March 5, 2003

The Honorable Robert Bonner\
Commissioner\
U.S. Customs Service\
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\
Washington, DC 20229

Dear Commissioner Bonner:

We write to request information on the policy of the Customs Service
with regard to the transboundary movement of municipal solid waste
(MSW). Specifically, we are concerned about your agency's sudden and
inexplicable reversal on addressing the security threats associated with
these shipments - threats your own agency had deemed serious enough to
warrant increased protections only two months ago.

Enclosed you will find a January 7, 2003 memorandum from Bob Swallick of
the U.S. Customs Service, BRASS Processing Center to all customs
brokers. The memorandum directs all customs brokers to advise their
clients that, as of February 10, 2003 \"municipal waste\" will no longer
be considered a \"low risk commodity\" because of security concerns
relating to September 11. Mr. Swallick goes on to advise that other
avenues are available to customs brokers' clients, and that those
avenues will broaden with the inception of the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), the Pre-Arrival Processing System (PAPS),
National Customs Automation Program (NCAP), and Free and Secure Trade
(FAST). Given ongoing security concerns, it is our strong feeling that
this was a wise move on the part of the Customs Service.

One month later, on February 7, however, Mr. Swallick issued another
memorandum to customs brokers rescinding the January 7 order. Mr.
Swallick gave no reason for the abrupt change in policy. Instead, the
memorandum simply states that code for Municipal Waste, MUW, will not be
removed and that Customs will continue to monitor waste at the current
\"low risk\" status.

In fiscal year 2001, Michigan received nearly 1.8 million tons of
municipal solid waste (MSW) from Canada. This number continues to grow
exponentially since the city of Toronto located in Ontario, Canada,
began shipping all of its MSW to a landfill in Southeast Michigan.

At a time when President Bush and Secretary Ridge are warning Americans
to be extremely cautious and to be prepared in the case of another
terrorist attack, we find it disconcerting that truckloads of MSW
continue to be classified as low risk and permitted into the United
States without extensive inspection. Transboundary trucks that go
without thorough inspection provide an ideal opportunity for would be
terrorists to do further harm to the United States and our citizens.

We would ask that you respond to the following questions regarding
Customs' policy, providing us with all analysis, documentation and
information relevant to the decision making process.

1\. What is the current screening process for MSW?

a.  Who inspects the trucks and their content?

b.  When are the trucks and content inspected?

c.  How frequently are the trucks and content inspected?

d.  Does the Customs Service do background checks on the drivers? If so,
    how often? If not, why?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Are these shipments of waste screened for radiological and
    biological materials? If so, how? If not, why?

> 3\. Clearly, Customs Service officials believed that \"security
> concerns relating to September 11,\" were significant enough to result
> in the January 7 memorandum changing the status of MSW from low risk.

a.  What was the rationale behind the January 7 memorandum? Please
    provide us with a timeline of when these additional security
    concerns came into being.

b.  Additionally, who was involved in the decision making process?
    Again, please provide all relevant documentation, including e-mail,
    memoranda and data.

    4\. Though the January 7 memorandum appeared to be clear directive,
    Mr. Bruce Nunziata, director of the Customs processing Center in St.
    Albans, Vermont, is quoted in a February 26 *Detroit Free Press*
    article \"Tougher Policy on Trash is Yanked\" as saying, \"it was
    only a proposal.\"

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Please clarify whether the January 7 memorandum was a directive or a
    proposal.

b.  If the memorandum was a directive, why is a Customs official quoted
    as saying \"it was only a proposal\"?

c.  If it was a proposal, why was there no indication of that in the
    memorandum?

    5\. Why did the Customs Service rescind the January 7 policy three
    days before it was to be implemented? What changed that resulted in
    the mitigation of these security concerns? Please walk us through
    the thought process behind this decision, as well as who was
    involved in the decision. Again, please provide all relevant
    documentation, including e-mail, memoranda and data.

This is an issue of the utmost importance to the citizens of Michigan,
and indeed the safety of our Nation. As such, we would that you respond
to our inquiry no later than April 4, 2003. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us, or have your staff
contact Katie Murtha in Congressman Dingell's office at (202) 225-4071.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

John D. Dingell\
Member of Congress\
U.S. House of Representatives

Carl Levin\
Member of Congress\
U.S. Senate

Debbie Stabenow\
Member of Congress\
U.S. Senate