the APIS Memorandum of
Understanding agreeing to send this information.
America West is the largest U.S. carrier with scheduled
international flights not currently using APIS, however they have
recently indicated they are considering using APIS. Aeroflot, Olympic,
Royal Jordanian, Saudia, and Kuwaiti are examples of some of the
carriers that do not transmit to APIS. We have tried to convince these
non-participating carriers to join the APIS program, however as of this
time they have not shown any interest.
Customs would also like to change the way APIS information is
received and processed. We currently receive the full APIS manifest in
a batch transmission containing all the names collected after the
aircraft has taken off. In the future we would like to have each name
transmitted as that passenger checks in, before they actually board the
aircraft. If a particular passenger poses an aviation security concern,
a warning message could be sent to the appropriate security personnel
to subject them to a thorough security screening, or prevent their
boarding.
Customs also has access to the reservation system data of a few
carriers that have provided us access on a voluntary basis. Their
reservation systems allow us to see travel details about passengers of
interest that enable us to make more selective and effective decisions
on whom should be inspected. Unfortunately, the number of carriers that
provide access to this data is very small. This information, combined
with the APIS data, allows Customs to more effectively pinpoint the
very few passengers that pose a security or smuggling threat.
There has been resistance from most foreign flag carriers to
providing the reservation system data, and a critical few have resisted
providing APIS data. Absent a legal mandate, Customs is currently
evaluating other means of ensuring compliance. Full access to this
information on all inbound and outbound international passengers will
greatly assist Customs and Immigration in their border security
mission.
Although Customs' mission is at the border, if the APIS system is
modified to process passengers on a ``name by name'' basis prior to
boarding, it may be appropriate to expand the use of the system to
domestic flights. Watch lists of persons thought to be associated with
terrorist organizations have been placed in the Inter-agency Border
Inspection System (IBIS) in the form of lookout records. Many Federal
agencies can place lookout records on suspect individual in IBIS,
including Customs, Immigration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and the Secret Service. Since all names sent in APIS are checked
against lookout records in IBIS, the system could also support security
efforts on domestic flights if that is desired.
Question. My staff has learned from outside sources that your
budget director recently stated in a meeting that Customs does not have
any staffing needs and even if you were provided supplemental funds,
you would not hire additional staff. Is this true?
Answer. The Customs budget director has never stated that Customs
does not have any staffing needs. One of Customs primary concerns is to
increase staffing at the ports of entry, especially those along the
Northern Border particularly in light of the terrorist attacks on
September 11. To increase security, staffing and inspection technology
needs to be increased along the Northern Border.
The remarks that you may be referring to may have been taken out of
context. In briefings on the fiscal year 2002 President's budget as
submitted to Congress, the Customs Budget Officer stated that no
additional staff were proposed in the budget.
Question. Consideration has been given to include language in the
Anti-Terrorism package that would confer law enforcement status on
Customs Inspectors and Canine Enforcement Officers. Do you support this
proposal and how would it affect the agency?
Answer. This is an important and complicated issue that requires
further study. Although it may be appropriate for those officers to
receive law enforcement compensation based on their duties, conferring
law enforcement status on these officers would require that Customs
alter its staffing methodology and hiring strategy. In addition,
affected officers would be subject to a mandatory retirement age, and
enhanced resource levels would be needed to support the legislative
requirement.
Question. You have recently staffed foreign Attache offices in
Vancouver and Toronto, and have beefed up your presence in Ottawa. What
role do you see your foreign Attaches having in terrorist related
investigations?
Answer. Customs overseas Attache offices have worked and will
continue to work closely with the Treasury Department's Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the pursuit of investigative leads
pertaining to financial assets and the foreign money trails of
terrorist organizations. Through our strong liaisons with foreign law
enforcement counterparts, we will assist with freezing and seizure of
terrorist assets located overseas. Our foreign Attaches will support
domestic Customs investigations relating to international arms
trafficking and weapons of mass destruction, to include biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons.
Our foreign Attaches will be proactive in developing information on
violations of Customs laws, such as Intellectual Property Rights, the
proceeds of which could be used to support terrorist activities.
A priority has been placed on the international training component.
Our Attaches will identify and coordinate appropriate training for
foreign counterparts, particularly in areas such as weapons of mass
destruction and money laundering.
Question. A passenger processing fee helps fund Customs activities
at our borders and air and sea ports. There has been a drop off in the
amount of these fees coming in to Customs over the last year, causing
cutbacks in overtime and fewer positions funded by this account. In
light of the recent fall off in air travel, it is likely that there
will be an even more dramatic shortfall in these fees in the new fiscal
year. What plans do you have to make up for the funds that likely will
not be coming into Customs?
Answer. We have experienced a decrease in the rate of growth of the
collections of passenger processing fees (Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (COBRA) user fees) in recent years. COBRA
collections have leveled off significantly due to a decrease in air
travelers. As a result of the shut down in air traffic and fewer
international travelers resulting from the terrorist attacks on
September 11, it is anticipated that there will be a further reduction
in projected fee collections through fiscal year 2002.
First quarter collections are due shortly. Customs will be
reviewing all COBRA funded activities to provide inspection services at
land borders, airports, and sea ports. However, some of the current
overtime expenses related to the heightened security mandate will be
reimbursed from the Emergency Response Supplemental.
Question. Customs employees have a cap on the amount of overtime
they can earn in a year. I have heard that Customs is assigning more
overtime to less experienced, lower paid inspectors in order to avoid
problems with the cap. Does that present a security risk, to be relying
on inexperienced employees in this dangerous time? Would you support
lifting this statutory cap?
Answer. The overtime cap for Customs Officers was waived last
fiscal year after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The
ability to waive the cap during national emergencies appears
sufficient.
Currently, there is a negotiated agreement with the employees'
representative, the National Treasury Employees Union, on the manner in
which overtime is assigned. Overtime is administered in a fair and
equitable manner, commensurate with the risk, threat, call-out order,
seniority, training, and experience. We are not creating a security
risk with less experienced officers.
Question. It is apparent that the needs of our Northern Border have
been derailed in the past by the demands of the Southwest Border. How
do your respective agencies intend on balancing out these needs?
Answer. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S.
Customs Service has implemented a Level I Alert Status. In this mode,
all Northern Border Ports are being staffed by a minimum of 2 Officers
per shift, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Customs' short term response
is the following:
--The additional inspectors required to accomplish this task have
been assigned to the Northern Border in a temporary duty
status.
--No inspectors from the Southwest Border have been detailed to the
Northern Border Over the longer term, Customs intends to deploy
additional resources to the Northern Border to ensure adequate
security and facilitate trade. To that end, Customs is working
with other agencies and Canada to develop a comprehensive
Northern Border strategy. Increased staffing is a part of that
strategy.
--The U.S. Customs Service in conjunction with Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
and Citizenship and Immigration Canada is developing a joint
Border Management Strategy.
--This plan will provide a framework for a cooperative and
coordinated Counter Terrorism Effort along the external border
of the U.S. and Canada, as well as the shared border.
--Through the use of information exchange and risk management, the
U.S. Customs Service will be able to focus it enforcement and
commercial resources on the areas of higher or unknown risks.
--There are 128 Northern Border ports and stations, including 8
ferry/boat crossings. The majority of these crossings, 104,
have less than 8 full-time Inspectors, which is the minimum
staffing requirement for 2472 (2 Inspectors
for shift) per Alert Level I.
Question. Since the events of September 11, our borders have been
staffed 24 hours a day. Many of our smaller northern border stations
were previously staffed by only one Customs inspector or INS inspector
at a time and open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., which represents an enormous
jump for your agencies to make without additional resources. Is this a
policy that is to remain in effect permanently, and if so what
additional resources will be needed for the short term and long term?
Answer. As previously noted, at least for the near term, all land
border ports will be staffed with a minimum of 2 officers per shift, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week (7242). Because many
Northern land border ports of entry are not normally staffed
7242, nearly 100 additional Customs Inspectors have
been temporarily detailed to Northern Border ports of entry to provide
adequate coverage. This has placed great demands on Customs existing
staffing. Over the longer term, Customs is currently evaluating the
best method for ensuring security.
Question. What do you envision your role being in the new Homeland
Security Office? Do you anticipate staff from your agency being used to
staff the new office?
Answer. While the U.S. Customs Service role in the new Homeland
Security Office has not been finalized, it should be noted that the
Customs Service is a principal guardian of our Nation's borders,
America's Frontline to protect the American public from international
terrorism. For over two centuries, the role of Customs has been focused
upon illegal activities in the cross-border environment. In the context
of combating terrorism, Customs role includes the identification and
apprehension of terrorists and the interdiction of instruments of
terrorism including Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) both arriving
into and exiting the United States. It also includes interdiction
efforts to stop illegal international movement of U.S. funds for the
support of terrorist groups.
Customs will provide detailees to the new Homeland Security Office
as needed.
In June 1995 the President signed Presidential Decision Directive
(PDD) 39, which established a comprehensive U.S. counter terrorism
strategy to reduce vulnerabilities to terrorism and respond to
terrorist acts. PDD 39 sets forth the responsibilities of various
Federal departments involved in combating terrorism. The Department of
the Treasury is responsible for reducing vulnerabilities by enforcing
U.S. laws controlling the import and export of goods and services and
the movement of assets, and preventing unlawful traffic in firearms and
explosives.
Question. Please describe the interagency cooperation in relation
to border security and what lies ahead in the new challenges we face.
Answer. Customs has a long history of working with other agencies
to enhance border security. The Office of Field Operations and the
Applied Technology Division of the Office of Information Technology
have worked with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of
Energy on the development of radiation detection devices. Both of these
offices will be working with the Department of Defense on Chemical
Biological detection devices. Additionally, the Office of Field
Operations works closely with the Federal Aviation Administration in
the area of Aviation Safety and Security. Field Operations also works
with the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local first
responders in the area of hazardous and dangerous cargo transportation.
Since 1997, the U.S. Customs Service has assigned special agents to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Joint Terrorism Task Forces
(JTTF) who investigate various crimes associated with terrorism to
include money laundering. Currently we have special agents
participating in 30 Joint Terrorism Task Forces throughout the United
States. These agents are providing financial and money laundering
investigative expertise as it relates to ongoing terrorist
investigations, to include those tied to the September 11, 2001
incidents.
Since September 11, 2001, Customs has assigned agents to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Financial Review Group in
Washington, D.C. to assist in the identification of suspect leads and
subsequent joint money laundering investigations targeting terrorist
organizations. The U.S. Customs Money Laundering Coordination Center,
or MLCC, is also being utilized to assist the FBI and other law
enforcement agencies by cross referencing terrorist financial data with
the MLCC financial database to determine whether the identified bank
accounts were utilized during prior criminal investigations.
Customs is also providing Intelligence Research Specialists to the
FBI to cross reference intelligence from Customs databases with the
intelligence received from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
Additionally, the U.S. Customs Service conducts various types of
investigations focusing on violations of Intellectual Property Rights,
narcotics smuggling and arms trafficking, among others. In recent
cases, while investigating the financial aspects of these cases,
Customs has determined that the proceeds of these illegal activities
have been laundered and identified as possible funds for international
terrorist activities.
Customs participated with 17 other agencies on the Interagency
Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports (ICCSS). Also,
Customs is a member of the Interagency Commission for Maritime
Transportation System, which is coordinated by the Coast Guard. This
group has a subcommittee on security (chaired by the Coast Guard and
co-chaired by Customs). There is also a subcommittee on research and
technology of which Customs is a member. In each seaport, Customs is
part of the Maritime Safety Committee. This committee is headed by the
Captain of the Port, and includes a subcommittee on security. Customs
Air and Marine Interdiction Division (AMID) has considerable
interaction with other agencies in counter-terrorism and maritime
security. Close working relationships are established at all levels
from headquarters to the field operators. Within the Department of the
Treasury, AMID works with the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) in support of
PDD-62 training in counter-terrorist operations and providing air space
security for National Special Security Events (NSSE's). AMID has a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) to provide routine support across all mission areas. The
Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center has liaisons on staff
and provides regular support to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), National Guard Bureau and U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). AMID
maintains a close working relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
on all maritime issues including maritime security. Customs is
considering a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) in support of the
National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) to provide NNSA with a
radiological emergency response capability using Customs aircraft.
The relationships built over the years were instrumental to the
success of AMID in responding to the September 11 terrorist incident.
Specifically:
Air & Marine Interdiction Coordination Center (AMICC) in Riverside,
CA provided:
--Ad hoc air threat task force consisting of: FBI, ATF, USSS, FAA,
DOD, USBP, and USCG.
--Investigative support with information from an AMICC aircraft
database.
--Identification of domestic and international airborne aircraft for
DOD and FAA.
--Flight clearance and air support for law enforcement agencies.
--Radar data feeds to North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). Customs P-3 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft
provided:
--Support to the North American Defense Command consisting of
indefinite 24-hour per day AEW coverage, initially over Miami,
FL and Atlanta, GA.
Customs Air Units provided:
--Blackhawk helicopters and a mobile command center deployed to the
Washington, DC area for USSS operational support and logistical
support to all agencies.
--FBI, ATF, USSS, FAA and USBP with approximately 100,000 air miles
transporting agents, investigators and hazardous materials
during the FAA restrictions.
--Air surveillance in support of ongoing FBI counter-terrorist
investigations. Customs Marine Units provided:
--Ongoing maritime security in conjunction with the Coast Guard in
the Gulf of Mexico, New Orleans, South Florida and Southern
California.
Through its network of Attaches and Customs Representatives, U.S.
Customs also works with a wide array of governmental agencies from
other countries as well as U.S. agencies operating overseas. In each
Embassy or Consulate where U.S. Customs is represented, the senior
Customs official is part of the local counter-terrorism team. This team
normally includes the FBI, DEA, Regional Security Officer and
representatives of the intelligence community.
Intelligence and investigative leads received by the Attache are
forwarded to the Terrorism Task Force and the appropriate Customs
domestic field office for action.
Moving forward, Customs intends to work closely with the INS, Coast
Guard, intelligence community, State Department, and the office of
Homeland Security to design and implement a comprehensive and
coordinated border security strategy.
Question. In the Anti-Terrorism package currently under review,
Congress intends on authorizing funding that would triple both Customs
and INS personnel at the Northern Border. How much would that cost both
agencies and what would be the time line for such a program?
Answer. A Northern Border staffing comparison is presented below
that illustrates cost and the tripling of USCS personnel.
NORTHERN BORDER STAFFING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIPLE
STAFFING TODAY STAFFING TOTAL NEW COST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSPECTORS...................................................... 1,327 3,981 $219,769,000
CANINE OFFICERS................................................. 28 84 6,208,000
SPECIAL AGENTS.................................................. 374 1,122 144,102,000
INTEL SPECIALISTS............................................... 26 78 3,716,596
TACTICAL COMM SPEC.............................................. 7 21 850,556
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL COST TO TRIPLE TRIPLE STAFFING ON NORTHERN BORDER... .............. .............. 375,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What challenges do you face in recruiting and hiring
additional agents, inspectors, and other personnel?
Answer. Customs has never had a problem in attracting candidates
for Customs Inspector, Canine Enforcement Officer, or Criminal
Investigator positions.
In fact, our last inspector announcement was only open 4 days and
attracted 5900 candidates.
Our quality recruitment program includes advance planning, so that
candidates proceed through all of the recruitment processes and form a
pipeline of employees ready to bring on board as they are needed. We
currently have a pipeline of 600 inspectors and agents cleared and
ready to bring on board, and another 1,000 applicants pending pre-
employment processes (background investigation, medical, and drug
screening). Our planning processes for fiscal year 2002 included
announcements to increase the pipeline with 900 additional inspectors.
We recently obtained authority to administer the Treasury
Enforcement Agent examination which has significantly improved our
hiring process for Criminal Investigators. We administer this test
monthly, and again have no problem in attracting quality candidates for
our positions. We typically test 200 applicants each month.
We currently have a pipeline for agents and have 100 candidates
ready to bring on board.
We do not want to minimize these challenges. While we have
processes in place to attract large numbers of candidates for our
positions and do advance hiring as much as possible, the hiring
process, in general, is lengthy but necessary to ensure the quality and
integrity of our new employees.
We support the Administration's Managerial Flexibility Act and
believe it will assist us in further streamlining our processes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. Does the Customs Service believe that imported drugs
could be used by terrorists in a bioterrorism attack? If so, what risks
do the USCS believe that reimportation of pharmaceuticals pose?
Answer. The Customs Service (Customs), in consultation with the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) believes that it depends upon the
type of drug in question. Not all drugs can be used as an effective
terrorism tool.
The reimportation of pharmaceuticals is only permitted when the
goods are returned to the original manufacturer.
Customs and the FDA have developed operational procedures to
address this issue. Customs and the FDA work closely together to
prevent the importation of any prescription drugs that have not been
approved by the FDA. Customs and the FDA focus their enforcement
efforts on the prevention of the importation of unapproved and
counterfeit prescription drugs into the United States.
The enormous volume of personal use prescription drugs attempted
entry into the United States via land border ports, the United States
Postal Service and express consignment facilities poses a challenge to
both agencies' resources. To address this situation, Customs and the
FDA are currently revamping the overall interagency business process in
an effort to develop a more efficient enforcement strategy.
Question. Does the Customs Service believe that reimported
pharmaceuticals pose a threat to Americans as a potential vehicle for a
bioterrorist attack?
Answer. Again, without more specific information about the
pharmaceuticals in question, we would reiterate that the answer depends
upon the type of drug in question and that the reimportation of
pharmaceuticals is only permitted when the goods are returned to the
original manufacturer. The Customs Service (Customs) and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) have developed operational procedures to
address this issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Question. Mr. Commissioner, you state in your testimony that you
work with your Canadian partners along the Northern Border. Would you
please elaborate on that partnership?
Answer. The U.S. Customs Service (USCS), along with Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency (CCRA), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and
the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), is a member of
the Shared Border Accord.
--The ``Accord'' is the overarching agreement for coordinated border
management, providing a structured forum for discussions on
cross border issues, including the Ressam incident, the Foot
and Mouth disease epidemic and most recently the September 11
attacks.
--The cited objective of the ``Accord'' is ``to provide enhanced
protection against drugs, smuggling and illegal and irregular
movement of people.''
--All 4-member agencies and the other participants (U.S. Department
of State and Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade) have agreed that Counter Terrorism is now
the highest priority.
--The USCS and CCRA have begun formulating a joint border management
strategy which will provide the framework to develop
complementary systems to combat terrorism, enforce laws along
our shared border and facilitate trade between the U.S. and
Canada.
--Both INS and CIC will be participating in this development through
working groups and discussions of advances relating to the
entry of individuals into the U.S. and Canada.
--The Shared Border Accord was announced on February 25, 1995 and
recognized that improving the efficiency of the U.S./Canada
border required cooperation and coordination. This agreement
holds that both countries share a responsibility to create a
border that is flexible enough to accommodate their economic
interests and permits them to protect the health and safety of
the citizens.
Question. I noted that all our borders are at Level One Alert. Do
you have any idea how long we will be at that high level of security?
How many levels are there? What was the level before September 11? What
are the parameters of Level Two?
Answer. Customs is currently operating under Alert Level 1 status,
or sustained intensive anti-terrorism operations, and is prepared to
remain operating at this alert level as long as the terrorism threat
requires us to do so. Customs has four terrorism alert level
designations: (1) Alert Level 1--Sustained Intensive Anti-terrorism
Operations, (2) Alert Level 2--Increased Operations, (3) Alert Level
3--Normal Inspectional Operations with Heightened Awareness, and (4)
Alert Level 4--Normal Operations.
The alert level that Customs was operating under before the events
that occurred on September 11 was Alert Level 4, or normal operations.
The operational requirements of Alert Level 2 are the same as Alert
Level 1. However, when working under Alert Level 2, the agency is not
required to temporarily deploy additional resources to port locations
to comply with operational needs.
Question. Congratulations on having reduced wait times to pre-
September 11 levels even with this additional high security. However,
as you know, many industry folks believe that the wait time was too
long to begin with. How do you account for the same wait time for a
significantly higher level of security?
Answer. Customs has addressed excessive wait times by opening
additional lanes (where available) and offering additional service with
the use of temporarily detailed employees and National Guard
assistance. Customs has suspended several non-essential programs in
order to dedicate more resources to anti-terrorism efforts. Employees
are also working additional shifts. However, this has caused overtime
expenditures to increase significantly. Customs is maximizing the
benefits of pre-screening the arriving conveyances, through the use of
``roving'' inspectors and canine enforcement officers. This allows the
inspections to be conducted while the vehicle is waiting in line,
rather than at the primary inspection area. Furthermore, non-intrusive
technology systems have allowed us to examine conveyances more quickly
and more efficiently.
Question. As you know, the Senate bill provides an additional $25
million to Customs for a Northern Border hiring initiative which, as
you noted in your testimony, would allow for the hiring of 285
additional personnel. Assuming that the final bill contains at least
that level of funding, those new inspectors, canine enforcement
officers, and agents all have to be trained. How long before they are
permanently stationed along the Northern Border?
Answer. Our quality recruitment programs for inspectors and agents
include advance planning, so that candidates proceed through all of the
recruitment processes and form a pipeline of employees ready to bring
on board as they are needed. We have already begun committing positions
for the northern border. We expect to have the 285 personnel hired by
the end of January and through their training by the end of May 2002.
This total includes 225 inspectors, 35 agents, and 25 canine
enforcement officers.
Question. You also state that Customs would require ``substantial
additional resources'' to staff all Northern Border ports full time.
How much money are we talking about? Further, once security returns to
a normal level, do all Northern Border ports NEED to be staffed 24
hours a day/7 days a week?
Answer. 2472 coverage is largely an interim
solutions to Northern Border security. To make this staffing permanent,
Customs estimates that it would cost $47 million to hire and train the
necessary inspectors. Customs is currently evaluating whether some
combination of infrastructure, technology, and staffing would also
ensure proper security at the Northern Border.
Question. Many of my colleagues have for some time urged the
Customs Service to utilize more non-intrusive technology and inspection
equipment along the Northern Border so I am pleased to note that this
is one of your proposals as well. How much would it cost to permanently
deploy these types of equipment along the Northern Border?
Answer. Customs is determined to stem the flow of narcotics,
weapons of mass destruction and other illegal articles and instruments
used in support of terrorist activities. In support of these efforts,
we propose to deploy a variety of technologies at our 128 Northern
Border crossing points. The initial cost of this technology, including
the personnel necessary to support the equipment, is approximately $115
million. Of that total, $68 million would procure our highest
technology needs on the Northern Border.
Subcommittee Recess
Senator Dorgan. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Wednesday, October 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, December 5.]
NORTHERN BORDER SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Treasury and
General Government,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Dorgan, Reed, and Stevens.
Opening Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Senator Dorgan. The hearing will come to order.
We will be joined by my colleagues shortly, but we want to
begin the hearing because of time.
The Senate will begin two votes at 10 o'clock, so it will
be my intention to take a recess at about 10:15 so I can do the
first vote and then also make the second vote and be back here.
I should not be gone more than 15 minutes. And as I indicated,
other colleagues on the subcommittee will be here, as well, so
perhaps we can do this in a way that does not recess the
committee.
The hearing today is to receive testimony from our
colleagues in the Senate and from Governors from northern
border States on the issue of Northern Border Security. Let me
make a couple of comments before we begin.
We share a long border with the country of Canada. Canada
is a good friend of the United States. We have an over 4,000
mile border. It has been called the longest undefended border
in the world.
Since September 11, with the terrorist attacks on the
United States, all of us understand that we need more border
security. One way to respond to the attacks by these terrorists
is to prevent terrorists from coming into this country. That
means you must have adequate border security. Adequate border
security means security at all of our borders because
terrorists most surely will find our weakest link.
We have examples of that. The millennium bomber who was
intending to come in to bomb the Los Angeles airport at the
turn of the millennium was apprehended at Port Angelos by a
U.S. Customs Service employee as he tried to cross into the
United States in Washington State. Ahmed Ressam was planning to
commit a number of acts of terror at the turn of the
millennium.
We know that there are over 50 terrorist groups or cells
operating in Canada, including Hamas and the al Qaeda network.
We know, for example, that terrorists have attempted to come to
Canada, and in some cases successfully arrived in Canada with
the intention of crossing the border into this country.
I also know that the Canadians sometimes are concerned
about our discussion about northern border security because
they feel that we are somehow pointing at the Canadians
themselves. That is not the case. Canada is a good neighbor of
ours. It is our largest trading partner. We have a substantial
amount of traffic and trade between our two countries.
We want to do two things. One, we want to keep people from
entering this country who should not come into our country,
terrorists, known or suspected terrorists, or those who
associate with terrorists. We want to keep them out of our
country. Even as we do that, we want to facilitate the movement
of people and commerce between our two countries. That is very
important.
So how do we do that? Well, we do it with additional
resources. We need additional Customs Service inspectors and
agents, INS agents, Border Patrol and others.
In the last couple of days the Attorney General has
employed National Guard resources to be called to our border. I
regret that the Treasury Secretary has not taken similar action
with respect to the Customs Service because we have a split
with respect to these law enforcement functions in the Federal
Government. Part of them are in the Justice Department, part in
Treasury. Justice seems much more aggressive on these issues of
northern border security than Treasury. I would appeal to
Secretary O'Neill to be as aggressive as the Attorney General
and, I would ask that the Treasury Department be as aggressive
in dealing with the Customs Service in providing the resources
and the plans to deal with northern border security as Justice
is dealing with both INS and the Border Patrol.
The other day I read of a suspected terrorist who was
attempting to go to Canada from the Middle East. He was aboard
a ship called the Ipex Emperor. He had put himself in a
container, on a container ship, furnished with a bed, a toilet,
electronics communications equipment, a laptop, two cell
phones, a Canadian passport, and documents certifying him as an
airplane mechanic among other things. He had quite a home
constructed in this container and was being shipped to Toronto,
Canada on a container ship.
Those are the kinds of things that we have to be vigilant
about. And we will do that with additional resources.
What we want to hear from the governors today and from the
States, some of whom have submitted comments, some of whom are
here in person, is what does all this mean with respect to
State resources and State interests and State needs? This is a
partnership dealing with our national security and the States
are significant members of that partnership. Part of it is the
Federal Government dealing with INS, Border Patrol, the Customs
Service, and additional Federal responsibilities.
And then part of it is State and local governments and
their resources, interests, and needs. Also State and local
governments giving us thoughts about the commerce issues
between the United States and Canada.
So that is the purpose of this hearing, to hear these
perspectives as we proceed to develop homeland defense and
homeland security initiatives here in the Congress working with
the Administration.
We have a number of people who will testify this morning,
both from the United States Senate, and also governors of
several States. We are joined by Senator Stabenow and Senator
Schumer.
Prepared statement
What I would like to do is begin with statements from the
two Senators. Then I will call the Governors up. We will try to
be as expeditious as possible. I know several of those who have
joined us today have busy schedules today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
We meet today to receive testimony from Northern border governors--
the elected officials serving on yet another front in defense of our
homeland. These men bring with them the ``facts on the ground'' from
the States as well as their varied perspectives from their lives prior
to becoming governor. Gov. Hoeven, from my home State of North Dakota,
was CEO of the Bank of North Dakota. Gov. Dean of Vermont is a
physician while Lt. Gov. Posthumus of Michigan is a family farmer. A
banker, a doctor, a farmer--critical jobs in ordinary times which help
form their response to the critical times facing the country and their
States today.
This Subcommittee held its first hearing on Northern border
security issues less than a month after the terrorist attacks of
September 11. Our witnesses then were the Commissioners of the Customs
Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service and the hearing
focused on their resource needs for defense of our borders. To his
credit, the Attorney General, in recent days, has stepped up to the
plate and announced on Monday a plan to augment Border Patrol and INS
resources and personnel with added men and women from the National
Guard. Sadly, the Treasury Secretary has not seen the need to increase
Customs Service resources in the same manner, even though many ports-
of-entry on the Northern border are jointly staffed with Customs and
INS personnel.
We have long been proud--and with good reason--that our border with
Canada has been referred to as the longest, undefended border in the
world. Thousands of our citizens cross the border every day to go to
work, visit family, or shop. North Dakotans farm in Saskatchewan and
Manitobans shop in North Dakota. We owe it to the citizens of both of
our countries to not allow the September 11 terrorists to change these
facts.
Yet we must increase our diligence. Our countries and our States
face a new threat.
--The Canadian Parliament is now considering an anti-terrorism bill
which would address the potential terrorist threats posed by an
estimated 50 terrorist groups or cells know to operate in
Canada, including Hamas and the al-Queda network.
--Canada was the staging point for Amad Ressam, the ``Millenium
bomber'', who planned to bomb the Los Angeles airport but was
apprehended by the Customs Service as he attempted to cross
into the United States at a border crossing in Washington
State.
--Crop dusting manuals were found in the possession of one suspected
terrorist arrested in Minnesota, while the owner of a crop
dusting business in Watford City, ND was questioned by the FBI
in October about a small plane he sold to a Turkish man nearly
three years ago.
--The press reported about one gentleman arrested in Italy who was
having himself shipped to Canada in a container equipped with a
computer, numerous passports and identity papers, and even his
own toilet.
--As recently as Monday night, five men were arrested near Alexandria
Bay, Canada attempting to illegally enter the United States.
Each of these events points to the need for us to do more to secure
our borders. Our witnesses can speak to the increased threat as they
see it from their States. They can also share with us the impact that
our enhanced threat response has had on trade, travel and tourism in
their States as well as their economies. While we can try to be of
assistance here in Washington, the fiscal situation we are now facing
will greatly constrain our ability to do as much as is probably
necessary. This hearing will explore, then, what State resources are
being used to bolster security along the border and what Federal
resources you might need.
We look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. So let me begin by calling on Senator
Schumer from the State of New York. Senator Schumer, thank you
for joining me today.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES SCHUMER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
I think I can speak for the rest of my Senate colleagues,
particularly those of us who have States along the northern
border, when I say that I know of no other Member of Congress
who has been so vigilant in the fight to ensure that our
northern border gets the resources and personnel it so
desperately needs than you have been. And we thank you for
that. Your leadership is most needed and most welcome and most
effective.
I would also like to thank you for your Herculean efforts
to establish the $28 million Northern Border Initiative which
will add 285 Customs officials to the northern border this
year, and for your work to secure record funding for the
implementation of the Automated Customs Environment System, the
ACE System. It is desperately needed to modernize the way
Customs processes cargo coming into the country.
Without your efforts, the funding course previously set for
the ACE program would have required a 14 or 15 year
implementation schedule which, obviously, after September 11 is
completely unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, the events of September 11 shone a light on a
situation that everyone in this room has known for a long time.
Decades of chronic disinvestment and neglect have left our
northern border porous and inefficient and have saddled our
points of entry with delays that are beginning to cripple
United States-Canadian trade and undermine our national
security.
The decision Congress and the Administration must now make
is whether to finally address these problems head on, like the
way we are finally approaching airline security, or to simply
undertake some temporary measures to deal with the most
pressing of the September 11 related problems.
So far it is hard to say which course we will actually
take. We took a major step forward in passing the Patriot USA
Act last month, which authorized the tripling of the number of
northern border Customs officers, INS inspectors, and Border
Patrol guards. But the Administration has yet to request that
these positions be funded.
How can we say we are going to protect our northern border
when we do not fund the means to protect it? It just does not
make any sense at all. I would hope that the Administration
would do the funding. If they are not going to do the funding,
they ought not say they are protecting the border because you
cannot have one without the other.
Now neither Chairman Dorgan nor Chairman Byrd, who has
provided $270 million for these activities in his homeland
security package, can make these increases happen without the
unqualified support of the White House. But as I mentioned, so
far support for funding these positions has been tepid at best.
We took another step forward this week with the agreements
Attorney General Ashcroft negotiated with the Canadian
Government concerning the sharing of FBI information, the
coordination of visa policies, and improved coordination
between United States and Canadian customs when it comes to
border management. The agreement comes with an announcement
that 600 National Guard troops will be moved to the northern
border to augment our overworked and understaffed Customs and
INS agents, who have been working under the highest level
security stresses since September 11.
While there is nothing wrong with employing the National
Guard, there is a danger this temporary solution will morph
into a long-term commitment that will result in our ports of
entry being managed by guardsmen who have not been provided
with the appropriate training or tools. This must not happen
because it is not the appropriate way to manage our borders,
and also because we are calling on the Guard to do too much
already. Considering the situation in my State of New York, I
simply do not know where we will find the guardsmen to deploy
to our northern border.
The stakes in this debate, Mr. Chairman, are very high.
Nearly $1.4 billion per day in international trade crosses the
border. Over half of the United States' population is within a
10-hour truck ride from the border, and the needs are great.
In Buffalo, New York, at the Peace Bridge crossing, which
is depicted right there in the picture to my left, that is the
plaza. I have been there many times. There are 5 hour delays to
cross the border oftentimes, mostly because only half the
booths are open at any one time and travelers must stop on both
sides of the bridge, the American side, shown here, and the
Canadian side, right over Lake Erie on the other side of Lake
Erie.
In Plattsburgh, at the Champlain port of entry, which is 30
miles south of Montreal and has a lot of busy traffic going
from the Montreal area south, a crumbling, completely ill-
designed, embarrassment of a facility that was thrown up in
1967 is there. Trucks can routinely back up for miles simply
because the physical layout of the facility is so inadequate to
accommodate the post-NAFTA commercial traffic loads.
Tour buses, which often go to Montreal and other places,
sit on line for hours because there is no way to separate the
trucks that have to be separated from the tour buses and others
that have a different inspection route.
I believe that we cannot afford to treat this as any less
important than airport security and it is going to take vision,
planning, and additional resources to be able to say that the
longest friendly border in the world is safe and secure.
I believe we need the Administration's help on two fronts.
First, as I mentioned, budget requests that reflect the true
personnel, equipment and facilities needs of Customs and INS at
the northern border. We can no longer haggle over whether two
new agents is justified for a particular port of entry, or
debate for 8 to 10 years what is the appropriate size for a new
border facility at Champlain, New York.
And second, a willingness to push the Canadian Government
to establish jointly managed Customs facilities at our busiest
crossings, in my State at the Peace Bridge and Ambassador
Bridge. At our busiest crossings we have to establish one-stop
shopping. It is inefficient, very inefficient, so that when
crossing at our busiest ports of entry you have to stop at two
separate places, obviously it doubles the amount of time. By
consolidating these functions, we can make them more efficient.
Prepared statement
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, not only for the opportunity to
testify at this hearing, which is so needed, but for all the
great work you have done on this critical issue.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Charles E. Schumer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I think I can
speak for the rest of my Senate colleagues when I say that I know of no
other member of Congress who has been so vigilant in the fight to
ensure that our Northern Border gets the resources and personnel it so
desperately needs.
I would also like to thank you for your Herculean efforts to
establish the $28.15 million Northern Border Initiative, which will add
285 customs officials to the Northern Border this year and for your
work to secure record funding for the implementation of the ACE
(automated customs environment) system. This system is desperately
needed to modernize the way Customs processes cargo coming into the
country. Without your efforts, the funding course previously set for
the ACE program would have required a 14 or 15 year implementation
schedule, which is simply unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, the events of September 11 shone a light on a
situation that everyone in this room has known for a long time:
Decades of chronic disinvestment and neglect have left our northern
border porous and inefficient and have saddled our points of entry with
delays that are beginning to cripple U.S.-Canadian trade and undermine
our national security.
The decision Congress, and the Administration, must now make is
whether to finally address these problems head on--like the way we are
finally approaching airline security--or to simply undertake some
temporary measures to deal with the most pressing of the September 11
related problems.
So far it is hard to say which course we'll take.
We took a major step forward in passing the Patriot U.S.A. Act last
month which authorized the tripling of the number of Northern Border
Customs officers, INS inspectors and Border Patrol Guards, but the
Administration has yet to request that these positions be funded.
Neither Chairman Dorgan nor Chairman Byrd, who has provided $270
million for these activities in his homeland security package, can make
these increases happen without the unqualified support of the White
House. But so far the support for funding these positions has been
tepid at best.
We took a second step forward this week with the agreements
Attorney General Ashcroft negotiated with the Canadian government
concerning the sharing of FBI information, the coordination of visa
policies, and improved coordination between U.S. and Canadian Customs
when it comes to border management.
That agreement comes alongside an announcement that 600 National
Guard troops will be moved to the Northern Border to augment our
overworked and understaffed Customs and INS agents, who have been
working under highest level security stresses since September 11.
While there is nothing wrong with employing the National Guard,
there is a danger that this ``temporary'' solution will morph into a
long-term commitment that will result in our ports of entry being
managed by Guardsmen who haven't been provided with the appropriate
training or tools.
This must not happen because it is not the appropriate way to
manage our borders and also because we are calling on the Guard to do
too much already. Considering the situation in New York, I simply don't
know where we'll find the Guardsmen to deploy to our Northern Border.
The stakes in this debate, Mr. Chairman, are very high. Nearly $1.4
billion per day in international trade crosses that border. Over half
the U.S. population is within a 10 hour truck ride from the border.
And the needs are very great.
In Buffalo, New York--at the Peace Bridge crossing--5 hour delays
to cross the border are commonplace, mostly because only half the
booths are open at any one time and because travelers must stop on each
side of the bridge.
In Plattsburgh--at the Champlain Port of Entry, a crumbling,
completely ill-designed embarrassment of a facility that was thrown up
in 1967--trucks can routinely be backed up for miles simply because the
physical layout of the facility is so inadequate to accommodate the
post-NAFTA commercial traffic loads.
I believe that we cannot afford to treat this issue as any less
important than airport security, and that it is going to take vision,
planning, and, yes, additional resources for us to be able to say that
``the longest friendly border in the world'' is safe and secure.
I believe that we will need the Administration's help on two
fronts:
(1) Budget requests that reflect the true personnel, equipment, and
facilities needs of the Customs Service and INS at the Northern Border.
We can no longer afford to haggle over whether two new agents is
justified for a particular port of entry, or debate for eight to ten
years what the appropriate size is for a new border facility for
Champlain, New York.
(2) A willingness to push the Canadian government to establish
jointly-managed Customs facilities at our busiest crossings such as the
Peace Bridge and Ambassador Bridge. At our busiest crossings, we have
to establish ``one-stop shopping.'' It is so inefficient that when
crossing at our busiest ports of entry that you are subject to two
separate stops. By consolidating these functions, we can make them more
efficient.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify, and all you
have done on these critical issues.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Schumer, thank you very much.
We are joined by my colleague, Senator Reed. Senator Reed,
do you have a comment?
Senator Reed. I just want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. A great deal of attention is typically
paid to our southern border, but too little attention is paid
to the Northeast and the northern border with Canada. It is a
huge source of economic activity between our country and the
world. In fact, there are 38 States that Canada is their
largest bilateral trade partner.
So this is something we have to pay a great deal of
attention to. Again, I commend you for having this hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Reed, thank you.
Senator Stabenow, thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too,
would commend you for your ongoing leadership. I am very
pleased that in the next panel we will have our lieutenant
governor from Michigan, Dick Posthumus, who will also be
stressing the importance to Michigan, as well as the entire
northern border.
As you know, we formed a coalition, working together as
Senators, of both parties who have been advocating for these
important needs. Your personal leadership has really helped to
keep this process moving. I am very appreciative of that.
The events, as we all know, of September 11 and our
Nation's war on terrorism have further highlighted what were
already critical shortages of human and technological resources
at our northern border. Now more than ever, Customs, INS, and
Border Patrol need the appropriate staffing, they need the
tools, and funding to perform their jobs effectively.
First, Mr. Chairman, I want also to thank you and the
members of the subcommittee for providing more than $28 million
in the 2002 Treasury/Postal Appropriations Bill for increasing
Customs staffing along the northern border and over $33 million
for Customs inspection technology, which is also very
important. This funding will begin to address the personnel and
technology shortage along the border, however we need to do
more to adequately protect our border. I share your concerns
that Treasury move aggressively and quickly to both allocate
the resources that have been given, as well as use the other
tools at their disposal.
Our northern border with Canada is vital to our national
and economic security. Over $1.4 billion worth of goods and
services cross the northern border every day. $1.4 billion
every day, with a significant portion of this trade going to
Michigan, more than any other State. This constitutes the
largest bilateral flow of goods and services and capital
between two countries anywhere in the world.
As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, we are pleased with the
wonderful cooperation and partnership that we do have with our
Canadian partners.
Among ports of entry between Canada and the United States,
four of the seven busiest ports of entry are between the
Michigan-Canadian border. We have three bridges and one tunnel.
In fact, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit is the most heavily
traveled bridge on the United States-Canadian border.
Before the attacks of September 11, our northern border was
already severely understaffed and underfunded. Customs officers
on the northern border processed 63 percent, 63 percent of all
trucks, 85 percent of all trains, and 23 percent of all
passengers and pedestrians entering the country each year.
However, our Customs inspectors represent only 14 percent of
the currently deployed inspectors in the country. Even though
the northern border is twice as long as the southern border. So
obviously the inequities are clear. That is why what you are
doing is so important.
According to the Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance,
at any given time routinely half of the existing processing
lanes on the United States-Canadian border remain closed due
solely to understaffing of United States Customs and INS
inspectors.
The events of September 11 have exacerbated this already
critical situation. Enhanced security requirements combined
with personnel shortages and overtime limitations are causing
serious backups that are resulting in a very severe economic
harm in Michigan and throughout the Nation.
This past Monday in Detroit, Attorney General John Ashcroft
announced a United States-Canadian agreement to help safeguard
our shared border and to coordinate our immigration and border
security policies. We are very pleased he was in Detroit. We
appreciate his leadership. Part of this agreement includes the
maintaining of over 600 National Guard troops at the U.S.
border posts for up to a year, to assist with Customs and INS
inspections.
The National Guard and local law enforcement, who I might
add are volunteering their time at this point, are providing
critical assistance to our understaffed Michigan ports of entry
but this is only a temporary solution.
The Uniting and Strengthening America Act, which the
President signed into law last month, authorizes the tripling
of INS, Border Patrol and Customs Service personnel on the
northern border and authorizes $100 million for technology
improvements. Now Congress and the Administration must provide
the necessary funds to make the staffing increases a reality.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the
other members of the committee to make this happen. The ability
of the Customs Service to process people and goods entering the
U.S. efficiently and thoroughly is absolutely essential to our
economic and national security. The inspectors and agents at
our borders are our first line of defense and bear the
responsibility for ensuring that no person enters our country
who is not authorized to do so. We cannot expect them to do
this job well if they are short-staff, working extremely long
hours as they are, and working without time-saving technology.
Prepared statement
Providing funds for these items are necessary so that we
can make sure that this is a top priority in fighting our war
on terrorism.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Debbie Stabenow
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding a hearing on this very
important issue. The events of September 11 and our nation's war on
terrorism have further highlighted the critical shortage of human and
technological resources on our northern border. Now more than ever,
Customs, INS and the Border Patrol need the appropriate staffing,
tools, and funding to perform their jobs effectively.
First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of this
subcommittee for providing more than $28 million in the fiscal year
2002 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill for increased Customs staffing
along the northern border, and over $33 million for Customs inspection
technology throughout the country. This funding will begin to address
the personnel and technology shortage along the northern border,
however, we need to do more to adequately protect our border.
Our northern border with Canada is vital to our national and
economic security. Over $1.4 billion worth of goods and services cross
the northern border every day, with a significant amount of this trade
going to Michigan--more than any other State. This constitutes the
largest bilateral flow of goods, services, and capital between two
countries anywhere in the world.
Among ports of entry between Canada and the United States, four of
the seven busiest ports of entry are between the Michigan-Canadian
border. In fact, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit is the most heavily
traveled bridge on the U.S.-Canadian border.
Before the attacks of September 11, our northern border was already
severely under-funded and understaffed. Our Customs officers on the
northern border process 63 percent of all trucks, 85 percent of all
trains and 23 percent of all passengers and pedestrians entering the
country each year. However, our Customs inspectors represent only 14
percent of the currently deployed inspectors in the country, even
though the northern border is twice as long as the southern border.
According to the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, at any
given time, routinely half of the existing processing lanes on the
U.S.-Canadian border remain closed due solely to understaffing of U.S.
Customs and INS inspectors.
The events of September 11 have exacerbated this already critical
situation. Enhanced security requirements, combined with personnel
shortages and overtime limitations are causing serious backups that are
resulting in very severe economic harm in Michigan and throughout the
nation.
This past Monday in Detroit, Attorney General John Ashcroft
announced a U.S.-Canadian agreement to help safeguard our shared
border, and coordinate our immigration and border security policies.
Part of this agreement includes the maintaining of about 600 National
Guard troops at U.S. border posts for up to another year, to assist
with Customs and INS inspections. The National Guard and local law
enforcement (who are volunteering at the border), are providing
critical assistance to our understaffed Michigan ports of entry, but
this is only a temporary solution.
The Uniting and Strengthening America Act, which the President
signed into law last month, authorizes the tripling of INS, Border
Patrol and Customs Service personnel on the northern border, and
authorizes $100 million for technology improvements. Now, Congress and
the Administration must provide the necessary funding to make this
staffing increase a reality. And I look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman, and the other members of this committee to make this
happen.
The ability of the Customs Service to process people and goods
entering the U.S. efficiently and thoroughly is absolutely essential to
our economic and national security. The inspectors and agents on our
borders are our first line of defense and bear the responsibility for
ensuring that no person enters our country who is not authorized to do
so. We cannot expect them to do this job well if they are short-
staffed, working extremely long hours, and working without time-saving
technology.
Providing funding for increased staffing and technology along the
northern border must be one of our top priorities in our fight against
terrorism.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Stabenow, thank you very much.
As I indicated for those who came late, we have two votes
beginning at 10 o'clock and I want to try to expedite the
hearing because of that. I know others have time constraints.
But let me just ask one question of both of you and if
Senator Reed has a question I will recognize him.
We have a balance here between security issues and the
ability to facilitate the movement of people and trade.
Security must come first, I would expect you would believe, but
can you describe--and I see the chart up there that shows long
lines of trucks. Senator Schumer, you talked about 4 or 5 hours
of wait. Can you describe how you believe this balance ought to
be addressed? Are there substantial resources required in your
judgment? If so, where? Customs, INS, Border Patrol and other
areas?
Senator Schumer. I guess the answer to your question, Mr.
Chairman, which is right on the money, is less. If you look at
that chart there, you will see that there are other booths, but
only one is being used. Very simply, if we were to have both
the personnel and the computer operations that we need, that
line could be greatly reduced.
I guess you have a triangle. You have money at one point,
you have security at one point, and you have speed at one
point. And to get the latter two points of the triangle, you
need the former. Without money, you are going to have either
security and huge lines, or you are going to have speed and no
security.
Dollars, more personnel, better facilities, better
computers. We can have our cake and eat it, too, and the cost
is not really that essential. In our post-September 11 world,
the old adages do not work. Security is paramount, as you
correctly point out. But you do not have to--I mean I guess you
would say, in a certain sense, the terrorists want us to
sacrifice all the other values in our society to deal with
security, and they thought our society was much more brittle
than it was and would collapse at what they did.
But we have to respond and with some measured amount of
dollars, we can. So I think we need, from my point of view, the
Patriot USA Act, which called for the tripling of the three
agencies along the northern border is what should be funded,
Customs, Border and INS.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Stabenow?
Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman, you raise a very, very
important point, particularly in Michigan when we are looking
at the just in time supply chain partnership with the auto
industry and the need to literally move every day goods back
and forth across the border.
I see, as well, this being multiple approaches. We need
more staff but we are hearing from the personnel at the borders
that without more booths, the physical structure, at some point
the staff is not enough.
We also know that there are a number of different pilot
projects that have been tried to speed up the process, to pre-
authorize and check. The auto industry, again, has been helping
to work with the folks at the border to speed up this process.
One of the frustrations I know, I have heard from folks in
visiting at the border, is that there have been a number of
pilot projects but none have been selected to actually move
forward beyond the pilot stage, so that we can broaden what has
been tested in limited ways in terms of technology.
So I think the technology dollars are very important, as
well. If we can pre-authorize, if we can use certain scanners
and cards and other opportunities to do that, we will be able
to help move things more quickly.
Senator Schumer. You know, Mr. Chairman, if I just might,
New York and Michigan are very similar in this. Our largest
manufacturing plant is not Delfide, employs over 6,000 people.
Forty percent of the trucks, it is in Lockport, about 20 miles
east of Niagara Falls. 40 percent of the trucks that leave that
plant go right over the border because, just like in Michigan,
some of the plants that make the automobiles are in Canada.
Some of the plants are in the United States and they need
constant commerce and they are getting killed.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. No, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Dorgan. We thank both of you. I know a couple of
other senators will be coming to testify but they will come
after the votes. Thank you for being with us.
Let us ask Governor Hoeven, Governor Dean, Lieutenant
Governor Posthumus to come forward.
Let me thank the three of you for joining us today. As I
indicated, other Governors will be submitting testimony for the
hearing, but we especially wanted to hear from Governors of
northern border States who could talk to us from their
perspective about northern border security, and also the
facilitation of the movement of people and trade across our
common border.
Let me begin with you, Governor Hoeven. Let me welcome our
governor from North Dakota to the committee. I have had the
opportunity to work with Governor Hoeven on many things for
some long while and we have been friends for many years. I am
proud of the work he does and I am pleased you are here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA
Governor Hoeven. Senator, thank you for this opportunity to
be here and to testify on northern border security. I am
pleased to be here with Governor Dean and Lieutenant Governor
Dick Posthumus, as well. I appreciate the opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I
am John Hoeven, Governor of North Dakota, and I welcome this
opportunity to testify on our homeland security, and to share
with you some of the challenges that we in North Dakota are
experiencing with regard to maintaining heightened security on
the northern border.
Like other northern border States, North Dakota has some
unique security concerns. North Dakota shares a long, 325 mile
border with Canada, and 18 ports of entry. However, we have
virtually hundreds of rural, unmanned crossings on small county
and township roads. Qualified personnel for border security are
in demand by Federal, State, local and private entities.
Federal entities usually win the competition because they are
able to offer better salaries.
Because of a variety of factors, such as an apparently
safe, open and isolated terrain, it would be relatively easy
for terrorists to enter our country. U.S. Federal, State, and
local communications equipment is not always compatible with
the equipment used by Canadian law enforcement authorities.
Several weeks after the terrorist attacks in New York and
Washington I appointed a homeland security director to marshal
and harmonize our existing State resources to enhance security
throughout the State. Today, many North Dakota State agencies
have some homeland security responsibilities.
We have taken timely and assertive steps to safeguard our
northern border. We have devoted a number of State resources to
ensuring both its security and the flow of traffic to
facilitate commerce. Our Highway Patrol, Department of Game and
Fish, National Guard, and Civil Air Patrol are undertaking
intermittent aerial surveillance flights, both day and night
using infrared, along our border since September.
This, as you may imagine, is expensive and it has diverted
important resources from some of the agencies' regular
assignments. At this time, funding for these flights is limited
and growing more limited. Our Highway Patrol and law
enforcement has provided considerable ground surveillance, as
well. Although the Border Patrol has reimbursed some of the
cost of local assistance through mutual aid agreements, much of
it has not been reimbursed.
State and local resources that have been dedicated to new
homeland security missions have diverted resources from
conventional law enforcement activities, such as highway safety
and the usual crime surveillance.
The North Dakota National Guard has received information as
of November 29 indicating that we may be asked to provide
additional personnel to support Federal Border Patrol efforts
for an initial period of up to 6 months and it may be longer.
We have also been asked for additional potential air
operations, as well.
It should be noted for the record that we have no fewer
than 48 North Dakota agencies, including our Division of
Emergency Management, Health Department, Law Enforcement and
others now redirecting resources to this effort.
This fall, shortly after the attacks in New York and
Washington, a public water supply system in a small North
Dakota town along the border called Pembina was tampered with.
We responded quickly and efficiently but the incident tied up
our State labs, our scientists, chemists and biologists for
nearly two weeks.
Heightened security is expensive and it will need to be
sustained, thus taxing our State's resources at a time when
they are already being taxed because of the terrorist attacks.
Tourism in North Dakota has slowed down. Corporate and
business travel is down and is recovering slowly but AAA
anticipates that travel will be down about 20 percent through
June of 2002. Also, the additional responsibilities of the
National Guard and the law enforcement community is burdening
our economy at this time, as well.
There are a number of ways that the Federal Government
should assist North Dakota and other States in meeting homeland
security needs. Fund additional State and local law enforcement
resources for staff and materials such as Canadian-American
compatible communication equipment. Coordinate the development
and implementation of a border security plan that defines State
and local responsibilities and Federal responsibilities. Ensure
that intelligence from the Federal Government is provided to a
single point of contact within the State, from which it can be
further disseminated to the appropriate entities. Unify Federal
threat assessment information among the various Federal
agencies such as FBI, CIA and the Attorney General's Office.
Perhaps most critically, as the costs associated with
homeland security rise, the Federal Government needs to provide
funding with flexibility to defray the expenses of this effort.
The most effective vehicle to do this would be general block
grant funding to the States which would enable them to target
their needs and reimburse hard-hit State, municipal and county
governments. The logical agency to accomplish this task is the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. In North Dakota, our
homeland security coordinator is also the director of our
Division of Emergency Management with many years of experience
working with FEMA, and that is likely true in other States, as
well.
FEMA manages the consequences of terrorist attacks, helps
train first responders in terrorism response, and assists
States in developing emergency plans. FEMA, moreover, has
recently completed a nationwide assessment of State
preparedness regarding terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction. North Dakota was among the first to participate
several weeks ago. The Agency's nationwide assessment results
will be presented to Homeland Security Director Ridge, who
works closely with FEMA.
FEMA has both the network in place with the States and the
experience to effectively coordinate and deliver funding for
homeland security without creating any new bureaucracy.
In this era of heightened security, we in North Dakota have
had to review our State government policies and procedures
regarding security and emergencies. We are working with our
community leaders to integrate and coordinate resources as
never before. It is all about preparedness, prevention and
response. And today we are asking the Federal Government to
support us in that effort.
Prepared statement
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present
my comments on this issue and on homeland security in general.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Hoeven
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am John
Hoeven, Governor of North Dakota, and I welcome this opportunity to
contribute to the enhancement of our homeland security, and to share
with you some of the challenges that we in North Dakota are
experiencing with regard to maintaining heightened security on our
northern border.
north dakota's unique concerns
Like other northern border States, North Dakota has some unique
security concerns.
--North Dakota shares a long, 325-mile border with Canada, with 18
ports of entry. However, we have virtually hundreds of rural,
unmanned crossings on small county and township roads.
--Qualified personnel for border security are in demand by Federal,
State, local and private entities. Federal entities usually win
the competition because they are able to offer better salaries.
--Because of a variety of factors, such as an apparently safe, open
and isolated terrain, it would be relatively easy for
terrorists to enter our country.
--U.S. Federal, State and local communications equipment is not
always compatible with the equipment used by Canadian law-
enforcement authorities.
Several weeks after the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington, I appointed a Homeland Security director to marshal and
harmonize our existing State resources to enhance security throughout
the State. Today, many North Dakota State agencies have some homeland
security responsibilities.
north dakota's current commitment of resources to the northern border
We in North Dakota have already taken timely and assertive steps to
safeguard our northern border.
We have devoted a number of State resources to ensuring both its
security and the flow of traffic to facilitate commerce. Our Highway
Patrol, Department of Game and Fish, National Guard and Civil Air
Patrol undertook intermittent aerial surveillance flights, both day and
night, along our border as early as September.
This, as you may imagine, was an expensive undertaking, which
diverted important resources from some of those agencies' regular
assignments. At this time, funding for these flights is limited, and
growing more so.
Our Highway Patrol and local law enforcement has provided
considerable ground surveillance. Although Border Patrol has reimbursed
some of the cost of local assistance through mutual aid agreements,
much of it hasn't been reimbursed.
State and local resources that have been dedicated to these new
homeland security missions have diverted resources from conventional
law-enforcement activities, such as highway safety and usual crime
surveillance.
The North Dakota National Guard has received information as of
November 29th indicating that we may be asked to provide up to 74
personnel to support Federal border patrol efforts for an initial
period of six months, with a possibility that the period of deployment
may be extended. We're told that there could be some additional
potential mission for air operations.
It should be noted for the record, as well, that no fewer than 48
North Dakota agencies, including our Division of Emergency Management,
Department of Health, and others, are now redirecting resources or
adding resources for homeland security.
This fall, shortly after the attacks in New York and Washington, a
public water system in a small North Dakota town called Pembina was
tampered with. We responded quickly, and efficiently, but the incident
tied up our State labs, our scientists, chemists and biologists for
nearly two weeks.
impact on north dakota's economy
Heightened security is expensive, and it will inevitably need to be
sustained, thus taxing the State's resources at a time when the
terrorist attacks have already had a negative impact on our economy.
--Tourism in North Dakota has slowed.
--Corporate and business travel is down. It's recovering slowly, but
AAA anticipates travel will be down by about 20 percent through
June 2002.
And the additional responsibility of our National Guard and law-
enforcement communities promises to burden our economy more heavily, as
well.
role of the federal government
There are a number of ways that the Federal government should
assist North Dakota and other States in meeting homeland-security
needs.
--Fund additional State and local law enforcement resources for staff
and materials, such as Canadian-American compatible
communication equipment.
--Coordinate the development and implementation of a border security
plan that defines State and local responsibilities and Federal
responsibilities.
--Ensure that intelligence from the Federal government is provided to
a single point of contact within the State, from which it could
be further disseminated to the appropriate resources.
--Unify Federal threat assessment information among the various
Federal agencies, such as the FBI, the CIA and the attorney
general's office.
Perhaps most critically, as the costs associated with homeland
security rise, the Federal government needs to provide funding with
flexibility to defray the expense of so costly an effort. The most
effective vehicle to do this would be general block grant funding,
which would enable States to target their needs and reimburse hard-hit
State, municipal and county governments. The logical agency to
accomplish this task is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In North Dakota, our Homeland Security Coordinator is also the Director
of our Division of Emergency Management, with many years of experience
working with FEMA, and that is likely true in many other States, too.
FEMA manages the consequences of terrorist attacks, helps train
first responders in terrorism response, and assists States in
developing emergency plans. FEMA, moreover, has recently completed a
nationwide assessment of State preparedness regarding terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction. North Dakota was among the first to
participate, several weeks ago. The agency's nationwide assessment
results will be presented to Homeland Security Director Ridge, who
works closely with FEMA.
FEMA has both the network in place with the States and the
experience to effectively coordinate and deliver funding for homeland
security without creating any new bureaucracy.
everyone has a role
We have been discussing the role of the Federal government, but as
President Bush has said, everyone has a role to play in the war against
terrorism. This is a message that we have carried throughout the State
of North Dakota--and a responsibility that we have willingly assumed.
We have told our local and county leaders that they need to form
partnerships with Federal, State and local entities, as well as with
the private sector, to ensure that our homes and our communities are
safe.
On September 11, the United States was attacked by terrorists who
thought that they would weaken us. Instead, their attacks strengthened
us. They thought they would divide us; instead, they united us--as a
nation and a people.
After September 11, we found ourselves living in a new era of
heightened security. As citizens of a nation, State, county or city,
all of us do indeed have a role to play in Homeland Security, and all
of us must work to prepare for, prevent and respond to an emergency
situation at any time--anyplace in the nation.
In this new era of heightened security, we in North Dakota have had
to review our State government policies and procedures regarding
security and emergencies. We're working with our community leaders to
integrate and coordinate resources as never before. It's all about
preparedness, prevention and response. And today, I am asking that our
Federal government support us in that effort.
Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Governor Hoeven, thank you very much.
I might note that yesterday, in the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Byrd was adding about $7.5 billion for
homeland defense funds. There is a dispute. The Administration
does not want that and indicates it will not accept it at this
point, despite the fact that Governor Ridge indicates he needs
a substantial amount of resources and will ask for them next
year.
But in that $7.5 billion is $500 million for grants to
State and local law enforcement agencies, just as you have
suggested should be done. It is done through the Justice
Department rather than FEMA. But no matter the source, I think
we need to find ways to provide block grants for State and
local law enforcement agencies as they take up the mantle here
of providing additional security and relating to additional
security needs.
That is true across the country and it is especially true
with respect to northern border States because of the
contribution that many of you have had to make with respect to
northern border security. I also note that you have General
Haugen with you. I am going to welcome him. I am going to ask
about the National Guard issue when we finish the testimony.
Let me go to Governor Dean. Governor, thank you for being
with us and we welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD DEAN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
VERMONT
Governor Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed, I
really appreciate your leadership in this issue.
This is critical. You are from a northern border State.
Through many years in the last decade or so we have suffered
through extraordinary attention to the southern border and
almost none to the northern border so it is very refreshing
that Congress is now taking a look at this.
We do need exactly the kind of thing that you have proposed
and successfully implemented, or successfully gotten the money
for and now it needs to be implemented by the Administration,
which is more help on the border.
I will pre-file the testimony, so I will not read the whole
thing into the record. But our situation is very much as
Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow and Governor Hoeven have
testified. We have 15 border crossings. Some of them are very,
very small. The U.S. Border Patrol has only 30 officers
assigned to the entire State of Vermont.
I went through the border a few weeks ago. The guy at the
border had been on for 21 straight days, 50 hours of overtime
in 2 weeks. This cannot continue and security is going to
suffer. We absolutely have to have resources.
It is hurting business. I think you have heard from
Michigan about what has happened to the automobile industry. On
a smaller scale that is happening to every State. We have ski
resorts along the border. Some of the people come in by bus.
They take the folks off the bus, question each one between 2
and 5 minutes. It may take an hour or more for a bus to get
through Customs. That simply destroys individual businesses
along the border.
A lot of these States are rural, as North Dakota is, as
well as Vermont, $1 million lost in the ski industry does not
sound like a lot of money if you are talking about the
automobile industry in Michigan, but it is a tremendous hit to
a very rural and not very populated area.
Clearly more resources are necessary. The two things that I
want to address very briefly are first, we have heard from the
National Guard and from Tom Ridge the discussion about putting
Guard troops on the border to help. In general, I think
Governors are in favor of that, although there is some
difference of opinion among Governors about whether those
troops should be federalized or not. I personally think they
should be, but other Governors have concerns about that.
But the point is that that would enhance security and move
us toward some of the speed that Senator Schumer was talking
about, which is really the essence of whether we are going to
do business and have a thriving economy or not.
The second proposal I have is more far-reaching and it is
going to take more time, but in the long run it is essential.
Around the middle of October I went to Russia, Eastern
Europe, and then the European Union. As you are well aware,
when you get to a border in the European Union there may be no
checks of any kind because they have not only a customs union
but a common immigration policy.
I spend a great deal of time in Canada. 94 percent of our
exports go to Canada or are received from Canada. Our trade far
exceeds the trade of all other countries combined in Vermont.
We have a free trade agreement with Canada. We need a
common immigration policy with Canada. We need to have the
Federal Government go up and negotiate immigration rules. We
have excellent cooperation between the FBI and the RCMP. The
RCMP is a first-rate law enforcement organization. We have the
capacity to deal with terrorist cells. We need the cooperation
of the Canadian Government, and we frankly need the cooperation
of our Government to sit down with the Canadian Government,
hammer out an immigration policy that we have in common, so
that in the long run, for economic purposes, the border can
simply be erased.
That would make an enormous difference in the economy of
the northern border States. I think in the long run, if we are
going to compete with other regions of the world that have done
this, if we are not going to permit the terrorists to attack
not only our security but our economy, which they are very
effectively doing right now, we are going to have to have very
far reaching initiatives such as this.
Prepared statement
So let me conclude by commending you on your leadership. I
deeply appreciate it. We immediately need the reinforcements at
the border of the kind that you and your committee have led the
way towards. We need to do that right away. But in the long
term we cannot lose sight of the fact that what ultimately
happens is this border, for commercial purposes, needs to be
erased. And that can only be done by having a common
immigration policy, common enforcements, and common policies on
illegal immigration between the United States and Canada.
thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Howard Dean
I would like to thank members of the Subcommittee for their
consideration of this issue, which is of utmost importance to States
along the U.S.-Canadian border, and an entire nation that has
drastically altered its view of security since the tragedies of
September 11.
First, allow me to describe what a border State such as Vermont has
found itself facing in the past three months:
--U.S. Customs has 15 Ports of Entry in Vermont, with 10 of those
considered one-person offices. On September 11, that changed.
Now we keep at least two officers on duty at each station, and
we hope to double the 50 investigators now assigned to Vermont.
--Customs has historically inspected between 6 percent and 10 percent
of all commercial vehicles traveling through their ports. On
September 11, that changed. Now they try to perform visual
inspects of about 75 percent of the traffic. That has resulted
in long waits at border crossings in Vermont--in some cases
waits of two to three hours during heavy traffic times.
--The U.S. Border Patrol has 30 officers assigned to Vermont. But
this agency is in need of improvements in electronic
surveillance equipment to ``harden'' the border. Both border
agencies cite the need for enhancements in radio systems for
communications between the various law enforcement agencies.
Clearly, manpower is an issue. During the last pay period alone,
the Senior Customs Inspector at the Highgate Springs, Vermont, border
crossing worked 50 hours of overtime during a two-week period--working
21 consecutive days between days off. On-the-job work injuries have
increased due to fatigue, and all vacations have been cancelled.
Yet despite this increase, there are still gaps in the system. An
80-car freight train arrives in St. Albans, Vermont, daily without any
inspection at all. And Lake Champlain offers an open welcome mat to
boaters in the summer and snowmobilers in the winter--with no
inspection.
Secondly, while keeping this border tight from a security
standpoint, I need to stress the crucial need for the border to remain
economically porous. States along the U.S.-Canadian line have long
benefitted from a fairly open relationship on each side. In some cases
single towns (even individual houses!) are divided by an imaginary
boundary separating our two countries.
Our tourism-based business--not to mention our companies who trade
with Canada--need traffic to move through that border in order to stay
healthy. Jay Peak, one of Vermont's premier ski areas that sits near
the U.S.-Canadian line, gets 15 percent of its customers bused in from
Canada. If it takes 30 minutes to an hour for a bus to pass through the
security checks at the border, Jay Peak will lose its bus business and
the $1 million in sales revenue that comes with it.
Additional security at the border will not only keep security
tight, but speed inspections to ensure tourists and others seeking
legitimate entry can cross quickly and safely into Vermont and other
border States. I have seen estimates that Highgate Springs would need
at least 17 new inspectors and eight additional support personnel to
ease the current border crisis.
It has almost become cliche now to state the obvious: Our lives
changed forever on September 11. But there is nothing cliched in those
words for those of us who share a border with another nation, whose
lives and economies are intertwined with neighbors in another country,
and whose fears are suddenly focused on weaknesses along a border we
pray is holding back terrorism.
I appreciate the Committee's attention to this sensitive security
issue. And I thank you for your time, attention and commitment to
national security.
Senator Dorgan. Governor Dean, thank you very much. We
appreciate you being here.
Governor Posthumus, from the State of Michigan, Governor
Engler had called and indicated that he was unable to come but
wanted to have you invited to be here, and we are pleased that
you are here to present testimony. Why do you not proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. DICK POSTHUMUS, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Lieutenant Governor Posthumus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It
is a pleasure to be here, Mr. Reed, I bring you greetings from
Governor Engler and the residents of the State of Michigan.
In particular to you, Mr. Chairman, and to my good friend,
Governor Hoeven, I bring you greetings from the Lakers of Grand
Valley State University in Michigan, albeit it not good luck as
they prepare for the Division II NCAA football playoffs against
the University of North Dakota.
Our country is different today than it was just a few
months ago. However, as I have traveled my State and had a
chance to talk to mothers, fathers, teachers, auto workers,
business leaders, I have been heartened to realize that we
still are the same Nation. Our freedoms of religion, speech and
the press continue to be held sacred. And in fact, probably are
held at a higher esteem today than ever before.
As we have seen, the willingness of neighbors to go the
extra mile to help someone in need is more evident today than
ever before. Our resolve in defending our Nation and its
founding principles is on clear display around the world, even
as we sit here this very morning.
Clearly America and Americans passed the test inflicted
upon us on September 11 and we passed it with flying colors. As
we work to make sure the events of that tragic day are never
again repeated, we continue to remember those who gave their
lives.
But now we must go forward. As public officials, as
leaders, it is our duty to make sure that our country is safe
and people are protected, both from physical harm and economic
crisis. That is why I am honored to join you and my colleagues
from other northern border States to talk about an issue that
is critical to our Nation's physical and economic well-being.
The issue is maintaining a safe, efficient and smooth-
flowing border crossing with our neighbor Canada. Aside from
assuring a basic public health and safety, this has been the
largest single issue that Michigan has been faced with since
September 11.
Michigan is the proud home, as you know, of the auto
industry and the hard-working men and women who keep America
driving. Each day more than $300 million worth of goods, just
auto-related goods, go back and forth between Canada and
Michigan. That does not even include those that go across by
rail.
Many people may not realize it but Michigan is home to one
of the busiest ports in America and that is Detroit. We have
two of the three busiest international border crossings in the
country. And more trade, Senator Stabenow referred to this. But
more trade moves across Detroit's Ambassador Bridge each year
than between the United States and the country of Japan.
Canada buys more U.S. goods than all 15 countries of the
European Union combined and Michigan is the gateway for 40
percent of those goods.
This year more than 28 million vehicles will cross the
Ambassador Bridge, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the Blue Water
Bridge in Port Huron, and the International Bridge at Sault
Ste. Marie. This is more than double the number just 4 years
ago.
Because of NAFTA trade between Canada and Michigan has
increased more than 10 percent each and every year since 1993.
It has meant more cars, more trucks, more people, more goods,
more jobs. But unfortunately, it has not meant more workers at
the border, as you have heard before.
The Federal Government has an important role in addressing
this problem. U.S. commitment to protecting and managing our
northern border has been inadequate. Staffing levels of the
U.S. Customs Agency and the Immigration and Nationalization
Service at the northern border have remained stagnant and
increases are long overdue.
For many years Governor Engler, Michigan's congressional
delegation and I have called for increased staffing and
improved policies for our border crossings. Now the events
following September's tragedy has raised that call even higher.
In the hours and days immediately following the attack on
our country, heightened security at our border was absolutely
essential, as you referred to earlier, Mr. Chairman. However,
increased security without increased manpower led to backups
stretching 30 hours and delays of up to 16 hours at the
Michigan border.
People were unable to get to their jobs. Auto makers
relying on just in time delivery of parts closed down plants,
sent workers home. Trucks carrying needed supplies and products
were left stranded, all at a time when people felt tremendous
fear and uncertainty.
Clearly, we had to get people and parts moving again. So
Governor Engler called on Michigan's National Guard to assist
at the borders. I am proud to say that our troops have
performed admirably and have gone above and beyond their call
to duty. We are grateful that Federal funds were made available
to pay for that initial assignment.
On October 31 the Department of Defense extended funding
for the Guard to continue its mission and again, we are
thankful.
However, posting the National Guard troops at our borders
is not a viable long-term solution for this problem. The
Federal Government must step up to the plate and address this
situation. It is critical in protecting our homeland and it is
critical in allowing for the efficient movement of people and
goods.
That is why I am here today, to ask on behalf of the people
of Michigan for your help. First, and most importantly, we must
have a long-term strategy to assess the staffing levels needed
to maintain our border.
Second, we need a complete review of the polices that
govern our border with Canada.
Third, Michigan needs Federal dollars to help construct an
additional crossing and funding to decrease traffic congestion.
This is critical for Michigan, as a gateway to America's number
one trade partner.
And fourth, security policies between the United States and
Canadian governments and Michigan and local law enforcement
need to be reviewed and updated. I would like to just touch on
these each.
For Michigan, we believe the staffing is the most immediate
concern at the northern border. You have heard that touched on
by several other people here today. Since September 11, Federal
funding has been authorized to increase the number of border
personnel and Michigan thanks Congress, and thanks you, Mr.
Chairman, for your leadership on the work that has been done so
far.
But the reality is that we cannot sit here this morning and
know that that increase is enough. No assessment has been done
to really identify how Michigan's border must be staffed in
order to provide security and efficiently. It is important that
we thoroughly examine the staffing and technology needs of both
U.S. Customs and the INS for long-term issues. This is not a
short-term problem. As conditions change at the border, we need
to be flexible in order to adopt those meeting changes.
Second, Michigan asks for a complete review of all policies
governing our border with Canada. We need to work with our
Canadian partners and neighbors to rethink how we manage our
shared border and create a new, international agreement to make
long-term comprehensive improvements that would benefit both
countries. These would include improvements like creating a
border zone where border agencies can do work even across the
border, changing road and traffic configurations, providing
off-site pre-inspection areas for businesses that are frequent
travelers, and putting in place the best available technology
to shorten inspection process.
Right now there are some 1,600 nurses from Canada that
travel to Michigan each day, to southeast Michigan to perform
their duties. They pose little risk to our national security
and fast track type technology is needed. These are just some
of the examples of how border polices could be changed.
Third, we feel it is essential to address the
infrastructure needs at the border. Michigan and other northern
border States cannot afford to meet these needs on their own. I
am sure this is not the first time the committee has heard
this, but we do need money.
At one time, infrastructure issues were left for the
northern border States and Canada to handle by themselves. We
have seen that before. Now, because of NAFTA, and because of
the attacks on September 11, this is no longer just a State
issue. It is a national issue with severe national
repercussions. This is why it must be a national
responsibility.
The primary focus should be on crossing capacity. Even
before September 11, Michigan identified the need for an
additional publicly or privately owned bridge or tunnel at or
near Detroit. These figures continue to rise. The United States
needs a fast track approach to address its international border
infrastructure needs.
Senator Dorgan. Governor, I need to ask you to summarize.
The vote that was scheduled at 10:00 has just now started and I
want to have Senator Clinton be able to testify before she
leaves for the vote.
Lieutenant Governor Posthumus. The last issue, the fourth
issue, is the need then to work with the border security
capabilities between the United States and Canadian
governments. Specifically, we need to help the Coast Guard
secure a compatible communications system that can work
together with Michigan law enforcement in order to make the
border secure.
Prepared statement
Those are really the four basic issues, staffing, policy
issues, the issues associated with infrastructure, and the
Coast Guard. Those very specifically are the needs that we have
today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dick Posthumus
Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
I appreciate the invitation to speak to you this morning, and I bring
greetings on behalf of Governor Engler and the residents of Michigan.
Our country today is a different place than it was just a few
months ago. However, as I have traveled around my State and talked with
mothers and fathers, teachers, auto workers, and business leaders, I
have been heartened to realize that we are not a different nation.
Our freedoms of religion, speech, and press continue to be held
sacred, and in fact, probably hold even greater meaning than before.
The willingness of neighbors to go the extra mile to help someone in
need is more evident today than ever. And our resolve in defending our
nation and its founding principles is on clear display around the
world, even as we sit here this morning.
Clearly, America and Americans passed the test inflicted upon us on
September 11, and we passed it with flying colors. As we work to make
sure the events of that tragic day are never again repeated, we
continue to remember those who lost their lives on that day and the
bravery they displayed.
Now, we must go forward. As public officials--as leaders--it is our
duty to make sure that our country is safe and people are protected,
both from physical harm and economic crisis.
That is why I am honored today to join you and my colleagues from
other northern border States to talk about an issue that is critical to
our nation's physical and economic well-being.
That issue is maintaining safe, efficient, and smooth flowing
border crossings with our neighbor Canada. Aside from assuring basic
public health and safety, this has been the largest issue Michigan has
faced in the wake of the attack on our country.
Michigan is the proud home of the automobile industry and the hard
working men and women who keep America driving. Each day, more than
$300 million in auto-related goods cross between Canada and the State
of Michigan.
Many people may not realize that Michigan is home to one of the
busiest ports in America--Detroit.
Michigan has two of the three busiest international border
crossings in North America.
More trade moves across Detroit's Ambassador Bridge each year than
moves between America and Japan.
Canada buys more U.S. goods than all 15 countries of the European
Union combined and all of Latin America. Michigan is the gateway for
over 40 percent of those goods.
This year, more than 28 million vehicles will cross the Ambassador
Bridge, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron
and the International Bridge at Sault Ste. Marie. This is more than
double the number of vehicles just four years ago.
Because of NAFTA, trade between Canada and Michigan has increased
more than 10 percent each year since 1993.
It's meant more cars, more trucks, more people, more goods, and
more jobs. But unfortunately, it has not meant more workers at our
border.
The Federal government has an important role in addressing this
problem.
U.S. commitment to protecting and managing our northern border has
been inadequate. Staffing levels for the U.S. Customs Agency and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service at the northern border have
remained stagnant, and increases are long overdue.
For many years, Governor Engler, Michigan's congressional
delegation, and I have called for increased staffing and improved
policies for our border crossings. The events following September's
tragedy have only amplified that call.
In the hours and days immediately following the attack on our
country, heightened security at our border was essential. However,
increased security without increased manpower led to back-ups
stretching 30 miles and delays of up to 16 hours at the Michigan
border.
People were unable to get to their jobs. Automakers, relying on
``just in time'' delivery of parts, closed down plants and sent workers
home. Trucks carrying needed supplies and products were left stranded--
all this at a time when most people felt tremendous fear and
uncertainty.
Clearly, we had to get people and parts moving again, so Governor
Engler called on Michigan's National Guard to assist at the borders. I
am proud to say that our troops have preformed admirably and have gone
above and beyond their call to duty. We are grateful that Federal funds
were made available to pay for that initial assignment. On October 31,
the Department of Defense extended funding for the Guard to continue
its mission, and again, we are thankful.
However, posting Michigan's National Guard troops at our borders is
not a viable, long-term solution to this critical problem. The Federal
government must step up to the plate and address the situation. It is
critical in protecting our homeland, and it is critical in allowing for
the efficient movement of people and goods across our border.
That is why I am here today: To ask, on behalf of the people of
Michigan, for your help.
First, we must have a long-term strategy to assess the staffing
levels needed to maintain our border.
Second, we need a complete review of the policies that govern our
border with Canada.
Third, Michigan needs Federal dollars to help construct an
additional crossing and funding to decrease traffic congestion. This is
critical for Michigan, as the gateway to America's number one trade
partner.
And fourth, security policies between the U.S. and Canadian
governments and Michigan and local law enforcement need to be reviewed
and updated.
I want to talk about each of these.
For Michigan, we believe that staffing is the most immediate
concern at the northern border.
Since September 11, Federal funding has been authorized to increase
the number of border personnel, and Michigan thanks Congress for the
work it has done so far to address this issue.
But the reality is that we cannot sit here this morning and know
that increase will be enough. No assessment has been done to really
identify how Michigan's border must be staffed in order to provide
security and efficiency.
It is important that we thoroughly examine the staffing and
technology needs of both U.S. Customs and the INS for the long-term.
This is not a short-term problem, and it cannot be solved with short-
term solutions.
As conditions at the border change, we need to be flexible in order
to adapt and meet changing needs.
We have to be certain that border personnel have the resources they
need to perform their duties completely and efficiently, not only this
year and next, but in ten and twenty years as well.
Second, Michigan asks for a complete review of all policies
governing our border with Canada.
We need to work with our Canadian partners and neighbors to rethink
how we manage our shared border and create a new international
agreement to make long-term, comprehensive improvements that would
benefit both countries.
These would include:
--improvements like creating a ``border zone,'' where border agencies
can do their work even across the border;
--changing road and traffic configurations, where necessary, to
provide for the smoothest possible movement of traffic;
--providing off-site, pre-inspection areas for businesses that are
frequent travelers, and;
--putting in place the best available technology to shorten the
inspection process.
Right now, there are more than 1,600 Canadian nurses who work in
the Detroit area. They pose little risk to our national security, and
fast-pass type technology would get them between work and home more
quickly without compromising security.
These are just some of the examples of how our border policies must
be reviewed.
Third, we feel it is essential to address the infrastructure needs
at the border. Michigan and other northern border States cannot afford
to meet these needs on our own. I'm sure this isn't the first time your
committee has heard this, but we need money.
At one time, infrastructure issues were left for the northern
States and Canada to handle. Now, because of NAFTA and because of the
attacks of September 11, this is no longer a State issue. It is a
national issue with severe national repercussions. That is why it must
be a national responsibility.
The primary focus should be on crossing capacity. Even before
September 11, Michigan identified the need for an additional publicly
or privately owned bridge or tunnel at or near Detroit. Again, figures
continue to show that traffic between Michigan and Canada grows more
than 10 percent each year. It will not be long before our current
crossings will be unable to carry all the traffic efficiently.
The United States needs a fast-track approach to address its
international border infrastructure needs, and the Federal government
must take financial responsibility for maintaining the border crossings
that are so important to our country's economic well-being and our
national security.
A Federal role is warranted and needed.
And lastly, Michigan asks for a review of border security
capabilities and policies between the U.S. and Canadian governments.
Because of the Great Lakes, Michigan is home to 18 U.S. Coast Guard
stations. Current funding levels, however, limit Coast Guard activities
in the Great Lakes region to mainly search and rescue operations
related to summer recreation. They are limited in the resources they
have to help protect our border, and Michigan asks that the Coast Guard
be given the funding it needs to keep our shores safe.
At this time of heightened security, communication between law
enforcement agencies is critical. The Coast Guard needs a secure and
compatible communications system so that it can work together with
Michigan law enforcement to make sure our borders are secure.
In addition, similar to the current arrangement with officials
managing America's southern border, we ask that a forum for
intelligence sharing be established between U.S., Canadian, State and
local law enforcement officials.
Please make no mistake, Michigan is very aware that these are not
easy issues to address. International agreements and differences in
U.S. and Canadian laws present difficult and unique challenges. But if
there was ever a time to focus on what will help make our crossings
both safer and more efficient, that time is now.
The responsibility for this lies with all of us. But in this area,
we look to Washington D.C. for leadership, resources, and assistance.
I know that Michigan and our fellow border States, their Governors
and State legislatures, the private sector and bridge operators, stand
ready to work with you and the Bush Administration to make the changes
needed to address these concerns in a comprehensive and thorough way.
Thank you again for the invitation to be here this morning, and I
look forward to working with you further on these very important issues
Senator Dorgan. Governor, thank you very, much.
Senator Clinton, your colleague, Senator Schumer, was with
us earlier this morning. We appreciate your joining us. As I
indicated, a vote has just begun, there are 12 minutes
remaining on the vote. Why do we not take your testimony after
which I will have a recess.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement
for the record.
I wanted to support you in your efforts, which we
appreciate greatly, and this committee's commitment to
following up on these suggestions from the first panel and then
from this panel of distinguished Governors.
New York is the most populous State along the northern
border. From Plattsburgh to Watertown to Buffalo, we are facing
the same challenges that we have just heard described from
Michigan. And it is time for us to pull together a
comprehensive strategy, with the resources that will put
northern border security on the same level as the border on our
south has always been considered.
I have asked Governor Ridge to appoint one person who could
be our contact person, to work with all of these different
interests and needs. I hope that that will be done in the
Office of Homeland Security so that we can all coordinate our
efforts to achieve the goals that we are seeking.
Prepared statement
Although I applaud the Attorney General with the
announcement this week that there will be National Guard forces
that will be posted along the border, that is not a permanent
solution. We need to have the commitment of resources that will
enable us to not only utilize the personnel we need along the
border to expedite scenes like this at the Peace Bridge, but
also we need to better utilize technology. Since the border is
so long, there is no way we can post people along it, but we
should do better than your orange cone, Mr. Chairman.
So with that, I thank you very much for this important
hearing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important subject
of northern border security. I appreciate the leadership that Senator
Dorgan has shown on insisting that additional resources be allotted to
protect our northern border.
Management of the border is an important issue to all of us who
represent States along the U.S.-Canada border. Indeed, I have heard
from constituents in Buffalo, Plattsburgh and elsewhere along the New
York's border with Canada about their concerns with how the border is
protected and managed. However, this issue is should be of concern to
all Americans. Border security is also homeland security. And homeland
security begins with border security.
Our border with Canada is the longest, most peaceful and open
border in the world. And we want to keep it that way, because both
America and Canada benefit from the free flow of goods and people back
and forth. At the same time, the border can be exploited by those who
mean to do us harm. There are steps we can and should take to beef up
security at the border without inhibiting the flow of commerce and
tourism between our two nations.
For too long, northern border security has received the short end
of the stick when it comes to Federal resources. But the Federal
government must provide for the permanent, long-term protection of our
northern border.
While northern border security has received increased attention
since September 11, it is important that we not repeat the mistakes of
recent years and underfund security along the U.S.-Canada border.
Indeed, a Justice Department report last July disclosed that only 4
percent of border patrol agents work along the U.S.-Canadian border.
Let's not forget that it was an alert official stationed along the
border between Canada and the United States who helped stop a potential
terrorist attack on our country around the time of the Millennium.
Attorney General Ashcroft's request earlier this week to
temporarily add National Guard soldiers, aircraft, intelligence and
additional personnel to the northern border is an important step in
making the U.S.-Canada border more secure. However, this is only a
temporary fix.
The Attorney General's announcement is a clear demonstration of the
importance of securing the northern border and the need for more
permanent solutions to the problems faced by the INS, Customs and other
agencies with responsibility for policing the border.
Our northern border security needs cannot wait until the next
budget cycle. Indeed, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge's warning
this week of the possibility of another terrorist attack demonstrates
the urgency of dealing with northern border security immediately.
The Homeland Defense Package, reported out of the Appropriations
Committee yesterday, provides a significant amount of resources for the
Northern Border. It would provide $591 million for border security--
most of which would go to the Northern border--including more INS
border patrol agents and customs inspectors as wells as facility
improvements.
We can use technology more effectively--high-tech equipment than
can improve our surveillance along the border. That is why last week, I
signed on to co-sponsor the bipartisan Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001 which contains provisions to improve the
resources, training, and technology available to our border personnel.
We must also improve the coordination among the number of agencies
involved in various aspects of border security. It is disappointing
that the Treasury Department and the Customs Service were not included
in the Attorney General's recent announcement concerning additional
National Guard soldiers, aircraft, intelligence and other personnel to
the northern border.
In order to maximize the coordination of United States government
agencies in northern border security, I have asked Tom Ridge to appoint
a full-time staff person within his office with responsibility for
northern border issues. We need to have a point person who we can go to
address the various northern border issues that arise.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Clinton, thank you very much.
I might just point out, the U.S. Customs Service has 1,037
inspectors on the northern border, 2,200 inspectors on the
southern border. The Border Patrol has 500 uniformed agents on
the northern border, 9,000 on the southern border. So you can
see the resource difference.
I did not bring the orange rubber cone today, because I
think people are tired of seeing it. But as I have said, it
cannot walk, cannot talk, cannot shoot, and cannot tell a
terrorist from a tow truck. It just sits there after 10 o'clock
at night, at many of these locations along our northern border.
The polite people who come through illegally actually get
out of the car and move the cone, I am told, and then put it
back. But those who are not so polite go through at 60 miles an
hour and shred that orange rubber cone.
We have two votes and we are going to have a 15 minute
recess. I will be back in 15 minutes. Are the governors able to
stay? I hope you are able to stay for 15 minutes, I do want to
ask some questions about the National Guard.
We have General Lowenberg, who is also here from the State
of Washington, and General Haugen. I hope perhaps you would be
able to be here as well, in case we have some questions. Are
you able to stay for 15 minutes?
We will be in recess for 15 minutes.
The hearing will be back in session.
I understand that a couple of the Governors had to leave. I
regret that it took longer than was expected on the floor of
the Senate. Senator Thurmond is 99-years-old and they wished
him Happy Birthday. He stood up and responded by saying I love
all you men, and love the women even more. That was Senator
Thurmond's response today, we are delighted to have him with
us.
If I might ask the two Adjutant Generals to come forward
just for a moment. Governor Posthumus, thank you for staying. I
regret the inconvenience but we were able to get the testimony
on the record and I will inquire of the Governors by written
questions to them.
I want to ask specifically about the National Guard
function first, and then Governor Posthumus, perhaps you can
give me your judgment about a couple of other things relating
to the Customs Service.
On the National Guard issue, Generals, you know that
Attorney General Ashcroft indicated that he was going to ask
for the assistance of the National Guard, and I believe that is
now underway. Can I ask, what kind of training exists in the
National Guard that makes that a good fit for the northern
border?
My own view of it, without having a lot of information, is
that that is an adequate temporary approach to assign some
National Guard resources to the northern border, but it is
certainly not something that probably works beyond a temporary
approach. I am specifically interested in whether this is
something that fits with the training that National Guard
troops have? Do either of you want to take a crack at that?
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL TIMOTHY J. LOWENBERG,
CHAIRMAN, HOMELAND SECURITY, ADJUTANTS
GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
General Lowenberg. Senator Dorgan, if I may respond first,
I am Chair of Homeland Security for the Adjutants General
Association of the United States, and I have been working very
closely with the Executive Secretary, Secretary White, within
DOD on this issue and others on how the National Guard would be
used.
In fact, for more than 12 years, thousands of National
Guardsmen have been used in every State to support INS, Border
and Customs in the counter-drug mission. Many of the functional
elements of what is being needed right now for augmentation of
these Federal agencies along the northern border is virtually
indistinguishable from what we have been doing for a long time
with regard to drug interdiction efforts. We are simply looking
for terrorism related materials as opposed to a specific focus
on illicit drugs.
So in that respect, it does fit within the skill set of a
lot of our soldiers and airmen who have been engaged for a long
time supporting Federal agencies, as well as local law
enforcement agencies in these efforts.
I would agree with those who testified previously before
the committee that although this is an appropriate use of the
National Guard in Title 32 status, which preserves the proper
role of the Governors and the States as a partner with the
Federal Government, that it should be, and must be, an interim
transitional measure, leading the pathway to a more permanent,
civilian agency solution.
Senator Dorgan. General Haugen, do you have some notion,
based on what Attorney General Ashcroft announced, of how many
North Dakota Guardsmen might be employed?
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL HAUGEN, ADJUTANT
GENERAL OF NORTH DAKOTA
General Haugen. Yes, sir, Senator. Right now, the current
thinking is we will have 44 National Guard members assigned to
the Customs Service with another 10 to INS. They are still
reviewing the possibility of using aviation assets either in a
surveillance role or in a response role. In other words, a
helicopter that could carry a team to an incident or a
sighting.
The issue of training, if I could also address that a
little bit, we have many National Guard members who are law
enforcement personnel in their civilian occupation, or are
trained in related occupations. There will be some specific
training for all National Guard members, as there was in
airport security, by the FAA. And so the uniqueness of this
will be covered in their training.
However, basic security measures are something that every
National Guard member is trained in as a soldier in his normal
course of training.
Senator Dorgan. How long will the rotation be for those
that you assign? Will you do it on a rotating basis?
General Haugen. Again, as General Lowenberg said, the Title
32 possibilities are much more friendly to the Guard than the
Title 10, because as a Title 32 member we can schedule you,
rotate you at a convenience of the Guard member. If we do Title
10, then people are activated for like the 6 month period.
So it is much better for the individual Guard member with
his civilian occupation or whether she may be going to school,
or whatever their outside occupation would be. So that is a
thing that can be varied and determined by the individual, as
well as the needs of the Border Patrol and the National Guard.
General Lowenberg. Senator Dorgan, in Title 32, Governors
also retain access to those soldiers and airmen for responding
to State emergencies which may temporarily override the ongoing
efforts at the border. Where if a soldier or airman has a
particularly unique skill, they can be withdrawn to respond to
a State emergency and another soldier or airman can be
substituted with prior training for the Customs agent mission.
That is not possible in Title 10 status.
Title 32 duty also permits us to require of the soldiers
and airmen that they attend all of the regular unit training
assemblies and annual training, so that the unit readiness and
the war-fighting capability of the National Guard units is not
degraded at all. In Title 10 status, we lose all control over
those members and there is immediate unit wartime readiness
degradation.
Senator Dorgan. Governor Posthumus, I agree with your
testimony that we need additional resources, and we are having
a battle here in Congress on that issue right now. If nothing
is done with respect to homeland defense or homeland security
in funding now, it will occur either in a supplemental or in
the regular appropriation next year, which means that perhaps
mid-year next year or October 1st additional resources would be
triggered.
We have this discussion going on with the Administration,--
I guess discussion is a kind word to describe it--between
Senator Byrd who has added $7.5 billion roughly to the defense
appropriations bill and the Administration that says no, we do
not want that now.
But that $7.5 billion would fund additional Customs Service
agents, inspectors, canine units and other things, to beef up
Customs, INS and Border Patrol on the northern border. It would
be useful, certainly, for you as well to--and I am sure you and
Governor Engler will do this--but to visit with the Homeland
Security Chief and the White House about this.
The question is not whether we need resources. Everybody
understands we do. The question is when we get them and how we
employ them. In my judgment, the sooner the better. I would
assume you feel the same way?
Lieutenant Governor Posthumus. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
And I might add, as important as the Guard have been to our
border protection since September 11, especially in Michigan
and I am sure other northern border States, we have to continue
to emphasize that that really has to be a temporary solution.
In the case of the Michigan Guard, and I would expect that
is true in most cases, they do not have the full authority of
the Customs agents, even though they are there. They are there
unarmed, while agents are armed. I think most people assume
they are armed. And they are not necessarily trained in the
same way that Customs agents have been.
So that, as I mentioned earlier, it is our number one
request to both you and it will be the number one request to
Secretary Ridge and the President, that we one, fund the
increase of personnel. But maybe just as important, do an
analysis of what our personnel needs really are. We really do
not know, because a full analysis has not been done.
In part because of September 11, but before that because of
NAFTA, the amount of traffic has increased at just phenomenal
rates all across the northern border States. And we have not
really come to grips with that.
So I guess I will take you up on that, we will definitely
be talking to the Secretary.
Senator Dorgan. Terrorists are not going to wait until we
get all of our resources in place. We need to understand there
is an urgency here with respect to border security. That
urgency exists with respect to every border because I think the
terrorists will find our weakest link when trying to enter this
country.
At a previous hearing I held, we had testimony about the
need for the Advanced Passenger Information System to be sent
to Customs by the air carriers that are bringing people into
our country. I was able to get that done on the Airport
Security Bill, so that is now a requirement. Customs is working
on that. The carriers, if they do not comply after the 60 days,
they will be invited to land their airplanes in some other
country.
It is very simple. If the carriers are not going to comply
with giving us advance information about who is coming into our
country, we say land somewhere else. The carriers that are not
complying and have not been complying are Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait among others. Kuwait has now come into
compliance.
My sense is you have to worry about all of your borders and
the northern border has been kind of the step-child of security
issues. I think the only way we are going to provide enhanced
security is to work together.
I do not know that we will ever provide the significant
Federal resources that one would like on a 4,000 border to be
sure that you are covering everything. That is why I believe,
even as we add resources, we are going to have to look to the
States. Although I think the National Guard deployment must be
temporary, I think in the long-term there will always be an
integration of Guard and all State resources with what we are
trying to do at the Federal level to improve and enhance
security.
Let me just ask on another front, what is the morale and
the mood in the National Guard these days in your States and
across the country?
General Lowenberg. Morale could not be higher, Senator. As
I travel throughout not only our State but throughout the
United States, and speak with soldiers and airmen on duty at
the airports, their morale is sky-high. They are so proud to be
contributing to the enhanced security of the American public
that they would not choose to be any other place.
And that is also true, obviously, for our soldiers and
airmen who are serving around the world. Most of our States
have soldiers and airmen who are serving in a half dozen
countries on any given day of the week. That is the modern
National Guard. We are very proud to serve.
General Haugen. I would echo General Lowenberg's comments
and I have traveled all around and seen soldiers from other
States at airports. I try and observe people's actions with
them. I think many times individuals come up and just simply
thank them for being there. Again, it is a good feeling for our
soldiers, that they are providing security to the traveling
public.
Of course, we are also, beyond those airports, all around
the world and sometimes even here in Washington we are right
above your heads.
Senator Dorgan. You do not mean that literally. Yes, you do
mean that literally.
General Haugen. Yes, I do mean that literally, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. The Happy Hooligans. I mentioned yesterday
in the Defense Appropriations Committee, when we talked about
the aging aircraft that we are flying, that the Air National
Guard in Fargo, the Happy Hooligans, were the ones that were
scrambled at Langley on September 11 to fly over the United
States Capitol and Washington, D.C.
I pointed out that they have won the William Tell award
three times for being the best fighter pilots in the world. And
the best fighter pilots are flying the oldest airplanes, which
is not a very fair approach, it seems to me, in the way that we
allocate some of these resources.
But the point I was making, and the point Senator Domenici
and others made, is that we have an aging fleet of aircraft
that we have to find a way to deal with.
Let me again apologize for the inconvenience of the two
votes which required our Governors to leave, but that happens.
We have other Governors who will be submitting statements.
Senator Cantwell was intending to be here but also was
delayed because of the two votes and she will submit a
statement for the record.
Senator Dorgan. Governor Posthumus, thank you for joining
us and we will continue these discussions with the
Administration and with Secretary O'Neill and the Treasury
Department and others with respect to northern border security.
Additional submitted statements
The subcommittee has received a statement from Senator
Levin, and various Governors which we will insert in the
record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Carl Levin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on the important issue of Northern
Border security. I am pleased you are holding this hearing to shed
light on the needs of the Northern Border that has long been neglected.
Unfortunately it took the tragedy of September 11 and the subsequent
need for heightened security along our borders to draw attention to the
chronic resource shortages that have existed on our Northern Border.
The Northern Border is 4,000 miles long. The Southern Border is
2,000 miles long. While much has been done over the last decade to
improve security on our border with Mexico, the Northern Border has
largely been ignored. For example, only 1,773 Customs Service personnel
are present at our border with Canada, while 8,300 protect our Southern
Border. Similarly, while 8,000 Border Patrol agents monitor our 2,000
mile Southern Border, only 300 are stationed at our 4,000 mile Northern
Border. So, 96 percent of our Border Patrol agents are assigned to a
border that is only half as long as the one to which 4 percent of
agents are assigned.
Attorney General John Ashcroft has acknowledged the problem. He
said, ``We have very frequently placed a lot of our resources along the
southern border with Mexico, and we've been a--done a pretty good job
of curtailing what had been an unrestrained flow there. We have 9,000
people [INS] on the southern border. We have fewer than 500 people
[INS] on the northern border, and that northern border is 4,000 miles
long. We do need to improve our border security, and we're in the
process of not only asking for the congressional help to get that done,
but in the reorganization and reconstitution of what we're doing
here.''
This policy of neglect must be corrected without delay and we are
in the process of doing so.
Although hugely understaffed, we process a large percentage of the
country's commercial traffic. The Northern Border has 6 of the top 8
truck border crossings in the country, including number one which is
Detroit's Ambassador bridge. Our Customs officers on the Northern
Border process 62 percent of all trucks, 85 percent of all trains, and
23 percent of all passengers and pedestrians entering the country each
year. However, our Customs inspectors represent only 14 percent of the
currently deployed inspectors in the country, and their numbers have
remained essentially static since the 1980s.
Southeast Michigan is our nation's busiest Northern Border crossing
and a significant commercial corridor. The port of Detroit is among the
busiest ports in the country and growing. Southeast Michigan is home to
5 international border crossings. The Detroit Region has half of all
Northern border crossing traffic yet has only 10 percent of the INS
inspectors assigned to the Northern border and 24 percent of the
Customs inspectors assigned to the Northern border.
Customs and INS inspectors at the Port of Detroit have been
overwhelmed in recent years as traffic at the airport, seaport, tunnel
and bridge has greatly increased. Tightened security on our borders as
a result of the September 11 attacks has aggravated this problem.
The new security measures at the border have a tremendous impact on
our economic well being. Auto plants wait days for critical parts.
Hospitals can't perform vital services when doctors and nurses are
trapped in long lines at the bridge and tunnel. We need to find a
permanent solution to the staffing shortfall at our borders so that we
are able to perform essential security inspections without causing
unreasonable backups that hurt our economy. Hiring additional
inspectors is an essential step to increasing the security while
decreasing the delays at the border.
The current arrangements at Michigan's border crossings are
temporary and fragile. Much of the backlog was resolved only with the
help of dedicated local law enforcement officials working overtime, the
Michigan National Guard, and volunteers. We are grateful for the recent
Federal commitment to increase the number of National Guard at the
Northern Border and are relying on them to help protect our border and
keep traffic and commerce flowing smoothly. However, we need to move
quickly to put permanent staff and technology in place so that we never
again have the 12 hour border crossing delays experienced in Southeast
Michigan in the days and weeks immediately following September 11.
Congress has taken some important steps to achieve this goal, but
we are not there yet. It takes time to hire and train new people. The
fiscal year 2000 Treasury Postal Appropriations bill provides an
additional $28 million for Customs to institute a Northern Border
initiative including hiring approximately 285 additional Customs
officers. The Commerce Justice State fiscal year 2002 Appropriations
bill provides for $66.3 million for 570 new border patrol agents across
the nation and $25.4 million for 348 new land border ports-of-entry INS
inspectors across the nation. Particular attention will be paid to the
needs of the Northern border. Congress also tripled staffing levels for
INS, Customs and Border Patrol staffing on the Northern Border in the
anti-terrorism bill. A portion of the $40 billion emergency
supplemental should also go to staffing up and security our Northern
Border.
Improved border security involves more than just more money. It
requires changing policies and practices that don't make sense. On
November 13th I held a hearing of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations to highlight an obvious gap in our border security.
The U.S. Border Patrol is the uniformed law enforcement arm of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with the responsibility of
combating alien smuggling and illegal entries other than at ports of
entry. Ports of entry such as airports, bridges and highways are the
only places where people may legally enter the United States. They are
also the places where INS officers and Customs Agents review persons,
papers and luggage to decide whether to allow someone into the United
States.
The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations looked at how people
who attempt to enter the country illegally at places other than these
official ports are arrested and processed by the Border Patrol. When
persons are arrested by the Border Patrol, the large majority
voluntarily returns to their country of origin, usually Mexico or
Canada. The others, perhaps as many as one-third of those arrested on
the Northern Border, are given a notice to appear at a removal hearing.
The Border Patrol decides whether the person should be detained,
released on bond or, as is often the case, released on his or her own
recognizance while awaiting a hearing. This hearing can take several
months to occur.
In fiscal year 2001 at the Detroit Border Patrol Sector--which
encompasses all of Michigan--the Border Patrol arrested more than 2,100
people. A significant percentage of these people were arrested while
actually attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. Most of these 2,100
were voluntarily returned to their country of origin. However, more
than one-third were given a notice to appear at a removal hearing.
Reports from Border Patrol agents indicate that the vast majority of
the latter group were released on their own recognizance pending their
hearing. The INS wasn't able to tell us how many of the persons
arrested in this situation and released fail to show up for their
scheduled hearing. However, by looking at related statistics and
ballpark estimates, we estimated that the number is at least 40 percent
and possibly as high as 90 percent.
The conclusion is inescapable: the vast majority of people arrested
by the Border Patrol while attempting to enter the U.S. illegally who
don't voluntarily return to their own country are released on their own
recognizance. Most of those released don't show up for their removal
hearing and little or no effort is made to find them.
As I said at my Subcommittee's hearing, this is a dysfunctional and
absurd system that makes a mockery of our immigration laws. When we
release persons into the country who are without an address, without
ties, without any record of who they are, we're abdicating our
responsibility to the larger community. This is a practice that has to
stop. On November 13th, I asked the INS and Border Patrol to report to
me on the steps they plan to take to close these enforcement loopholes.
If the response is unsatisfactory, I plan to introduce legislation to
accomplish it.
In conclusion, we need a combination of temporary and permanent
solutions to address the gaps in funding and policy that affect
security and commerce at our Northern Border. I am pleased the
administration is calling for additional National Guard that have been
assisting at the border. However, we must get the posts permanently and
adequately staffed with Customs and INS officials so that we don't have
to rely on temporary fixes. We also need to find a way to compensate
our local law enforcement volunteers and secure funds for technology.
We should also consider performing reverse Customs inspection of
vehicles entering tunnels and crossing bridges on the Northern Border.
With the increased security risks to our nations infrastructure in the
post-September 11 climate, it seems obvious that inspecting vehicles
for bombs or explosives AFTER they enter our tunnels or cross our
bridges is illogical. To rectify this security vulnerability, we must
work with our neighbors to establish a reverse inspection program to
inspect vehicles before they have the chance to endanger or destroy
important transportation infrastructure. And finally, we need to make
common sense changes to our law enforcement and immigration policies to
ensure the safety of our people and the integrity of our laws. We are
an open and generous country and we welcome persons from around the
world who want to contribute their hard work to help build a better
America. But we also have a duty to protect ourselves and our country
from people who would do us harm.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Judd Gregg
Thank you, Chairman Dorgan and Senator Campbell, for the
opportunity to submit a statement as part of your hearing regarding
security on the northern border in the wake of the events of September
11, 2001.
For the last several years, many of us have attempted without
success to alert the Border Patrol and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to the security vulnerabilities on the
northern border. We were ignored. All eyes in the past Administration,
and, frankly, this Administration, were turned to the Southwest border.
Even when terrorists were caught red-handed on the East and West Coast
with bomb-making material, having crossed the northern border without
question or concern, we could elicit no interest or support in beefing
up our security posture on the northern border.
Let me cite just one recent example. Armed with a report
documenting gross overcrowding at Border Patrol stations on the
Southwest border and undermanning at Border Patrol stations on the
northern border, the Senate Commerce, Justice, State (CJS) Subcommittee
attempted to direct new Border Patrol agents to the U.S.-Canadian
border. Of 430 new agents funded in fiscal year 2001, the Senate
proposed deploying a mere 65 to the northern tier--1 new agent for
every 62 miles of our 4,000-mile northern border. The Border Patrol
insisted that only 15 be so assigned. After a lengthy wrangle, the
House sided with the Border Patrol, the Senate was outvoted, and we in
the north had to share 15 new Border Patrol agents--1 new agent for
every 267 miles.
Prior to September 11, 2001, many ports of entry on the northern
border were guarded by nothing more than a yellow cone. In effect, we
ran an honor system. And, of course, that was only for border crossers
foolish enough to attempt a crossing at a port of entry. Travelers with
more nefarious intentions were free to cross our border wherever they
chose, because the Border Patrol had a minimal presence in rural areas.
Huge swaths of territory on the northern tier heard the footfalls of a
Border Patrol agent once in a blue moon, if at all. To compensate, the
Senate CJS Subcommittee attempted to force remote sensors to the
northern border. Even this modest effort was met with resistance from
the Border Patrol and INS. Seems no one was concerned.
Worse yet, even at ports of entry that were manned some part of the
day or some part of the year, inspections were cursory and lines were
long because of inadequate staffing and the sheer number of travelers.
Besides the obvious security concerns raised by ``glance and go''
inspections, congestion at northern ports of entry, and the wait times
that result, were crippling trade and tourism on the border. In
Detroit, peak wait times have climbed to 2-2\1/2\ hours, in Seattle the
same, and travelers at smaller entry ports in New England are waiting
2-3 hours. In the last five years, the number of immigration inspectors
has actually declined. Today, of 104 ports of entry, 85, or 82 percent,
are manned at 50 percent or less of workload requirements and the four
worst, all on the northern tier, are manned at less than 15 percent.
How things have changed since September 11, 2001. The $30,300,000
provided by the supplemental for 323 new immigration inspectors and
support staff will increase total staffing by almost 20 percent,
sharply reducing wait times and allowing ports of entry to operate
around the clock, seven days a week. A similar increase provided in the
fiscal year 2002 CJS bill will double the benefits.
Of course, having surged personnel to the northern border, we must
also provide the facility funding necessary to house and support
immigration inspectors and personnel from Customs, Agriculture, and
other sister agencies. The INS is confronted with a $1,500,000,000
backlog in construction. It is my understanding that Customs faces a
$1,000,000,000 backlog. Some of this may overlap, but much of it
certainly does not. Though the so-called ``stimulus'' section of the
Defense Appropriations bill includes $300,000,000 for INS construction,
there is no guarantee that these funds will survive the process before
us. If they do not, we must dedicate ourselves to properly funding
facilities on the northern border.
Mr. Chairman, the deficiencies that confront us on the northern
border are real. They have long been ignored. It is my hope that events
like those of September 11 will call attention to the very serious
problems that have long existed on the northern border. I look forward
to working with you and Mr. Campbell to address security shortcomings
as we see fit. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in
the hearing before your Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Judy Martz, Governor, State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I thank
the Subcommittee for the invitation to submit testimony for this
hearing, and appreciate the opportunity to share with the Subcommittee
the challenges that the State of Montana faces in dealing with the
issue of northern border security.
In October of this year, I established the Homeland Security Task
Force for the State of Montana. This Task Force brings together
representatives from: the Office of the Governor; the Montana
congressional delegation; State legislators; the Montana Departments of
Justice and Corrections; local fire, emergency medical services and law
enforcement; the Montana National Guard; the FBI; the Office of the
U.S. Attorney; the U.S. Postal Service; Montana Disaster and Emergency
Services and other Federal, State, and local agencies.
The mission of the Task Force is to coordinate efforts to prevent,
prepare for and protect against terrorist attacks within Montana, and
when necessary, detect, respond to, and recover from such attacks.
Montana's Task Force also coordinates with President Bush's Office of
Homeland Security.
Security of our northern border is an important component of the
Task Force's mandate.
Montana's border with Canada is approximately 550 miles long. This
includes nexus with three Provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, and
Saskatchewan. The Blackfeet Nation in Montana has 50 miles of this
border and Glacier National Park 40 miles. There are 11 Montana
counties along this border. There are 15 official ports of entry along
this 550 miles of which only three operate 24 hours per day. It is
estimated that there are 180 border crossings; 12 of which are paved;
the remainder are gravel, dirt and primitive trails. The U.S. Border
Patrol has two regional offices for Montana. The Havre, Montana office
handles the east side of the Continental Divide and the Spokane,
Washington office on the west side.
The events of September 11 were a catalyst for what are and should
be on-going efforts at the local, tribal, State and Federal levels to
analyze potential threats and the governments' ability to prevent and
respond to them. This collaborative effort is crucial.
One of the areas that we believe needs particular attention is that
of communication between Federal and local law enforcement in the area
of intelligence. Intelligence gathering is crucial to threat detection
and prevention efforts. Montana is one of only a few States that does
not have a State intelligence system therefore making exchange of
information with Federal law enforcement agencies difficult. A central
repository for intelligence information would enable local law
enforcement officials to respond in a pro-active manner to information
furnished by Federal law enforcement agencies and our Canadian
counterparts. This could be one of the most efficient and cost-
effective measures to improve the security of our northern border.
Like many other States, Montana does not have a shared public
safety radio communications system, the absence greatly hinders
communication between local, State and Federal agencies. This
inefficiency was proven during Montana's 2000 wildfires, when
coordination efforts of local fire departments, the U.S. Forest
Service, State Forestry, local sheriffs and the Montana Highway Patrol
were severely hampered.
Such a system would significantly assist border States in
identifying terrorist and other criminal threats along the northern
border. It would also improve State and local response times to day-to-
day threats or critical incidents.
The costs of such a system, however, are prohibitive. It is
estimated that the cost to the State of Montana would be between $150-
$160 million.
I have been working with the Havre Sector of the U.S. Border
Patrol, which services 452 miles of border area between Montana and
Canada, to detect and prevent illegal entry and smuggling. Limited
resources at all levels contribute to the challenges and make it
impossible to precisely evaluate the full extent of potential threats.
The northern border presents such threats that, we believe, are
underestimated and increasing. Illegal immigration, drug trafficking,
and smuggling are continuous challenges. Because of the large
geographic area of the border and limited resources, it is difficult to
track exactly what is going back and forth. A true quantitative
analysis needs to be conducted so local, tribal, State and Federal
agencies can better understand the threat and plan accordingly.
To help address these issues, Montana has several emergency
management related relationships with Canada. The Prairie and Western
Regional Emergency Management Councils coordinated by FEMA, the
Canadian/U.S. hazardous materials agreements coordinated by EPA, and
the Northwest Compact for mutual aid. Montana is also a member of the
Pacific North West Economic Region dealing with security issues for
utilities on both sides of the border. Energy and water systems do not
stop at the border and are heavily interdependent on each country.
Canadian intelligence has reported that approximately 350 people
have been identified as possible terrorists or associated with
terrorists in Canada. Additionally, they have identified 50
organizations suspected of aiding terrorists. Montana's Attorney
General reported recently that a known terrorist had crossed the
Canadian border into Montana after September 11.
I am studying options to support border security measures utilizing
the Montana National Guard. But increased Federal support to aid the
efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol and other agencies involved in border
security are also crucial to addressing these issues.
Tremendous strain has been put on State and local budgets in the
aftermath of September 11. As a national border, the Federal government
needs to pay its fair share of the increased costs that have been
caused due to these events, and work to adequately protect the citizens
of northern border States.
Many States are having to hold special legislative sessions to deal
with the economic impact of September 11. Montana is not being forced
into such a session, but the aftermath of that day only continues to
strain all sectors of our nation's economy.
Continued vigilance and fiscal discipline will not prevent us from
feeling long-term economic ramifications. State and local budgets--
particularly those of local law enforcement--are feeling the severe
strain of increased security measures. This is in addition to other
terrorism related situations--that have nothing to do with the border--
but have an effect such as anthrax hoaxes and false alarms.
It is estimated that current immediate costs for Montana would
total approximately $500,000. Such costs would include expanding
Montana's emergency management capability, installing electronic
surveillance systems and conducting a security vulnerability study for
the Capitol, creating an intelligence gathering capability in our
Justice Department. Recurring costs are estimated at over $3.8 million
over the next several years, given the information we currently have to
make such an estimate. At this time, the State of Montana has limited
funds to address some one-time costs. However, there are not sufficient
funds to cover all one-time or any recurring costs of additional
security.
Border security, if not done properly and with foresight to look at
the cascading implications, could have a very detrimental impact upon
communities, the State and the national economy. It is critically
important that any significant changes in border crossings and commerce
involve departments of commerce, emergency management and law
enforcement. We have many of the mechanisms in place to address these
issues. We need, however, a significant increase in resources to staff
these processes.
In conclusion, one of the most important steps the Federal
government could take to support State and local efforts to secure our
northern border is to improve intelligence gathering capability and
communication between Federal, State, tribal and local law enforcement.
A shared public safety radio communications systems would
significantly improve the ability of local law enforcement to respond
to border threats.
We would also encourage Federal officials to work with States to
provide adequate resources to bolster the U.S. Border Patrol, Customs
and Immigration agencies so that all issues specific to the border with
our Canadian neighbors can be addressed in a professional partnership.
Thank you
._____
Prepared Statement of Gary Locke, Governor, State of Washington
Chairman Dorgan, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to submit testimony to you regarding the post-September 11
security and economic impacts along Washington's Canadian border, and
the need for additional staffing and other resources at border
crossings.
I want to thank you for your kind invitation to present testimony
in person. However, because of unavoidable scheduling conflicts, I am
not able to be with you today.
In submitting this testimony, I join Washington's hard-working
congressional delegation and other northern tier governors in
addressing this critical issue.
Senator Patty Murray was able to include language in the Commerce,
State, and Justice Appropriations bill directing INS to earmark
additional agents for the northern border. Senators Murray and Maria
Cantwell were also instrumental in including an appropriation in the
Anti-Terrorism authorization bill increasing the number of northern
border personnel. Senators Cantwell and Murray, as well as U.S.
Representative Rick Larsen, have been working hard to obtain funding
for expanded technological initiatives to eliminate backups and
increase security at our borders.
In addition, Representative Larsen coordinated requests for
additional border agents. Representatives Norm Dicks, George
Nethercutt, and Jennifer Dunn have also been instrumental in lending
support and leadership on border security issues.
As Governor of Washington, which has one of the busiest border
crossings in the nation, I urgently request your assistance in
providing resources to enhance security along our shared border with
Canada. In the face of mounting terrorist threats and the documented
apprehension of terrorists entering the United States across the
Canadian border, current border staffing shortfalls expose our nation
to an unacceptable risk of security lapses.
In addition, heavy traffic congestion and delays at major crossings
resulting from tighter security are causing severe financial and other
problems in many border communities. The terrorist attacks of September
11 hit Whatcom County in Washington State particularly hard when long
backups resulted in a 52 percent reduction in discretionary border
traffic. The impacts on tourism and border-related businesses have been
profound, especially in a county that recently experienced shutdowns of
two major manufacturing plants and the resulting layoffs.
Business activity information we received from local communities
shows that for the cities of Blaine, Lynden, Sumas, and Bellingham,
retail sales from Canadian shoppers this year are off 50 percent from
last year. In Whatcom County, the taxable retail sales attributable to
Canadian traffic have fallen by 50 percent. That translates into over
$100 million in lost sales this year.
All of this has occurred at a time when the State as a whole is
suffering a severe economic downturn, with the highest unemployment
rate in the nation. In addition, over this same period of time, the
value of the U.S. dollar has appreciated relative to Canadian currency,
which makes the price of our goods and services higher for Canadian
consumers.
Given the current threat level, we believe the risks associated
with inadequate protection along the full extent of the border between
the two countries should be dealt with immediately. In this connection,
we are encouraged by recent statements from the Administration that
National Guard troops will be made available for deployment at border
crossings and along the extent of the border.
This is in keeping with a request to President Bush that I
initiated last month from northern tier governors (letter attached). We
told the President that we stand ready to activate National Guard
troops to augment border control security staffing at the crossings, as
well as in patrol and reconnaissance missions along the border. In the
same manner as the Guard was activated for airport security, use of the
Guard for border security must be carried out under Title 32, Section
502(f) of the United States Code ``in the service of the United
States.'' Since border security is clearly a Federal responsibility, it
should not be a State Duty Status undertaking or subject the States to
any expense or potential tort liability.
Having acknowledged that border security is a Federal
responsibility, I remind the committee that the manner in which border
security is carried out has a direct and significant impact on each
border State and our border communities. That is why use of the
National Guard under Title 32 is so appropriate. Title 32 duty allows
the Guard to be used in the service of the Federal government while
retaining a State role in the overall mission execution.
Title 32 duty also assures equal pay and benefits for equal service
regardless of the Guard member's duty location. Unlike State-funded
State Active Duty, all National Guard members performing border
crossing and point of entry security duties in Title 32 status would
receive the same pay and benefits regardless of their State of service.
In asking the President to assign these missions to the National
Guard in Title 32 status, the governors were also mindful that, for
more than a decade, thousands of National Guard soldiers and airmen
have been performing virtually indistinguishable duties in
Title 32 status. I refer, of course, to the National Guard Counter-
Drug Program in which Guard soldiers and airmen, with the consent of
the Governors of the several States, have been actively augmenting the
operations of the Border Patrol, Customs, and INS. The proposed
missions at northern border crossings and ports of entry, for the most
part, are an expansion of the same operational functions, albeit with a
refined focus on terrorism instead of the current drug interdiction
focus.
Using the National Guard in Title 32 status, instead of
federalizing individual Guard volunteers in Title 10 status, also
ensures significant Air Force as well as Army participation in border
security. Because of the joint nature of each State's National Guard
command structure, we have been able to execute airport security
missions with both Army and Air National Guard personnel, thus
minimizing the impact on the wartime operational readiness of both
Federal military services.
The governors stand ready to execute expanded border crossing and
port of entry missions in the same Title 32 multi-service manner. Using
current Title 10 forces or Guard members in Title 10 status would
diminish the contributions of the several States in support of national
security, disproportionately impact the Army and the readiness of its
units for overseas missions, and place Federal military personnel on a
collision course with the proscriptions of the Posse Comitatus Act--an
Act, by the way, that is as relevant and compelling today as when it
was enacted.
Use of the National Guard must be a short-term strategy giving way,
as quickly as possible, to a more appropriate permanent enhancement of
border security using civilian, as opposed to military, personnel.
We sincerely appreciate the increased Federal staffing already
provided at many crossings, including those in Washington State.
However, it is critical that additional border staffing be made
available through the emergency supplemental appropriations process, in
addition to the staff increases that have been included in preliminary
appropriations bills for Customs and Immigration agencies. I join our
congressional delegation in support of full funding of border agents.
They have made additional inspection and Border Patrol agents a major
priority.
We have also requested the President to consider reinstatement of
programs that speed up entry of low-risk, pre-approved travelers, if
this action is warranted after assessment of security risks. With the
events of September 11, the regional consensus is to upgrade the PACE
CANPASS program. This popular, dedicated commuter lane program has been
closed since the attacks due to security concerns. The program needs to
be reinstated and upgraded with new technology developed at the Blue
Water Bridge between Michigan and Ontario. An additional $1.2 million
for USINS is necessary to complete the upgrade.
I join our congressional delegation and other northern tier States
in urging quick action by Congress and the President to further enhance
border security and relieve the severe economic pressures on our border
communities.
Thank you.
The Northern Tier Governors,
November 16, 2001.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC 20500.
Dear President Bush: As governors of northern tier States, we
urgently request your assistance in enhancing security along our shared
border with Canada. In the face of mounting terrorist threats and the
documented apprehension of terrorists entering the United States across
the Canadian border, current border staffing shortfalls expose our
nation to an unacceptable risk of security lapses. Heavy traffic
congestion and delays at major crossings are also causing severe
financial and other problems in many border communities. Given the
current threat level, we believe the risks associated with inadequate
protection along the full extent of the border between the two
countries should be dealt with immediately.
To address these concerns, we urge you to request, and we stand
ready to activate, National Guard troops to augment border control
security staffing at the crossings, as well as in patrol and
reconnaissance missions along the border. In the same manner that the
Guard was activated for airport security, use of the Guard for border
security must be carried out under Title 32 of the United States Code
``in the service of the United States.'' It should not be a State Duty
Status undertaking or subject the States to any expense or potential
tort liability.
We sincerely appreciate the additional Federal assistance already
provided at many crossings. However, we urge you to expedite assignment
of additional Federal staffing at all northern tier border crossings.
We also request that you consider reinstatement of programs that speed
up entry of low-risk, pre-approved travelers, if this action is
warranted after assessment of security risks. Activation of the
National Guard must be a short-term strategy giving way, as quickly as
possible, to a more appropriate permanent enhancement of border
security.
We recognize you are facing urgent demands on many fronts, and we
applaud your leadership during this time of deep crisis in America. We
stand ready to assist you in this important undertaking and urge your
immediate attention to this critical national security issue.
Sincerely,
Governor Gary Locke,
Washington.
Governor John Engler,
Michigan.
Governor Judy Martz,
Montana.
Governor Dirk Kempthorne,
Idaho.
Governor Angus S. King, Jr.,
Maine.
Governor Tony Knowles,
Alaska.
______
Prepared Statement of George E. Pataki, Governor, State of New York
Thank you for the opportunity to present a statement on behalf of
the State of New York. The tragic events of September 11 have clearly
challenged and changed our nation. The United States has long been the
envy of the world for our free and open society, a luxury that many of
us took for granted before September 11. What makes this such an
efficient and prosperous nation also leaves us vulnerable. The recent
tragedies have shown us the importance of prudent security measures,
and the need to eliminate security vulnerabilities, including and
especially those along our nation's borders. Yet as the nation steps up
efforts to provide safety and security to its citizens, and to
appropriately protect its borders, it must also be mindful of the need
to preserve the flow of people, goods and information, flows which keep
the nation's economy strong. New York, more directly than other States,
bears tremendous economic and physical costs from the terrorist
attacks. As New York State moves towards recovery, we are continually
looking for ways to expand economic opportunities even as we seek to
provide a safer and more secure environment.
The economic significance of our nation's and New York State's
relationship with Canada is clear. Canada is the United States' largest
trading partner, transacting over a billion dollars in trade each day
in 2000. One-third of the value of this U.S.-Canadian trade passes
through New York's infrastructure, notably to/from Ontario at the Peace
and Lewiston/Queenston bridges in Buffalo, NY, and to/from Quebec in
eastern New York at the Champlain/Lacolle border. Of this trade,
approximately two-thirds travels through New York to other
destinations, making New York State an important link to national and
international trade.
While these statistics clearly demonstrate the importance of the
current New York/Canadian trade relationship, the need to grow this
relationship promises to become even more significant as world markets
change and emerge. Over the past decade, there have been tremendous
changes in international trading relationships. Following the collapse
of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world has gone from two distinct
trading zones, the Communist bloc and the Free World, to one integrated
global market, based on functionally defined continental trading blocs.
The unification of the world's markets, coupled with tremendous
technological developments, have changed the structure of business,
blurring national lines. Rather than maintain an internal perspective,
the nation and individual States must think internationally and
globally.
In our own country, the North American Free Trade Agreement has
given rise since 1994 to the North American trading bloc, and has
shifted trade from the traditional east-west patterns, to a north-south
focus. In recognition of this, Congress has established a growing
number of high priority transportation corridors to focus investment
opportunities, including the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century's (TEA-21's) National Corridor Planning and Development Program
and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program. The Coordinated
Border Infrastructure Program in particular has created new
opportunities for New York to work with our Canadian partners on joint
border infrastructure initiatives.
In the context of changing global trends and the reality of post
September 11, New York and the nation must work cooperatively with our
border nations to seek security solutions that recognize the growing
importance of international crossings. Trade and traffic between New
York State and Canada has been growing. Since 1995, commercial truck
traffic increased to nearly four million crossings, a growth of nearly
25 percent. Overall, highway crossings along the New York/Canadian
border reached 25.2 million in 2000. Other modes of surface
transportation are also important. Combined trade for all surface
transportation modes between New York State and Canada, by value,
totaled $31.3 billion in 2000 making New York the second largest state
trading partner with Canada and the fourth largest NAFTA trading
partner. This led New York State to develop strong relationships with
our Canadian neighbors well before September 11.
As recent examples, I met with Ontario Premier Harris in Niagara
Falls this past June in our first ever New York/Ontario Economic
Summit. The focus of this successful two day event was on trade,
tourism, economic development and transportation. As part of this
event, New York State and Ontario signed a Memorandum of Understanding
and Cooperation agreeing to work jointly and cooperatively to:
--promote job creation and transportation infrastructure improvements
along the border;
--foster technological exchanges;
--support trade development;
--collaborate on tourism initiatives;
--preserve our national resources; and
--identify issues to bring to the attention of our respective
national governments.
Since this successful Summit, working groups have been meeting to
pursue these initiatives, and are using these developing relationships
to address the safety and security needs of post September 11.
For our part, Premier Harris and I met again on October 16 to
discuss the impact of security on trade and the economy in light of the
September 11 attacks. We discussed holding separate roundtable sessions
with business and government leaders to gain their insights into these
issues. Ontario held its roundtable on November 2, followed by a
Western New York Roundtable on Border Issues on November 28. The
results of these sessions will be used to develop and submit a series
of recommendations to appropriate Federal and State governments in the
United States and Canada.
With our Quebec neighbors, I met in April with Quebec Premier
Landry to more formally open a dialogue on a number of issues,
including trade and the flow of traffic through the borders. Quebec and
New York also worked together this summer to raise the awareness of New
York State citizens to the many facets of Quebec culture. The Quebec/
New York 2001 event, largely organized by the Chambre de Commerce du
Quebec and the Plattsburgh Chamber of Commerce, was a special three
week event during the summer of 2001, that brought Quebec culture to
New York State citizens through a flotilla of small ships descending
Lake Champlain. This event was to culminate in the signing of an
agreement between our State and the Province of Quebec on September 15
at the World Trade Center in New York City. Tragically, this event had
to be postponed, but Premier Landry and I did meet on November 29 in
New York City to renew the dialogue.
The focus of this meeting was to ensure optimum security throughout
North America while maintaining the smooth flow of people and goods
between our nations. As a result of this positive meeting, New York
State and Quebec have agreed to work together on security and trade
issues, to continue to pursue coordinated infrastructure improvements,
and to hold a Quebec-New York summit next spring. Similar to the
efforts underway and formalized at the Federal level earlier this week
by Attorney General Ashcroft and Canadian Officials, including
Solicitor General MacAulay and Immigration Minister Caplan, Premier
Landry and I also both supported the establishment of a North American
Security Perimeter.
In a demonstration of the strong relationships we have established
with Quebec at all levels of government, New York State Department of
Transportation Commissioner Joseph Boardman joined Quebec's Ministry of
Transportation, Guy Chevrette on December 3 to announce a $75 mCAN
investment on the Quebec side of the border to complement the over $100
mUS in improvements that are underway or programmed along the northern
I-87 corridor in New York and the funding being pursued at the
Champlain/Lacolle border facility. This was followed on December 4 with
a joint agreement signed by the Chambre de Commerce du Quebec and the
Plattsburgh Chamber of Commerce to establish a Quebec/New York
corridor.
The September 11 attacks have clearly had an impact on New York
State security efforts. In response to September 11, I established the
New York State Office of Public Security, charged with overseeing,
coordinating, and directing the State's resources related to the
detection and identification of, response to, and prevention and
recovery from terrorist attacks perpetrated in the State. The Office of
Public Security is the State's primary contact with the national Office
of Homeland Security. The Office is also tasked with developing a
comprehensive statewide strategy to secure New York State from acts of
terrorism or terrorist threats. This is a large mission, but a critical
one. In its initial efforts, the Office of Public Security has arranged
a series of meetings to address transportation security issues and
concerns, coordinating efforts both in the New York City metropolitan
area and upstate New York with transportation and law enforcement
officials. Clearly, security and transportation must work together.
Immediately following September 11, our border traffic with Canada
saw a decline and the State's border crossings experienced significant
delays. As a result of increased security, delays ranged from one to
two hours at crossings in central New York, including the Thousand
Islands, Ogdensburg and Seaway International Bridges, to five to six
hours at the Champlain/Lacolle crossing in eastern New York on I-87, to
10 to12 hours at the major commercial crossings in Western New York,
the Peace Bridge and the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge. In addition, due to
the need to shift inspection personnel, the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge in
Niagara Falls was closed to traffic immediately following the attacks,
and remains closed. While these delays are significant, the drop-off in
traffic at this time may have masked potentially longer delays as the
nation adjusted to new and extensive security requirements.
In the weeks following September 11, the additional border delays
were eliminated, and commercial traffic, while still down in the range
of 10 percent across the state, is returning to normal levels. The
economic impact of the loss in commercial traffic is difficult to
determine, since the value of cargo contained in the trucks is
undetermined. Notably, however, the borders are still experiencing a
loss in passenger traffic, on the order of 20 percent across the state,
which will certainly play a role in tourism.
While increased security measures have not significantly increased
delays at New York's border crossings, they still raise the question of
reliability of flow to the businesses which use these facilities.
Businesses rely on suppliers to deliver on-time product shipments. If
long unanticipated delays occur, major business disruptions could
result. Thus, border security measures must continue to ensure
reasonable predictable reliable crossing times.
Increased security does not have to be inconsistent with increased
border efficiency. One promising area to improve both the security and
the fluidity of border crossings is the integration of rapidly
improving intelligent transportation system (ITS) and commercial
vehicle operations (CVO) technologies at our nation's border crossings.
Integrating ITS/CVO systems nationally and internationally could
provide huge benefits, by automating functions and/or pre-clearing low
risk traffic, allowing limited border staff to focus on other tasks and
higher risk travelers.
Some examples of these technologies include:
--New York's EZPass transponder for automated toll collection. These
transponders are now being deployed at the Peace Bridge in
Buffalo, and will be deployed at the Lewiston/Queenston bridge
in Buffalo in 2002. The next generation of these transponders
will potentially provide the basis for integrating customs,
immigration and commercial vehicle credentialing and safety
screening protocols for efficiently moving cross border
traffic.
--The promising NEXUS technology, a smart card that provides
background information on the driver to border inspectors.
NEXUS was being piloted at the Blue Water Bridge in Michigan,
but the pilot has been suspended following September 11.
--Integrated data systems such as the International Trade Data System
(ITDS), a U.S. Federal Government initiative to coordinate,
standardize and ultimately simplify Federal international trade
and transportation data by providing information to the
multitude of agencies who require data at the border through
one system. ITDS was to begin its pilot efforts in Buffalo this
fall. This pilot also has been placed on hold since September
11.
While it is clear that our nation's security needs must be reviewed
and integrated into these technologies, they could provide major
assistance to improving both security and efficiency. Promising ITS
technologies are one element, however these must be coupled with modern
efficient border crossing facilities (including, for example, dedicated
lanes for pre-cleared traffic), and adequately and appropriately
staffed border stations to both ensure security with maximum
efficiency.
In this regard, New York State looks to the Federal government to
provide funding for the development and deployment of ITS and CVO
technology, modern data systems, the realization of border improvements
such as the General Service Administration's $35 million Port of
Excellence improvement project at the Champlain/Lacolle crossing, and
to provide funding for more border personnel along the Northern border.
Specifically, the recently signed USA Patriot Act committed to
increased protections at the Northern border with Canada including
authorizing funds necessary to triple Border Patrol, Customs, and
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) personnel on the Northern
border, and authorizing $50 million each to INS and Customs to make
improvements to the technology and acquire the necessary equipment for
the Northern border. Funding should be provided to fulfill these
important commitments.
Finally, New York State looks to the Federal government to ensure
that funds provided to the States for border security and border
infrastructure development such as those provided under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21's) Border
Infrastructure Program, are provided equally to the Northern and
Southern borders. Further, TEA-21's Border Infrastructure and National
Corridor Planning and Development programs share the same pot of money,
and are administered together. While there is no official breakdown of
border versus corridor projects, it is clear that border projects
represent the minority of grant awards, dropping from about one-third
of the projects awarded in 1998, to just over 15 percent of the funds
provided in 2001. In light of September 11, important border facility
needs should receive equal treatment.
New York recognizes that there are challenges ahead, but as we
refocus following September 11, there is also an opportunity to provide
positive changes that move us forward. New York State looks forward to
working with this Subcommittee and Congress to find appropriate ways to
protect our nation's citizens, but to remain strong economically.
I thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Conclusion of hearings
Senator Dorgan. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., Wednesday, December 5, the
hearings was concluded, and the subcommittee were recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
-