U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–216 PDF 2017

BORDER STATION CONSTRUCTION: MINIMIZING 

COSTS AND LEVERAGING PRIVATE DOLLARS 

(114–42) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 18, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General 

Services Administration ...................................................................................... 3 

Eugene Schied, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............ 3 

PANEL 2 

Gary Gallegos, Executive Director, San Diego Association of Governments, 

and Board Member, Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors . 10 

Sam F. Vale, Chair, Public Policy Committee, Border Trade Alliance ............... 10 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Michael Gelber ......................................................................................................... 19 

Eugene Schied .......................................................................................................... 23 

Gary Gallegos ........................................................................................................... 28 

Sam F. Vale .............................................................................................................. 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Gary Gallegos, Executive Director, San Diego Association of Governments, 

and Board Member, Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors, 

supplementary information for the record ......................................................... 41 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 20216.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 20216.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 20216.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 20216.004
(1) 

BORDER STATION CONSTRUCTION: MINIMIZING COSTS AND LEVERAGING PRIVATE 

DOLLARS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room 

2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The committee will come to order. Good morning. 

Border security is a fundamental responsibility of the Federal 

Government because we must protect both our national security 

and the American worker. This makes border stations critical to 

our Nation’s security and our economy.The purpose of today’s hearing is to review major capital projects at our Nation’s border stations and examine how we can use non-Federal and private dollars 

that are sitting on the sidelines to jumpstart projects to help meet 

these infrastructure needs. 

It is important that the men and women who guard our border 

have the resources that they need to better enforce our existing immigration and trade laws. 

There are 167 land ports of entry, also known as border stations, that, according to GSA, see roughly $2 billion in trade crossings; 

350,000 vehicles; 135,000 pedestrians, and 30,000 trucks daily. 

These land ports of entry are important to our national security, 

as they serve as a line of defense against those who would enter 

this country illegally and with the intent of attacking our homeland. 

However, the cost of maintaining and modernizing our land ports 

of entry is not cheap. Projects recently completed or underway in 

recent years have totaled $1.5 billion. And these costs don’t include 

equipping and staffing these border stations. That is why I worked 

to help craft language enacted in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill to establish a pilot program for public-private partnerships. 

This pilot program allows for non-Federal donations of real property and equipment at owned border stations to help reduce costs 

to the taxpayer. More recently, language further refining this program was included as part of H.R. 3586, the Border and Maritime 

Coordination Improvement Act. 

2 

The intent of this pilot program is not to replace the Federal responsibility of constructing and maintaining these critical facilities. 

To be clear, making sure that we have the infrastructure and tools 

in place to enforce immigration and trade laws is a Federal responsibility. Rather, the intent is to provide additional tools to GSA and 

CBP to work with State, local, and private sector partners to help 

temporarily address the funding gaps. 

Potential donations under the pilot should not be used to replace 

our Federal responsibility or to circumvent our process of appropriately identifying priorities and needs. Donations, whether they 

be of real property or equipment, are not free. Generally, acquisition costs are only a portion of the total cost of an asset. 

Each project considered under the pilot program should be limited in scope and be carefully reviewed to ensure it fits with our 

national priorities and that the costs associated with ongoing maintenance and upkeep are assessed to protect the taxpayer from picking up an unexpected bill down the road. 

While CBP owns 42 percent of the owned stations, GSA owns 

and manages all of the largest and most heavily used border stations. The size and complexity of these facilities vary widely and 

include facilities with traffic as little as two vehicles a day and 

3,000-square-foot buildings, to large complexes that see thousands 

of vehicles and house a multitude of Federal agencies, including 

CBP, ICE, Agriculture, CDC, and the FDA. 

Unfortunately, many of these border stations have not kept up 

with new technologies, threats, and traffic. We must ensure that 

we can effectively screen people and goods to protect our Nation’s 

security and commerce, but at the same time facilitate the movement of legitimate traffic and goods. This is a tough balance, and 

the facilities and related infrastructure managed by GSA and CBP 

are critical to this mission. 

Without proper facilities, new technologies like biometric entry 

and exit systems that better screen people and vehicles cannot be 

effectively deployed. Without space for all the key agencies to operate, commerce may be slowed, hurting American businesses and 

killing job opportunities. 

Today, I am pleased to have GSA and CBP, as well as private 

and local representatives here with us today. We want to know the 

status of projects that we have authorized, what are the future 

needs and priorities, and how public-private partnerships could be 

effectively used to help temporarily fill any gaps. I hope we can get 

answers to these and other questions today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I want to thank you. 

And I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Carson, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman Barletta. Good morning, everyone. 

The GSA serves an important role as the property and construction manager for the Federal Government. Today(s hearing rightly 

chooses to focus on how GSA can continue to effectively manage 

the land ports of entry construction program. 

GSA owns and manages all of the largest land ports of entry along the southern border. Daily nearly $2 billion in trade crosses 

through the border crossings, along with 355,000 vehicles; the 

3 

135,000 pedestrians; and 30,000 trucks. Today we hope to learn 

how GSA is improving the infrastructure at land ports of entry, 

and how they can facilitate more efficient and secure crossings between the United States and its trading partners along the southern and northern borders. 

I would like to thank Deputy Commissioner Michael Gelber of 

GSA for joining us today to outline the agency’s role in maintaining 

and constructing land ports of entry. The Department of Homeland 

Security often has the largest Federal agency presence at land 

ports of entry and border stations, so I am pleased that they will 

be joining us, as well. 

I am also pleased that we have two organizations representing 

private sector organizations for coming in today and giving us their 

perspective on working with GSA and DHS. I also look forward to 

hearing their insights on how DHS is implementing the pilot public-private donation program that is meant to speed the development of land ports of entry. Thank you for coming. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. On our first panel today we have Mr. 

Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service of 

General Services Administration; and Mr. Eugene Schied, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Administration, United States Customs and Border Protection. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Each of you is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Gelber, you 

may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL GELBER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND EUGENE SCHIED, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. GELBER. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson. My name is Michael Gelber, and I am the Deputy 

Commissioner of the U.S. General Services Administration’s Public 

Building Service. Thank you for inviting me to this hearing on land 

ports of entry construction. 

GSA’s mission is to deliver the best value in real estate, acquisition, and technology services to the Government and the American 

people. As part of this mission, GSA maintains a close partnership 

with the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border 

Protection to meet that agency’s space needs along our Nation’s 

borders. 

CBP is our primary partner among the Federal inspection agencies stationed along America’s land borders. GSA works closely 

with CBP to design, construct, maintain, and operate land ports of 

entry along more than 1,900 miles of border between the United 

States and Mexico, and more than 5,500 miles of border between 

the United States and Canada. Of the 167 land ports of entry along 

America’s borders, GSA manages 124, of which the Government 

4 

owns or partially owns 102. GSA’s land ports of entry encompass 

more than 5.5 million square feet of space. 

CBP operates 40 primarily smaller ports, mostly in remote areas. 

These land ports of entry encompass approximately 477,000 square 

feet of space. Minimizing costs to deliver these critical land ports 

of entry begins with effective targeting of resources at the highest 

priority projects. GSA looks to CBP to develop its priority list first. 

Then GSA, while still working closely with CBP, integrates these 

CBP priorities into GSA’s larger, multiyear capital investment 

plan. Over the past 16 years, GSA has invested more than $1.8 billion 

from the Federal buildings fund to deliver more than 20 new land 

ports along our northern and southern borders. Since 2013 GSA 

has requested over $1 billion in support of land port modernization, 

including GSA’s fiscal year 2017 request of $248 million to reconfigure and expand the land port of entry in Calexico, California, 

and $5.7 million for design and construction of a new animal inspection facility in Pembina, North Dakota. Of these requests, Congress has provided approximately $700 

million through fiscal year 2016. Successful execution of these land 

port of entry projects improves trade and commerce, creates jobs, 

and bolsters our Nation’s security. GSA’s ability to fund land ports 

of entry has historically been supported by appropriations provided 

by Congress. Without the full funding requested in the President’s 

annual budget, GSA cannot execute the land port upgrades that 

are critically needed. 

In recent years GSA has seen greater interest in finding alternatives to Federal appropriations to support the delivery of highpriority land port projects, including by accepting donations 

through GSA and CBP existing authorities. 

When assessing the viability of any project, whether it is funded 

through the traditional appropriations process or alternative 

means, GSA and CBP look at the full life cycle cost of a port. This 

analysis includes the funding amount and source of that funding 

to operate and maintain the facility. 

If an alternative funding source might be available to construct 

a land port of entry, GSA and CBP still may need to obtain funding 

to address the other costs associated with the project. Thus, acceptance of what appears to be a cost-free donation could ultimately result in additional costs to the Government. At the same time, if the 

investment is required to address critical commerce and security 

requirements at the border, a donation would result in lower cost 

to the Government than if the Government had to make the full 

investment itself. 

When evaluating donations, GSA and CBP will continue to weigh 

these various cost implications, relative to the opportunity to impact on CBP operations, border security, trade and travel, and local 

and regional economic benefits. 

GSA has a longstanding authority to accept unconditional gifts 

of real and personal property from other public or private entities. 

GSA has used its authority on occasions when State or local governments and, in a few cases, private-sector entities have elected 

to donate land or other real property to GSA. Congress has supported efforts to find land port of entry funding alternatives by proVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:17 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\ED\5-18-1~1\20216.TXT JEAN
5 

viding CBP additional statutory authority to receive donations and 

reimbursement from State, local, and private entities. 

Congress expanded CBP and GSA’s donation authorities through 

section 559 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. As required by section 559 donation acceptance authority, GSA and CBP 

work collaboratively to establish robust evaluation criteria, incorporating feedback from a broad range of stakeholders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about 

GSA’s ongoing partnership with CBP to cost-effectively improve the 

Nation’s infrastructure along America’s borders. 

I welcome the opportunity to discuss GSA’s commitment to strategic investment in the Nation’s land ports of entry, and am happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Schied, you may proceed. 

Mr. SCHIED. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss CBP’s role and efforts to provide modern, efficient, 

and effective land ports of entry facilities in support of our mission 

to secure and facilitate trade and travel into the United States. 

Alongside the General Services Administration, CBP facilities 

management and engineering directorate oversees the repair and 

modernization of CBP’s inspectional facilities at our 167 land border crossings along the U.S. border with Canada and Mexico. 

Most of the land ports of entry were built prior to the creation 

of the Department of Homeland Security and CBP. When they 

were designed and built to support the distinct and independent 

operation of pre-DHS agencies such as the U.S. Customs Service, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service. 

Today, CBP consolidated operations incorporate state-of-the-art 

technology and professional law enforcement personnel to maintain 

the efficient and secure flow of cross-border trade and travel. Operational success depends on the condition and utility of our 

inspectional facilities. As distinct from the conventional office environment, these facilities are unique and critical to CBP’s mission 

success. 

Today I would like to discuss CBP’s role in addressing infrastructure demand and modernized inspection facilities to meet the challenge of growing volumes of trade and travel. 

Many of the Nation’s land port of entries were built more than 

70 years ago. Even those constructed as recently as 15 years ago 

require renovation or replacement to meet present-day security 

standards, enforcement and facilities technologies, and the growing 

demand for additional processing capacity. 

Trade between the United States and Mexico has expanded nearly sixfold, from $100 billion in 1993 to $531 billion last year, with 

similar increases in trade with Canada. During the same period, 

capital investment in the land port of entry facilities that process 

this trade and travel have averaged less than $90 million a year. 

This historic insufficiency in investment has led to a compounding 

current investment need estimated to be about $5 billion. 

6 

A study performed by the University of California Center for 

Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, or CREATE, 

showed that an investment in constructing and staffing a single 

new vehicle processing lane at a port can translate to as much as 

$25 million in positive economic value. 

CBP uses a multistep process to prioritize land port of entry 

modernization investments. In coordination with key State and 

Federal and local stakeholders, we assess individual needs at each 

facility. This assessment process is the underpinning of our 

prioritization process. It is metrics driven, its purpose is to identify 

candidate locations most in need of improvement. 

In addition to this assessment, numerous other factors come into 

play. These include factors such as environmental, cultural, and 

historic preservation, land acquisition requirements, the impact on 

other projects in the same geographic area, and other project risks, 

including the likelihood of obtaining funds. After our assessment, 

we collaborate with GSA’s Public Building Service to jointly develop a prioritized capital investment plan, and we update it annually to ensure that the available Federal funding is directed to the 

areas of greatest need. 

CBP actively participates in regional border planning efforts and 

works in close coordination with regional transportation groups. 

We look carefully at each port’s activity and its regional context, 

and we work with State and local stakeholders to determine where 

and what kind of inspection facilities are needed, both now and in 

the future. 

In addition to traditional funding streams, thanks to the support 

of Congress, CBP has recently received the authority to enter into 

partnerships with the private sector and local government entities 

to accept donations of real and personal property. This authority 

provides CBP and GSA the opportunity to consider donations and 

proposals to address local port of entry infrastructure needs that 

might not otherwise be addressed. These donations are expected to 

reduce border wait times, support increased flow and volume of 

traffic, create jobs, and address critical needs. 

Last year CBP and GSA selected three proposals for further 

planning and development. This spring we expect to announce additional selections, and we look forward to continuing to work with 

our partners for the shared goal. 

In closing, thank you again, Chairman Barletta and Ranking 

Member Carson, for the opportunity to testify. And thank you for 

the interest and support of port of entry projects. And I am happy 

to answer your questions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony. I will now begin 

the first round of questions limited to 5 minutes for each Member. 

If there are any additional questions following the first round, we 

will have additional rounds of questions, as needed. 

Mr. Gelber, we have authorized projects valued at nearly $1.5 

billion in recent years, with some of those projects being for—that’s 

30 years before. On some of the major projects, Calexico, San 

Ysidro, and Alexandria Bay, can you give us a summary of where 

you are with those projects and will additional authorizations be 

required? 

7 

Mr. GELBER. Yes, sir. San Ysidro was a three-phase project, and 

funding has been provided for all three phases. The first phase is 

nearing completion, if not—significant portions of that phase have 

been completed. In an oddity of that particular project, phase 3 

then became the second phase, as we were coordinating that 

project with the Mexican Government, and then we have also received funding for phase 2. So all three phases have been funded, 

and they are in various stages of development. 

Calexico is a primary—primarily—excuse me—on San Ysidro, 

the notable thing about that facility, it is the busiest land port of 

entry in the world. Calexico is primarily a facility for the transmission of agricultural projects between the United States and 

Mexico. The funding for those two projects—phase 1 has been provided in the President’s budget. The request for fiscal year 2017 is 

to provide funding for phase 2. Alexandria Bay funding has been 

provided in fiscal year 2016 for the first phase of that project, and 

the expectation is in fiscal year 2018 the remaining second phase 

funding request will come in for that work, as well. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Mr. Schied, as major expansions and 

improvements come online at some of the busiest border stations, 

is CBP able to keep pace, from an equipment and staffing standpoint? And how does CBP ensure the infrastructure we are building will actually be fully staffed and equipped? 

Mr. SCHIED. So thank you. So CBP is—we get the timeframe for 

these projects, we work within our appropriations process to make 

sure that the requisite number of staff get included in CBP’s budget request. CBP’s—Congress generously provided a couple of years 

ago 2,000 additional officers for CBP. We have had a certain challenge hiring those officers, but we are making substantial progress 

to hiring up to the congressional floor. 

And in the future, as these major projects come on, especially the 

types such as San Ysidro, we will work into our budget request the 

staffing so that we can keep those lanes open. Obviously, having 

the lanes open is critical to the effective use of that facility. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Mr. Gelber, you highlight in your testimony the importance of alternative resources such as donations 

from non-Federal and private sources. But, as you point out, donations are not free. How does GSA evaluate the total cost of a real 

property donation to determine if it makes sense for the taxpayer? 

Mr. GELBER. We look at what the long-term costs would be to accept a donation. So when some entity is providing us either a facility or land, we look at what it would cost to operate and maintain 

that infrastructure. We work very closely with CBP to ensure that 

whatever staffing resources would be required are also factored in 

to the equation. 

So again, it is an evaluation of, potentially, the 10-, 20-, 30-year 

costs of accepting what on the surface may be a free thing. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And this is for both Mr. Gelber and Mr. Schied. 

Language pending as part of the Border and Maritime Coordination Improvement Act makes clear the donations can only occur on 

a targeted, limited basis, limiting the total value of donations to 

$50 million. Because there are costs of maintaining and operating 

donations, P3s should not be viewed as a replacement to the Federal responsibilities. 

8 

Can you talk about what you are doing to ensure there are proper limitations on the use of the donations? 

Mr. GELBER. I can start. Again, our primary concern is to ensure 

that while the entity—the thing that has been given to the Government is purported to be free, that the long-term costs of operating 

and maintaining that thing is, in fact, a manageable amount. And 

that is, it is suitable for the budget of the facility. 

There have been donation attempts where individuals or entities 

have wanted to donate a property to us that we would then have 

to lease, for instance, and that isn’t a donation, it is just a longterm contractual arrangement that the Government would be entering into, and we are not interested in doing that. 

So again, the key issue for GSA is does the thing that is being 

given to the Government meet the needs of the Federal agencies 

that are going to use it? And, if that is the case, what are the longterm costs of that thing? And if those costs aren’t appropriate, can’t 

be budgeted for, then the GSA would not recommend accepting the 

donation. 

Mr. SCHIED. I think, from the CBP perspective, one of the critical 

elements that we look at is the operational utility of the potential 

donation. I think as you, Chairman, mentioned in your opening 

statement, the long-term cost of these facilities is going to be in operations and maintenance, and particularly the staffing. So something that might be free, if it expands our capacity beyond and we 

are having to rob Peter to pay Paul from an operational standpoint, 

then we have got to be careful about what it is that we accept. 

I think, as we go through these processes, you know, from our 

first round of donations, I think we saw—the ones that we accepted 

were relatively modest projects. I think a common theme of them 

is that they improved operational efficiency at the ports of entry, 

and I think that is exactly the kind of project or projects that we 

are looking for. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I will recognize Ranking Member 

Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Schied, in your testimony you discuss how some land ports 

of entry were built over 70 years ago, and the ports of entry constructed as recently as 15 years ago are not able to accommodate 

the growing demands of additional processing capacity, new security requirements, or even enforcement technologies. 

Sir, have design requirements evolved in the last 15 years? And 

how are they being incorporated into ports of entry that GSA is 

constructing today? 

Mr. SCHIED. Certainly. So I would venture to say that 15 years 

ago there was very little in terms of design standards for the ports 

of entry. I think that has been one of the successes between the 

relationship with CBP and DHS—or CBP and GSA, that in the 

past 10 years or so we have identified standards for ports of entry. 

From CBP’s perspective, that is of interest because we like to 

have a certain degree of interchangeability in the facilities. Officers 

will move from facility to facility, even within a particular day. And 

so, having a certain standardization is helpful for us from that 

standpoint. Certainly for the projects that we own, we find that it 

9 

is more economical to be able to build off of a particular standard, 

rather than essentially recreating each project from scratch. 

Mr. CARSON. Mr. Gelber, there has been much discussion today 

about the pilot donation acceptance program. Does GSA envision 

this program growing in scope? And how many donations have actually been executed? 

And also, what are the lessons learned since this pilot commenced? 

Mr. GELBER. I think the key lesson learned—if I could answer 

the latter part of your question first—is the ongoing need which we 

have demonstrated for GSA and CBP to closely collaborate on reviewing these items. And we do that on a regular basis. 

For the fiscal year 2015 cycle, three donations were accepted 

over—I believe eight were submitted. Many more may have been 

cleared. The process is CBP reviews them first and then GSA and 

CBP review those that have made the initial screening together. 

Two are in the cities of Donna and Pharr, Texas, and there the provision is for additional inspection booths and some additional inspection lands. In El Paso, Texas, the provision is for a—to remove 

a traffic—two traffic medians that are currently obstructing traffic. 

So these are relatively modest changes to the facility, but they 

still need to be looked at to ensure that when that construction occurs, it is done in a fashion that is appropriate and doesn’t create 

a problem for the Government in the long term. 

And so, we view the donation program as an opportunity to assist CBP meet its mission requirements at smaller stations. Larger 

infrastructure improvements are more challenging and require 

greater attention by the Government and, as such, haven’t seen the 

large-scale donations that we have seen in the donation program. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Costello for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To both the gentlemen, depending on the proposed infrastructure project, the Department of State often times must also issue permits. And the question becomes what are you doing to ensure that proposals considered under the pilot program are in accord with the State Department’s project, and how are you coordinating with the Department 

of State as it may be applicable on the front end to ensure that 

there are no delays to the project as a result of Department of 

State requirements somewhere along the line. 

And if you have experienced any delays along the line, do you 

have any recommendations in order to—how we might be able to 

get the Department of State to be a bit more accommodative, if 

that question may be applicable? 

Mr. GELBER. If I could start, the primary involvement of Department of State is the issuance of what is referred to as a Presidential permit, which authorizes the construction of a border station, a land port of entry. 

For an existing land port of entry, the State Department is not 

engaged, because the facility already exists and a Presidential permit has been provided. If there is no planned change to the nature 

of the border crossing, then the Department of State would not be 

engaged in the review of the donation. So when the State DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:17 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\ED\5-18-1~1\20216.TXT JEAN
10 

ment is engaged, it tends to be, again, for a larger project that has 

been subject of much discussion over numerous years because the 

creation of a new border crossing is a fairly involved process, involving two national governments, State and local governments, as 

well. 

So we have had—GSA’s experience is a very productive relationship with the State Department when there is a need for the 

issuance of a Presidential permit, which would be when a new station is being created. 

Mr. SCHIED. I don’t have much to add. Obviously, one of the important—more so, I think, than coordination with the Department 

of State, from an international standpoint, is with the counterparts 

in the foreign government, just to make sure that any changes to 

the American side of the infrastructure are in—generally, in concert with ongoing projects on either the Canadian or Mexican side. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thanks. I will yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I want to thank both of you for your testimony 

today. Your comments have been helpful to today’s discussion, and 

we will now move on to our second panel. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. On our second panel today we have 

Mr. Gary Gallegos, executive director, San Diego Association of 

Governments and also representing the Coalition for America’s 

Gateways and Trade Corridors; and Mr. Sam Vale, chair of Public 

Policy Committee, Border Trade Alliance. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. Each of you is now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Gallegos, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY GALLEGOS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN 

DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, AND BOARD MEMBER, COALITION FOR AMERICA’S GATEWAYS AND TRADE 

CORRIDORS; AND SAM F. VALE, CHAIR, PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE, BORDER TRADE ALLIANCE 

Mr. GALLEGOS. Well, good morning and thank you, Chairman 

Barletta and Ranking Member Carson, for having us here this 

morning. And thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss 

the growing importance of utilizing innovative funding strategies to 

implement critically needed improvements along the United States 

border. 

Today’s fiscal environment requires strategic investments in border infrastructure that, you know, maximize limited resources and 

incentivize what we would call leveraged partnerships. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today on the unique funding or financing 

approaches that we in San Diego are exploring to help provide the 

need to safely and efficiently move people across our border crossings with Mexico. 

Today I am not only representing the San Diego Association of 

Governments, but also representing the Coalition for America’s 

Gateways and Trade Corridors. SANDAG serves as a forum for regional decisionmaking in San Diego County that incorporates all 18 

11 

cities and the county government along the U.S. border, where we 

have a combined population of a little over 5 million people. We are 

also the federally designated MPO, or metropolitan planning organization for the San Diego region. 

And in my capacity as executive director of SANDAG, I am proud 

to serve as a board member of the coalition, a diverse coalition of 

more than 60 public and private organizations dedicated to increasing Federal investment in America’s multimodal freight infrastructure. The coalition works to bring national attention to the needs 

of the U.S. multimodal system and to educate Members of Congress 

and the public on the need to develop consensus for Federal investment policy that supports intermodal connectors, trade corridors, 

freight facilities, and gateway access. 

I would like to ask if we could advance a couple of slides to give 

the committee some perspective on the region context. 

[Slide] 

Mr. GALLEGOS. We could go to the next one, please. Click 

through all of those. 

[Slide] 

Mr. GALLEGOS. What this tries to do is show that, on the California and Mexico border today, we have seven border crossings. 

Four of those are in San Diego. As was highlighted in the earlier 

panel, San Ysidro is known as the busiest international border 

crossing in the Western Hemisphere, literally millions of pedestrians and vehicles cross each year. Otay Mesa is our major commercial gateway for international trade between California and 

Mexico, and it serves over 800,000 trucks annually. 

Land border crossings like these are facing rising passenger and 

commercial traffic levels and congestion, as a result of increased 

international trade and levels of personal travel. Border crossings 

are a source of our economic mobility for our region, as well as the 

Nation. People and goods traverse our vibrant binational region 

daily. 

However, due to the current 1- to 3-hour border wait times that 

occur daily, this represents lost economic opportunities and impacts 

our economy in a negative way. As a result, in 2005 SANDAG 

launched an initiative to innovatively plan and finance a state-ofthe-art border crossing which we will refer to as Otay Mesa East. 

Can you go to the next slide? 

[Slide] 

Mr. GALLEGOS. So, recognizing limited Federal resources available to implement new border crossings, it was determined that a 

new approach to financing border infrastructure improvements was 

needed. SANDAG has partnered with the California Department of 

Transportation, also known as Caltrans, in trying to develop this 

new border facility. 

In order to facilitate this new financing approach, State legislation was passed that authorizes SANDAG to issue bonds for acquisition, construction, completion of transportation facilities, and to 

impose tolls and user fees for the use of the State route that would 

lead to the new border crossing. 

Under this strategy, the region will capitalize on its experience 

and strength with tolling. SANDAG has been involved in variable 

tolling on Interstate 15 since 1996. We believe a variable tolling apVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:17 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\ED\5-18-1~1\20216.TXT JEAN
12 

proach will not only serve as a source for new revenue for new border crossings, but will also serve as a mechanism for managing demand, which we think is important. 

By utilizing SANDAG’s financial authorities, we will be able to 

maximize public investment in the port of entry by utilizing toll 

revenues and then hopefully being able to leverage those with 

State, Federal, and local dollars. This would permit us to develop 

a new port of entry faster than following traditional funding processes. 

Based on estimates, coupled with increased capacity and higher 

levels of service, we estimate that this new port of entry would generate a little over $4 billion over a 40-year period. This toll revenue 

would allow SANDAG to underwrite about $650 million worth in 

bonds that could be used to pay for the new facility. 

This vision for the 21st-century border will decrease dependency 

on Federal dollars by focusing on new partnerships that help leverage the Federal dollars, establish a transportation demand tool 

that will help improve the efficiency of our border crossings, implement a border wait time detection system that would allow for a 

statewide—or a systemwide approach, and to managing traffic congestion at the border, something that doesn’t happen today. And it 

would also allow for improving roads on both sides of the border 

that make our system more efficient. 

We believe that this new border crossing will provide much-needed traffic relief and serve as an economic engine for our region and 

the State. 

Go the next slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. GALLEGOS. So I wanted to use this slide to illustrate some 

of the progress we have made today. We have managed to leverage 

about $150 million of State and local dollars with about $286 million in Federal dollars. And what you see there in magenta, that 

first section has recently been completed and is now open to traffic. 

And the sections in blue and brown are the ones we are working 

on, and we hope to have those at least to sign and ready to go to 

construction by 2018, at the earliest. 

You can go to the last slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. GALLEGOS. And so, let me close by saying that SANDAG, as 

well as the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors, 

are delighted to have this opportunity to address critical border 

issues of border station construction and look for ways to maximize 

and leverage dollars. 

And I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Members 

of Congress for the last transportation bill. For the first time it 

starts really addressing dollars for freight, and helps us hopefully 

maintain the competitive edge that I think this country has globally. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, and I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Vale, you may proceed. 

Mr. VALE. Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member Carson and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Sam Vale, and I am tesVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:17 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\ED\5-18-1~1\20216.TXT JEAN
13 

tifying on behalf of the Border Trade Alliance. We also are part of 

the South Texas Assets Consortium, which is a participant in the 

559 Program, and we do operate a small, private port of entry. For 

30 years the BTA has been providing analysis and advocacy for a 

U.S.—Canada and U.S.-Mexico border issues. 

We will start with a fact: Adequate infrastructure produces less 

congestion and more efficient cross-border trade, as well as generates taxable income. Staffing of the inspection agencies has admittedly been deficient, primarily because of challenges on the hiring processes. And we understand that they are looking for solutions to get this taken care of in the future. 

The average age of the border station is around 40 years, but the 

commercial truck inspection stations and infrastructure are woefully inadequate, and we need to start focusing on that. That is an 

important part of job creation within the United States. For example, we have done a $250 million upgrade at the 

Mariposa Port of Entry in Arizona for fruits and vegetable imports, 

but yet today there is not enough staffing to keep all the new lanes 

operational all the times that they should be. This project was completed in 2014, and we are—still haven’t got the staffing. 

In south Texas we are growing dramatically in manufacturing 

and produce. And all of this could have been predicted 10 years ago 

if we had looked at the infrastructure being built in Mexico. 

We are—our recommendation is that, with future border station 

construction, that when it is being planned, that the committee 

also needs to work with your colleagues in the committees that 

have oversight over CBP staffing, Federal and State highways, and 

truck inspections, because you all got to be on the same page, because it doesn’t come to fruition until you get there. 

The section 560 and 59, it is a viable, creative option to assist 

the Government in some of its expenses. The donation acceptance 

program is great, but there is two ideas that must drive them. One 

is flexibility and the other is return on investment. Flexibility is a 

must, particularly in the design processes that is going through. 

The agencies must demonstrate a willingness to explore new 

ideas that are different than what they are used to seeing. To be 

blunt, return on investment—real estate investors and the international trade communities are not charities. They are looking for 

something in return. The Government should be prepared to demonstrate the financial upside for private and local public sector participation. 

CBP appears to be responding to flexibility in the small-scale donation acceptance program, but they have recently announced they 

are even promising 60 to 70 percent improved processing times in 

the applications. 

Not all border ports of entry need major infrastructure overhauls 

or dramatic staffing upgrades. The BTA supports pilot projects that 

have taken place in various parts of the country, and we support 

the pre-clearance of the Buffalo-bound cargo, where the inspection 

takes place on the Canadian side of the border and then comes to 

the U.S. We also support pre-clearance on the Mexican border with 

the United States. Laredo, Texas, has a pilot there. Otay Mesa, 

California, has pilots going. And there is even one in an electronics 

plant in Juarez, Mexico. 

14 

However, on the other hand, we need to avoid infrastructure 

agreements with States and foreign governments that lead to ongoing financial commitments. The BTA acknowledges that there is a 

significant debate over how to construct a new span across the Detroit River connecting Detroit in Michigan and Windsor, Ontario. 

We are not going to get into the details, because that is another 

group of issues, but we do have deep concerns over any agreement 

between governments to construct new bridge ports of entry requiring ongoing staffing commitments from CBP and other agencies 

without deliberation and appropriations from the Congress. Should 

not be done. 

The 559 programs have benefitted on the southern border, because we are living up to our diplomatic notes, primarily using donated acceptance program funds. McAllen, Texas, donated the land 

for the port. Then they later have donated land in Mexico and 

helped build a road in Mexico. They built lanes on the U.S. side. 

Now they are building—they are going to be building a border station for truck inspection on the U.S. side on land that they had already donated. 

So, there are a lot of opportunities. That is a great example of 

how you do the right thing. But we need to understand that this 

is—it is—in a perfect world, the Government should be able to finance all of these activities, and we don’t have that perfect world 

today. 

But today we do have an option. We can either choose to go forward with something that would be innovative and creative, or not. 

But we have a choice before we just lost competitiveness and tax 

dollars. So we are very happy to be part of that support group. 

There is a role for the public and private sector—local public and 

private sector and the donation acceptance programs. Investors 

have to have confidence. We think you have to look real seriously 

at the large projects, because you are not going to get funding on 

some of these projects, and you can project it 30 years, but that 

could easily be a 50-year if you are talking about certain stretches 

of highways and access to how you have to function, because the 

border station is no good if it doesn’t—it is like a bridge halfway 

there if you don’t have all the ingress and egress routes put into 

what needs to be done. 

The Border Trade Alliance appreciates the opportunity to testify. 

We look forward to finding solutions to our border challenges. I will 

answer any questions you may find. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony. I will now begin 

the first round of questions limited to 5 minutes for each Member. 

If there are additional questions following the first round we will 

have additional rounds, as needed. I will start. 

Mr. Gallegos, the committee has authorized a three-phase project 

at San Ysidro port of entry. How will these improvements, when 

fully implemented, help address the capacity issues at that border 

station? 

I went down, actually, to see the station. So how will it address 

that? 

Mr. GALLEGOS. So I think first we should acknowledge the 

world’s busiest border crossing. And so, the fact that they have, you 

know, double-staffed the booths should allow us to get, hopefully, 

15 

more throughput production out of the new border crossing. And I 

think the steps that are taking—that are still to come in phase 3 

and—because the last panel highlighted phase 3 became sort of 

phase 2, and phase 2 became sort of phase 3. 

But the one thing that needs to be done and done as soon as possible in the next two phases is to improve the pedestrian experience. We have pedestrians who are taking several hours and cross 

and facilities that are less than adequate to handle the pedestrian 

movement. But we are optimistic that when phase 2 and 3 come, 

that all that is going to improve. 

We should also highlight, Mr. Chairman, for the committee that 

we have worked closely in partnership with GSA and CBP to bring 

local dollars forward to also make key transit connections in a key 

intermodal center that will allow the local transportation system to 

integrate with the Federal investment that is being made. And that 

is something that I think we got to work harder at doing better in 

the future, that we, you know, not only look at the border crossing 

itself, but what are the connections that are necessary to make 

them work on both sides of the borders, both on the Mexican and 

the U.S. border. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. Vale, as you point out in your testimony, even if we build 

the needed infrastructure, without the ability of CBP to staff and 

equipment for the facility, we are not going to see much improvement. 

How critical is it that solutions to staffing and equipment be 

identified as GSA and CBP evaluate their priorities for infrastructure needs? 

Mr. VALE. It is absolutely vital. That is like—it is like two parts 

of the same machine. You can’t—it doesn’t work one without the 

other. 

The facilities can—are expensive to build. They are expensive to 

maintain. And if you are not using them, you are not getting your 

return on investment as a government. You are not getting your 

tax dollars. And we really focus right now a lot on the commercial 

traffic, because we are being overwhelmed on the southern border. 

The Canadian border is down 25 percent and we are up 25 percent 

and it is growing. 

And it is not that people are not crossing in one place or another, 

it is that the pie is getting bigger, and there is more and more 

manufacturing going on in Mexico using U.S. parts to do the manufacturing than ever before. And it is growing. They have been—in 

one part of Mexico they call them the Bajio Central States. They 

have had $16.5 billion of foreign investment in the past 3 years, 

with another 16.5 projected for the next 3 years. This is all foreign 

money going in there to utilize qualified workforce, costs that are— 

and the market is the United States of America. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Vale, you offer some important suggestions 

and notes of caution in your testimony when it comes to private donations. You suggest the more nimble and focused approach for the 

P3 program, and caution us about ongoing financial commitments 

that may not be apparent in donated property. 

How do you think the process can be more streamlined in evaluating potential P3s? 

16 

Mr. VALE. Well, one of the things you have to do is have a more 

accurate predictability of the growth cycles. Now, we have been visiting with some major manufacturings lately, and they said under 

the right circumstances they could make data maybe through 

this—southern California creates—make it available to have it 

sanitized, because these would be confidential business plans. But 

these business plans, up to 3 years, are 85 percent accurate in 

what they are projecting. 

If we can get that information into the work staffing model for 

CBP that will also share it with the GSA of what they are going— 

facilities, that is the innovative-type processes we need to go 

through, instead of taking a historical look at it, and linear projections forward. Those are part of the puzzle, but they are not the 

best solution. It is to know what business is planning in produce. 

Who drives produce? The American consumer. Who knows them 

best? The big box buyers, not the farmer, not the trucker, but the 

guy who sells it to the public. We need to get them in the picture. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. And I recognize Ranking Member 

Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Vale, there has been a lot of discussion today about how land 

ports of entry are basically outdated due to an increase in trade, 

post-NAFTA and subsequent investments in infrastructure by the 

Mexican Government. Who is responsible for tracking the infrastructure investments made by either the Canadian and Mexican 

Governments? And do you believe it is even feasible to coordinate 

those activities between countries to ensure that land ports of entry 

are not overwhelmed, due to mismatched investments along the 

border? 

Mr. VALE. I don’t know if the governments do a good job of it, 

because they many times have overarching—what they think of are 

more important and sexier items to deal with. But the bottom line 

is that business does, because the business investor has to have a 

return. 

We think that if you would have looked in Mexico, for example, 

you saw them constructing these highways. You saw them cross— 

they built two transcontinental roadways connecting to the border. 

They also built the highest—and these are not overnight projects— 

they built the highest suspension bridge in the world. That changes 

flows and patterns. The dollar and the investment climate in the 

world changes it. 

Somebody needs to be looking at it. I know business is looking 

at it. We look every day at it. We are working on—2 years ago we 

were looking at Mexico as an exporter of oil and hydrocarbons. 

Guess what? Today they are only producing 50 percent of their hydrocarbon needs. Who is going to be selling it to them? Who has 

already started doing that? The United States. 

Mr. CARSON. Yes. 

Mr. VALE. We are—in the smallest port in the country, we are 

now export oil tankers into—Mexican tankers going across the 

bridge into Mexico to deliver to their consumers. 

Mr. CARSON. To that point, also in your testimony, Mr. Vale, you 

indicated that the CBP should be able to demonstrate the financial 

17 

upside for a private-sector donation to the land ports of entry program. 

In your mind, what is the appropriate metric or even order of 

magnitude that the CBP should be targeting to even make a private-sector donation attractive? 

Mr. VALE. Well, it is maybe a little easier if you are talking to 

a local public sector entity, a city or a county or a State government, because they have interests for their taxpayers. 

But even private business would like to know that there is going 

to be a receptive attitude to what they are trying to do, that they 

are not trying to force is down somebody’s throat. It is going to 

have to meet all the security requirements, whatever is needed 

there, but there has to be understood that this is something good 

for all the parties. And sometimes you don’t get that reception, it 

is more like pulling teeth. 

Mr. CARSON. Yes. Lastly, Mr. Gallegos, what roles do you believe 

that the local and State governments should have in developing infrastructure plans for land ports of entry? And how can local and 

State governments augment Federal efforts to expand capacity at 

land ports of entry? 

Mr. GALLEGOS. Well, first of all, thank you for the question. And 

I think the innovative approaches that we are proposing is one way 

to do that. But another, I think, key component for us has been the 

development of border master plans. And in many ways, they are 

similar to general plans that cities have, so that if you understand 

how lands proposing to be zoned to be used on both sides of the 

border, both on the Mexican side and the U.S. side, that those land 

use plans then become the drivers for, you know, the businesses, 

the investment, the growth that is going to happen in those borders. 

And so, I think local governments working with the State, working with the Federal Government on both sides of the border, can 

develop these master plans as a planning tool to allow governments 

at all three levels on our side of the border and governments on 

the Mexican side of the border to do a better job of planning and 

forecasting what our needs are going to be in the future. And I 

think these border master plans are a fairly new phenomena. We 

haven’t been doing them for a long time. 

Mr. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Vale, you expressed deep concerns about the proposed new 

bridge and border crossing in Detroit going forward without congressional appropriations. I also have concerns. And the House limited the donation program. To be clear, it cannot be used for this 

project. 

This crossing and bridge is estimated to cost several billion dollars and require 100 or more CBP staff. Where will they come 

from? And how could this impact other crossings on the northern 

and southern border? 

Mr. VALE. The thing that jumped out at us was a $100 million 

commitment for year one and $50 million every year thereafter for 

staffing alone. Good grief, we have to beg, borrow, and steal to get 

18 

a guy to work, and every guy that we get to work on the southern 

border produces tremendous amount of economic benefit. 

Why would you be doing that on a border that, right now, by 

their own admission, is decreasing its exports to the United States, 

or our imports are decreasing, which means you need less staffing 

and better utilization of the existing staffing? 

Sometimes we forget that we have to look at international bridge 

ports as a system, and not this community versus that community. 

And the number of lanes that are out there may be built, but if 

they are underutilized we are wasting infrastructure. 

And oh, by the way, there is not a bridge on the border congested 

24 hours a day. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, I want to thank you both for your testimony 

today. Your comments have been helpful in our discussion. If there 

are no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent that the 

record of today’s hearing remain open until such times as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record 

remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the 

record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony 

today. If no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

19 


Insert offset folio 5 here 20216.005
20 


Insert offset folio 6 here 20216.006
21 


Insert offset folio 7 here 20216.007
22 


Insert offset folio 8 here 20216.008
23 


Insert offset folio 9 here 20216.009
24 


Insert offset folio 10 here 20216.010
25 


Insert offset folio 11 here 20216.011
26 


Insert offset folio 12 here 20216.012
27 


Insert offset folio 13 here 20216.013
28 


Insert offset folio 14 here 20216.014
29 


Insert offset folio 15 here 20216.015
30 


Insert offset folio 16 here 20216.016
31 


Insert offset folio 17 here 20216.017
32 


Insert offset folio 18 here 20216.018
33 


Insert offset folio 19 here 20216.019
34 


Insert offset folio 20 here 20216.020
35 


Insert offset folio 21 here 20216.021
36 


Insert offset folio 22 here 20216.022
37 


Insert offset folio 23 here 20216.023
38 


Insert offset folio 24 here 20216.024
39 


Insert offset folio 25 here 20216.025
40 


Insert offset folio 26 here 20216.026
41 


Insert offset folio 27 here 20216.027
42 


Insert offset folio 28 here 20216.028
43 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 29 here 20216.029