U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–907 PDF 2003

S. Hrg. 108–72

BORDER SECURITY: HOW ARE STATE AND LOCAL

OFFICIALS COPING WITH THE NEW LEVELS

OF THREAT?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 12, 2003

FIELD HEARING AT ANOKA, MINNESOTA

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://govt-aff.senate.gov or

www.senate.gov/∼govt-aff
(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

JOYCE RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

PERMANENT COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

JOSEPH V. KENNEDY, General Counsel

ELISE J. BEAN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MARY D. ROBERTSON, Chief Clerk
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Opening statements:

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 1

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3

Senator Dayton ................................................................................................. 27

WITNESSES

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003

Anne Lombardi, Interim Director, Field Operations, Chicago Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Chicago,

Illinois ................................................................................................................... 5

Rich Stanek, Commissioner of Public Safety and Director of Homeland Security for the State of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota ........................................ 14

Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, Minneapolis,

Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 15

Ardell F. Brede, Mayor of Rochester, Minnesota .................................................. 17

Paul Nevanen, Director, Koochiching Economic Development Authority, International Falls, Minnesota .................................................................................... 18

Ray Skelton, Captain, U.S. Merchant Marine (Retired), Environmental Governmental Affairs Director, Duluth, and Director of Security ......................... 26

Steve Leqve, Airport Manager, Rochester International Airport, Rochester,

Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 29

Michael Curry, Director of Security, Canadian Pacific Railway, Minneapolis,

Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 31

John Hausladen, President, Minnesota Trucking Association, St. Paul, Minnesota .................................................................................................................... 32

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Brede, Ardell F.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Curry, Michael:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Hausladen, John:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 65

Leqve, Steve:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Lombardi, Anne:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

McGowan, Sheriff Patrick D.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Nevanen, Paul:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52

Skelton, Captain Ray:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54
Page

IV

Stanek, Rich:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

EXHIBIT LIST

1. Correspondence from Hennepin County (MN) Sheriff Patrick D. McGowan,

to Senator Norm Coleman, regarding additional comments in connection

with the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ May 12, 2003, Border

Security hearing .................................................................................................. 99

2. Supplemental Statement of Michael Curry, Canadian Pacific Railway, to

the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ May 12, 2003, Border

Security hearing .................................................................................................. 101

3. Correspondence from Thomas B. Heffelfinger, U.S. Attorney, District of

Minnesota, U.S. Department of Justice, to Senator Norm Coleman, regarding the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ May 12, 2003, Border

Security hearing .................................................................................................. 102

4. Correspondence from Rochester, Minnesota Mayor Ardell F. Bride, to the

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, clarifying his position on

funding to cities and block grants ..................................................................... 108
(1)

1 Exhibit No. 3 appears in the Appendix on page 102.

BORDER SECURITY: HOW ARE STATE AND

LOCAL OFFICIALS COPING WITH THE NEW

LEVELS OF THREAT?

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m., at

Anoka-Hennepin Technical College Auditorium, 1355 West Highway 10, Anoka, Minnesota, Hon. Norm Coleman, Chairman of the

Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Coleman, Collins, and Dayton.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. We are thrilled to have the students here. I hope you enjoy watching democracy in action. Some

of us have said, ‘‘Legislation, it’s like making sausage; you don’t

want to see how it’s made, but in the end, it comes out OK.’’

It is important for the young people to see what we are doing,

and that’s our future. So hopefully, it will be a very positive experience for you.

Let me begin by simply thanking all of you for coming out so

early for my first hearing as Chairman of the Senate’s Permanent

Subcommittee on Investigations to discuss what remains a very important topic. We live in changing times in this post-September 11

world. And there is the issue of security and how we cope with new

levels of threats for all of us.

I do want to note the presence of the U.S. Attorney, Tom

Heffelfinger, who is here. This hearing today will focus on local

perspectives and how folks are dealing. Our first witness will give

an overview from the Department of Homeland Security. But I do

want to note the presence of the U.S. attorney, who is an important

part of how we deal with these issues here. And I have asked

him—the record will be kept open, and I would like the U.S. attorney, after listening to the testimony and questions that are raised,

to prepare a written statement that we would insert into the

record.1 I think that would be very helpful.

I especially want to thank my colleague, Senator Collins, for joining us today. And Senator Collins is from Maine, very much like

Minnesota. They are both border States, and both have their own
2

great north woods. We began yesterday in an area with lots of

trees that look just like Maine. Minnesota and Maine similarly

share borders with Canada, and have airports that service a number of international travelers, many of them tourists. Seaports are

bringing cargo containers bound for locations throughout the region.

I also want to thank Senator Dayton, who will be joining us

later. I think Minnesota has a unique opportunity. Both Senator

Dayton and I serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee. And

rather than having voices that cancel each other out, Minnesota

has two strong voices on issues like this. And so it’s good for America and good for Minnesota. And would I note that although we are

from different parties, we have joined together already on a number of issues, such as the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for

Community Building and the Torture Victims Relief Authorization

Act. And I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator

Dayton, on the Senior Center for Minnesota.

Current Federal law gives the Department of Homeland Security

little guidance on how to deal and distribute the billions of dollars

of domestic preparedness grants for the State and local governments. Senator Collins has indicated, as Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I want to stress that to Senator

Collins, she is my Chairman, that she will mark up legislation to

address this omission. She has put forward a set of principles to

guide this legislation, and I agree with those principles, Madam

Chairman.

She has also initiated a set of hearings before we begin to draft

legislation. And the hearing later this week will include testimony

from the Commissioner of Hennepin County. And I hope that the

testimony we hear today will contribute to this process. And, again,

I want to stress what a great pleasure and privilege it is to have

with me today the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

The events of September 11 continue to affect all of us. We are

all aware of the need to increase domestic security. The main purpose of this hearing is to see how this is being done at the local

level, and specifically, right here in Minnesota. And although border security remains a national issue, in many ways, it is also a

very local one. Homeland security is about security at home. It’s

not just about Washington security, and it’s not just about Federal

Government security, but security right here in Anoka, International Falls, Rochester, and the Twin Cities. And we always have

to remember that it’s those of us at the local level, it’s our first responders, that have to deal with crisis. A chain is only as strong

as its weakest link. Increasing airport security in New York or Los

Angeles accomplishes very little if passengers can fly into Minneapolis instead. Efforts to tighten border security traffic in Washington State may merely divert traffic to International Falls. And

finally, increasing protection in the ports of Boston or New Orleans

is not very effective if ships are also unloading in Duluth, and we

don’t deal with the issues in Duluth.

Second, border security is a local issue, because, as I noted before, we rely primarily on local officials as that first line of defense.

They are the ones that inspect international traffic and respond to
3

events. Our people, those at the local level, need to have the training, equipment, and information necessary to do their jobs. We

need to make sure that State and local governments find it easy

to work with the Federal agencies, and that any funding includes

sufficient flexibility to meet the specific needs of a particular area.

We all know the importance of increasing security, but it is

equally important to maintain relatively open borders. Northern

Minnesota depends heavily on tourism. Minnesota businesses, including many Fortune 500 companies, are dependent on the ability

to import components in order to serve worldwide markets. Their

executives increasingly need to oversee international operations.

Specific facilities, such as the Mayo Clinic, have seen dramatic reductions in the number of foreign visitors. More importantly, a

large degree of openness and personal freedom is integral to our

concept of the American way of life that we have come to cherish.

We will continue to struggle with this need to increase security

while minimizing delays and disruption.

As a former mayor, I know that reality often appears very different at the local level than it does far away in Washington. Information can get stilted through layers of bureaucracy. That is, it is

important that we continue to have events like this where we can

hear directly from local officials on their own turf. Today’s witnesses represent a broad range of agencies throughout Minnesota.

They have been asked to address a broad range of issues, including

how secure are our entry ports into Minnesota? What kinds of people and cargo are involved? What are the challenges handling these

volumes? What has been the cost of handling these volumes? How

is border security being conducted now? What procedures are in

place? Who is responsible for what? What problems exist in maintaining border security at an acceptable cost, both in terms of government cost and delay at the border? What improvements can be

made in how different agencies coordinate with each other and the

private sector? Are local and State officials getting the support they

need from the Federal Government, both in terms of advice and

training and in terms of money? And finally, how should Federal

money be distributed to the States and local governments, and are

there problems with using the money the way it is currently distributed?

I again want to thank everyone for coming today. I look forward

to the testimony. Now, I will turn to my colleague, the distinguished Chairman, Senator Collins, for her opening remarks.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me

begin by thanking Senator Coleman for inviting me to come to this

critical hearing today, and to the great State of Minnesota. It’s

been a real pleasure to be the Chairman of the Committee that has

jurisdiction over the new Department of Homeland Security, and to

work very closely with my colleague as we wrestle with the new

challenges of the post-September 11 world.

I must say, I’m just delighted that Senator Coleman is now the

Chairman of the prestigious Subcommittee, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. As a new Senator, he has already distinguished himself as someone who is not only a quick study, but
4

also willing to listen to all sides and work very hard to achieve a

compromise that is best for everyone. In fact, in an outstanding

class of freshmen Senators, there is no one who has gotten off to

a faster start than Senator Coleman, and it’s been great to listen

to him and to work with him.

I also want you to know that whenever we’re discussing any

issue that has an impact on local government, that is always the

first question that Senator Coleman asks. He is very attuned to

what the impact of Federal actions are on State and local governments. And I think that speaks to his former experience as a

mayor.

I also look forward to having Minnesota’s other Senator, Senator

Dayton, join us this morning. Senator Dayton and I just returned

from a trip to Asia. I do have a slight cold, but it’s not SARS.

[Laughter.]

We’ve been back for more than the 10-day incubation period at

this point. But I look forward to his contributions as well. And I

am very pleased that both Minnesota Senators serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to Chair.

I know that the challenges facing Minnesota today in homeland

security are in many ways similar to the challenges that my home

State of Maine faces. We have a lot in common besides cold winters

and hockey. And I do want you to know that I have blocked out

all memory of last year’s win by Minnesota over the University of

Maine in overtime. [Laughter.]

It was a painful experience to watch it on television. But to show

you that I truly have put that behind me, I want you to know that

I am rooting for The Wild tonight. I do support you.

We both—as Senator Coleman pointed out—share a border with

Canada. We both have important ports, we have international airports, and those are among the vulnerabilities that all of us are

more aware of since September 11. On that day, as we all know

too well, the United States changed forever. We no longer can believe that we are invincible or invulnerable. We must not, however,

become a Nation that is willing to cut itself off from the rest of the

world. And part of our dilemma, as we seek to strengthen homeland security, is to avoid actions that have a bad impact. We continue to be a strong nation, but we also must be a wiser one, with

a new understanding of the realities that currently confront us, as

well as the challenges that await around the corner.

And a sample of our increased preparedness is taking place

today; the Department of Homeland Security is doing a joint exercise in Seattle and Chicago that is going to involve Federal, State

and local officials, as well as our Canadian neighbors. It’s called

TOPOFF 2. It’s going to involve a response to a weapon of mass

destruction, a simulated response, and the weapon is going to be

a dirty bomb, which is something that has been a concern for all

of us.

I look forward to learning more today about how your State has

handled the escalating responsibilities that have come with increased homeland security. We are here from the government, and

we are here to help you. And I think the best way we can do that

is by learning from you. What do you need from Washington? How

can we do a better job with the grant programs that are available?
5

1The prepared statement of Ms. Lombardi appears in the Appendix on page 43.

Do you need more flexibility in how you spend funding? Those are

some of the issues that we will be confronting today, and in subsequent hearings later this week in Washington.

It’s important that we always remember that if disaster strikes,

our citizens don’t pick up the phone and call the Washington, DC

area code of 202. They dial 9–1–1. And that’s why the State and

local response, those of you who are on the front lines, is so important to our homeland; because homeland security starts with hometown security.

Again, it’s a great pleasure to join the Chairman of PSI today for

this hearing, and thank you for inviting me to be here with you.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. I would now like

to welcome the first witness of today’s hearing, Ms. Anne Lombardi, International Director of Field Operations, from the Bureau

of Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security. Ms. Lombardi, I want to thank you for your attendance at today’s hearing, and I look forward to hearing your perspective on the efforts your department is making in State and

local agencies in the field.

Before we begin, pursuant to Rule 6, all witnesses who testify before the Subcommittee are required to be sworn. At this time, I ask

you to please stand and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Thank you, Ms. Lombardi, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF ANNE LOMBARDI,1 INTERIM DIRECTOR, FIELD

OPERATIONS, CHICAGO BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER

PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Ms. LOMBARDI. Chairman Coleman, Madam Chairman, Members

of the Committee, good morning. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Anne Lombardi. I

am currently the Interim Director of Field Operations in Chicago,

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

My responsibility entails providing leadership for the legacy

agencies of Customs, Immigration and Agriculture Border Inspections for all ports of entry in 11 States under my jurisdiction, including the port of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

As you know, these agencies merged March 1, 2003, under the

Department of Homeland Security. While the traditional missions

of the respective agencies continue to be observed, we now have to

integrate their processes and systems to more effectively and efficiently support one common mission that will serve to enhance the

security of our borders. Our collective priority is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering into the United States,

while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

Please allow me to expand on a few of the strategies we use to

accomplish this goal. The Department of Defense has provided National Guard support to Customs and Border Protection counterdrug mission since 1999. There are an estimated 315 National

Guard soldiers currently assigned to us in locations throughout the

country. In addition to the traditional counter-drug mission, an ad-
6

ditional 626 National Guard Soldiers supported Customs and Border Protection’s anti-terrorism operations along the northern and

southern border until a sufficient number of full-time staff could be

hired and trained.

The deployment of National Guard personnel was significant in

securing our borders immediately after the events of September 11.

Due to their proximity to remote locations, Border Patrol and State

and local law enforcement agencies assist as first responders to incidents that may occur in remote locations where Customs and

Border Protection operations are not conducted 24 hours a day.

Many of these locations, in addition to being secured with bollards

and gates, are supplemented with remote video cameras and

ground sensors.

On April 29, 2003, Secretary Ridge announced his commitment

to implement a new entry/exit system, called U.S. VISIT System.

That’s the Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology

System. U.S. VISIT System will be the structure for the entry and

exit system replacing the existing NCSR and National Student

Registration Programs. These databases will provide the government with comprehensive arrival and departure information, and

it will expedite the entry of legitimate travelers and residents,

being able to concentrate on visitors of—or individuals of interest.

We have expanded our borders with the Container Security Initiative System, known as CSI. We use a lot of acronyms. One example of partnering with other countries to combat terrorism is

under CSI, we identify high-risk cargo containers, and we partner

with other governments to prescreen these containers at foreign

ports before they are shipped to the United States. The governments representing 18 of the top 20 ports have agreed to implement CSI, and the governments with the remaining two ports—

where they are located have expressed support for the initiative

and a desire to participate. In addition, we have our Custom-Trade

Partnership Against Terrorism, known as C–TPAT. It’s a pilot program, which enables at this point nearly 3,000 participating companies, including importers, domestic manufacturers, trucking

firms and shipping companies, to take a fast lane into the United

States after taking steps to ensure security in their cargo supply

chain. We are now looking at expanding C–TPAT to other entities,

and we have started validations on supply chain security measures

reported by existing C–TPAT participants.

Deployment of nonintrusive inspection technology is continuing

nationwide. This technology includes large scale X-ray, gamma ray

imaging systems, portable radiation monitors, and a mixture of

portable and hand-held technologies to include personal radiation

detection devices that greatly reduce the need for costly, time consuming physical inspection of containers, and they provide us a picture of what is inside these containers.

Deployment of portable radiation monitors is underway with a

total of 45 devices installed along various ports along the northern

border. While this technology is limited, it does have the ability to

detect anomalies and the presence of radioactive material in containers and conveyances, depending on the source of the material

and the amount of shielding. These detection devices allow inspectors to direct suspect cargo into secondary examination areas for
7

more thorough searches if there is an initial positive reading. In

this way, the vast majority of goods and vehicles can pass through

without the need for manual inspection.

As more sophisticated screening devices are developed, it will

give Customs and Border Protection an even stronger tactical edge

in detecting nuclear material entering the United States. A system

is already in place at the port of entry at International Falls for

examining passenger vehicle trucks and rail traffic. Within 30

days, an installation of a gamma ray imaging system will be completed by the railroad bridge at Ranier, and gamma ray imaging

systems will also be installed at the rail line systems at Noyes.

Personal radiation detectors have been employed for those who perform passenger screening. And we conduct cargo examination, similarly equipped, and all of the inspectors have been trained to properly use these devices. We have also created Customs Area Security

Centers, which monitor by camera outlying crossings from these

designated centers. So in addition to bolstering our northern border

ports with bollards, gates, security lighting, video security systems

will be installed in all ports of entry to monitor activity during nonoperational hours. And this live video is monitored by a center

which is manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and uses the response from State, local and border patrol personnel to address and

identify illegal crossings.

Today, there are two centers: One in Maine, and one in Blaine,

Washington, and soon there will be centers in Highgate Springs,

Vermont and Champlain, New York to cover additional areas. Security gates have been installed at the ports of entry at Roseau,

Pine Creek, Lancaster and Noyes; ports that have limited public

hours. Installation of video systems and lighting is progressing,

and all land borders in Minnesota have a 24-hour office presence,

even during closed hours.

The Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System was established

to effectively monitor the integrity of U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada

national boundaries for the purpose of border patrol. The system

uses data from components of surveillance systems to provide controlled response, information distribution, mapping and query results to support the U.S. Border Patrol. This includes sensor and

video data as they come in from remote sites, providing appropriate

responses. The major component of this system is an intelligent

computer-aided detection system, unaided ground sensors, night

equipment, local positioning systems and remote video surveillance.

And it is the integration and management component of an electronic surveillance of the northern border. Staffing to the northern

border has been increased significantly since the events of September 11. In fiscal year 2002 and the beginning of 2003, the number of new inspectors, canine officers and special agents increased

by 3,200 officers, of whom 775 have been assigned to supplement

the northern border. Border Patrol hired 2,500 agents in 2002, and

as of 2003, a total of—February, 2003, a total of 560 Border Patrol

agents have been deployed. This is all part of the Smart Border

Declaration, which was announced between the United States and

Canada in December 2001, which focuses on the secure flow of people, the secure flow of goods, investment in common technology and
8

infrastructure to minimize threat and expedite trade, and coordination and information sharing to defend our mutual border.

In closing, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is committed to continue and expand our counter-terrorism efforts and

improve our efforts to protect America, the American people and

the American economy. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lombardi. I think we will

begin with 5-minute rounds of questioning, and I will start.

It was heartening to hear about the installation of gamma ray

imaging systems at the railroad bridge at Ranier. And I know my

source for the best place to fish. I could tell you a lot of walleye

stories right under that railroad bridge on many occasions. I just

want to talk about fishing in Minnesota.

Let me just ask a question about technology. You also mentioned,

for instance, biometrics at eQuest. Does that include, for instance,

up in International Falls, the air service up there, how do you have

biometrics at that operation, and who does it, who manages it, who

supervises it, who pays for it?

Ms. LOMBARDI. Well, right now, there are several different registration systems, and what we hope to do is integrate it so that

we will be registering all individuals, along with biometric information, so that whenever they enter the United States, whether it’s

through the border or an airport or seaboard, that this database

will be available, and we will be able to find the people and assess

their proper status into the United States.

Senator COLEMAN. To kind of continue, if I can just take a bigger

perspective, you talked a little bit about homeland security in Minnesota. The Department just got put together in March, and I like

to get a sense of who is in charge. In Minnesota, who is in charge,

who are the principle points of contact of the State and local officials, many of whom are here today.

Ms. LOMBARDI. OK. It has only been 21⁄2 months. I have been

designated as the Interim Director of Field Operations for 11

States, including part of Minnesota. Part of it is under a different

director, to ensure that the northern border issues are all dealt

with in a uniform manner. We are truly what we have adopted as

our motto, ‘‘One team, one fight.’’ We have integrated, and I have

people behind me from Border Patrol, from Legacy Customs, from

Legacy Immigration, and we are working together very closely to

assure that we can address the needs.

Our first mission, as of March 1, under Commissioner Bonner

was continuity of operations. We were to make sure that we did

our priority mission and our traditional missions, and that we continued to operate while the myriad of issues regarding logos, uniforms, unions, and all of the organizational things were worked

out. But we have been working very closely together, and we are

going to ensure that that continuity of operations continues until

we address all of the additional measures and things that we have

to do to truly unite and leverage our resources. And I believe that’s

happening. We have already had some new initiatives in terms of

working jointly, and I have been, for instance, from Chicago, I have

been working closely with FEMA and part of this TOPOFF 2, Chicago is one of the sites. So we have truly been working together
9

and not letting the administrative issues and those kinds of things

deter us from continuing with our border security primary mission.

Senator COLEMAN. And I know, recognize, that this is a new entity, the Department of Homeland Security. And as we were introduced on the way in, talked about who you are with now, formerly

known as.

Ms. LOMBARDI. Yes.

Senator COLEMAN. The artist formerly known as. But if I can

again break it down to a very local level, in Minnesota, principal

points of contact for these issues, are they with the Chicago office,

does the U.S. attorney play a role in that? Who does the sheriff in

Aitkin, Minnesota—if all of a sudden an issue came up, who do

they contact?

Ms. LOMBARDI. Well, I have behind me Mr. Cloud, who is the Interim Port Director for Minneapolis. I have Mr. Shultens, who is

a Legacy Customs Port Director. I have Greg Schroeder from Immigration Border Patrol, Legacy Immigration, and I have Wally

Schulte from International Falls. So we all work together. There

are different people in charge at different ports. However, they either report to myself, or they report to Tom Hardy in Seattle who

is responsible for the entire northern border tier from Duluth to Seattle, Washington.

Senator COLEMAN. And then one more question along that line.

How well are the border security activities integrated with the

anti-terrorism activities in—as I recall from my old days as a

mayor, before that as a prosecutor, we worked together in a jointFederal, State-Federal, anti-drug and anti-terrorism task force.

How well integrated are the border concerns, or the activities of

those, operating with these joint task forces?

Ms. LOMBARDI. We certainly do participate in all of those. I have

joked about needing larger conference rooms than ever, because we

now have more and more people who are working together, but

whether it’s State and local, whether it’s FEMA, whether it’s

Transportation Security Administration, Customs, Legacy Customs,

Immigration, whatever, and we have been working, I think, more

closely than I have ever experienced before in terms of meeting on

a regular basis, talking about response capabilities, sharing information about resources and capabilities, sharing information about

technologies.

I personally feel that things are going as well as they can go

right now, and as we merge the agencies and deal with the administrative things, I think we will just continue to progress in our

ability to provide effective, efficient border security for the taxpayer

dollar.

Senator COLEMAN. And I will direct that same question to the

local folks to get their perspective.

Last kind of area of concern. Can you talk about areas and particular points of vulnerability that deserve special attention as we

sit here today, 3 months after you began your existence? What are

the areas of concern that you have as you look at the Minnesota

situation?

Ms. LOMBARDI. Well, I think we have tried to address the—obviously, starting with ports of entry with the additional gates,

bollards, detection systems, etc. Obviously, with the long border,
10

the places in between the ports are always more vulnerable. I

sometimes joke about my area not having a land border, but a liquid border. But certainly when you come to Minnesota, sometimes

that liquid border in the north is frozen, so it’s very easy to come

across as a land border. So obviously the efforts of the Border Patrol at the State and local system are going to assist that, because

that is such a large border, and we do not want to shut down the

border and put fences or whatever, but we do want to protect it.

And I think that is the area we are always concerned with, the

places between the ports. Ports tend to be where the legitimate

traveller and trades people come through, and they do their proper

declarations. Obviously, the places in between are the most vulnerable, which is why we are pursuing the technology that we are

with sensors, cameras, and we certainly need the State and local

support to respond, because these places are very remote.

Senator COLEMAN. Great. Thank you, Ms. Lombardi. Senator

Collins.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Director

Lombardi, I want to follow up on the issue of border security raised

by Senator Coleman. In both of our States, Minnesota and Maine,

in the more rural communities that are right along the border, it

is not uncommon for families to be split on both sides of the border,

for people to cross the border literally every single day, whether it’s

to shop or to work. Now, in Maine where we’re seeing the problem

is with some of the smaller border crossings being closed in order

to improve security, or they’re being locked up at 4 p.m. on Friday

and not reopened until Monday morning, and I suspect it’s probably a similar problem in Minnesota and other States. How are we

going to strike the right balance so that we make our borders more

secure without interfering with the legitimate commerce and crossing of people each day?

Ms. LOMBARDI. Well, I think we have to rely on several different

things. Obviously, staffing a port requires resources. We need to do

more with technology. We need to do more with preregistration

programs so that legitimate traveller who goes back and forth

three or four or five times a day can get through the border legitimately, correctly, identified and can move freely. Obviously, we

want to make sure that we also identify the people who are trying

to use those remote ports for illegal entry, and we need to monitor

for diversions around the port of entry and communicating between

the ports.

It is a very difficult job to find that balance, but I think the use

of technology, the use of preregistered programs, where people can

provide us with all of the information that we need to do, we can

do the enforcement assessments on them in advance, and then

have some kind of technology system that will allow them to enter

more freely when we are not staffed at the border.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. That is the scenario that I think

we are going to have to keep working on. For example, some of the

border crossings in Maine that have been closed have created real

problems as far as for our woods industry. Others have created

emergency response issues, where the first responders may be on

the Canadian side of the border and the gate is locked, they may

not have the easy access they need to the American side of the bor-
11

der. It’s something that I hope we can keep working with in the

department.

Another issue that has come up repeatedly in our conversations

with State and local governments concerns the communication between the new Department of Homeland Security and the State

and local officials. For example, at a hearing that we held in Washington, where we had police and fire chiefs from around the country testifying, each one of them said that they learned we had elevated the threat to code orange from CNN or from watching television, and not from the Department. What do you think the Department needs to do?

I recognize the challenges of the largest reorganization of government in more than 50 years. But what do you think the Department should do in order to improve communications with State and

local governments and first responders?

Ms. LOMBARDI. I appreciate that CNN comment, because we do

have that situation sometimes. It also shows up on our website, so

it is more of an initial notification. But we have a system of contact

in calling, and all of the Customs and Border Protection, all of the

directors, are called by our Secretary of Communications. We call

our ports.

And it’s, in effect, a calling tree of a variety of people that we

have identified as being in a needing-to-know, including, as you

mentioned, we have our ports in Canada that we need to alert to

the fact that the border situation is changing, because, again, it’s

a shared border. We are trying to make it a smart border, and we

need to make our partners in the other countries involved. I think

lot of these issues will be worked through over time. And I think

the technology one, the communications one, we will have to address. Certainly, we are addressing it within the Department of

Homeland Security. We have a number of work groups who are

talking about the various communication systems, the legacy agencies, how can we bring them together, how can we make sure that

we coordinate. We are sharing technology. For instance, we shared

our Customs Radiation Technology with Immigration.

We are working to improve our radio communications, so that we

are all on the same systems and being able to communicate. And,

again, that will extend to the State and locals as we can make it

work. And we will find ways to do it in the interim, and we will

find ways to do it in the long-run. But it’s very important that we

be able to communicate with our counterparts, because we all need

to leverage each other’s resources in order to make sure this is

truly what you call Hometown Security.

Senator COLLINS. Finally, I want to ask you about the staffing

of the northern border. For many years, the northern border has

received the short end as far as staffing of Immigration officials; all

of the focus was on the southern border with Mexico and stemming

the tide of the illegal immigrants seeking to cross. And yet, if you

look at our northern border, it’s so much larger, longer. It’s in

many ways more of a challenge, as you pointed out when you were

talking about the waterways being frozen.

That certainly is the case in northern Maine. There used to be

a very vigorous smuggling of cigarettes back and forth in winter

months by people just crossing the frozen river. You said in your
12

statement that the number of inspectors, canine enforcement officers and special agents, had increased by 3,200, of whom 775 had

been assigned to supplement the northern border enforcement activities. Does that suggest that we still have an imbalance in the

allocation of resources to the northern versus the southern border?

Ms. LOMBARDI. As I indicated to you, Madam Chairman, I started my career in the Boston region, which included your State of

Maine, and I have never seen such an influx of new resources on

the northern border as has occurred over the last couple of years.

For 2001, there were about 1,600 inspectors and canine. In 2002,

that jumped 2,114. We are currently at 2,563, and for the rest of

this fiscal year, we are projecting 3,000. And hopefully in fiscal

year 2004, that will increase to 3,500, approximately, and that includes Legacy Customs, Legacy Immigration and Legacy Agriculture. So in a 3-year period, we are seeing literally almost a tripling of the resources, and that has, as you point out, in the past

has not been the case. But I think the concern, the threat, we always thought the northern border in Canada was an alliance, and

it was a free-flowing trade.

We have the Free Trade of the Americas, going back to the Canada Free-Trade Agreement and NAFTA, and now the Trade of

Americas. But certainly the terrorist mission has changed that

view in terms of the risk in the northern border, and all of the legacy agencies in the Department of Homeland Security are supporting a vigorous, aggressive hiring, training package, and, again,

leveraging each other’s resources so we provide appropriate coverage. But it has been unprecedented, and we are continuing to

keep those positions filled and trained and on-site.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. We’ll do one

short round of follow-up. There is one issue that I want to raise,

more perhaps as a State. And rather than the question going to the

larger focus of homeland security, not just the border protection,

but it’s a follow-up to Senator Collins’ questions about communication between Homeland Security and those of the State and local

levels. I was mayor on September 11, 2001 and quite often there

would be questions about security concerns, levels of threat, that

we would also read in the paper. And folks would come to the

mayor as the local elected official, learning what’s going on. And

we simply weren’t in the loop. And I would hope, as one looks at

the issue of communication with State and local officials, that one

goes back to the elected officials who are often called upon to respond to the concerns of the community, and that they somehow

be included. Mayors aren’t sitting at those joint task force meetings, local elected officials aren’t sitting at those meetings. But

clearly, from the public perspective, they represent government,

and the government is something to them. Governors may fit into

that same situation. But I want to raise that issue, and then follow

it up with a question. When it comes to a specific threat, if there

is an issue about someone who we believe is in the process of entering the country or on the look-out for entering the country representing a potential threat, can you give me a better sense of how

folks on a local level know that? What’s the flow of communication

to folks at the local level to be part of this look-out part of using
13

the resources, the public resources that are available to deal with

threats?

Ms. LOMBARDI. Well, from my port of entry point of view, we do

have databases, we enter criteria, we have a national targeting

center that monitors. We have advanced passenger information on

many of these, especially in airports and seaports. Land border is

always more vulnerable because of passengers coming up, and is

right in front of you at that time. And that’s why I think this alliance on preregistration programs is going to be important. But you

are correct. We need to work with State, local, the elected officials

in those areas to ensure that the entire community is involved. I

certainly am going to experience that personally in this next week

during the TOPOFF exercises. And I think this is only the second

one, and I think we learned many lessons from the first one. And

I think certainly as we continue to do these around the country, we

will learn lessons about integrating State and local elected officials,

as well as the Federal law enforcement community. And certainly

I would agree with you that is very important that our communications not be insular to a department or to the Federal Government,

but that we need to be working in the communities and working

together.

And certainly I will take that message back to the Department

in terms of your concerns and how we do this and make sure that

we continue to address it. Obviously, we have people locally who

have good connections and good relationships with State, local, and

elected officials, and we will continue to rely on that structure to

ensure that we maintain the communications at this point.

Senator COLEMAN. Last follow-up to that line of inquiry. It has

to do more with technology. Suppose that there was an alert out

for a Mr. X profile. If a State trooper operating outside of the International Falls area, Minnesota, had stopped Mr. X, would they

have the capacity to know there was an alert out for him? Do we

have the ability for folks at the local level when they stop somebody 15 miles from the border to say, ‘‘Yes, we are looking for a

specific individual’’?

Ms. LOMBARDI. Border Patrol works very closely with the State

and local, and they would be the conduit. If the Department of

Homeland Security knew of an individual, then through the Border

Patrol—well, first through our databases and targeting system,

ports of entry would know to be on the look-out for this person.

Border Patrol would then communicate with their sheriffs’ offices,

State, and local to ensure that they are aware of it, as well.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you.

Senator COLEMAN. Ms. Lombardi, thank you very much for your

testimony.

Ms. LOMBARDI. Thank you.

Senator COLEMAN. I would like to call our second panel of witnesses at this time.

We now welcome our second panel of witnesses, Commissioner

Rich Stanek from the Department of Public Safety here in the St.

Paul area. Sheriff Patrick D. McGowan of the Hennepin County

Sheriff’s Office. Rochester Mayor, Ardell Brede. And finally, Paul
14

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stanek appears in the Appendix on page 47.

Nevanen, who is the Director of the Koochiching Economic Development Authority in International Falls, Minnesota.

Gentlemen, I thank you for your attendance here. I look forward

to your testimony and hearing your unique perspective on how

your government agencies have had to respond to the general need

of increasing domestic preparedness, and how we at the Federal

level can do a better job of serving you. Again, pursuant to Rule

6, all witnesses who testify in this Subcommittee are required to

be sworn in. At this time, I would ask all of you to stand and raise

your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Thank you. Commissioner Stanek, we’ll proceed with your testimony first, and then we’ll hear Sheriff McGowan, and then Mayor

Brede and then Mr. Nevanen. And once we have heard all of the

testimony, we will be hearing questions.

TESTIMONY OF RICH STANEK,1 COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC

SAFETY AND DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR THE

STATE OF MINNESOTA, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

Mr. STANEK. I am the Commissioner of Public Safety, and Director of Homeland Security for the State of Minnesota, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. The fact that you

are having this hearing here reflects your commitment to homeland

security not only on a national basis, but at the State and local levels, as well. Because it is here where homeland security begins.

Minnesota has been a national leader in terrorism prevention

and preparedness. In 1999, the Department of Public Safety forwarded to the legislature an extensive report on possible terrorism

risks in Minnesota, and what our State would do to respond, that

leadership continues today. Senator Coleman and I had a conversation recently. The Senator wanted to be actively engaged in the

homeland security issues and needs of his State. And after our discussion, I decided to create a Commissioners Public Safety Advisory Group. The leaders of police, fire, emergency services, many

of whom who are in the audience today, will get together with me

to offer suggestions and advice related to Homeland Security. Minnesota’s congressional delegation is also invited to attend our meetings to hear firsthand some of our homeland security issues, and

what it all means to our public safety professionals at the local

level. Homeland security is all about communication and coordination. The advisory group will demonstrate that. Other existing relationships in Minnesota are demonstrating high levels of communication and coordination. The connection between the State and

our Federal partners is rock solid. We are blessed in Minnesota

with an FBI field office that is inclusive and accessible, and a U.S.

attorney who is engaged in response of law enforcement needs. Our

link to the Department of Homeland Security is equally strong,

with frequent updates through Secretary Ridge on a regular basis.

And we are thankful for the Federal dollars that have come into

Minnesota for training, equipment and emergency preparedness exercises. And I can assure you that we are not sitting on that

money. We are actively working with our county and local partners
15

1The prepared statement of Sheriff McGowan appears in the Appendix on page 49.

to get the funding out the door and into the hands of the people

who need it the most, our first responders.

Well, we aren’t just passing it along without a plan. In Minnesota, we are working with our counties and cities on a regional

approach to fund the equipment and training. In Minnesota, we are

being smart with the money you are providing. Inter-operable radio

systems and integrated criminal justice integration systems, such

as Minnesota’s own CrimNet, are key to homeland security success.

However, on behalf of our local participants, I ask you to consider

lifting some of the restrictions and limitations on how that funding

can be spent. We would like flexibility to be able to pay overtime

and personnel expenses with the appropriations.

The magnitude of Minnesota’s budget crisis cannot be overstated.

Public safety is a core function of Governor Pawlenty’s administration. Our local law enforcement and other public safety officials are

being asked to do more with less. After all, equipment is great, but

it’s the people that make it work. Every chief law enforcement officer and emergency manager in Minnesota is making smart and creative decisions in how to provide their services on a shoe string.

Relaxation of the limitations would help all of us make better decisions for the safety of our citizens. We feel that through leadership

we can set a national example by continuing to make great strides

in public safety and homeland security in Minnesota, whatever the

future brings. Thank you, Senator Coleman, and Members.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Commissioner Stanek. Sheriff

McGowan.

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK D. MCGOWAN,1 SHERIFF, HENNEPIN

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Sheriff MCGOWAN. Good morning, Senator Coleman. And Senator

Collins, welcome to Minnesota. It’s a pleasure to have you here.

It’s a pleasure to be here today, and I appreciate the opportunity

to present a view of homeland security from a law enforcement perspective. September 11 is certainly a date we will all remember for

the rest of our lives. We cannot change the physical and emotional

devastation that has rocked us all, but we can learn from it. The

new role and responsibility of local law enforcement is a key element to homeland security. It challenges our resources and our

time. Today, fully one-third or more of my time is spent dealing

with homeland security-related issues. I have become a realist in

this process, and realize we cannot prevent everything. But we can

be prepared.

We in Hennepin County in Minnesota have been very fortunate

to have been ahead of the curve on much of the preparation for terrorism. We have been members of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task

Force since 2000, 18 months prior to September 11, and we are

proud of our proactive achievements. Our planning and preparation

for large-scale events has been ongoing since 1998, and we have

learned a great deal from a number of realistic, coordinated drills

and exercises. We know that for the first 72 hours of a major incident, local first responders will provide the initial coordinated response. Our response will be the cornerstone to an effective ongoing
16

operation to save lives and protect our citizens. However, we must

be prepared for a weapons of mass destruction array that could include radiological, chemical, biological or explosive strikes. To provide that kind of response, it is imperative that we have the appropriate training, equipment and staff to handle each of these potential threats.

This vital training and resource inventory is expensive and must

be ongoing. Even if you have the appropriate equipment, it will be

of little value if the parallel training is not continuous. It is not unlike the way that each of us view our personal vehicle. You know

that you might have to change a tire on your vehicle, and that is

a skill necessary to just getting back on the road again. But how

often do you do this? Do you even know where the jack is located,

or how to access it? Many of you simply couldn’t perform this function so basic to your driving needs. Public safety responders are no

different. They need to have ongoing training and updating on

equipment techniques, or they will be unable to perform a skill efficiently when they must. Because this training and equipment is expensive, and often has a shelf life of approximately 5 years, the allocation of resources needs to be thoughtful. We cannot afford to

equip and train every public safety responder in every facet of

preparation.

That is why the formation of Regional Response Teams provides

a sensible solution to meeting our public safety response requirements as they apply to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

For example, in Minnesota, I would propose the formation of five

Regional Response Teams, regionalized strategically, which would

allow us to consolidate our resources. These regional response

teams would not only serve as a primary response team in their

own area, but could be rapidly deployed to assist in other areas of

this State as needed. I often believe that Americans are great

sprinters, but we are poor marathon runners. As a nation, we respond initially with courage, determination, and just true grit.

However, we have a tendency to have little taste for the long haul.

I strongly urge you to recognize that Americans’ homeland security

issues are truly a marathon. We must not let our determination to

be prepared to respond to any assault on our Nation to wane. We

need ongoing funding to provide the training and resources I have

discussed. We need your continued focus on and support of our

cause.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must preserve the image of those

crumbling Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in flames, and

the Pennsylvania fields with the wreckage of a commercial airliner

and those lives lost within our national memory. Our enemies

struck the heart of our country. We must say, ‘‘Never again.’’ The

key, Senators, is your continued support of our needs at the local

level to help fund our new role in homeland security. Thank you.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Sheriff McGowan. Mayor Brede.
17

1The prepared statement of Mr. Brede appears in the Appendix on page 51.

TESTIMONY OF ARDELL F. BREDE,1 MAYOR OF ROCHESTER,

MINNESOTA

Mr. BREDE. Thank you, distinguished Senators, and good morning. I am Ardell Brede, the Mayor of Rochester. For 4 months, I’ve

been mayor, so much of this is new to me. But thank you for the

opportunity and the invitation to express our concerns and the impact to our community.

Rochester is unique in the sense that it’s perhaps impacted more

greatly than other cities of comparable size within the United

States, due to its makeup. The city has a major medical Mayo Clinic and high-tech community, IBM, Pemstar and a number of other

high-tech companies. And it’s also home to an international airport.

And because of those particular features, we are considered a listed

target of terrorist activities. Because of that, greater security for

those facilities are needed, and this comes from more patrol in

those areas, thereby reducing the available patrolling for other

neighborhoods within the community, since there are no other resources allocated for this purpose.

For this morning’s testimony, I received information from the

Rochester City Administrator, the police and fire departments, the

Mayo Clinic, Olmstead County Public Health Department, as well

as our sheriff of Olmsted County. In a separate report, the Rochester International Airport will be presented in the next panel by

Mr. Leqve.

The police department estimates it has the equivalent of eight

FTE’s at the airport, which is funded by the Federal Government.

But as of May 31, that funding will be eliminated, and they will

become an additional local cost. The present Federal reimbursement amounts to $15,000 a month. However, that is only covering

the hourly wages, and none of the other associated costs, such as

benefits. Those costs are borne by the city.

Since September 11, there’s been an increased volume of calls to

the fire department because of suspicious substances. All of those

require additional trips out to them, and, with again, no additional

resources. It requires the hazmat team to respond. And currently,

with the State budget crisis, some of those funds may be cut, which

will then create greater concerns. At the Mayo Clinic, they have developed rapid Anthrax and smallpox DNA tests. Those tests dramatically shorten the waiting time for authorities to determine if

suspicious substances are contained in these harmful elements.

The Mayo Clinic did all of that with little or no financial support,

and all of them involved huge amounts of staff time.

The global economy is weak, and specifically from the Middle

East—fear of travel in different ways, the delays in processing of

visas—prior to September 11 it was about a 1-week time for processing a visa. That actually went up to about 11 weeks, and now,

fortunately, is down about 4 to 6 weeks. But an international patient who has a medical condition that warrants them coming to

the Mayo Clinic, a 4- to 6-week delay, they’re going to find their

treatment and care elsewhere. And it is estimated for every dollar

that would be spent at Mayo Clinic by these patients, it equates

to another $2 in the community. Also, as a payment mechanism,
18

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nevanen appears in the Appendix on page 52.

those patients pay full dollar, where our Medicare patients and

other patients have some sort of discount. The international patients have dropped by 23 percent, although, again, in this year,

2003, we have seen an increase of patients coming from Europe,

Latin America, and Kuwait. But it still is a concern. And

anecdotally, since the war with Iraq, we have seen somewhat of a

quieting of international activity with some cancellations and rescheduling. But no major change or dramatic change.

We are looking forward to the partnership between the University of Minnesota and Mayo on a biotechnology partnership, and I

think that’s just another area that we will be concerned about, the

resources that are needed for security. We have met with the

Olmsted County Public Health Services. We do have a Joint Emergency Management Committee, and I have been a part of that, and

it is one of the things that needs to be updated, because many of

those emergency plans really didn’t contain anything on terrorism.

And fortunately, we received a small grant that we were able to secure somebody to help us update, that’s in the process as we speak.

From the sheriff and also from the police department, they have

talked of the 800 megahertz communication system that is needed,

and funding of that, whether it’s from the State or Federal monies,

but has not come forward enough that it can be implemented yet.

So I believe that’s the level of my comments at this time.

Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL NEVANEN,1 DIRECTOR, KOOCHICHING

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INTERNATIONAL

FALLS, MINNESOTA

Mr. NEVANEN. I really appreciate this opportunity to talk about

Homeland Security from a small town, front-line perspective.

International Falls is a small community, about 6,000 people,

300 miles north of here. It is also situated about midway along the

northern border. It stretches across a major border, as well as it’s

a major border crossing for vehicular traffic as well as a major

railport. It is the third busiest railport in terms of trains and containers. We have seen a continued growth in terms of both vehicular and train traffic, and as well there has been a shift in the

country of origin for a lot of the incoming rail traffic. Now we are

seeing an increase in the Pacific Rim and Middle East.

Our area’s economy, much like northern Maine, is driven primarily by the paper industry, as well as tourism. Cities and counties need to have a strong partnership, and I am echoing a lot of

the sentiments of the folks here, with Federal and State Governments to help deal with lagging economy, a loss of jobs, and other

issues of national security. Homeland security becomes, as you

mentioned with hometown security, one person, one block, one

Main Street. It is what makes the difference in people’s lives. That

is what shows people that government can work and does work at

the local level. The headlines may come from Washington or St.

Paul, but elected officials from the communities, like International

Falls, are having to solve the problems and help make life a little

bit better in their communities.
19

As cities and counties in northern Minnesota face some of the

tightest budgets in years, Federal help to spur economic growth becomes more crucial than ever. International Falls faces many potential challenges daily as a direct result of a number of border

crossings.

We are desperately in need of funding for homeland security situations. Our first responders are very dedicated individuals. Regularly they are asked to give more and more time to become the

highly trained unit that they are. We expect our volunteers to act

and respond like well-oiled machines. Well, Senators, these welloiled machines require fuel, and we ask both the State of Minnesota and the Federal Government to help us with that requirement. The State of Minnesota has responded thus far with a mobile

decontamination chamber for International Falls. It helps respond

to situations. And currently we have a grant application into

FEMA for a Mobile Incident Command Center that will be utilized

with the decontamination chamber. But all of this equipment requires additional training. The costs associated with emergency

preparedness have doubled since September 11 as a result of that

additional training. Anthrax, weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons, are all new terms that have been become common language since September 11. Our firefighters now

have to be trained in all areas of response, even the unknown types

agents of terrorism regularly employ. Suicide bombings could happen anywhere, and we have to be prepared. State and Federal law

enforcement personnel also need and undergo training that continues to evolve to cover an ever-expanding set of emergency scenarios.

For those front-line communities, like International Falls, the

key is planning, preparedness, and having the necessary tools.

Aside from the mobile decontamination chamber, another item that

helped address these needs is the recent placement of the Rail Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System, the VACIS, in Ranier beside

International Falls. The VACIS now allows the protection personnel to scan a much higher number of containers immediately as

they cross into the country, whereas in the past they sampled a

much smaller sampling.

From a training perspective, the community has kind of taken a

proactive approach. And what we have done is we have looked at

this influx of Federal employees and the need for training, and we

have an initiative now that we would like to have International

Falls serve as a training center for northern border security issues.

We have done a needs assessment with all of the Federal agencies

and the locals, and it’s been well received. But there is an increased need in training. And we think that International Falls is

situated geographically, and because of the other assets there, is in

a perfect location to do that. So we have put in a Federal appropriation—applied for a Federal appropriation to further this initiative. But all of these efforts have required a gradual increase of

communication and cooperation among all of the participants; local,

State and Federal, and that’s not always an easy task. And I have

been very impressed and encouraged by the professionalism and

the amount of cooperation that everybody has shown to date. So I

am very encouraged. And, again, I thank you.
20

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nevanen.

And just before we begin the questioning, I just want to comment

how impressed I am with the quality of the panel. Commissioner

Stanek has been a police officer, a Minneapolis police officer. He

has been a State legislator. Sheriff McGowan has been a State legislator and law enforcement person. They know these issues. Mayor

Brede, like you, I have been on the job just a couple months, but

to have a city like Rochester, which is an international city, and

yet it’s not a New York, not a Chicago.

And Mr. Nevanen, as I sit here and listen to a town of 5,900 be

worried about Anthrax and weapons of mass destruction, and having again spent time in The Falls, and seeing the border traffic,

and the immense demands placed on the local level. And I know

who they are. I can’t tell whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican,

but I know that he has got some things that he has to deal with

to protect the people of his community. So there are some big

needs. And I am glad, by the way, that the VACIS system—just

last week International Falls was informed they would be getting

one of those systems, so I think we are making headway. Let me

turn to the questions.

Commissioner Stanek, kind of following up with my question in

the first round here, the communications, you mentioned in your

testimony CrimNet. I am interested in the ability of that State

trooper that comes under your jurisdiction who stops somebody

along the road right outside let’s say International Falls or

Baudette or Warroad or one of those areas, what kind of capacity

do they have today to be tied into any national roads, and what can

we do to improve that?

Mr. STANEK. Well, Mr. Chairman, a couple of ways. One,

CrimNet is the State of Minnesota’s Integrated Justice Information

System, and it will allow local enforcement, as well as corrections

and judiciary, to share information across many disparate databases. Things that we cannot do now, but I think the public just

seems to think that we can do. Specifically in terms of how well

that State trooper up North knows if someone on a watch list or

something else, there are a couple of ways. We get information on

a pretty regular basis from the Federal Department of Homeland

Security through NLETS messages or BOMA messages. If they are

looking out for someone, they will send it to the State of Minnesota, we will distribute it back out to local enforcement and Minnesota’s first responders.

And then the second way, Mr. Chairman and Members, is the

State of Minnesota ties the expiration of a driver’s license or State

identification card to a temporary visitor in this country. So someone who comes to our country and visits for 3 weeks, 3 months, we

do not issue them a Minnesota driver’s license, or, really, that gateway identification card. It has an expiration status on it so that

local law enforcement can pick up the phone, contact the Immigration Service 24 hours a day, and find out if someone is wanted or

what action they would further like local law enforcement to take.

Senator COLEMAN. What is the status of CrimNet right now?

Mr. STANEK. The status of CrimNet right now is with the third

year of a 6-year building phase, it has finally come on-line in terms

of the backbone which it has been built across Minnesota. And now
21

some of these disparate information systems from local law enforcement and others are finally coming on-line. We are always in need

of additional funding. We believe CrimNet is a model nationally.

We have spoken with Secretary Ridge about this. We have spoken

with Director Mueller and Attorney General Ashcroft and his folks,

and I think they see the promise of what CrimNet has to offer,

both not only on a State level, but on a national level in terms of

information and intelligence sharing.

And Mr. Chairman and Members, I would just add that if someone asked me what homeland security was 20 months ago, homeland security were two independent words that didn’t mean much

in and of themselves. Today homeland security is all about intelligence, information sharing, emergency preparedness. CrimNet is

intelligence and information sharing.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Sheriff McGowan, I am very interested in your Regional Response Team concept. I can tell you that in discussions I have had

with some of my colleagues, the comment is made that not every

community, for instance, needs a bomb dog. Not everyone. Talk to

me about where we are at. What has to be done to make that a

reality? How do you make that work?

Sheriff MCGOWAN. Mr. Chairman, I think what it takes is for

people to forget the turf battle. Realize we have an infinite number

of requests with finite dollars, and we’ve got to be smart how we

use them. And I think a Regional Response Team for us, if I were

to look at one, I would say in Minnesota, I would look at one within

Ramsey County, to serve that portion of the metropolitan area; one

in Hennepin County; one up in the North either in Duluth, or

Itasca, somewhere across there, northwest of St. Cloud; and South

down beyond Rochester. We have got to realize, we have got to

share resources. And, as you said, how many bomb dogs can we

have? How many bomb robots? And in preparing for an explosive

attack, buying a bomb suit is entirely different from a Level A suit

to enter a hot zone either as a result of a chemical or biological attack. So what we’ve got to figure out is how many pieces of equipment can we have? And as I said, don’t forget, the shelf life on

most items are only about 5 years. I hope we never have to use

them. But if we do, we’ve got to make sure that the equipment is

new, people are trained in it, know how to use it.

And Mr. Chairman, I would say the same thing for funding on

the Federal level. The Federal Government will not be able to fund

everyone across the United States every year. Take the United

States, perhaps divide it into five funding regions. Form within

those funding regions ongoing funding every year, so within those

regions, they can replace their existing equipment. They can make

sure that money is available.

Training dollars. We have got to have money to backfill staff—

when I send a man or a woman to training for 8 hours during the

day, I’ve got to still have somebody to do that job. Or if it’s their

day off, I’ve got to compensate them somehow. I need money to be

able to train our people. And I think it’s critical. We forget that we

can’t give somebody a piece of equipment once and expect them to

become an expert. And, as I said, our ability to respond and use

this, and without notice, is the key to our success.
22

1See Exhibit No. 4, Mayor Brede advised that he has changed his position on this matter and

provided a clarification, which appears in the Appendix on page 108.

Senator COLEMAN. Sheriff, I look forward to working with you on

this Regional Response Team concept.

One follow-up question about training, flow of dollars. How is it

working for you today? Is it working for the State, or block grants,

working with the feds?

Sheriff MCGOWAN. It works both ways, Mr. Chairman. And I

would say if there is a way to, first off, catalog what dollars are

available through homeland security for what purposes, I mean,

there’s a variety of dollars when you look at whether it’s the cops’

office, whether it’s through the Office of Domestic Preparedness,

whether it’s through Homeland Security, where do local officials—

where do we go, to what internet site, to see what money is available through the Federal Government for what purpose? If it’s for

communications inter-operability, where do I find out where that

grant is applicable to and how much is available? If it’s for equipment and training, where do I find that? So that would be critical

for us to be able to—in terms of training dollars, we’re right now

in the process of through the State of Minnesota receiving some

grant money. There will be round two of grant money. We had

needs in Hennepin County—and Senator Collins, Hennepin County

is the largest county within the State; 25 percent of the State population resides within our county, and it is home to our international

airport, the Mall of America, our stadiums for our Minnesota

Twins, Minnesota Timberwolves. Minneapolis is the hub of the

downtown metropolitan area, along with St. Paul. And I would say

that we need to have those dollars come on a regular basis.

We were forced to cut out about a million dollars’ worth of equipment that we need here that we have not yet received funding for.

Although we are getting a million dollars’ worth of equipment.

That has to go, just within Hennepin County, to provide for fire,

emergency medical response, law enforcement. And those dollars

are—when you start talking about training and so forth, Senator,

they’re very much appreciated, but they need to come on a regular

basis. Because, as I said, we can’t train once or twice a year and

provide the coordinated response that our citizens expect from us

and that we as law enforcement professionals want to provide to

our citizens.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Sheriff.

Mayor Brede, kind of following up on the line of questioning

about flow of dollars, I remember as a mayor at times being concerned about the block grant concepts, and saying, ‘‘Hey, we would

like the dollars to come directly to us at the local level.’’ Can you

talk about that, though, practically? Is it easier for you to access

stuff working with friends right here at the State, working with

Commissioner Stanek and his folks, or would you prefer a more direct line of contact between local municipality and Homeland Security?

Mr. BREDE. Well, we have enjoyed both, but I think the local connection with the State would be preferred.1 Certainly right now,

the budget concerns within the State, with our local government

aid, et cetera, is a major concern. But we have had a good relation-
23

ship with the various commissioners on various fronts. So I think

we would prefer that. I wanted to say, when you mentioned Rochester is an international city, a recent article in the local paper indicated that one out of ten people in Rochester was born outside

of the United States. And so it’s not only the visitors that are coming in, those people then are concerned about their security while

being here. And just quickly, too, thank you for your staff coming

down a couple months ago, led by Erick Mische to talk with both

our county people and the city folks. But I think we’ve had good

relationships with the various government agencies that we need

to deal with.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much. Let me follow up that

last question to Mr. Nevanen. At the very local level, you mentioned a number of times in your presentation needing Federal

funding, homeland security-related situations, whether it’s goods or

whether it’s training. How do you access what you need? I take it

there is not a single on-line website that says if we need dollars

for this, this is where we go. At a very practical level, the local

level, when you are looking at the need for increased training, who

do you call?

Mr. NEVANEN. Well, that’s a good question, and especially in the

context of the budget problems that we are experiencing. Right

now, it’s been a two-pronged approach, wherein the locals have approached the State of Minnesota for those two assets. And we also

look to the feds for some additional. But at this point in time, it’s

difficult. We are trying to envision what we are going to need, and

then come up with the dollars to do that. And right now, those

questions still remain unanswered.

Senator COLEMAN. I hope that we can, as a result of this hearing

and others, help answer that question. And I think that’s really important.

Thank you, Mr. Nevanen. Senator Collins.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you.

Mr. Nevanen, I want to follow up on the question that Senator

Coleman just asked you. You mentioned in your testimony that

your costs for homeland security, I think, have doubled you said.

And that’s quite a burden for a community fewer than 6,000 people. How have you coped with those additional costs, and can you

give us some idea of whether you have received funding from the

Federal Government to help offset the increased costs?

Mr. NEVANEN. From a local perspective, it’s gone from $40,000

to $80,000, which is very significant. And like some of the other

panelists have mentioned, you have to do things—everybody is

asked to do more with less. But we have reached out to the State

of Minnesota, and they have helped to some degree. But those

needs are not going to go away.

Sheriff McGowan mentioned the need for annual dollars for

training, and to have the equipment, but to be trained on it, be proficient with it. And to continually answer the landscape is evolving

all of the time, and needs to be evolving. To anticipate those and

then pay for them is going to be a very big challenge, especially

given the budget constraints that we are all working under. So it’s

going to be—I don’t know if it’s spaghetti feeds or what that’s going
24

to get us there, but it’s going to be a need for real resourceful people.

Senator COLLINS. I think your comments are so important, because it reminds us that it’s not only the major metropolitan areas

that have challenges for homeland security, but a border community such as yours, and the many small communities in Maine

similarly are facing real challenges that are going to cost real dollars. And part of my goal is to make sure that funding formulas

recognize that it isn’t just population that determines threat or vulnerability.

I was interested, Sheriff, in your comments about the myriad of

grant programs for inter-operability. For example, we have found

that there are five separate Federal grant programs that provide

money at the State and local level, with the goal of making communications equipment compatible. And as far as we can tell, there

is no coordination among those five Federal programs.

I would like to ask you two questions. First—and I’m going to

ask all of you this. Would it be helpful to have a single place within

the Department of Homeland Security where you could go for information on all kinds of homeland security assistance, whether it’s

administered by the Department of Homeland Security, or whether

it’s like the COPS program, which may be administered elsewhere,

or the FIRE program, which I guess is going to be brought into the

new department. But would it be helpful for you to have one-stop

shopping, if you will?

And second, inter-operability is a major problem. We learned

that on September 11. I would be curious from all of you what the

status is in Minnesota of your communications equipment. Can

your fire departments talk to your police departments? Can your

municipal police departments communicate effectively via radio

with your State troopers, your sheriff departments? What’s the

state of that?

We’ll start with you, Sheriff, and then go to the Commissioner.

Sheriff MCGOWAN. Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins, the answer to your first question, one-stop shopping. Yes, emphatically.

Second, inter-operability. I’ve got a personal interest in this, Senator. In 1989, in another life, I served as a State Senator, and I

put the first $500,000 into a bill to study the feasibility of an 800

megahertz radio system. Today, in 2003, that system has come to

true fruition. We are implementing—the sheriffs—Hennepin County Sheriffs’ Office, Senator Collins, provides dispatch service for 21

law enforcement agencies and 19 fire departments. We could not

talk before with our colleagues in Minneapolis. We could not talk

with the other disparate PSAPS or public safety answering points

within our own county. Today, we can do that. The State has built

and funded the backbone system for an 800 megahertz radio system. While it started off initially in the nine-county metro area,

and actually, we added two counties, Isanti and another county, because that was considered the metropolitan area for the Minnesota

State Patrol. So we started there. And today we are implementing

an 800 megahertz radio system. It is going to provide us the interoperability that we need, because there isn’t any of us as first responders that do not realize that communications is a key to success. We can plan all day long, we can have the best plans, we can
25

have the best equipment. But if we cannot communicate, we can’t

execute.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Sheriff.

Commissioner, did you have any comments on those two issues?

Mr. STANEK. Yes, Mr. Chairman and Senator. I guess I’m the one

on behalf of Minnesota who is responsible for putting an inter-operable radio system statewide. Within Hennepin County, 800 megahertz has come to fruition. You take it from 1989 to 2003, that 14-

year span, it’s taken us a long time to get this far. But my job is

to move into the rest of Minnesota, and I am committed to doing

that over the next several years. There are a number of pieces of

legislation winding their way through the Minnesota legislature,

and hopefully that winds up a week from today. And if, in fact,

those bills and authority come to fruition, you will see the statewide inter-operable radio system become a reality statewide, not

just in Hennepin County. But, again, as I talked about earlier,

homeland security, intelligence, information sharing, emergency

preparedness; but the one thing that ties them all together is the

inter-operable radio systems.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Mayor.

Mr. BREDE. Well, I would applaud the Commissioner to say,

‘‘Let’s get moving on that.’’ Because our sheriff has made it very

clear to me, as well as our police department, that we have an old

analog system that right now is starting to die. It’s gone beyond

its life. And you can’t replace them; there are no parts for it. So

you are in a situation that we need the new digital system, the 800

megahertz, and the money isn’t there to move into that. So you

kind of hinge from both ways from an old system that is dying and

a new one.

When we had our joint emergency committee meeting, I asked

about that, and all of the parties said, ‘‘Well, our current system

works great when nobody uses it.’’ [Laughter.]

But the minute you have to have two or three or more start talking to one another, it just gets bogged down, and you just can’t. So

anything we can do to move that along would be great.

And certainly, the one-stop shopping, I think my previous career

was with the Mayo Clinic, and we have done that with trying to

make it easier for patients to get in, and I think that’s the way to

go. Anything we can do so that there is one number to call or one

site to visit would be applauded greatly.

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Nevanen.

Mr. NEVANEN. Senator, on the first point, the one-stop shop, I,

too, would echo that. I would absolutely applaud that. Anything we

can do in that regard.

Second, from my perspective in talking to the various levels,

small towns have always had to be resourceful, just because of limited resources. And I think we sometimes get caught up in technology, and technology is very sexy, and they are answering and

helping in a lot of ways. But from our perspective, I think a lot of

it is just relationships, and making sure that various levels are

working together. And from what I have seen demonstrated, I

mean, certainly the technology is needed, and the other items that

these folks have spoken to is needed, but that the cooperation and

the communication between the various agencies remains strong.
26

1The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton appears in the Appendix on page 54.

Because that’s really the key, I think, from the small-town perspective.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins, and thank you

gentlemen.

We’re going to call upon our next panel of witnesses. I will go to

panel three, but before we get started, we expect Senator Dayton

to come around 10 a.m. or thereafter. And when he comes, we will

give him an opportunity to make his opening statement. We may

interrupt questioning.

We welcome Captain Ray Skelton, the Environmental and Governmental Affairs Director of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority.

Steve Leqve, Rochester Airport Manager. Michael Curry, Director

of Security for the Canadian Pacific Railway in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And finally, John Hausladen, President of the Minnesota

Trucking Association here in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Gentlemen, I thank you for your statements. I look forward to

your testimony this morning on how you are dealing with the need

to tighten transportation security or maintaining the ability of legitimate traffic to move quickly. Pursuant to Rule 6, all witnesses

who testify before the Subcommittee are required to be sworn. At

this time, I would ask all of you to please raise your hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Thank you, gentlemen. I understand that Senator Dayton has arrived, and I think what we will do is we will have Captain Skelton

go first with his testimony, then hear from Mr. Leqve, followed by

Mr. Curry, and finish up with Mr. Hausladen.

And as with the last panel, after we have heard all of your testimony, we will then turn to questions.

TESTIMONY OF RAY SKELTON,1 CAPTAIN, U.S. MERCHANT MARINE (RETIRED), ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, DULUTH, AND DIRECTOR OF SECURITY

Mr. SKELTON. Good morning. For the record, my name is Ray

Skelton, Captain, U.S. Merchant Marine, retired. I am the Environmental Governmental Affairs Director in Duluth, and since September 11, the Director of Security.

As is the case of most ports, with very few exceptions, there are

some ports that do have their own police departments, some ports

that do have very large security forces. They’re the exception, not

the rule, except for a mere handful, such as New York, Los Angeles, Long Beach, the huge container ports. We do not have the facilities or the ability to generate funds for security purposes. In the

port of Duluth, it is the world’s largest seasonal port. We also rank

number 17 in the United States, and overall. The situation there,

however, is one of limited security requirements in general. The

reason for that is that we are primarily a bulk port. How much security is required for a pile of taconite or a pile of stone? So we

do have limitations.

However, we do have some difficulties, in that we do have 49

miles of shoreline in our harbor. We also have 29 active docks
27

spread out over that 49 miles. We secure or are beginning to secure

that very difficult situation.

Just to go back a little bit, in our port, we had some heads-up

warnings prior to September 11, which served us well at that time.

In 1992, we had a thing we called a Toxic Tuesday. I’ve got to start

checking my time, here. Usually have clocks everywhere. Toxic

Tuesday was a large spill that went into the river from the rail car,

and large clouds of benzine-laden—large benzine-laden air came

over the city of Duluth, and we were forced to literally evacuate the

city of Duluth. We were completely unprepared for that event.

Things went well. All of the various agencies pulled together immediately. We brought the Minnesota State Highway Patrol and some

additional people up to give assistance to us. Things went well, incredibly well, when considering the lack of preparedness.

Oklahoma City, 1993, gives us our second heads-up that we were

indeed vulnerable. Fortunately, again, the FBI headed up a team

and used the loose-knit organization that we created after the 1992

benzine spill as a regional security team. The analysts that went

through the process of determining what level of risk was at the

port and what the requirements were, we just sort of let it sit, but

maintained certain levels of communication and tried to maintain

an accurate list of designated people from the various agencies.

On September 11, I’m not sure that we were the first area, first

major port to have a regional security meeting, bringing in all Federal agencies; State, county and local, but on September 12, we

held our first formal meeting of the Regional Security Team.

Senator Dayton, certainly—should I just pause?

Senator COLEMAN. Why don’t we do this? Why don’t we pause

here, finish for a couple of seconds, let him catch his breath.

Mr. SKELTON. Certainly. Poor Senator Dayton has been subjected

to me before, so I can just pick up right where I left off, Senator.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON

Senator DAYTON. I would just say briefly, Senator Coleman, that

you are a brave man to position yourself between two Senators who

just came back from Beijing, China.

Senator COLEMAN. Both of whom, by the way, have the sniffles.

Senator DAYTON. The feeling of knowing I could clear a room

with just one cough. [Laughter.]

We have a serious homeland security issue in Minnesota today.

We have to make sure The Wild win the second game of the series.

Seriously, I want to thank you, Senator Coleman, most of all for

convening, and putting together this hearing. And also you, Senator Collins, the Chairman of our Committee for being here and

honoring us with your presence.

I am sorry that I am late. I committed to the Freeman family,

before knowing about this, to be at the Humphrey Institute to commemorate Orville Freeman’s life, career, and share with them a

proclamation to be put in the Congressional Record to commemorate his distinguished service to Minnesota. So I apologize. But I’m

glad I’m here now.

Senator COLEMAN. Senator Dayton, we are thrilled to have you

here with us. I mentioned when we began this hearing what a positive thing I think it is in Minnesota to have in this Committee and
28

in the ag committee two voices in Minnesota. And I think some of

the instincts early on said we were going to cancel each other out.

And I think, early on, the experience has been just the opposite on

a number of issues with regard to both of these Subcommittees, an

ag committee, whether it was dealing with renewables, or this

Committee, dealing with homeland security, that we have had two

voices speaking out very loudly, understanding what the needs are

in this community and joining together. So I greatly appreciate

your presence and participation in this hearing today.

Senator DAYTON. Well, I would be glad to come anyway, but

when you are a Member of the Minority and the Chairman of the

Subcommittee and Chairman of your full Committee are both calling your presence, you really try to show up. [Laughter.]

Or you run your own series of risks. [Laughter.]

Senator COLEMAN. Well, again, thank you for being here. With

that, Captain Skelton.

Mr. SKELTON. Senator Dayton, fortunately had to—what was it,

3 weeks ago you had the hearing in Duluth? So he has already

been through this. I’m surprised you didn’t wait until after I was

done before you came.

We left off at September 12 when we had our first Regional Security Meeting. There were over 150 individuals at that first security

meeting. Up through the first of 2002, we held weekly meetings,

and it was all a matter of partnering, information sharing, intelligence sharing, and it was headed up by our local FBI director.

Concurrently, we started the development of what we referred to

as a Port Security Team. Now, when we deal with a seaport, we

are starting to deal with two specific areas. And when I say ‘‘specific areas,’’ it gets difficult, because a port in itself isn’t interfaced

between those two areas. We deal with the Department of Homeland Security. We think they are doing an excellent job with the

airports, with the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). We think

that as they start coming to the seaports, they will give tremendous assist to us, because we simply do not have the capacity to

provide security; TSA must provide that security for us. But also,

we deal with the U.S. Coast Guard, so we have two areas of responsibility. We have the Homeland Security Department, and

then we also have, although it is part of the Homeland Security

now, the U.S. Coast Guard, specific maritime responsibilities. We

are right in the middle of that. So trying to keep track of a multitude of security of the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and, of course, our main security levels, which we mentioned

very well. And we have had those for a long time, although one no

longer exists.

If we could get to a coordinated effort, where—and I don’t know

what the new color-coding system really does, because I deal primarily with maritime issues, we don’t see a lot of change. But if

we jump from our site level, things happen very rapidly. And the

partnering that is going on in our region is working very well. Now,

when we go to our Transportation Identification System, we’ll have

two types that we will deal with. The Transportation Workers

Identification credential, which is handled on a Federal overall

level, because the international traffic we get through is just fine.

We also have an MMD, or Merchant Mariner’s Document, that
29

1The prepared statement of Mr. Leqve appears in the Appendix on page 61.

deals with our maritime security that are in the process of being

reissued now. And then we have the biometric coordinated between

the two systems so we don’t have mass confusion. That would be

excellent. I understand some of the cards that are being looked at

now have the potential for three different biometrics in that card,

which would be enough to compensate across all of the environments in the maritime community.

Just in closing, I have a couple—I will deviate quite considerably

from my prepared statement, but just a couple of things in closing.

The partnership between industry and government has played an

integral role in both imports. They need not only to maintain, but

to enhance. The maritime system capacity has never been greater.

Analysts project the transportation demands for goods and passengers will double in 20 years and triple in 50 years. We face challenges related to the issues of homeland security. If there ever

should be a terrorist incident in one of our ports, U.S. systems will

come to a screeching halt, subjecting our country to economic paralysis. A mere glimpse of the potential impact occurred in last year’s

labor dispute with U.S. West Coast ports, which according to analysts, cost the U.S. economy $1 billion per day. Security is the No.

1 issue at our ports today. Congress has made additional allocations for these ports. However, we are keeping in mind that the roughly $200 million

designated for ports is far less than 5 percent of what is going to

be required, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. Seaports clearly

deserve as much funding and attention as air borders, as borne out

by recent key recommendations on the Council of Foreign Relations, that urged, ‘‘Recalibrate the agenda for transportation security. The vulnerabilities are greater, and the stakes are higher

within the sea and land than commercial aviation.’’ Now, I ask you

to take note, the administration budget, which was released February 3, includes no money for port security. We would urge you

to add money in the budget for seaport security. Thank you very

much.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Captain Skelton. And without objection, we will have your entire written testimony entered as part

of the record.

Mr. SKELTON. Thank you. There’s other issues in there that I

couldn’t get in in 5 minutes.

Senator COLEMAN. It will all go on the record. Mr. Leqve.

TESTIMONY OF STEVE LEQVE,1 AIRPORT MANAGER, ROCHESTER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA

Mr. LEQVE. Senator Coleman, Senator Collins, and Senator Dayton, thank you for the opportunity to be here. For the record, my

name is Steven Leqve, General Manager of the Rochester International Airport. But I might add, as the past Chairman of the

Minnesota Council of Airports, and State representative for AAAE,

the American Association of Airport Executives, I would like to

make some comments not only pertaining to Rochester, but collectively from airports that I have talked not only within the State

of Minnesota, but also outside the State as well. And I have some
30

positive comments to make as it pertains to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

At least it has been our experience, locally, as well as other airports, once again, as I said I had talked with, about the implementation of the TSA and how very well it has gone within the State

of Minnesota and nationally. It has gone extremely well for the size

and the undertaking that we were forced to deal with. The public

feedback that we have received, not only in Rochester, but collectively, as well, has been very positive. So that we can be very

thankful for, as well. The comfort level of the traveling public is

back. The relationship between the TSA in Rochester and the Rochester Airport company employees has been very positive as well. So

we have some very well-trained, very professional people that we

are dealing with at our location. All positive signs.

However, the one thing that I would like to see a change in, at

least over time, is the authority to the local TSA work force. Additional authority passed on to those individuals when things are levied down from the Federal Government in terms of mandates, that

the local Federal security directors who are responsible for their facilities, who understand and know the facilities, the one-size-fitsall concept does not work in this industry. All airports land and

take-off airplanes, but all airports function differently, and the

structure is different. And the Federal security directors, if they

had more ability and more authority in the implementation, not

jeopardizing security in the end result would be extremely beneficial. And that is basically a comment that is shared nationally,

as well. And we see it at our facility in Rochester.

The termination of the reimbursement for law enforcement officials at the security checkpoints or at the airports I think is a negative move in the industry. Typically, your category X, 1, and 2 airports, your larger airports across the Nation, have police departments and security personnel in place. Your category 3 and 4 airports do not. Rochester and Duluth are category 3, but the rest of

the airports outside the Minneapolis International are all category

4. I can tell you from experience in talking with airline personnel,

as well as the traveling public, the law enforcement—their being

at the airports, if you will—presence, I’m sorry, that’s the word I

was looking for, has been a very positive thing. In the case of Rochester, not that we’re anymore unique, but quite frankly, we do have

a lot of unique activities almost on a daily basis. High-profile people move through our community daily. Quite a bit of international

activity, not all commercial. A fair amount of that is private, as

well.

Having that kind of presence at the airport, I think, is extremely

important, and I think moving away from that, where we are into

a 15-minute response time to security check points in the event of

a mishap is something that is just truly not workable. So funding

needs to be in place, at least for both sizes of the airports that do

not have those individuals or staffing on-site to handle that. As I

said, your category X, 1, and 2, most of them do have their own

law enforcement in place.

I might just close by also saying that when mandates come down

to airports that would require physical changes to facilities, we

really truly need to have funding in place. And not the airport enti-
31

1The prepared statement of Mr. Curry appears in the Appendix on page 62.

tlements program. In other words, the AIP program. The airports

need to have that program preserved, as well for infrastructure improvements and just ongoing maintenance to our facilities.

Senator COLEMAN. What’s the AIP program?

Mr. LEQVE. The Airport Improvement Program through the FAA.

And with that, I thank you very much.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Curry.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL CURRY,1 DIRECTOR OF SECURITY,

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Mr. CURRY. Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name is Mike Curry.

I’m with the Canadian Pacific Railway. And with me today are

John Apitz, Councel for the Minnesota Regional Railroad Association, and Phil Marbut, who is Canadian Pacific Railway’s Manager

of Dangerous Goods.

It’s an honor to appear before your Subcommittee today to discuss matters of homeland security as involved in the industry, and

I would like to offer a broader perspective of our industry regarding

the efforts it’s already undertaken to improve security. Railroads

are vital to the national economy, the national defense, and public

health. Seventy-four percent of all freight goes by rail, including 60

percent by electric utilities. The chemicals used to purify the nation’s water supplies and fertilize our crops move by rail. And railroads provide critical support to the Department of Defense’s Strategic Railcar Network, STRACNET, which includes 30,000 miles of

rail line, and provides the backbone for the movement of DOD shipments. The railroad network of tracks, bridges and terminals presents a huge security challenge. It includes about 130,000—this is

nationally, better than three times the length of the interstate

highway system. Much of it is in isolated areas. Fencing is neither

practical nor effective. Furthermore, securing our infrastructure is

only one part of the railroad security challenge. Securing the operations of our railroad adds the further challenge of anticipating unplanned occurrences while trains are en route.

When America came under attack on September 11, the railroad

industry responded rather swiftly, working closely with local, State

and Federal authorities, and utilizing their own police forces, railroads increased inspection and patrols, restricted access to key facets, briefly suspended movement of particular freight in the New

York areas, and changed certain operational practices as anti-terrorist measures. And because enhanced security has become a longterm necessity, the board of directors of the Association of American Railroads, made up of the CEOs of North America’s major

freight railroads and Amtrak, as well, established a mandate to ensure that the railroads would be more secure each day. Using CIA

and national intelligence community best practices, five critical action teams—with the involvement of some 150 rail industry security and intelligence personnel—were established to scrutinize different aspects of the railroad system. The rail security task force

developed a comprehensive risk analysis and security plan that establishes four alert levels, and describes a progressive series of actions to thwart terrorist threats to national railroad personnel and
32

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hausladen with attachments appears in the Appendix on

page 65.

facilities. It also includes additional measures to be applied in

areas of operations, information technology, communications, and

security. Some of the actions taken since September 11 include increased cyber security, restricted access to railcar location data—

on-line, that is—spot employee identification checks, increased

tracking and inspection of shipments, and use of new encryption

technology for selected data communications, as well as increased

security of physical assets and increased employee training to ensure that the industry has more than 200,000 employees serving as

the eyes and ears for our security effort.

With military action against Iraq, the industry has taken additional security steps, including real-time monitoring and additional

surveillance of designated trains, increased security of certain rail

yards, increased inspection of track, and coordination with customers to tighten control of supply chain logistics. These and similar steps are being taken at international rail crossings to secure

shipments into the United States and neighboring countries. The

challenge before our sector of the transportation industry is similar

to that facing others—how to assure security of our transport system without seriously hindering the efficient flow of rail commerce.

However, while our rail network is vast, securing the transportation of massive quantities of freight across the Nation requires

the cooperation of authorities at the national, local and State level

on a daily basis. We need to be able to better communicate among

ourselves before, during, and after a critical incident. And we need

to plan and rehearse our response long before and not after one occurs. We need to share information amongst ourselves and have a

mutual understanding of capabilities and restraints of each section’s response. Freight railroads remain in constant communication with the U.S. Department of Transportation security personnel, the FBI, the National Security Council, and with State and

local law enforcement officers. The industry also has in place plans

to respond immediately to threats to the transportation network.

The Railroad Security Plan is a living document, because the risk

assessment process is a continuous one. As conditions warrant,

that plan will be updated, revised and strengthened—and it has

been. The national industry is committed to moving forward aggressively to ensure the security of its infrastructure and continued

service to the Nation.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Curry. Mr. Hausladen.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN HAUSLADEN,1 PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA

TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

Mr. HAUSLADEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,

Senator Dayton. Welcome to Minnesota, Senator Collins. My name

is John Hausladen, President of the Minnesota Trucking Association. Thank you for the chance to talk today about truck transportation, border security, and homeland security.

I will give you a brief overview of truck crossings over the border,

and then focus on two issues today; one is cargo theft, and the
33

other is the trucking industry’s anti-terrorism action plan that we

developed.

First, border security. I think, to put things in context, we should

note there are about 750,000 entities who are registered with the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The American Trucking Association estimates about 500,000 are actively engaged in

transportation of freight. Long story short, there’s a lot of folks operating trucks around here, and hauling freight across borders, and

NAFTA has certainly increased that.

The implementation of NAFTA, which grew U.S. trade with Canada from about $210 billion annually in 1993 to $379 billion in

2002, has, as you can imagine, concurrently increased cross-border

truck traffic. According to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the southbound crossings at the U.S./Canada border have

increased during that same 9-year period from about 5 million to

7 million. And given this explosion of cross-border traffic, processing speed becomes a major issue, particularly at the crossings

on the eastern half of the U.S. and Canada.

Now, we heard some things earlier that we want to applaud. We

continue to urge them to be used. The use of the gamma ray systems for inspection, where you can take a picture and look inside

is very good, very helpful. We think the implementation of the C–

TPAT systems that provide preclearance are very important. But

one of the things, when I talk to my members about border crossings that they suggested was, ‘‘It’s interesting, these tend to be at

rivers, tend to be at bridges, yet we have big trucks in a small

space, and now we are physically trying to inspect these big things.

And is there a way to remove some of this commercial vehicle enforcement and inspection further back from the gateway to possibly

help, or get them through to the other side and further away?’’

There are literally bottlenecks that commercial vehicles create that

we may want to take a look at.

The second issue is cargo theft. The highjacking of trailers and

their contents remains a major security concern for the trucking industry. Cargo theft has increased. This is an amazing figure, 30

percent nationally, over the last 3 years, now mounting to between

$12 and $20 million annually in losses. And while the high-jacking

of a trailer full of high-end electronics like DVD players going to

Best Buy may not get us worried from a security perspective, a

high-jacked trailer full of hazardous materials takes on a whole

new meaning since September 11. And unfortunately, cargo theft

has routinely been a low priority for local law enforcement. Why?

Well, truck trailers are, by their very nature, mobile. And they

cross jurisdictions. You take this dynamic, and an already overburdened law enforcement, and it’s easy for local law enforcement to

avoid taking ownership of a theft. We must work to change the

mentality that says, ‘‘Well, it’s probably out of my jurisdiction already, there’s probably nothing I can do about it, let someone else

worry about it.’’ We have seen that. But now, with the security concerns that have come forward, we have to pay closer attention.

What we recommend is a more aggressive response to cargo theft

by local law enforcement and angencies like the FBI which is critical to closing this significant gap in our homeland security system.
34

1 ‘‘The American Trucking Industry’s Anti-Terrorism Action Plan,’’ May 2002, appears as an

attachment to Mr. Hausladen’s prepared statement which appears in the Appendix on page 67.

And last, our response as an industry to the terrorist threat. The

trucking industry has developed its own anti-terrorism action plan.

It was created by a partnership, and you have heard that a lot

today, a partnership of 65 State and national industry groups, including the Canadian Trucking Alliance, so it is international, with

one clear goal, to prevent the use of trucks as a weapon. It’s a tall

task. I would like to submit a copy of that plan for the record, and

that’s been provided to your staff.1

Senator COLEMAN. Without objection, it will be entered into the

record.

Mr. HAUSLADEN. Thank you. The key component of our plan is

the recruitment and training of professional truck drivers to help

them take ownership of security within their own ranks. We identified the need to specifically train professional truck drivers in how

to recognize, observe, and then report potential terrorist operations.

Highway Watch, a long standing program between the ATA and

the Federal Safety Administration, was identified as an ideal

means to launch such an effort and accomplish the other technical

objectives placed in our anti-terrorism action plan. With the potential pool of 3 million truck drivers, and these are professionals, on

the road every day, they are a community out there. The trucking

industry launched an effort to secure funding to enable these objectives of the plan to train them to be the eyes and the ears, if you

want: A neighborhood watch on wheels.

Well, thanks to the three of you, through the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, you did appropriate $20 million to expand the

Highway Watch Program. But unfortunately, the Transportation

Security Administration has yet to release those funds. Now, if I

accomplish nothing else today, it would be to impress upon you the

need to expedite the release of those funds and put them to work,

protecting our vital truck transportation system.

Two topics, I won’t go into detail, but are certainly equally important are hazmat regulations and how transportation of that is

regulated, and a plethora of new rules, which, frankly, to the small

trucking company trying to learn and manage and train is very

challenging. And second, just kudos to the Minnesota State Patrol

for their training of local law enforcement on how to profile what

trucks to inspect.

In conclusion, let me say that when it comes to major truck-related security issues, technology will be a useful tool, but perhaps

not the most critical. The trucking industry believes that our true

success in defeating terrorism depends on making sure that people

know what to look for, and as you have already highlighted, how

and where to report it. Again, thank you for the opportunity.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hausladen.

Two observations before we begin our round of questioning. I can

assure you that we will go back and check with the TSA about the

funds, and certainly if the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs

Committee makes a request like that, people respond. And the

Chairman of the Subcommittee will make a request, and it will be
35

done in a bipartisan way. So we will go back and take a look at

that.

Second, when you mentioned the concern about cargo theft, and

that tends to be a focus, I did note the U.S. attorney was writing

that down. I would hope in his comments to this Subcommittee,

which will be included as part of the record, that we do address the

focus that we’re giving today, and what we can do to improve that.

The observation I have with this panel together as I have on a

personal level, not just as a Senator, but also as a citizen, I think

about issues of homeland security. I have concerns about the enormous truck trafficking, the incredible amount of rail volume. The

concerns of a category 3 airport as really an international airport,

or in their reference to Duluth, a port that is a huge port.

I have two questions for the panel: First, if you could address—

are you confident as we sit here today of your ability to meet the

threat of terrorism? Are you confident today? And second, on the

other side of the question is really an economic question. As we do

improve the measure of security, my concern is about the continued

vitality of our economy, that will keep traffic moving. We’ve got to

keep international visitors coming to Rochester, have got to keep

these ports moving. Are there areas where efforts are too restrictive on the economic side? Are we doing things that are slowing

things up unnecessarily? With that, I’ll go in reverse order. Mr.

Hausladen.

Mr. HAUSLADEN. Well, first of all, I think the trucking industry

is like every industry; in the process of figuring out how to do

things. We do think the Highway Watch Program is going to be

great. And when we rolled it out to truck drivers and said, ‘‘What

do you think about this, if we train you and work with law enforcement and give you tools,’’ they were ecstatic. Because, unlike a lot

of moms and dads, it’s hard to give back to the community. They’re

gone all of the time. But they view the road as their work place,

and they are creatures of habit. They know what looks normal,

they know what looks abnormal. There’s a lot of chatter on the CB

and the truckstops. And if we train them on what is unusual and

what to report, we have a tremendous Army. We have America’s

trucking Army out there to do that job.

I think on the second question about vitality, again, when I

called members and polled them on what is happening in the borders today, we see a difference. If you are a truckload carrier, who

are hauling truckloads, they’re moving very efficiently. There has

not been a significant decrease in the amount of—or increase in the

amount of time it takes to get through. If you are hauling less than

a truckload, where it’s a pallet of this and a pallet of that, or

there’s mixed loads, during the time it takes to do the inspection

it has gone up about 25 percent. So a mixed bag of good news and

bad news. Because, overall, I would just harken back to the issue

about the economy. If heaven forbid, there was another terrorist attack and a truck was involved, we know that every truck would be

stopped. After September 11, we saw the City of Minneapolis literally close its borders and inspect every truck going in. That’s a

problem. Because we know that in grocery stores, we only have so

much food. If this went on for an extended time, we’re going to affect vital basic services. Again, our State Patrol, the Commercial
36

Motor Vehicle Division, did a great job working with the City of

Minneapolis and talked about what kind of trucks to look for, how

to inspect. I think that sort of training, using Minnesota as a model

and taking that nationwide, would be a tool to help keep the engine

of the economy rolling.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Curry.

Mr. CURRY. Am I confident that we are able to meet the threat

of terrorism? I’m confident we’re doing the best we can with the resources that we have. But we could use more, and those resources

cost. I don’t know what our availability for access to the funds

would be from the government. I understand there are a number

of bills that have been presented in Congress since September 11.

And what the status of those are and what the fall-out is as far

as money, money coming down for security, for money interest in

railroading, I can’t say.

As far as restrictions, we have enjoyed a decent relationship with

the Border Patrol, with Customs. We are involved in Detroit, not

here in Minnesota, but in Detroit, the Integrated Border Enforcement Team. The restrictions—I guess I would have to reserve judgment, because we are scheduled to receive here in Minnesota, as

well as four other crossings, VACIS machines, and we’ll have to see

how that works out, if traffic’s held up.

Senator COLEMAN. Great. Thank you very much. And Mr. Leqve.

Mr. LEQVE. OK. In terms of confidence, I don’t think there is any

question that within our airport system we are doing a better job,

more professional. I think technology is going to continue to play

a huge role in our industry. As to how we screen people and luggage and freight, I don’t think there is any question. And so as far

as restrictive, I think once again, over time, I don’t think we’re

being too restrictive now. That’s not what I am hearing from the

traveling public. As I indicated earlier, I think that’s all been quite

positive. But we’re doing a better job. Can we do a better job? Sure.

And we will, with the use of more trained personnel. And, once

again, technology is going to play a huge role, I think, in this industry.

Senator COLEMAN. Great. Thank you very much. Captain Skelton.

Mr. SKELTON. There is a broad array of issues when we start

dealing with the level of confidence or dealing with our vulnerability or overall risk. The way I would have to answer, rather

than going into the details of it, is I would say, because of the advanced preparation work that has been done on both the Federal,

State, and local level, that our confidence level is actually quite

high. Are we vulnerable? Yes, we are highly vulnerable. Forty-nine

miles of waterfront is not securable. You just can’t do that. I’m

sorry, you could, but you would be spending billions of dollars to

do it. And we don’t have that type of—I’m sorry, I shouldn’t impose

a number, because I don’t know what it would cost to do that. It

would be unreasonable. So overall confidence level, I think in our

commuters and in our ports, they’re quite high.

Restrictions. Not yet. We have not experienced severe restrictions, but we haven’t gone to marine security level, or mar-set level

3 yet. Should we go, we are dealing with specific threats. Should

we go to mar-set level 3, I am concerned that we would have re-
37

strictions. There are national standards set there as to what is required of the U.S. Coast Guard response and the FBI response. If

possible, we must keep the decisionmaking process on security requirements local. Our local marine safety office, we usually call

them the Captain of the Port is fully capable of making security decisions for our port and region. Second, the District Coast Guards

formed what they call the Waterways Forum.

We have a Subcommittee on security that is going to make an

attempt to address the Great Lakes Navigation System. The reason

for that is overseas vessels entering our system are inspected first

at Montreal. And there are—the less beyond that, the lesser crew

changes or changes in members of the vessel itself. The security

risk is really very limited. And we already have the system in place

where those people that are from questionable origin or they have

questions about their citizenship, they are referred to as detainees,

the vessels that are required to post the guard. So we haven’t experienced extreme restrictions yet, but if things get out of hand or

they decide on a national level, they could get out of hand very rapidly.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much. With that, I will turn

to Senator Dayton.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you. I’ll defer to the Chairman of the

Committee. We call them chairs now in Minnesota. And I don’t

know if we need to refer to them as Leaders of Peace—— [Laughter.]

Senator COLLINS. Whatever is politically correct. But thank you

for your graciousness. I just have a few questions.

Mr. Hausladen, the TSA recently issued new regulations requiring background checks on commercial truck drivers in order for

them to be certified to carry hazardous waste. Could you share

with us your views on those new regulations?

Mr. HAUSLADEN. We have a couple concerns as an industry. One

would be the turnaround time it’s going to take to conduct the

background checks because of the flow into the State, up to the

feds, back. And what we get back, basically, is going to be whether

they are approved or not to haul hazardous materials. But as employers, we will know nothing about if they’re rejected, why they

are rejected. The industry would like, actually, more access to the

information obtained from criminal background checks, because not

only in the hauling of hazardous materials is it important, but in

the hauling of anything, it is very important. You want to make

sure we are putting safe drivers on the road.

I think the other issue, with background checks in general, and

Mr. Skelton referred to that, we now have a variety of different

types of background checks and I.D.s that drivers may potentially

have to have, depending on where they are going. And if they are

hauling intermodal or going to a port, they may need multiple

checks and I.D.s. We prefer one transportation worker I.D., that if

you get all of the multiple stamps on it, you are eligible to go on

whatever facility that’s needed, because if it’s a good background

check, it should serve all of them.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Captain Skelton, there was a study

released recently that suggested the Coast Guard was being

stretched too thin in the wake of September 11, and that it was un-
38

able to perform some of its traditional fisheries enforcement and

other duties because so many of its resources have been diverted

to Port Security. Could you share with us—since you’re right there

on the front lines—your observations about the Coast Guard’s ability to handle all of the new responsibilities that it has?

Mr. SKELTON. Thank you, Senator. The U.S. Coast Guard has

requited themselves admirably since September 11. As the Coast

Guard was assigned additional responsibilities, such as the war on

drugs, some war interdiction processes, there was no additional

funding for—traditionally the Coast Guard was voted to 25,000

people. And as a matter of fact, I would like to thank the three of

you personally, because now with the increased authorization, or

the removal of the cap, the 35,000 managing skills of the U.S.

Coast Guard, now they have a chance. With the additional funding

that was given for the U.S. Coast Guard, now they have a chance.

However, right now they are stretched so very thin. When we were

at security level 2, there are increased requirements for security

nationally when you go in a public hearing. The details—and I

would be very happy to host anyone up to the port of Duluth to

go through it in detail. Their manning has been just exhausted.

The return of marine security level 1 happened on a very timely

basis, because we were running out of manpower. So it’s going to

take some time to put out an additional 10,000 Coast Guard personnel. It’s going to take time to train them. It’s not going to happen overnight. And I would be happy to talk to the ninth district

and the Coast Guard headquarters and relate the information as

to what they feel the timing of that is. But right now, they are

stretched very thin, dangerously thin, and I’ll get that information

as to exactly how long it’s going to take them.

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Dayton.

Senator DAYTON. Senator Collins, after less than a year of being

on the Committee, the discussion was on what to give to the Coast

Guard. I realized then, with Senator Stevens being the Ranking

Member and now the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senior Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that the primary purpose of the U.S. Coast Guard is to

ferry the citizens of Millaca back and forth at taxpayers’ expense.

[Laughter.]

But when you said, Captain, that the cost of securing 49 miles

of coast line would be prohibitive, which I agree, it would be, I

wondered then how many miles of the coast line of Maine would

also have to be secured.

Senator COLLINS. Many more.

Senator DAYTON. So I would like to follow up with the question

that Senator Coleman asked you. What really is the scale and

scope of this challenge, and how do we provide the kind of security

that all Americans want without interfering and totally delaying

transport and trade?

In your industry, what percent of the cargo is actually physically

inspected at international crossings? If it’s not a hundred percent,

and I suspect it’s not, is it close to a hundred percent? How much

time delay would physical inspections of all cargo add to the system? Let me start with you, Captain.
39

Mr. SKELTON. Senator, we do actually have the information relating to that. Prior to September 11, 2 percent of the cargo entering

the United States was fiscally inspected. We’re dealing in container

traffic here at this point, because nationally, bulk cargos, you just

stand there and watch as it is being loaded or unloaded. It’s not

a matter of a security issue. But the container traffic, they estimated that prior to September 11, 2 percent was the inspection

level. In the last 2 years now, they’re up to 4 percent. To go to 100

percent would take some rather vast increases in technology ability

so they could do it rapidly without completely crippling the ports.

The Customs Trade Partnership is working very well. Even though

there are cargos that are not being physically inspected, as an indication of the trucking industry, if they are full container zones.

Senator DAYTON. So a full increase, from 4 percent to 100 percent would mean 25 times more inspections.

Mr. SKELTON. Yes, sir.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you.

Mr. LEQVE. Quite frankly, we don’t have a lot of international

cargo that travels in and out of our facility. Most of that is handled

by Federal Express and Airborne. And those items are actually

cleared at their main base before it actually arrives.

Senator DAYTON. Any indication on how much?

Mr. LEQVE. I couldn’t tell you. I’m sorry.

Senator DAYTON. Mr. Curry.

Mr. CURRY. I don’t know for a fact, but it’s nothing more than

2 percent. However, with the vehicle and cargo inspection system,

the VACIS machines being installed, we expect that there will be

an increase to the level of confidence of the cargo that is coming

through.

Senator DAYTON. You can get one that International Falls has at

the end of it.

Mr. CURRY. Our crossing, the crossing at Noyes, as well.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you. Mr. Hausladen.

Mr. HAUSLADEN. Senator, no, I do not have a number. The percentage, I do know it’s a small percentage at this time. Also as a

function of the threat level, there’s less that’s going on now. And,

as we said, the gamma ray systems are very good, but I think it’s

a matter of triaging freight, too. If you have freight that goes back

and forth regularly like logs, that’s a different commodity than if

you have a sealed cargo container coming across. So you have focused resources on those freight pieces that are perhaps most suspect.

Senator DAYTON. In all, the point we are trying to make is just

now relatively few inspections are actually being done, and the

need to do many more. If the same time, more means we would

really be prohibiting the flow of goods into our country. I appreciate

your comments about the Transportation Security Agency, because

the government seldom gets kudos for doing anything well these

days, and in my own observation and experience, and also from

talking about this with passengers, flight attendants, airline pilots,

and Senators about their personal experience, flying in and out of

our airports. I think all agree the professionalism, the quality, and

the consistency of inspections from site to site around the country
40

has greatly improved. I think that is very important to the traveling public.

But I wanted to go back to your concern about the funding for

the law enforcement at airports of your size. Can you verify for me

exactly where the funding comes from? Is it Federal? And what

would need to be added or removed?

Mr. LEQVE. OK. Thank you, Senator. Yes, currently the funding

is coming through the TSA. And that is due to sunset at the end

of the month, at the end of May.

Senator DAYTON. That’s regular funding—is it prorated, or is this

a special appropriation?

Mr. LEQVE. Actually, the communities actually have an agreement, a reimbursement agreement, that is in place with the TSA.

And once again, that will go away at the end of May. As I indicated

earlier, the category X’es, 1’s and 2’s typically have law enforcement on staff. Whereas, in our case, we do not. I think it’s important to maintain that type of level, and a couple of reasons why.

One, it’s been well received by the community. And I think as well

as providing security, we want the traveling public to feel secure,

as well.

Two, if the threat level were to change from its current yellow

to orange, that is a requirement under today’s guidelines that we

must have law enforcement on-site at the security checkpoint. So

we always run that risk. I hope that will not be the case, but nevertheless, if it is, at least we have things in place, and so we are

complying with the regulations as they exist and as they tend to

come out of Washington. I think it’s very essential. At least your

category 3 airports, funding is available during air carrier operations. Some of your category 4 airports, they may have four or five

or three operations a day. Maybe just providing funding during

those time periods would be very helpful, as well.

Senator DAYTON. On behalf of the local officials and the airport

manager at International Falls, a mandate and very real expenses

have been placed upon them as well. So thank you.

And just a last question, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Collins has

really been terrific about getting the chance for local officials to

comment about the inefficiencies that exist in funds provided by

Congress that are not being made available or existing barriers,

hurdles, in terms of the application and approval process. And I

know, Madam Chairman, you helped carry this subject in Washington. And it would be a great chance to hear that you are speaking to these people. Since Senator Coleman is certainly not in the

Minority party in the Senate, he doesn’t realize that when you are,

and especially when your party is not the administration, that you

don’t have quite the same impact with your own phone calls that

the two of you will have. So I will put myself in a separate category. But seriously, you really are in positions of great influence.

And I will do my best, as well.

But if there are any further elaborations or blanks you want to

fill in, or suggestions, these are good people to talk to. And I will

start with the other end. Mr. Hausladen.

Mr. HAUSLADEN. I think I have adequately covered it, with one

exception, and that is food transportation is sort of a different animal. It’s not in boxes, generally. At a certain point, it’s coming out
41

of the field. And again, in talking to some of our members, we do

have significant cross-border traffic of food in various stages, and

this is a new priority for the Federal Government for inspection.

And I guess the question is, this is such a new area, do we need

to treat food somehow differently? We want to protect it, we want

to make sure it’s not contaminated, but it’s morphing; it’s always

sort of changing form. And before we get hard and fast in how we

regulate that, let’s make sure the food manufacturers, the companies like the General Mills based here in Minnesota, let’s get operations people involved in some of that discussion. Thank you.

Mr. CURRY. Well, I echo the comment. When you brought that

up, the border folks that handle the port of services may be aware

of the hearing here today. They mentioned that the FDA has recently taken a keen interest in food stuffs moving in the country

across the border. And we have had for some time an arrangement

by which Customs is able to extract from our commuter systems information on the manifests of materials that are coming across.

FDA is in the initial stages of discussing this, but if the FDA is

looking for some other special treatment, their own information is

available. If they could somehow work through Customs, with Customs, they get into that same system, which would take care of it,

but I think their talk is scheduled.

Senator DAYTON. My time is being trailed. Others, can you comment?

Mr. LEQVE. We have covered everything, and I appreciate the opportunity.

Mr. SKELTON. In the Ag Department, of course, the Port of Duluth is responsible for approximately 4 million metric tons of grain

per year in movement through the port. They’re being transshipped, or shipped directly overseas. Our security concerns in that

area are more on domestic levels, some interruption in that process

than in that transfer, because once the ship is sealed up, it’s quite

safe.

Senator DAYTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you for your leadership, and thank you for inviting me to this hearing today.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Dayton. We

are very much on time. This hearing is scheduled to end at 11:30;

we will adjourn at 11 a.m.

First, on the issue about food transportation, I think it’s a very

important one. It may require an independent focus. Unlike tons

of taconite, we consume food in this country. And with the potential to wreak havoc with biological and chemical agents and the

ability to detect, that is something that clearly we have to make

sure that we are focusing on and having the right resources and

the ability to focus at the local level to deal with it.

I do want to thank all of the participants. I think all of these

panels have been very helpful, and I believe I speak for Chairman

Collins and Senator Dayton in that regard. It’s always good for us

who work in Washington to go back home to listen to folks at the

local level, because you are the ones who have to make it happen.

So very appreciative.

And then to my colleagues, Chairman Collins, thank you very

much for taking time in your very busy schedule to be part of this
42

hearing. And to my friend and colleague across the aisle, Senator

Dayton, I thank you for being here.

I do have several staff who are here. Can the staff raise their

hands? The reason I do that, if folks have additional information

or questions, please contact staff and let them know. We will keep

the record open until the end of the week for the purpose of accepting further comments and a statement from the U.S. attorney.

So with that, I want to thank you all for coming, and this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
43

A P P E N D I X
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108

Æ