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

44–121 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 110–1024 

SECURING THE NORTHERN BORDER: VIEWS FROM 

THE FRONT LINES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 2, 2008 

FIELD HEARING IN HAVRE, MONTANA 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

SUE RAMANATHAN, Counsel 

JAMES WISE, Office of Senator Jon Tester 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

MATTHEW L. HANNA, Minority U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2008 

Dan W. McGowan, Administrator, Disaster and Emergency Services, Montana 

Department of Military Affairs ........................................................................... 3 

Robert DesRosier, Director, Disaster and Emergency Services, Blackfeet Nation ........................................................................................................................ 7 

Donna Matoon, Sheriff, Toole County, Montana ................................................... 9 

Michele James, Director, Seattle Field Operations, and Brenna Neinast, 

Chief, Border Patrol Sector Havre, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................................. 11 

Loren L. Timmerman, President, Chapter 231, National Treasury Employees 

Union, Great Falls, Montana .............................................................................. 25 

J. Alexander Philp, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, GCS Holdings, Inc. ................................................................................................................ 26 

Kristian D. Merkel, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, S2 Corporation, Bozeman, Montana ...................................................................................... 30 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

DesRosier, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 48 

James, Michele: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 54 

Matoon, Donna: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

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

McGowan, Dan W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 35 

Merkel, Kristian D., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 86 

Neinast, Brenna: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 54 

Philp, J. Alexander, Ph.D.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Timmerman, Loren L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

APPENDIX 

Annmarie Robinson, Regional Water Coordinator, North Central Montana 

Regional Water Authority, prepared statement ................................................ 94 

Post-hearing questions and responses for the Record from: 

Ms. James and Ms. Neinast ............................................................................ 96 

(1) 

SECURING THE NORTHERN BORDER: VIEWS 

FROM THE FRONT LINES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Havre, Montana 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Havre, 

Montana, Hon. Jon Tester, presiding. 

Present: Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. I will call this meeting of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to order. Thank you, everyone, for being here, especially approaching the 4th of July. I 

know we have a few of the panelists that took vacation time to be 

here, and I appreciate that a lot. 

I want to welcome the witnesses. We have folks from every level 

of government—Federal, State, and local—and these are the folks 

we want to hear from, what they are doing to help secure the border every day. 

We are going to have two panels this morning. To each of the 

witnesses, your complete testimony will be inserted in the record, 

but I would ask you to summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes if you can. We will not hold you strictly to it, but if you can 

kind of bounce around that area, we would appreciate it. 

Following those two panels, we will have a brief discussion with 

some questions from me after you have all given your testimony, 

and then following the two panels, we are going to open the floor 

up. This hearing is scheduled to go from 10 through 11:30 a.m. If 

we finish quicker, then that is fine. Until the time of noon, we will 

give the people in the audience an opportunity to talk about anything you want, quite honestly. This is dedicated to border security 

and specifically to border security, but you can talk about anything 

you want. The only thing that I would ask the people who talk 

after the formal hearing is over is that you limit the time of your 

comments to about 1 or 2 minutes. If you can do that, we can get 

through a lot of folks. We can get through 30 people in a half-hour 

if you limit it to a minute. So there will be a quick break. 

I would encourage the witnesses and the panelists to stay here, 

because I am sure there will be some issues brought up on security. 

This hearing is titled ‘‘Securing the Northern Border: Views from 

the Front Lines.’’ Our goal today is to hear from the many folks 

2 

who stand watch on that border, at the Federal, State, and local 

level. 

Over the past couple days, I and members of my staff have been 

traveling a good portion of the Hi-Line, visiting with folks about 

what is on their minds when it comes to the border. 

I was pleased to be joined in Scobey, Montana, on Monday by the 

No. 2 man at the Department of Homeland Security, a fellow by 

the name of Paul Schneider, and we visited about the border. It 

was interesting. He landed in Helena and then came up to Scobey. 

His words exactly to me when I met him were, ‘‘I am glad I did 

this. I would not have believed it if I had not seen it,’’ talking about 

the rural nature, the number of people, and the vast distances. We 

all know. We live here. We understand it. 

As we all know, the U.S.-Canada border is a source of pride. 

Some 4,000 miles long, it is the longest demilitarized border in the 

world. It is a very special place. We have friends to the north, and, 

of course, our friends to the north have friends here in the United 

States. 

But that does not mean that we can be complacent. Drug trafficking across our border is a problem—whether you are talking 

about BC Bud, or something worse. 

There are known terrorist groups that are organized in Canada. 

And when a potential terrorist travels, say, from England to Canada, it will attract somewhat less attention than if they try to fly 

directly into the United States. 

I want to emphasize that our friends on the Canadian side of the 

border are steadfast allies. That is one of the major differences between the northern border challenges and the southern border 

challenges. And I truly appreciate the friendship with them. We all 

know we have oftentimes more in common with our folks to the 

north than we do with our folks to the east. 

So the stakes are high with making sure that our border is secure. But we also need to make sure that we continue to encourage 

the vital economic link between the United States and Canada. The 

border is a major commercial artery for Montana and our entire 

Nation. 

And it is not an easy balance, for sure. I think the folks on the 

ground will tell you that. 

I want to introduce the panel of witnesses. These folks are from 

around Montana who work hard every day to keep the border safe. 

Representing the State of Montana, we have the Director of Disaster and Emergency Services, Dan McGowan. He is the guy who 

is responsible for making sure that Montana is ready and able to 

respond in any situation ranging from a natural disaster to a potential case of foot-and-mouth disease to an attack on a dam or a 

refinery or whatever. 

Also, we have a gentleman by the name of Robert DesRosier. Mr. 

DesRosier is the head of Disaster and Emergency Services on the 

Blackfeet Reservation. As such, Mr. DesRosier is responsible for securing the 60 miles of border between Canada and the reservation. 

To do so, he must work with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Park Service— 

a lot of agencies. 

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. McGowan with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 

35. 

Then we have from Toole County, Donna Matoon. Ms. Matoon is 

the sheriff in Toole County, and she will visit with us about local 

law enforcement, what its role is in border security and potentially 

what we can to help improve that. I also want to point out that 

Ms. Matoon took time out of her vacation to be here today, and I 

really appreciate you being here. I think it indicates to me how important you feel this issue is. 

At the end of the table we have Brenna Neinast, who runs the 

Havre Sector—many of you folks know her—of the Border Patrol. 

She has under her direction more than 100 Border Patrol officers 

responsible for securing the border from Glacier Park to the Montana-North Dakota border. 

And, finally, we have Michele James. She is the Director of Field 

Operations for Customs. She covers the territory between North 

Dakota and Seattle. No small feat. 

And so when we get done with this, we will go to the next panel, 

and I will introduce them. But since we are limited on time, we 

will get started. 

Mr. McGowan, you can fire away. 

TESTIMONY OF DAN W. MCGOWAN,1 ADMINISTRATOR, DISASTER AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS 

Mr. MCGOWAN. Thank you, Senator Tester and Members of the 

Committee, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Governor Brian 

Schweitzer, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing 

and join this panel with our partners. 

Securing the northern border between Montana and Canada is a 

complex, multi-jurisdictional initiative whose success is founded in 

unity of vision, partnerships, and collaborative engagement grounded through a true grass-roots mechanism. The collaborative efforts 

require leveraging limited resources to successfully achieve an 

overwhelming task. The State of Montana appreciates the financial 

resources rendered through the Department of Homeland Security 

to advance border protection efforts. These funds have been leveraged with State financial, personnel, and resource contributions to 

maximize its northern border efforts. 

The State has engaged with many partners—Federal, local, tribal, county, and our partners to the north from Canada: British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan—to do several very important 

initiatives, and I will talk just about a few of those from a tactical 

perspective and also from a strategic perspective. 

Tactically, we have achieved many positive advances through 

these collaborative efforts. One that is engaged right now in our 

second attempt is an all-hazard, multi-jurisdictional, functional exercise with an international flavor working with Canada at the 

Port of Sweetgrass that will take place in September 2008. It is our 

second engagement with our Canadian partners to make sure that 

all of the connections, resources, and things that we need to work 

on are well oiled before anything could occur at the border. 

4 

The Montana National Guard is extensively engaged in efforts to 

improve coordination and build partnerships for positive enhancements. They, too, with almost 10 of their component elements, will 

be involved in the Port of Sweetgrass exercise. 

The Montana National Guard’s 83rd Civil Support Team is supporting preparedness, coordinating with all of our partners since its 

inception, and is extremely active. They have worked with the 

Blackfeet Nation on the suspected white powder incident. They are 

working with our critical infrastructure partners to improve integration efforts, and they also have provided geospatial imagery 

products to the U.S. Border Patrol in the Havre Sector. 

Other efforts that the Montana National Guard is involved in for 

border security include the Montana All-Threats Intelligence Center (MATIC); counter-drug missions; they assist Customs and Border Patrol with qualified intelligence officers; provide threat assessment information; training for the Joint Task Force North for U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol personnel; and also provide analyst 

notebook training as well. 

Third, the Montana All-Threats Intelligence Center (MATIC) was 

formed focusing on mitigation efforts to provide protection. The 

MATIC is a joint effort of the Montana law enforcement community 

and the border agencies. It manages the State’s intelligence system. And with international information-sharing sessions, they 

have engaged in discussing trends and threats as they relate to 

Montana. 

The integration of local and tribal law enforcement with border 

security initiatives is a critical component to protecting the northern sector because there is an understanding of the local issues by 

our local partners. They also predominantly are the first ones to respond if there is a violation at the border as it comes into their 

community. We have engaged through Operation Stonegarden not 

only in Federal fiscal year 2003 with 11 counties participating in 

that to assist our Federal partners in protecting the border but also 

have just engaged in Federal fiscal year 2008 with another 12 

counties, for a total of about $2 million in requests for local jurisdictions to assist our Federal partners in protecting the border. 

The expansiveness—and it is over 562 miles—of the border and 

the porous nature—there are 42 ports of entry with varied levels 

of operation—coupled with the limited resources and the responsibility for protecting those huge geographic areas with limited staffing is a recipe for the need to develop creative solutions in border 

security. The true reality is that border security will never be void 

of gaps in service or protective elements just because of the size 

and the geography. Realistically, though, border security is an initiative whose complexities prevent solely tactical elements from 

providing the ultimate solution. 

Montana has engaged in some strategic elements as well to 

achieve and help in protecting the border. 

The first is Interoperability Montana. It is an exciting grassroots 

strategic initiative to develop the most practical and effective redundant statewide communication system. Its demand is anytime 

from anywhere for any of our responders to talk to each other. The 

ultimate goal is one seamless communication system that serves 

5 

local, tribal, State, Federal, and international needs while being 

most cost-effective for all those involved. 

We also have several mutual aid efforts. The State of Montana 

is a signatory partner to the Emergency Management Assistance 

Compact. We have Intrastate Mutual Aid, and we are dealing with 

two initiatives with our Canadian partners: The Prairie Regional 

Emergency Management Assistance Compact and also the Governor’s Intergovernmental Accord for Canadian Mutual Aid. 

We also work extensively with our tribal partners and Native 

Nations. We have coordinated the Indian Nations Working Group 

with our tribal partners to enhance homeland security and emergency management. And our tribal partners are one of the first, if 

not the only, to promulgate a mutual aid agreement between the 

nations and Montana. 

The State of Montana is truly appreciative of the Department of 

Homeland Security funds it receives and willing to participate with 

the northern border security initiative. But from firsthand experience, that participation is not without its challenges. Because of 

that, those challenges and the opportunities that we have experienced and what we have seen as boots on the ground, we offer the 

following, Senator, for your consideration because it is the effectiveness enhancements that the Federal level will provide to us that 

will allow these to continue. 

After September 11, 2001, we know the landscape for protecting 

our border and our country changed, and the Federal Government 

supplied a lot of funds to enhance our ability. The sustainability of 

our efforts, though, will not be achievable without continued Federal funding at the appropriate level because Montana receives reduced funding each year, but we still have the same priorities as 

all the larger States, like New York. 

No. 2, we implore you to fund a solution for mutual aid along the 

border. Right now, there are disjointed, distracted regional efforts 

between the States and the provincial parts of Canada. It is one 

border. We have currently a Western Regional Compact that has 

been promulgated and has been approved by the Senate. New York 

just did one. And the other compacts work in between and have to 

be approved by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. So 

we say why not just have one compact between the State and Canada that allows States and provinces to effectively share accurate 

and coordinated assistance for mutual aid. 

Operation Stonegarden needs a little bit of improvement. It is a 

local grant. But understand that local sheriffs and jurisdictions are 

tapped. The basic statistics right now: Of the 32 departments in 

Montana, 67 percent of the offices have nine or fewer officers, let 

alone the expertise to prepare long, lengthy grants. That is why the 

State of Montana had to actually procure a contractor to do this 

Federal fiscal year 2008 grant, and there was minimal technical assistance. The real downfall of this grant is the fact that the State 

administrative agency has to administer it with no call for maintenance and administration fees, but we are required to do all of the 

coordination, all of the reporting, gather all the documents. It is almost like one of those unfunded mandates, and I hate to say that 

word, but there is no maintenance and administration for it. 

6 

The Homeland Security grant submission requirements are extremely cumbersome, complex, and time-consuming. The grants 

need to be simplified. They are counterproductive in requiring reports that are unfunded in the grant parameters, reports that 

cause State government with our partners to virtually shut down 

our stakeholders in order to achieve a deliverable that is not part 

of our plan for which we submit money to enhance Montana’s priorities for homeland security. 

The grant implementation parameters are also troubling. There 

are two initiatives right now: The National Incident Management 

System (NIMS) implementation issue and also the State Preparedness Report. For example, on the State Preparedness Report, the 

guidance came out. Not 10 months later, though, did we receive the 

guidance for what the report was supposed to entail. We had to engage Congress—and Senator Tester was very helpful—in getting an 

extension for that. So basically Montana ended up with 4 months 

to do an 11-month project—— 

Senator TESTER. Mr. McGowan, I am going to ask you to wrap 

it up. 

Mr. MCGOWAN. Sure. I will wrap it up. That was continued by 

NIMS. Again, we were faced with short timelines. The guidance 

came out, and not only in April did we get the final guidance, but 

we finally got the tool just last week, and we still have a September 2008 deadline, and that affects all our jurisdictions. 

So the NIMS requirement and those parameters need to be 

looked at in the grants because they give such short timelines. 

The other issue is with our Native nation partners. The State 

will continue its efforts to advance tribal government-to-government relations, and with regard to implementation requirements, 

we find ourselves being the ombudsman for the Federal Government, and the nations are asking for the true nation-to-nation 

agreement that they expect with the Federal Government. Anecdotal evidence shows that the nations are frustrated with not having one voice from the Federal Government for all the similar 

issues they deal with that come from different agencies. 

We understand the complexity of this task. In Interoperability 

Montana, we asked for more participation there from our Federal 

land partners. To date, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 

the only partner that is engaged with us. And the MATIC requests 

that DHS play an active role in the fusion center to improve collaborative intelligence. 

To wrap up, in summary, the cornerstone for success of northern 

border security efforts relies on true collaboration between and 

among agencies. Parochial interests must not be detractors to such 

significant coordination initiatives. Collaborative efforts and partnership development must not be restricted by inflexible grant parameters or directives that are not reflective of the needs. 

The State’s challenge is to actively engage leveraging every available resource and inform our national leaders of those inherent 

roadblocks, and to that effect, we hope that we have done that effectively to give you an idea of what it is like from the State’s perspective State, local, tribal, and private partnerships. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be included in this 

testimonial regarding northern border security. The State of MonVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:22 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 044121 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44121.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. DesRosier with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 48. 

tana welcomes the opportunity to coordinate with our Federal partners to improve program effectiveness, formalize sustainability, 

and enhance partnership through true grass-roots collaborative efforts. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Thanks, Mr. McGowan. Your entire statement 

will be put in the record. 

Mr. DesRosier, you are up. Hit the highlights. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT DESROSIER,1 DIRECTOR, DISASTER 

AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, BLACKFEET NATION 

Mr. DESROSIER. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Robert 

DesRosier. I am employed by the Blackfeet Nation. I currently 

serve as Director for Blackfeet Homeland Security and Disaster 

and Emergency Services. I am very pleased to be here. 

The 1.5-million-acre Blackfeet Reservation is located in northwestern Montana, about 150 miles west of Havre. The international boundary cuts through our reservation for a distance of 

approximately 65 miles, which is about one-tenth of the State of 

Montana’s border. Many times throughout and along our norther 

border, there have been crossings of a person or persons illegally 

entering into the United States through Blackfeet Nation lands. 

Most recently, vehicle tracks were spotted in an area just west of 

Del Bonita port of entry, where three vehicles approached the border from the north and pulled the fence post out of the fence, laid 

the wire down, and continued south onto the reservation. Further 

investigation revealed that the three vehicles were SUVs or fullsize pick-up trucks traveling together. 

In the Chief Mountain area, foot and vehicle traffic has increased 

this past year, as revealed by the evidence left behind in the form 

of tracks. Off-road vehicles have crossed the border repeatedly in 

the Lee Creek drainage north of Chief Mountain. There are many 

places along the northern border on the Blackfeet Reservation 

where illegal border crossings have taken place. In fact, if you go 

to your local map store and purchase a topographic map of the 

Blackfeet Reservation, you will find there are nine crossings identified as border crossings; five of those illegal crossings have shown 

recent signs of activity. It is foolish for us to think that our northern border is secure today. We have much to do. 

The affected local Indian Nations have the most interest and 

knowledge to control the areas of concern as relating to crime and 

border-related issues. Ideas from Washington, DC, usually do not 

fit the local objectives. Our input, the Native community, is of the 

utmost importance when dealing with topics that have an impact 

on tribal lands and the entire United States. We must work to fund 

and train local tribal law enforcement for methods of deterrent and 

investigative procedures to deter crime—most importantly, border 

crime. The local Native American law enforcement officer has the 

integrity, courage, and scout and warrior skills necessary for the 

protection of his and her homeland and people. 

The ancestral values, field crafts, tracking, sign cutting, survival 

skills, and mental conditioning provide good qualities for good field 

8 

detectives. The Native American can travel across wild country 

using many methods and possesses the natural skills to survive 

and handle whatever comes their way. 

Indian Nations, most importantly, must stand up and participate 

in this fight in our Nation’s war against terrorism. The Blackfeet 

are known as true Americans eager to stand against our enemies. 

Local tribal members have an outstanding record of producing 

qualified professionals who, without a doubt, would lay down their 

lives for the defense of this great Nation. Currently, there are over 

120 men and women from our local Indian community actively participating with the armed forces in the war against terrorism. 

The Blackfeet Tribal Homeland Security Program consists of two 

officers: Keith Lame Bear and myself. We work in the area of law 

enforcement with our primary focus on homeland security and border issues. However, our program is unfunded. Salaries come from 

other unrelated sources within tribal government. Our participation along the border is in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Army Air National Guard for aircraft support and 

surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Flights are usually three 

times a month lasting about 2 hours. Our ground patrols have been 

scaled back to four times a month. Contact with the border on the 

average is six to eight times per month. 

Observation points have been identified at various locations for 

ground surveillance in some areas, and local intelligence reveals 

that there is a local tribal member offering guide services for illegal 

crossers for an individual fee of $1,500. 

Our program also includes patrols of the area’s local infrastructure, such as the three large dams on the headwaters on the Blackfeet Reservation. Patrol vehicles and necessary equipment are in 

the form of donations and transferred surplus from the BIA or the 

General Services Administration (GSA). Adequate two-way radio 

and cell phone equipment is nonexistent. 

Never before in the history of this great Nation has the topic of 

homeland security become most important for us and for our future 

generation’s survival as a free and democratic society for all to 

enjoy. Threats to the United States come from all directions, as 

well as from within. Terrorists, both foreign and domestic, continually desire to destroy the fabric that this country was founded on 

and the freedoms that we as Americans stand for and symbolize. 

The Blackfeet Nation remains firm as a sovereign Nation and as 

front-line security forces committed to the participation in the defense of the United States here in our homeland. We must continue 

to wage the international war on terrorism and work hard to deter 

all homeland threats. Complacency must not be allowed to become 

our enemy. 

We are in need of adequate funding for our proposed nine-person 

security forces. The Blackfeet Homeland Security Forces will become a recognizable, professional, and competent police force that 

will address the many complex, potential attacks to our citizens. 

Thank you. It has been my pleasure for this opportunity to offer 

this testimony here before you on this great day in the history of 

the United States and the Blackfeet Nation. 

Senator TESTER. Thanks, Mr. DesRosier. Ms. Matoon. 

9 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Matoon appears in the Appendix on page 52. 

TESTIMONY OF DONNA MATOON,1 SHERIFF, TOOLE COUNTY, 

MONTANA 

Ms. MATOON. Good morning. I would like to thank the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for the opportunity to speak at this hearing. 

Toole County is located in central Montana with approximately 

50 miles of Canadian border front. This encompasses the Port of 

Sweetgrass, which is located on Interstate 15, a major transportation departure and entrance route between the U.S. and Canada. 

Due to our unique geographic location, Toole County has a tremendous transit population. 

Because of this, our agency has had a longstanding relationship 

with the U.S. Border Patrol, Customs, and Immigration Service, 

who have been recently combined into the Department of Homeland Security. 

When I began in law enforcement over 25 years ago, the U.S. 

Border Patrol had only seven agents stationed in our county. Many 

of these old-time Border Patrol agents came to be close friends, 

many of which I still have contact with today. We would stop into 

each other’s office on a daily basis. We communicated while on patrol. We watched each other’s backs like we were a part of the 

same agency. Oftentimes, the only assistance in the area that could 

arrive to help you in a timely manner were these Federal officers. 

The Port of Sweetgrass was a small operation with fewer than 

20 employees. Many of these people were lifetime Toole County 

residents, and local law enforcement had close personal relationships with many of them. 

Since September 11, 2001, and the Federal Government’s mandate to secure the homeland, we have seen unprecedented growth 

in the Department of Homeland Security in Toole County. Dozens 

of new Border Patrol agents have moved into the area, and the new 

U.S./Canadian combined port facility has been constructed at the 

Port of Sweetgrass. The number of Federal employees protecting 

our border in Toole County has increased ten-fold. Tremendous 

amounts of new technology and capabilities such as gamma ray xray machines, ground sensors, and air patrols have come to our 

area. 

Recently, members of the Border Patrol assisted members of our 

local emergency services and deputies in rescuing a hiker who was 

having a medical emergency in a remote and rugged area along the 

border. In large part, due to the actions of these Federal employees, 

this hiker was saved and was transported by helicopter to a medical facility. On any given week, deputies from our agency assist 

Federal authorities in apprehending port runners, border jumpers, 

and locating undocumented foreign nationals. We have participated 

in the Border Patrol’s ‘‘Operation Stonegarden’’ where local law enforcement is used as a force multiplier for Federal authorities along 

the border. 

With all this said, the changes that have occurred are not without some negative consequences. The introduction of so many new 

Federal employees in our area has forever changed the small-town 

closeness and camaraderie between the Federal agencies and local 

10 

law enforcement. The daily meetings and informal information 

sharing that comes with close personal relationships have been replaced by quarterly intelligence meetings and Senate committees. 

As new Federal employees are constantly rotating in and out of our 

area, it is sometimes difficult to even put a face to the name you 

are dealing with. 

Communications have become a problematic issue where Federal 

authorities now operate on secure digital radio frequencies and carto-car or officer-to-officer communications are not possible. Any 

communication between agents in the field and local law enforcement requires a telephone call relay to sector headquarters in 

Havre from our dispatch center in Shelby. This is slow, inaccurate, 

and unwieldy. 

In years past, when a sheriff’s deputy overheard a Border Patrol 

officer check out with a suspicious person in the area, the deputy 

would make a point to head in that direction to provide back-up 

and assistance as needed. Border Patrol officers did the same for 

our deputies. Due to the communication issues, that level of assistance is no longer possible. 

Because of difficulties in filling Federal positions in this rural 

and isolated area, our agency finds itself in direct competition with 

the Federal Government when the time comes to recruit qualified 

staff from the local job pool. Recently, at a combined charity fund 

raiser with Federal officers, I found myself in the unique position 

of handing out T-shirts with large advertisements on the back that 

were recruiting for Border Patrol officers in our area—this while 

my own agency was operating at 75 percent of my patrol capacity. 

Please make no mistake, I am not begrudging anyone obtaining 

Federal employment with wage and benefit packages that local 

governments have no hope of matching, but I do want this Committee to be aware of the impact on our agency. Staffing shortfalls 

in our agency have a direct effect on our community at large. While 

the Federal officers are protecting the border, our deputies are protecting their children and families throughout the county. 

As time goes on, it is my hope that new personal relationships 

can be forged, communications will improve, and recruitment will 

not be as competitive in our area. For the last 25 years, I have 

worked with the exceptional men and women of the various Federal law enforcement agencies in our area. We are glad to have 

these good people and their families move into our area, enriching 

our communities and protecting this Nation. I look forward to 

many years of cooperation and interaction with our Federal partners. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Ms. Matoon. 

Now, Ms. Neinast and Ms. James, you two have a joint statement. Whichever one wants to go first, go ahead. Go ahead, Ms. 

James. 

11 

1The joint prepared statement of Ms. James and Ms. Neinast appears in the Appendix on 

page 54. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHELE JAMES,1 DIRECTOR, SEATTLE FIELD 

OPERATIONS, AND BRENNA NEINAST, CHIEF, BORDER PATROL SECTOR HAVRE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. JAMES. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Tester. My name 

is Michele James. I am the Director of Field Operations in Seattle, 

Washington. I have oversight over the activities in the ports of 

entry in the States of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, 

and Minnesota. It is an honor to have this opportunity to testify 

before you today, and I am going to focus on CBP’s role on securing 

our borders while efficiently continuing to facilitate the flow of 

trade and travel. 

The Great Falls service area covers 600 miles of border. Within 

that area, there are 17 land border ports of entry in Idaho and 

Montana. There are currently 230 CBP officers and 13 agriculture 

specialists assigned within this area. 

In fiscal year 2007, CBP’s front line inspected over 719,000 private vehicles and 1.6 million vehicle passengers. More than 

274,000 commercial trucks and over 1,700 private aircraft made 

entry into the United States during that time frame. There were 

three large-scale narcotics seizures that occurred within the cargo 

environment using sophisticated smuggling methods and compartments. In fiscal year 2007 alone, we seized 1,187 pounds of marijuana within this area. 

Another example of the enforcement efforts that our officers provide on our borders on a daily basis is depicted by an arrest of 

Rajit Singh. Singh applied for entry at the Port of Sweetgrass, 

Montana, and was found to have templates that had been used to 

make hundreds of fraudulent British resident alien and student 

registration cards. He was arrested and ultimately found guilty of 

visa fraud, aggravated identity theft, and identification fraud/document production. He was sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment 

and 3 years’ supervised release. Full implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) would greatly reduce the 

opportunities, as Mr. Singh attempted to afford, for fraud and misrepresentation of one’s true identity. 

CBP has long recognized the need to improve our facilities and 

our infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively meet our mission’s requirements. The Port of Sweetgrass was rebuilt in 2003 as 

a joint U.S.-Canadian port to include a full-size garage for non-intrusive scanning of commercial trucks. Since 2004, new port construction has been completed in Willow Creek, Opheim, and Raymond. Secondary inspection garages have been funded for Morgan, 

Wild Horse, Del Bonita, and Willow Creek. All locations have personal radiation detectors, and radiation isotope identification devices have been deployed to the majority of our ports. Radiation 

portal monitor surveys have been completed also for the majority 

of our ports, and our locations are monitored 24/7 for our Customs 

Area Security Center, which is located in Sweetgrass, Montana. 

12 

Finally, I would like to touch on our collaborative efforts between 

Border Patrol and other law enforcement entities within the State 

of Montana and also our counterparts across the border. 

CBP works directly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), and the U.S. Attorney’s Office to train new CBP enforcement 

officers in all aspects of case development and prosecution protocols. Since April 2007, we have successfully prosecuted 16 criminal 

cases in Federal court, and this has been a huge success in the 

State of Montana. 

This fiscal year, Field Operations has dramatically increases our 

involvement in the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET). 

Field Operations chairs the Rocky Mount IBET Joint Management 

Team, and we have placed a CBP officer full-time on permanent 

staff in Sweetgrass to work the numerous cross-border narcotics 

smuggling and high-risk admissibility cases. 

Another great success is having the FBI collocated within 

Sweetgrass, Montana, as a northern border liaison. 

Most recently, CBP Field Operations, Border Patrol, and the 

Park Rangers conducted an operation at Goat Haunt. The operation focused on reporting compliance and any illicit activities 

within that area. 

These are just a few examples of the collaborative efforts with 

our partners out there. 

So, in closing, I want to emphasize that CBP will continue to protect America from allowing those who attempt to come in and do 

us harm. In doing so, we fully recognize that we need to continue 

to integrate the correct mix of staffing, greater investment in detection and technology infrastructure, and enhanced coordination 

amongst our partners here. 

I thank you for this opportunity to present today. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Ms. James. Ms. Neinast. 

Ms. NEINAST. Well, very quickly, everybody, I think, knows who 

I am, so we will cut through that. 

I am happy to be here today and have this opportunity and to 

carry on with what Ms. James had to say. 

I assumed command of the Havre Sector in November 2005. The 

Havre Sector is one of eight northern border sectors and is responsible for the majority of the State of Montana. There are 456 miles 

from the North Dakota line to the Continental Divide. I look forward to speaking today about our operational efforts along the 

northern border, our partnerships with State and local governments and our methods of securing the Nation’s borders. 

The U.S. Border Patrol is the sole entity responsible for securing 

our borders between the official ports of entry, and we base our operations on the Border Patrol National Strategy. This strategy calls 

for the proper mix of personnel, infrastructure, and technology, and 

we use a combination of efforts in achieving our goals. 

We depend on a ‘‘defense in depth’’ posture utilizing agents in 

the field, transportation checks, and coordinated enforcement operations as well as partnerships with other Federal and State law enforcement agencies. An example of this is our sector’s joint operations with the Office of Field Operations and the National Park 

Service in which we focus on utilizing the strengths of each agency 

13 

to further our capabilities in securing the rugged and difficult 

areas of the border. 

We have long maintained partnerships with a variety of other 

agencies with the goal of increasing effectiveness for all. For example, we frequently assist State and local agencies by responding to 

emergencies on their behalf in remote areas where we have a presence and can respond more quickly, as Ms. Matoon spoke to. 

We work closely with our Canadian counterparts through the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams to benefit both countries. We 

utilize our relationship to improve intelligence gathering, preparedness, and response capabilities along the border. 

The Border Patrol’s objective is nothing less than gaining and 

maintaining operational control of the border. We recognize the 

challenges of doing so as we have dealt with them for over 80 

years. There has been an added focus on our operations in the past 

few years, and we certainly appreciate the support that this Committee has shown to Border Patrol. 

Securing our Nation’s diverse border terrain is an important and 

complex task that cannot be resolved by a single solution alone. To 

secure each unique mile of the border requires a balance of personnel technology and tactical infrastructure that is tailored to 

each specific environment. What works in northern Montana is not 

necessarily the same solution that will work in southern Arizona. 

We recognize that as an organization and work towards that. 

The northern border has unique challenges, one being manpower. 

We have increased our agent staffing along the northern border to 

nearly 1,200 agents—a vast improvement from 2001 when we had 

only 340 agents along the entire northern border. My sector alone 

has seen an influx of agents, greatly adding to my ability to address our security concerns. 

Challenges continue to lie ahead, and the need for comprehensive 

enforcement approaches remain. We face these challenges every 

day with vigilance, dedication to service, and integrity as we work 

to strengthen national security and protect America and its citizens. Our national strategy gives us the means by which to achieve 

our ambitious goal, and with this Committee’s continued support, 

I am confident that we shall succeed. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today and for your support of the U.S. Border Patrol. I 

would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have 

at this time. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you. Thank you to all of the panelists for your testimony. Thank you for being brief. I think I will 

just start with Mr. McGowan, and we will go down the line. 

I want to talk a little bit about the Operation Stonegarden. You 

talked about local grants in your testimony. I think it was about 

$2 million that were in local grants. Is that in conjunction with the 

Operation Stonegarden? 

Mr. MCGOWAN. That is the current Federal fiscal year 2008 submission for all of the northern border jurisdictions that partnered 

together and put in an application. 

Senator TESTER. And then you are basically responsible for the 

State in regards to natural disasters or manmade, either way. 

What is your interaction with folks like Ms. Matoon and Mr. 

14 

DesRosier? What is the communication like with those folks? Is 

there information sharing and to what extent? 

Mr. MCGOWAN. Basically, the communication with Ms. Matoon 

and Mr. DesRosier—we work with their respective emergency managers; we work with all 56 counties and seven nations. With some 

of the Federal partners on the border issues, we would work 

through the county coordinators because that is the local effort that 

involves that partnership there. We also work through the MATIC 

and other State efforts, though, with our Federal partners. 

Senator TESTER. I do not see it here in my notes, but it seems 

to me you talked about interoperability with being able to talk to 

folks. 

Mr. MCGOWAN. Right. 

Senator TESTER. And it was talked about down the line. Ms. 

Matoon talked about it a little bit, too. How are we in that regard? 

Is it difficult if there is a problem to talk via radio to other entities? Because you are dealing with them all. 

Mr. MCGOWAN. I would answer that question by saying that the 

State of Montana has, if not the only, one of the most proactive 

interoperability projects in the country. We use push-to-talk from 

anywhere in the State anytime to anyone, and it is an evolving 

process. They have a whole northern tier sector, and they work 

with all of those partners across the border and the Federal agencies to try and engage in that, and that is an emerging process. I 

think the estimate was around $125 to $150 million to complete 

that whole project. It is 146 radio towers because it is all line of 

sight, and so it keeps emerging and evolving, and they hope to 

light it up soon on the northern tier. 

Senator TESTER. We are going to go back to those grants you 

talked about were a bit cumbersome and daunting to fill that out. 

Did you help the counties fill those grants out? I know the Border 

Patrol did some work on that. Did you? 

Mr. MCGOWAN. What we did was the State hired a contractor to 

work with those local communities to pull those grants together, 

yes. 

Senator TESTER. Can you give me an idea what that cost? 

Mr. MCGOWAN. I do not know what the actual cost of the contract was because it was done through the Department of Administration. We, as a State administrative agency, took all that information to do the submission and everything through the portal 

that needs to be done, and then we will make sure that all the reports are done as well. 

Senator TESTER. Right. But this was an additional person that 

would not have been hired otherwise. 

Mr. MCGOWAN. Right. 

Senator TESTER. How long did they work for? 

Mr. MCGOWAN. That was approximately—that took about 21⁄2

months, I believe, to pull all that together, because it was a pretty 

short turn-around time. 

Senator TESTER. Thanks, Mr. McGowan. Mr. DesRosier, you 

talked about five recent signs of border-crossing activity in your 

neck of the woods and three SUV-like vehicles or RVs that had 

crossed the border, which is more often than we would like for 

sure. Can you tell me what happened to those folks? Did you just 

15 

find the signs and that was it? Or was Border Patrol and local government brought in? How is that handled when you see signs like 

that? 

Mr. DESROSIER. The particular case of the three vehicles, the 

pick-ups or SUVs, whatever they were, we were unable to locate 

them. They disappeared on a county road just west of the port of 

Del Bonita, and we were unable to track them to see what direction 

they went. 

Border Patrol has been very good with us, especially Mr. Jeffries. 

He has been appointed our Indian liaison person, and I communicate with him on a regular basis. We definitely share our intel 

and report the evidence and the tracks that we see. 

For example, in the Lee Creek drainage, last July and August we 

had really high activity of crossers on a particular ridge line. We 

work together and share that information and let each other know. 

And I believe Border Patrol has put patrols in that area. 

Senator TESTER. And then does your group share in training exercises with the Border Patrol? 

Mr. DESROSIER. We have one time in the past. We had an operation where we shared a training exercise, a night operation, and 

we were successful. We had an incident during that operation 

where we had weapons fired, and it turned out to be non-borderrelated, but the pursuit was in the direction of the border, and we 

were able to make an arrest in that situation with the Army helicopter using infrared night vision. 

Senator TESTER. Can you tell me when that joint training took 

place? I do not need to know the exact date, but was it in the 

spring of 2005 or—— 

Mr. DESROSIER. That was in October 2004, I believe. 

Senator TESTER. October 2004. You talked about information 

with the liaison. You have the Border Patrol information shared. 

Is that information also shared with any other entity like tribal police? Or is it not necessary? Just to get your perspective. 

Mr. DESROSIER. It depends on the situation. We do have a Federal police force on Blackfeet, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the 

chief of police is very proactive and encouraging with the activities 

that we share along the border. He will participate in our operations, yes. 

Senator TESTER. There is a program in Arizona directed really at 

drug smuggling whereby one of the tribes down there—it is called 

the Shadow Wolves Program. You may be familiar with it. Have 

you looked at anything like that on your border from a drug smuggling standpoint specifically? 

Mr. DESROSIER. Absolutely, yes. 

Senator TESTER. And have you progressed with that at all? 

Whose ear have you been bending? 

Mr. DESROSIER. I have been in contact with the resident agent 

in charge (RAC) out of Phoenix, I believe, and we hosted a 2-week 

session with those officers that came up to Blackfeet country last 

summer. We are in the process of communicating right now to try 

to have another session on the Blackfeet border. We would like to 

do a broad overview to get a real good inventory on what the issues 

are. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

16 

Mr. DESROSIER. And so hopefully they will be back. 

Senator TESTER. If you were to pick out one thing that could be 

done to improve border security, what would it be? I am just talking basically about the Blackfeet because you are in a unique situation. There is not a lot of Native American reservations that border 

the Canadian border along the northern tier, at least. There may 

be some in the south I am not aware of. But along the north, you 

are kind of a unique animal. Is there one or two things that you 

think could be done that would help that security? 

Mr. DESROSIER. We would like to begin a sister agency of the 

Shadow Wolves and bring a unit to Blackfeet country. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much, Mr. DesRosier. I appreciate you being here also. 

Ms. Matoon, we will start out with staffing because I know that 

is a big issue. Getting good help is hard to find, it seems like these 

days. Could you tell me what the impacts have been—you said your 

staffing is 75 percent. Have you ever been at 100 percent? You 

know what I mean, because a lot of times these county governments have a hard time finding folks. 

Ms. MATOON. Right, and just like every place else, we have always experienced that problem. Right now, though, it seems to be 

more of an issue—I do have employees that are coming to me saying, ‘‘Border Patrol is opening now,’’ or ‘‘Customs and Border Protection, they have got several openings, and I am seriously considering this,’’ because with our health care costs, our insurance 

through our county is taking half of their paychecks. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MATOON. And they just cannot—they are not living, and they 

are having an issue with being able to survive. They like what they 

are doing, and I believe that they do like what they are doing. But 

they are just not making it. 

Senator TESTER. I hear you, and we have to figure out some way 

to address that problem because, quite honestly, I have been pushing the Federal entities to hire more folks from Montana because 

I think their job—people on the job would stay here a lot longer 

if they know. But by the same token, I do not want to rob Peter 

to pay Paul. Do you know what I mean? 

Ms. MATOON. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. The issue of the way things used to be with 

more camaraderie, I guess you visit with folks more regularly on 

an informal basis and build the kind of trust that was there. Do 

you anticipate this is something that is probably going to be in for 

the long term? Is it because of the new people, or is it because policies have been enacted that you see from your perspective that say 

we need to keep everything as separate as possible? I am just trying to get your perspective on that. 

Ms. MATOON. I kind of think that what has happened is in the 

last few years this has happened quickly, and there has been an 

influx of people that they have brought up from the southern border, and we are from different areas. We have all been raised—the 

people from Toole County that have been there their whole life 

have no idea what it is like to live in California, and their attitudes 

about people and things around them are different. But I know 

that a lot of the people who were moved up here have now returned 

17 

to the southern border because of their families—they just could 

not take it. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. MATOON. I am hoping that we can get some people up to our 

area that are willing to stay, become part of our community—and 

that we can work together. 

Senator TESTER. Can you give me any kind of idea how many instances you respond to in a month dealing with border issues? Is 

that a fair question? 

Ms. MATOON. It varies. It seasonally varies. It depends on what 

Border Patrol’s staffing is at the time, if they have somebody who 

runs the port, if they have somebody who is available. We assist 

both from the port of entry, and we also assist Border Patrol. 

Senator TESTER. So if there is a situation, are you asked to assist? 

Ms. MATOON. I do not believe that we are as much as we used 

to be. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. MATOON. I do not think that the communication is open as 

it used to be because of those issues. It is not like them calling me 

up at home as it used to be. And I understand things change, and 

it is an adjustment. 

Senator TESTER. How about potential threats—I mean 

Sweetgrass is probably the busiest port in Montana, would be my 

guess. Are you made aware of potential threats not coming to fruition, but the threat is there, so that you guys can act accordingly? 

Ms. MATOON. No, I guess I do not know that. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. MATOON. I cannot answer that question whether they are 

telling it to me or not. I guess I would not know that. If it is an 

issue of something that is classified—now, this is my interpretation—probably I will not be made aware of it. If it is unclassified 

but law enforcement sensitive, then they will make contact with us. 

Senator TESTER. That is good question for these next two, classified versus unclassified, what constitutes that? I will ask you that 

in a minute. I want to stay with Ms. Matoon for a second. 

Not to pit you against Mr. McGowan or anybody else on the 

panel, but you are aware of the Stonegarden grants. I assume that 

your county was part of that—because all of the counties along the 

border were. How much time did it take you guys to apply for those 

grants? Was it pretty time-consuming? And do you think that process could be streamlined? 

Ms. MATOON. Comparably, I think it was a very easy grant. We 

have a grant writer in our county to assist us, and I also have two 

employees in my office that are very good at writing grants. So I 

do not know if that is fair to say, but we were able to write our 

own. We did submit ours to the State for review, and so they were 

all submitted as one package. We all submitted together. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. MATOON. But, comparably, I do think that this particular 

one was fairly simple. 

Senator TESTER. Since September 11, 2001, have you seen more 

pressure being put on your police—not from staffing, necessarily, 

because I get that. But have you seen more pressure from a police 

18 

protection standpoint being put on your local county folks than 

there was before September 11, 2001, or less, or is it about the 

same? 

Ms. MATOON. I think it is about the same. 

Senator TESTER. All right. Well, once again, I want to thank you 

for being here. 

Ms. James or Ms. Neinast, either one, what makes information 

classified versus unclassified? Can you give me any sort of idea on 

that? And is there a delineation mark as far as what information 

you can transfer to tribal governments, county governments, Highway Patrol, or whatever? 

Ms. JAMES. Well, certainly as far as what is classified or not, 

there is certain information that will come to the field office and 

to the port that will be classified secret or top secret. Most of what 

we would get would just be classified secret. We do not classify that 

ourselves. It comes down to us in that manner. 

We could share with the State and locals and, of course, with 

Border Patrol if they have the clearance to receive that information 

at the secret level or above. There are methodologies of sharing 

that information, if it is classified, at a lower level so that we can 

get the basic information, the basic threat to the State and locals. 

Senator TESTER. Do you work proactively on making that happen 

when you can? 

Ms. JAMES. Absolutely. 

Senator TESTER. Do you see any advantage for making sure that 

we have at least one person in every county to be at a classified 

secret level? Do you think that would be a good idea? Or would it 

be not necessary? 

Ms. JAMES. I think that it is always a benefit so that if information does come through, we have a person to readily give it to. The 

frequency of getting that type of information is not at as great of 

a level in every location. But it would always be a benefit. 

Senator TESTER. Ms. James, I have learned a lot over the last 3 

days, starting in Plentywood and heading this direction, as I told 

you out in the anteroom. It has been quite enlightening for me. 

How often do you get to Montana? 

Ms. JAMES. I became the Director of Field Operations in November 2007, so I am relatively new to this position. I came from the 

Atlanta area. Within the first few months of me being onboard, I 

tried to get out to my area of responsibility, which, as you saw, 

from Washington all the way over to Minnesota is a pretty large 

area. So I hit the Montana area in the winter time frame and started in—actually flew into Spokane, did Idaho, and then locations all 

the way over to Sweetgrass. I found it very beneficial myself to actually see it, especially during those winter months, to see the conditions that our officers live in and the environment that they have 

to work in. 

Senator TESTER. And when you get to the State, I assume you 

hit as many border crossings as you can and visit with the folks 

that you have directly within your agency. Now, I know CBP combined some years ago. But do you make it a point to talk with the 

Border Patrol? Do you visit with the Border Patrol folks, too? Is it 

a part of your—— 

Ms. JAMES. Daily routine? 

19 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. JAMES. It may not be my daily routine, but it certainly is 

very important for me to do. Ms. Neinast and I, when I did visit 

Montana, met with the chief and exchanged some of the issues that 

we do have, even attended some national training together. I actually have four sector chiefs that I deal with within my area of responsibility. So it is important for me to know who they are and 

be able to exchange concerns and issues. 

Senator TESTER. This may be unfair because I did not warn you 

ahead of time, but that is OK. Let’s just take from Glacier Park 

to the North Dakota line. Can you give me an idea what kind of 

staffing needs that you see—I am just talking about your ports— 

what kind of staffing needs you think we need to have as far as 

numbers and what kind of infrastructure needs are out there? 

Ms. JAMES. Well, let’s start with staffing. We have enough staff 

certainly to open the doors and do what we need to do. We could 

always use additional officers out there. I would never turn down 

another officer position. And I will readily admit, with our limited 

resources, we try to leverage our personnel the best we can. The 

exact numbers that I would like to see out there, I would really 

have to sit down and put pen to paper, and I would never say I 

do not need personnel out there. 

Senator TESTER. I would like it if at some point in time you could 

get that information to me; that would be great. 

Ms. JAMES. OK. 

Senator TESTER. How about from an infrastructure standpoint? 

Ms. JAMES. From an infrastructure standpoint, we certainly have 

a lot of those locations that are out there that could use some upgrades. You went to Scobey. It could necessarily use a full new facility there. We also have a lot of issues with our housing. Because 

some of our locations are so remote, we do have government housing for the employees. It is particularly of interest to me because 

some of those locations have issues with the roofs leaking, flooding, 

mold, and these are remote locations. And I do appreciate the hard 

work that the officers do. Some of them will commute a long ways. 

Some just cannot, so we have that government housing in place, 

and it is important for us to keep on that. 

Senator TESTER. From a technological standpoint, you talked 

about portal monitors and radiation checkers. Are things in the 

pipeline to get everything taken care of from a technological standpoint from your perspective? Or does there need to be more work 

done there? 

Ms. JAMES. There is a good amount in the pipeline. As I said, we 

are about finished with the radiation portal monitor surveys, so 

there are plans in the works to put those at the ports of entry. We 

could utilize some more radiation isotope identification devices. 

That is some of the smaller stuff. And we have some surveys that 

are slated specifically for Sweetgrass, Montana, for radio-frequency 

identification (RFID) when we become fully compliant with the 

WHTI program. 

Senator TESTER. As we started out in the northeast corner and 

we wandered here to Havre, of course, we ran across ports like 

Morgan, Turner, and Wild Horse is north of here. There are 75 to 

100 people here, I would guess—some Canadians, some folks from 

20 

the United States, welcome, you folks from Canada. I would guess 

that there is probably a high percentage of folks here that want to 

know about Wild Horse. 

There has been a push—Representative Musgrove put a resolution through the Montana legislature a year or so ago on that port. 

And like I said, when I went through Turner, they pushed me. 

When I went through Malta, they were pushing me for those ports, 

too. 

Can you tell me what—and I know you could probably talk all 

day on this, but what are some of the obstacles of opening a port 

like Wild Horse for 24 hours? And how can we overcome those obstacles? 

Ms. JAMES. I fully recognize this is a very—— 

Senator TESTER. Everybody had to check their weapons at the 

door, by the way, so you—— 

Ms. JAMES. Thanks. I do appreciate that. [Laughter.] 

I recognize this is a very passionate issue with everyone, so I do 

not take this lightly. And let me preface this by saying that CBP 

is not averse to increasing hours of operation or making it a port 

of entry. We have these requests, probably on a daily basis, but we 

have to look at our limited resources that we do have. We look at 

the workload. We look at the projected workload and what the interest for that increase is within that community, within the trade. 

I recently came from a field office where we had a request to 

make a user fee airport into a port of entry. It does not happen 

every day, but we supported it because the data was there. We had 

interest from not only the trade and the community, but we had 

the commitment from the trade saying, yes, we will be utilizing 

this port. 

So I recognize that there is the interest from the community, but 

at this point, in looking through the numbers that we have, the 

data that is on paper as to the number of vehicles that go through 

that port, the number of truck traffic that we have go through that 

port, and recognizing it is a permit port only at this time, the data 

does not support making it a 24-hour commercial port. 

Some of the obstacles: To make it a 24-hour commercial port, we 

would have to revamp the entire facility. It does not have the proper exam functions within that facility. The road infrastructure— 

and, of course, that is beyond our control—would have to be improved, and staffing would have to increase also. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. You talked about a 24-hour commercial 

port. What if we cut it down a little bit? What if it was a port that 

was open 16 or 18 hours a day that was still a permit for trucks, 

what about that? What would that take? 

Ms. JAMES. Again, we go back and we look at the data. What is 

the crossing data and what are the other locations that are nearby? 

Are those other locations overtaxed with traffic going through those 

ports, like Sweetgrass? I know this argument has been out there 

also. And are there huge back-ups in Sweetgrass from the commercial standpoint? Would there truly be a big increase if we would 

open it a full 16 hours? 

Senator TESTER. Right. There are a lot of things that will impact 

that, though. And I know I am supposed to ask the questions, but 

the truth is that any of these ports you are talking about, if there 

21 

is a commitment to redo the roads, if the U.S. dollar happens to 

drop in strength and the Canadian dollar happens to go up, or vice 

versa, that can have some major impacts on that. 

So I guess just to cut to the chase, if Senator Max Baucus and 

I were able to get some push for it back in Washington, DC, you 

would be not antagonistic toward it, is what I am saying. You 

would be, we are going to do this, we are going to make this work. 

That is what I am looking for. 

Ms. JAMES. The other thing that I would be looking for is commitment from the trade. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. JAMES. You have a study that is out there, but I think that 

it could be—you could bolster your study with a firm commitment 

from the trade saying, yes, this is the port we are going to utilize. 

That part is a little bit lacking. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. And we are running out of time. I 

could actually spent another hour talking with you and Ms. 

Neinast. 

Ms. JAMES. I am sure you could. 

Senator TESTER. In a good way. And, by the way, I should preface this. Each one of you folks have different responsibilities in 

your duty, and I will tell you that I appreciate each and every one 

of you, what you do and the challenges you face on a daily basis. 

Ms. Neinast, I have a few questions for you. You said that you 

were not at 340 agents. The entire northern border was at 340 

agents—— 

Ms. NEINAST. The entire northern border was at 340 agents. 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. In 2001, and now it is about 1,200 

agents. You are at about 125 agents here in your region from basically the Rocky Mountain front to the North Dakota border? What 

do you anticipate those numbers being, say, 5 years from now? 

Ms. NEINAST. Everything that we do is based on operational requirements, what the threats are, what the vulnerabilities are, 

what the traffic is. We do that nationwide. 

We have a budget plan that we have in place that is multi-year 

that addresses all of those issues. In that, we are looking at 5 years 

out, around 300 for the Havre Sector portion of Montana. 

Senator TESTER. Are those numbers based on—well, maybe I 

should just back up a little bit. Ms. James talked about the criminal cases that they are dealing with on their ports, mainly. What 

kind of impacts has Border Patrol seen? In other words, how many 

cases have you guys brought up, say, in the last year? 

Ms. NEINAST. I could probably look through and find that number for you. Our staffing is not based on cases or numbers or statistics, so you need to understand that. Our mission is operational 

control of the border. Do we know if something is crossing and can 

we respond? We are more of a preparatory than—we do not staff 

based on whether we had 5 crossings here or 20 crossings here or 

200 crossings here. Granted, that is part of it when you looked at 

vulnerabilities and threats, but we look at can we effectively respond to the areas of the border that we need to respond to. 

Senator TESTER. It does not need to be today, but if you could 

get me those crossing threats, that would be great. 

22 

From a technological standpoint, what do you see as the needs 

on the border? Do you see technology playing a big role? We talked 

about the southern border being different from the northern border, and absolutely it is. But what role do you see technology playing on the northern border? 

Ms. NEINAST. Because of the remoteness of the northern border 

and the challenges that we are always going to have because of the 

infrastructure, the roads to get to the border, and those types of 

things, there are definite technological needs on the northern border. Detection capabilities—they do not manage the border, but 

they monitor the border for us. And if I have technology to monitor 

activity levels or monitor an area where there is a crossing, it 

makes it easier for me to respond. 

Senator TESTER. What do you see that technology taking the 

form of? 

Ms. NEINAST. One of the things that we use are the unattended 

ground sensors. We use those very heavily. We have done that for 

a number of years. And we are getting more of those into the State 

all the time. 

Senator TESTER. How much of the border is covered by ground 

sensors in your sector? Is it 30 miles? A hundred miles? 

Ms. NEINAST. Well, when we are talking about ground sensors, 

I can tell you every known crossing point is covered by that type 

of technology. With that comes the requirement for sensor towers 

and things like that. 

Senator TESTER. When did those go into place? 

Ms. NEINAST. We have had them for a number of years. 

Senator TESTER. Before September 11, 2001? 

Ms. NEINAST. Yes, and we have increased since then. 

Senator TESTER. What about radar? What is your perspective on 

that? 

Ms. NEINAST. Are we talking ground surveillance radar or are we 

talking aviation radar? 

Senator TESTER. We are talking avaiation radar below a mile, 

5,000 feet and below. 

Ms. NEINAST. Anybody who has got any kind of a pilot’s background will know for the majority of the State of Montana, there 

is no radar coverage below 5,000 feet. And because of that—and I 

have tactical responsibility for the CBP air portion—that is another 

threat and vulnerability that we have to deal with and address. 

Senator TESTER. When do you see that being addressed? 

Ms. NEINAST. Currently, there is a working group in Washington, 

DC, that is addressing these types of issues, and they are working 

with the Canadian authorities for a wide border technology because 

if the Canadians have cameras or radar in an area, we are looking 

at trying to tie into their radar instead of us necessarily having to 

use our own and force multiply across through agreements, national agreements. 

Senator TESTER. And this may be unfair because we are talking 

about the Canadian Government now. Do you know of any Canadian radar that exists at this point in time within your sector on 

the border? 

Ms. NEINAST. I know there is Canadian radar along the border. 

I do not know the exact locations of that. 

23 

Senator TESTER. And that is probably best that you do not say 

it if you do know. [Laughter.] 

The issue of partnerships and working together, I broached this 

question with Ms. James, and I am going to ask you the same 

thing. Ms. James talked about her meeting with you, of course. 

What about the other folks in Customs like—well, we have them 

here today—Mr. Brown and Mr. Overcast—those folks. How often 

do you meet with those guys? 

Ms. NEINAST. I meet with them fairly often, but I have staff that 

meets with them regularly. So you understand, my focus—yes, I 

am responsible for the sector, but I have a dual focus. I also am 

responsible to Washington, DC, in resourcing and getting the 

agents in the field what they need. So I spend a lot of time out of 

the State, much like you do. So it is the nature of my responsibility. My staff meets with them regularly. 

Senator TESTER. I only spend half my time out of the State. 

[Laughter.] 

Let me make that clear. 

Ms. NEINAST. Me, too. 

Senator TESTER. This is going to be my last question because we 

have another panel here. We could go on for hours. There was a 

GAO report that came out in 2006 that talked about inadequacies 

and making the face at the border one. We are still a ways away 

from addressing all those things in the GAO report. Are you somewhat interchangeable when it comes to helping folks get across the 

border for whatever reasons? 

Ms. NEINAST. One of the things that has happened since September 11, 2001, and the creation of CBP—in many years past, all 

the Border Patrol agents knew immigration law. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. NEINAST. And they could fill in at a port of entry on overtime 

to handle immigration inspections. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. NEINAST. That has changed because the nature of the CBP 

officer position and what they do is so complex and so different 

than what we do that we no longer have that interchangeability at 

the ports of entry. 

Senator TESTER. Is that interchangeability—I mean, could it be 

re-established like it was way back when? 

Ms. NEINAST. I would not know that we would want to, to be 

honest with you, simply because of the complexity and the nature 

of the job. 

Senator TESTER. All right. Sounds good. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. We have got to get rolling with the next 

panel. I would just say one other thing, and this just comes—and 

I want to get it on the record—from my talking across the board. 

I think that there could be a lot more work done that would cost 

us virtually no money by working more with the people who live 

on the border that know that border. I am talking about the farmers and ranchers up there. I think it is critically important—and 

I mean this, and I am going to be pressing these guys back in 

Washington, DC, on this, too. I think it is critically important that 

we build relationships with the people on the border, whether it is 

local government, whether it is the BIA folks, whether it is the DisVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:22 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 044121 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44121.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
24 

aster and Emergency Services (DES) folks, but especially those 

farmers and ranchers that know that border like the back of their 

hand. It is very important, because as I think Mr. McGowan, Mr. 

DesRosier, or Ms. Matoon pointed out, it is never going to be 100 

percent. I am not sure that it even needs to be 100 percent because 

of obvious reasons—cost being the main one. 

Thank you all very much. I appreciate your being here, and I 

hope you stick around for the rest of the hearing and hear the public input afterwards. I want to get the next panel up here. Thank 

you very much. 

The next panel includes Loren Timmerman, Alex Philp, and Kris 

Merkel. It is great to have them here. 

I will tell you that Mr. Timmerman is representing the union 

that staffs Customs. Like we said, there are about 100 customs inspectors throughout Montana, and he also represents folks in 

Idaho, Colorado, and Utah. Customs inspectors stand guard at airports and at all the ports along the border, whether we are talking 

about Sweetgrass or Turner or wherever. Mr. Timmerman has 

been a customs officer for well over a decade. He has seen much. 

We also have two gentlemen who are small business owners here 

in Montana dealing with technology. The first is Dr. Alex Philp, 

who runs GCS Research in Missoula, a technology company that 

deals with technology that can be used on the border. Dr. Philp 

started his career as a park ranger in Glacier National Park when 

he was 20 years old. Now, 20 years later—I guess we are kind of 

dating you, Dr. Philp—his work with geographic information system (GIS) technology has helped not only our State but several 

Federal agencies. We will be looking forward to his information on 

remote sensing and delivery and the kind of challenges that a 

small business in Montana is facing trying to get into the government contracting. 

Second is Kris Merkel. He is the President of S2 Corporation in 

Bozeman. S2 is heavily involved in radar imaging. Their technology 

could be useful in everything from scanning packages at ports to 

providing radar across large stretches of our border. Some of their 

efforts, like the small ultra-wideband antennas to pick up illegal 

communications are specifically designed for remote areas. 

Both of these good Montana companies have a long relationship 

with the Department of Defense. Today, they are here to talk about 

their efforts to bring Montana technology to the Department of 

Homeland Security. We know that technology is going to be a 

major part of the effort to secure the border, That is part of the 

questions that I asked both Ms. James and Ms. Neinast. And they 

both have an interest in telling their stories about what brought 

them to that front. 

I want to thank everybody for being here on the second panel. 

We have 15 minutes. We are going to take a little more than 15 

minutes, unfortunately. I am going to limit you to 5 minutes pretty 

strictly, so hit the high points, and then we will get to questions, 

and you can elaborate a little more then, if you think it is important. 

Mr. Timmerman, go ahead. 

25 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Timmerman appears in the Appendix on page 68. 

TESTIMONY OF LOREN L. TIMMERMAN,1 PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 231, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, GREAT 

FALLS, MONTANA 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Loren 

Timmerman. I am the President of Chapter 231 of the National 

Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). I am here to testify in my capacity as President of NTEU Chapter 231, and not any official capacity or representative of either the Department of Homeland Security or Customs and Border Protection. 

I have been employed at the land port of Sweetgrass by the 

former U.S. Customs Service as a customs inspector since 2002 and 

as a DHS Customs and Border Protection officer since its creation 

in 2003. All CBP employees recognize that change is difficult, but 

the changes at the northern border have proved to be particularly 

challenging. 

CBP employees are dedicated to protecting this Nation. We serve 

with pride and singleness of purpose. Stopping terrorism, smugglers, drugs, counterfeit goods, currency, and human traffickers is 

our foremost goal, while at the same time moving the vibrant flow 

of legal trade and travelers across our border. 

But we here at the northern border and CBP employees around 

the country have become discouraged. Basic staffing needs at our 

ports of entry continue to go unmet. For years, NTEU has been 

saying that CBP needs several thousand additional officers and agriculture specialists at its ports of entry, that insufficient staffing 

and scheduling abuses are contributing to morale problems, fatigue, safety issues for both CBP officers and agriculture specialists, and that CBP is losing these employees faster than it can hire 

replacements. 

A large number of CBP officer vacancies remain unfilled. In addition, the ratio of supervisors to staff has increased dramatically at 

the northern border, aggravating the vacancy situation. Prior to 

September 11, 2001, the goal was one supervisor to every 15 inspectors. Today at Sweetgrass, there is one supervisor for every 

eight CBP officers. This ratio puts increasing scheduling pressure 

on the rank-and-file front-line officers, further demoralizing the 

workforce. 

Another source of concern for the CBP officers and CBP agriculture specialists nationwide is the institution of the One Face at 

the Border Initiative that was designed to eliminate the pre-September 11, 2001, separation of immigration, customs, and agriculture functions at U.S. land, sea, and air ports of entry. In practice, the One Face Initiative has resulted in diluting customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection specialization and the quality 

of passenger and cargo inspections. 

Under One Face, former immigration officers who were experts 

in identifying counterfeit foreign visas are now at seaports reviewing bills of lading from foreign container ships while expert land 

port customs inspectors are now reviewing passports at airports. 

26 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Philp appears in the Appendix on page 79. 

The processes, procedures, and skills are very different at land, 

sea, and air ports, and the training and skill sets needed for passenger processing and cargo inspection differ as well. 

As a consequence of the One Face at the Border policy and CBP 

staffing shortages, an egregious and dangerous situation occurs 

regularly at land ports I represent. Unarmed agriculture specialists 

are regularly assigned to partner with armed CBP officers operating the vehicle and cargo system lanes. In the past, Vehicle and 

Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) lanes were staffed by two armed 

CBP officers. It is not the mission of CBP agriculture specialists to 

staff VACIS lanes, and because they are unarmed, both CBP officers and agriculture specialists are unnecessarily put in dangerous 

situations. 

Both on the northern border and nationally, staffing shortages 

are exacerbated by challenges in retaining staff, again, contributing 

to an increasing number of CBP officer vacancies. Congress recently approved legislation that should improve CBP officer recruitment and retention significantly. This legislation will provide CBP 

officers with law enforcement retirement benefits beginning July 6, 

2008. I want to thank Members of this Committee for your leadership on this effort. 

Scheduling abuses along with short staffing have produced overworked officers, safety and overtime violations, and concerns about 

favoritism in the assignment of work and overtime. Not surprisingly, CBP officers are leaving in droves. 

Mr. Chairman, the problems at the northern border are not 

unique. To address the challenges of the Montana land ports and 

all of our ports of entry, NTEU recommends the following: 

Fill vacancies and increase CBP officer and agriculture specialist 

staffing to those levels in CBP’s own staffing model; 

Re-establish specialization of prior inspectional functions; 

Increase CBP officers’ and agriculture specialists’ journeyman 

pay to GS–12; 

Repeal the compromised DHS personnel system; 

Allow input in the shift assignment system; 

And also allow employee input in determining staffing levels for 

each shift. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Timmerman. Mr. Philp. 

TESTIMONY OF J. ALEXANDER PHILP, PH.D.,1 PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GCS HOLDINGS, INC 

Mr. PHILP. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for this opportunity 

to testify before the Committee at this field hearing today, ‘‘Securing the Northern Border: Views from the Front Lines.’’ On behalf 

of the citizens in Montana and the United States, I consider it an 

honor and privilege to come here today before you and the Committee and share my experiences regarding the challenges in developing a relationship with the Department of Homeland Security 

and drawing attention to technologies that have Homeland Security applications. That was specifically what I was asked to comment on and testify on today before the Committee. 

27 

Senator TESTER. Correct. 

Mr. PHILP. I hope my testimony assists the Committee in improving processes. I offer my testimony in good faith and acknowledge 

both the very real threats facing our Nation’s security and the complex organizational, technological, and political challenges facing 

the Department of Homeland Security. I do not claim to be an expert on DHS-related policy or programs, but I have been actively 

involved as a Montana-based small business owner in trying to 

bring practical technology solutions to the front lines of the northern border security since and before September 11, 2001. 

What I am going to do, Senator, is summarize my full testimony 

that I submitted to you and the Committee. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Mr. PHILP. And I will make a few brief comments and points. 

First of all, my company specializes in geographic information 

system technology. There are lots of buzz words around that. One 

good one is ‘‘GEOINT,’’ geospatial intelligence. We have made a living from myself, after I spun out of the University of Montana, to 

about 20 guys and gals in Montana, so we are truly a small business, and my comments today are from that perspective. 

There are a lot of things I do not know about what is going on 

at CBP and Border Patrol because of the nature of the work, but 

we have certainly dabbled in advanced sensor system technology, 

integration, and open-source intelligence in a non-classified capacity. 

Four main points about the nature of the northern border as a 

geographer, and I think this has already been commented on extensively. The northern border is not the southern border. It will not 

be the southern border, and it is unique in that sense. You can 

break the northern border down into a series of discrete geographies and regions. Montana happens to have many, even within 

our section, our 560 miles. So we have geographical challenges; we 

have cultural differences; and we certainly have an entirely different international perspective and, I would argue, active threat 

type. From what I have heard so far, there are a lot of things that 

were not discussed today by the officials that I think need to be 

brought to the table. I comment a lot about that in my written testimony. 

My perspective is from the outside looking in as a small business 

owner. Again, I am private sector. But I do read and pay attention 

to the GAO reports that come out. I certainly tracked the America’s 

Shield Initiative before that died and SBInet started. And I have 

done my best to keep looking at this relationship between State 

and Federal cooperation, local cooperation, and certainly cooperation with the tribes. Three of the tribes in Montana happen to be 

my customers, so we are privy to their role to some degree and how 

they are using some of these technologies to help participate in 

northern border security. 

My written testimony focused on three areas that have been very 

frustrating for me as a private sector person volunteering ad nauseam on all these committees. 

Certainly, at the State level, the Science and Technology Committee and the GIS Subcommittee at the State level—the Science 

and Technology Committee never even had a second meeting, as 

28 

far as I know. The GIS Subcommittee did a large amount of hard 

work, but I was frustrated in the ability of that subcommittee to 

really interface with Federal officials at the level we needed to be 

with people that did not have clearances. 

Then I spent years trying to do a program with the Integrated 

Border Enforcement Team at the request of members of IBET, with 

friends of mine that I used to work with, and U.S. Forest Service 

and National Park Service, to have that basically go away after a 

year and a half of activity. 

And, finally, based on work I do with the U.S. Departments of 

Defense, Navy, Army, and the U.S. intelligence community, we 

spent 2 years almost putting a program together regarding advanced sensor technology for covert, clandestine operations on the 

northern border at the request of CBP officials, only to have that 

program killed, and I am still trying to figure out how and why. 

That is Blue Rose. 

Again, I do not want to sound like I am whining up here as a 

small business owner. We are not asking for any special privileges. 

We are not asking for big, huge contracts, but there is something 

very wrong with the process that I have observed, and I have 

shared that in my testimony. 

Finally, some observations. I was to specifically comment on improving the process. I think we should be looking at even better 

and more innovative ideas regarding regionalism and regional approaches to the challenges of the northern border. Having worked 

for multiple Federal agencies myself, I am aware of jurisdictions, 

I am aware of uniforms and trying to get along. But we just drove 

from Chief Mountain all the way over to Sweetgrass yesterday, trying to tour it ourselves, get a sense of it, and almost got stuck in 

the mud. The bottom line, we need to be looking at this a little bit 

differently. One size does not fit all and will never fit all, certainly 

technologically. I think people agree to that. 

I think the role of the private sector should be reassessed here 

in terms of cost-effectiveness. I think GAO just announced yesterday that CBP has spent now over $1 billion on SBInet, and the 

numbers are even lower than they thought. There is not a day or 

a week that goes by that GAO does not have a new report basically 

saying, hey, look at this, look at that. So the role of the private sector as a small business owner has been difficult because the way 

DHS at the Washington-level contracts, they basically say to the 

big primes, defense primes, or others that bid, ‘‘Go put your teams 

together,’’ and that may be a hundred companies, it may be three 

companies. And directly contracting small business has been hard, 

and I basically stopped trying. I went to other Federal agencies, 

and most of my work is with the Department of Energy (DOE) and 

the Department of Defense (DOD) in national intelligence. If it is 

good enough for them, it is good enough for others. 

Wrapping up here, sir, I have been able to build relationships at 

the local level with the Federal agencies, but when it gets to midlevel or Washington, DC, it gets very difficult. We do not have the 

bandwidth or the resources to play at the Washington-level. It is 

very top-down. Bottom-up is not working, in my opinion. Contracting is difficult even if you can get interest on the part of the 

29 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Merkel with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 

86. 

Federal agencies that you might have something of interest or 

meets requirements since they are very requirement driven. 

DHS relies on large contractors to figure it out, and they do not 

have enough contracting officers to fully vet those, anyway. And we 

have some technologies that work now, but, again, unless you are 

huge and big, the reality of those technologies may or may not see 

the light of day. 

Finally, some recommendations, sir. It shocks me that the DHS 

Under Secretary can get off a helicopter and say, ‘‘I should have 

come out here a long time ago,’’ and lay eyes on the problem. That 

blows me away. 

Senator TESTER. He just got confirmed. 

Mr. PHILP. But that is good. I am glad he got in a helicopter and 

flew around out here. We need a liaison office. I think DHS, like 

the U.S. Geologicval Survey (USGS), like other Federal agencies, 

needs someone out here that can act as the hub. I do not want to 

sound too cynical, but we need someone here above Border Patrol 

and CBP putting it together, certainly putting energy into it every 

day, not just once a year or twice a year. And I understand the difficulties and the amount of challenges people are facing. 

We need integration offices. We need regional integration offices 

that are looking at the technology against the problem, against the 

threat. Multi-billion-dollar, top-down magic boxes slapped together 

are not going to work, and they are not going to work on the northern border. And we are never going to have a 20-foot fence lining 

this thing either. 

I think we need business officers that understand the role of 

small business and the difficulty of small business and the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations that small businesses do not necessarily 

have to comply with because we do not have staffs of people to do 

grants. 

Senator TESTER. Better wrap it up. 

Mr. PHILP. We need more small business innovative research 

grants. We need some small business vendor days. And I would 

certainly love to leverage the activity of Federal, State, local, and 

tribal governments to try to do jobs. We are here as a private sector firm doing work on the national security every day because we 

choose to. We would like to expand and extend that, but one of our 

greatest frustrations is how can we help play a role as a small 

business in solving the challenges facing northern border security. 

I do not have the answers, but I have given you some recommendations at your request. Thank you very much. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much. Dr. Merkel. 

TESTIMONY OF KRISTIAN D. MERKEL, PH.D.,1 PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, S2 CORPORATION, BOZEMAN, 

MONTANA 

Mr. MERKEL. Senator Tester, Members of the Committee, I want 

to thank you for holding this hearing to discuss the issues in regard to Homeland Security. My name is Kris Merkel, and I am the 

President and CEO of S2 Corporation, a small business in BozeVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:22 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 044121 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44121.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
30 

man, Montana, that employs approximately 15 people—Ph.D, master’s, and bachelor’s degree levels—primarily from Montana State 

University. S2 Corporation was created with the sole aim to develop and commercialize an exciting new technology that we abbreviate as S2, which is shorthand for spatial spectral holography, 

something I am sure no one here has heard about, but that was 

developed primarily at Montana State University over the past two 

decades. The applications for S2 are mainly in ultra-wideband 

radio frequency signal processing and surveillance, for the goals of 

radar imaging, signal intelligence, and communications. The S2 

technology is what I would call a disruptive technology, representing a new way of achieving a better result which is of high 

importance to national homeland security and defense. To date, the 

technology development efforts have been funded primarily from 

the Department of Defense Science and Technology accounts. This 

has included participation by the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and 

the Missile Defense Agency. 

Over the past 2 years, due to our engineering efforts at S2 Corporation, the S2 technology has transitioned from being a laboratory curiosity to a rugged, general-purpose prototype device, which 

in January of this year, 2008, was shipped overseas and tested on 

operational radars at the direction of the U.S. Army and is listed 

as a critical technology within that branch of the military. In short, 

the tests were a success and the technology worked. 

The implications of using this technology are immediate access 

and full domination of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum out to 

microwave frequencies. This capability includes being able to simultaneously achieve total spectral awareness and to be able to 

rapidly reconfigure our use of the RF spectrum for adaptive radar 

and communications. One of the greatest challenges facing our 

military and defense of our border around the world is the explosion in signals in the radio frequency spectrum that now occupy 

the entire radio frequency spectrum. Our technology would allow 

our defense and national security agencies a whole new mode of operation to continuously identify all of the operating signals and 

then find a bandwidth where they could operate securely. Other 

technology applications include the ability to visualize such things 

as improvised explosive devices underground and interpret the 

data in real time. This is a truly disruptive technology, and at the 

heart of it is a crystal, cryogenically cooled, which absorbs light to 

achieve signal processing. Interestingly enough, this is a homegrown technology in that the crystals themselves have been grown 

in Bozeman, and the technology has been conceived, designed, 

built, and tested in Bozeman by the scientists and engineers out 

of Montana State. 

The technology is poised to achieve unique performance improvements and cost savings for a host of critically needed security applications. Like I have described, the technology offers many benefits, but two of these I think would be of immediate interest to the 

Department of Homeland Security. These are the need to monitor 

the vast borders and secure the safe transmission of information 

around the border, as well as monitor the radio communications 

around the borders. The second, and just as important, application 

is quickly being able to investigate cargo containers as they pass 

31 

through our ports. I will, of course, explain further if the Committee or yourself have any questions about the technology, but I 

will leave it now at it is a disruptive technology with significant potential benefit to our national security. 

I will say attempting to do business with the Department of 

Homeland Security, as a small business with a new and innovative 

technological approach, has been, frankly, frustrating. I have seen 

little incentive for the agencies to move toward small technology 

programs like ours rather than to give large contracts to the typical 

large defense contractors. 

The cargo container seems to come up in Congress only to be opposed as too costly with little or no technology discussion. I for one 

would appreciate technology discussions that would help maintain 

the appropriate contacts within Washington, DC, and the large 

contractors. I have personally found, without going into details, 

that positive leads have been pursued only to be followed by silence. When we have approached new leads, the discussions have 

gone around and around, from government to contractor, to another 

contractor, and back to government. Indeed, they go nowhere. 

We want to be part of the solution. We have a technology that 

has proven successful at each step along its development path. I 

want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing and, Senator 

Tester, you in particular for providing S2 with the opportunity to 

present our case. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much, and I want to thank all 

the participants in the second panel. I will tell you that with your 

permission I want to take your entire testimony, plus all the testimony for the record for this Committee hearing, and send it to the 

Chairman of the Small Business Committee because I think he 

needs to hear that also. 

Mr. MERKEL. I would greatly appreciate that, Senator. 

Mr. PHILP. That is fine, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Timmerman, could you give me an idea of what is the turnover on the staff? You touched on it. Is it 10 percent? Are you getting 10-percent turnover every year? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? Can you give me an idea of what it is? And if you do not 

know, you can get back to me with it. 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. In my opinion, I think it would be around the 

15-percent range. 

Senator TESTER. Fifteen percent turnover? And you talked about 

understaffing. What are you understaffed by, the same amount, 10 

or 15 percent, or is it more than that? 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. It fluctuates throughout the year. It just depends how many might leave in a certain given period. So it is kind 

of hard to put a number on that. 

Senator TESTER. Would you say that the reason most people 

leave—are they staying in Customs, or are they leaving the business altogether and going somewhere else. 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. They usually leave for other agencies. We have 

had a few go to local—not local police departments, but the Bozeman Police Department. We had one leave and go there. 

Senator TESTER. What influence do you think geography has on 

folks leaving? 

32 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. Well, certainly, with the price of gas going 

through the roof, driving 50 or 60 miles one way to work has a lot 

to do with it now. And the remote location does have quite a bit 

to do with it. With our officers that live over towards Chief Mountain, they have to travel 90 miles one way to go shopping in Great 

Falls. 

Senator TESTER. Is there a morale problem amongst your employees? I gathered from your statement there is. 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. Yes, there is. 

Senator TESTER. And do you think that is caused by understaffing? 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. I think understaffing is the biggest part of the 

problem, not having enough people to deal with the travelers coming through the ports of entry. 

Senator TESTER. Could you give me an idea on how your staff is? 

We got testimony here that it went from 348 to 1,200 at this point 

in time for the Border Patrol. That is almost four times. What has 

your increase been since September 11, 2001? 

Mr. TIMMERMAN. I would say about three- to four-fold. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Timmerman. 

I also want to thank the two small business folks who are here. 

Have you both dealt with other agencies other than DHS? I know 

you have, Dr. Philp. You have dealt with the Department of Defense, is what your testimony said. How about you, Dr. Merkel? 

Have you dealt with other agencies? 

Mr. MERKEL. All Defense—Army, Navy—— 

Senator TESTER. So you are both in the same boat. 

Mr. MERKEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. How does DHS compare with Defense? What 

could DHS do that the Defense Department does that would make 

the process better, if the Defense Department is simpler and more 

user-friendly for small businesses? Or maybe they are just as—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PHILP. We do deal with the Defense Department and a lot 

with U.S. intelligence agencies, and it is growing exponentially 

every day, which is a good thing. Defense and U.S. intelligence 

agencies, they both work differently. We represent, as the word 

was used, a good word, ‘‘disruptive technology,’’ advanced technology. We are usually in emerging late-stage R&D, solving requirements for DOD. 

Intelligence community problems are there, and we have made a 

6-year business out of that. 

At DOD, the budgets are big. It is not that we do not deal with 

large contractors there because they have the contract vehicles. 

They own the contract vehicles. It is very hard to have a contract 

vehicle. But if the Army, in particular, my biggest customer, wants 

to move, they move; they move quick. And if you do your job, you 

are rewarded. If you do not do your job, you are done. That is kind 

of the way it is. At least, that is my experience. 

I made some recommendations. I think DHS has to understand 

that small business exists. I think they do. I think they try with 

Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), and Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) solicitations. But there has to be an appreciaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:22 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 044121 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44121.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
33 

tion of how to better integrate the capabilities and offerings of 

small business more quickly and more rapidly. 

My experience with SBInet was every major defense contractor 

did come to Missoula. They did find out about us, and it was usually four or five of those guys—one of their lawyers, a couple of 

their chief technology officers (CTOs), and their group vice president. And it would be me. And they would vet us hard. And if they 

could not take what we had and basically go on and do something 

with it, then they were interested in price point. They wanted to 

slap something together quick, put us on their team, call it good. 

We did get put on one of the major teams—Ericsson’s team for 

SBInet. Unfortunately, Ericsson lost the bid to Boeing. So it was 

DOA at that point. 

I think DHS could look at how small business has certain technologies, organize those around their requirements, and more readily cycle those capabilities into test beds and/or test centers. That 

does not mean you are going to have to spend $40 billion on something, but let’s at least try it before we reject it. 

Senator TESTER. Dr. Merkel, what has your experience been? 

Mr. MERKEL. I would echo some of those same sentiments from 

a slightly different perspective. I have done contracting with the 

Defense Department. I would quantify that as frustrating, but 

when our results are a contract in place, things can happen very 

fast. And, by comparison, I have felt the Department of Homeland 

Security is somewhat impenetrable from the standpoint that large 

contracts are awarded to large primes. And if there was a recommendation, it would be to encourage or put requirements in 

place to include new technology, emerging technology, as a part of 

the overall contracting process to those large primes so that they 

can be included from the beginning. 

I would echo what Mr. Philp said earlier, that if there is something that is not ready to go today, as far as the Department of 

Homeland Security is concerned, it does not really fit the bill. 

Senator TESTER. Typically, when you do not get a contract—you 

talked about Blue Rose, Mr. Philp. Mr. Merkel, you have been dealing with it. You do not get a contract. Do they give you a reason? 

Or do they just say, ‘‘You did not get the contract?’’ 

Mr. PHILP. In our experience—and I have to be very careful here 

for sensitivities to friends—we never did get an answer because we 

were not the ones submitting the request. It was the government 

requesting to do the project within government. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. PHILP. And I had to spend 2 years gathering my own information on what happened and why and was told to back off and 

walk away. 

Senator TESTER. What about you, Mr. Merkel? 

Mr. MERKEL. We have just done targeted technical marketing to 

the primes or large companies that already have the contract—Boeing or L–3 Communications, for example—and so there is no debriefing process. It is really just a lot of effort going in front of 

them, gaining attention, and then it does not, from my experience 

to date, go anywhere. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I want to thank you all. Like I said, I have 

a ton of more questions, and we will probably connect up with you 

34 

down the line and visit with all three of you. In fact, I know that 

for a fact as things unfold. 

The record will be open for 15 days after this hearing. If there 

are folks in the audience that want to submit testimony, you are 

certainly welcome to do so. The more viewpoints we have, the better off we are, and the better we can make policy that works for 

the northern border. Like what was said here many times today, 

the South is a whole lot different than the North, and no shoe fits 

everything. 

I want to thank you again. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 


44121.001
36 


44121.002
37 


44121.003
38 


44121.004
39 


44121.005
40 


44121.006
41 


44121.007
42 


44121.008
43 


44121.009
44 


44121.010
45 


44121.011
46 


44121.012
47 


44121.013
48 


44121.014
49 


44121.015
50 


44121.016
51 


44121.017
52 


44121.018
53 


44121.019
54 


44121.020
55 


44121.021
56 


44121.022
57 


44121.023
58 


44121.024
59 


44121.025
60 


44121.026
61 


44121.027
62 


44121.028
63 


44121.029
64 


44121.030
65 


44121.031
66 


44121.032
67 


44121.033
68 


44121.034
69 


44121.035
70 


44121.036
71 


44121.037
72 


44121.038
73 


44121.039
74 


44121.040
75 


44121.041
76 


44121.042
77 


44121.043
78 


44121.044
79 


44121.045
80 


44121.046
81 


44121.047
82 


44121.048
83 


44121.049
84 


44121.050
85 


44121.051
86 


44121.052
87 


44121.053
88 


44121.054
89 


44121.055
90 


44121.056
91 


44121.057
92 


44121.058
93 


44121.059
94 


44121.060
95 


44121.061
96 


44121.062
97 


44121.063
98 


44121.064
99 


44121.065
100 


44121.066
101 


44121.067
102 


44121.068
103 


44121.069
104 


44121.070
105 


44121.071
106 


44121.072
107 


44121.073
108 


44121.074
109 


44121.075
110 


44121.076
111 


44121.077
112 


44121.078
113 


44121.079
114 


44121.080
115 

Æ 


44121.081