U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

81–865 PDF 2002

ISSUES AT THE NORTHERN BORDER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 29, 2001

Serial No. 107–108

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN L. MICA, Florida,

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

DAVE WELDON, Florida

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

CHRISTOPHER DONESA, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

CONN CARROLL, Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on October 29, 2001 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Dambrosio, Michael, District Field Officer, U.S. Customs Service .............. 10

Douglas, Garry F., president and CEO, Plattsburgh-North Country

Chamber of Commerce ................................................................................. 36

Duford, Carl, president, Champlain chapter, American Federation of Government Employees, Immigration and Naturalization Service Council ... 56

Holmes, M. Frances, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization

Service ............................................................................................................ 18

Keefe, Thomas, president, St. Lawrence Chapter 138, National Treasury

Employees Union .......................................................................................... 47

Stafford, Ronald, Senator from the 45th District, in the State of New

York ................................................................................................................ 9

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Dambrosio, Michael, District Field Officer, U.S. Customs Service, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 13

Douglas, Garry F., president and CEO, Plattsburgh-North Country

Chamber of Commerce, prepared statement of .......................................... 42

Duford, Carl, president, Champlain chapter, American Federation of Government Employees, Immigration and Naturalization Service Council,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 59

Holmes, M. Frances, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, prepared statement of .................................................................... 20

Keefe, Thomas, president, St. Lawrence Chapter 138, National Treasury

Employees Union, prepared statement of ................................................... 49

McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 5

(1)

ISSUES AT THE NORTHERN BORDER

MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND

HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Champlain, NY.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., at the

U.S. Customs Station, Champlain, NY, Hon. Mark E. Souder

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder and McHugh.

Staff present: Chris Donesa, staff director; and Conn Carroll,

clerk.

Mr. SOUDER. Good morning, and thank you all for coming. Today

our subcommittee will explore the status of the Champlain, NY,

border crossing. We have invited representatives of the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Immigration and

Naturalization Service, which also administers the U.S. Border Patrol, to testify here today, and we thank Mr. Michael Dambrosio,

District Field Director at U.S. Customs, and Ms. Frances Holmes,

District Director at INS, for being here today. We are also pleased

to have with us representatives of the employees of these two agencies, Mr. Carl Duford, an INS inspector and president of the Champlain Chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, and Mr. Thomas Keefe, a Customs inspector and president of

the St. Lawrence Chapter 138 of the National Treasury Employees

Union. The subcommittee is vitally interested in ensuring the effective functioning of these agencies, and we will continue to work

with them and their employees to ensure the continued security

and effective administration of our Nation’s border.

We’ve also been joined by Senator Ron Stafford, Head of the Senate Finance Committee, and look forward to having his opening

welcome here in a few minutes, and for his leadership in the State

legislature, I’m sure on a regular basis, with these issues that we

only occasionally deal with in Washington.

When examining border policies, we must also seek the input of

representatives of the local community, particularly the business

community, whose livelihood is directly affected by changes at the

border. We also welcome Mr. Garry Douglas, executive director of

the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce. We thank

everyone for taking the time this morning to join us for this important discussion.

Even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, this subcommittee was considering ways to improve both the security of

2

our Nation’s borders and the efficient flow of international commerce, travel and tourism. Continuing problems with illegal immigration and the smuggling of drugs and other contraband over the

southern and northern borders, and the threat of terrorism, have

prompted calls to hire more Federal law enforcement officers and

to expand the physical and technological infrastructure needed to

allow those officers to work effectively.

The attacks of September 11th have emphasized the necessity of

dealing with the terrorist threat as well as the problems of narcotics interdiction and illegal immigration. At the same time, long

delays at border crossings resulting from the increased security

measures put in place after September 11th have raised concerns

about the effect of these policies on trade, tourism and travel. Congress has been considering numerous proposals to deal with these

problems. For example, the House of Representatives and the Senate have now both passed anti-terrorist legislation that, among

other measures, would authorize the tripling of Border Patrol

agents along the northern border. It is unclear, however, how

quickly any of these agencies can meet these requirements. Moreover, it is unclear what the impact of the new emphasis on antiterrorism will be on personnel decisions at each of these agencies.

This hearing and the hearing held yesterday at Highgate

Springs, VT, are the first in a series of field hearings which will

be held by this subcommittee at border crossings and ports of entry

throughout the United States. At each such location, this subcommittee will assess the problems facing the Federal agencies,

local lawmakers, and community and business leaders, with respect to border policy. We will focus on what new resources are

needed for the Federal Government most effectively to administer

the border crossing, as well as what new policies could be pursued

to ease the burdens being placed on commerce, travel and tourism.

We will also explore how the new emphasis on preventing terrorism may affect the ability of these agencies to carry out their other

vital missions.

These issues are all extremely important and extremely urgent,

and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about ways

to address them. And I want to add, too, that what precipitated

this series, in addition to our oversight responsibilities over justice

and commerce and the narcotics issue, is a U.S.-Canada Parliamentary Exchange Group last May.

I cochaired the transborder section of that Parliamentary Group,

and we had agreed to hold several hearings along the northern border about problems we were having already, in trying to make sure

that we could facilitate ease of movement and meet the needs that

we were asking along the border, prior to September 11th, which

only put more pressure on the borders.

Also then with the U.S.-Mexico Parliamentary Group, we’ve

agreed to do a number of hearings on the southern border. In December, we’ll be in Brownsville, Laredo and McAllen on the Monterey corridor; then the second week of December, up in the Vancouver corridor and Puget Sound, looking at Coast Guard questions, as well as the Blaine border crossing. We’ll also be doing Detroit, Niagara Falls and Buffalo, where we’ve worked with the people there. In San Diego and El Paso, analogous section, so we’re

3

going to systematically, over the next—we were going to do it over

12 months; we’re now going to push for a 5-month—and this is our

first region that we’re holding the hearings, yesterday in Highgate

and today here, and we’re visiting some of the border crossings in

between, as well as with the Border Patrol and with the Coast

Guard in each area to learn where the gaps are. When you put

pressure on one point, it tends to move to another point, and if

we’re not thinking a step ahead in both how to accommodate commerce and to protect the citizens of the United States, we’ll fall behind.

With that, I’d like to yield to my friend, Congressman McHugh,

a more senior member of the committee. Also has been a long-tem

subcommittee chair before he went over to Armed Services and a

leadership position there, too.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. More senior

means older, I take it, and I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I have

a prepared statement that I would ask unanimous consent be entered in its entirety and just make a few comments, if I might.

Mr. SOUDER. Sure.

Mr. MCHUGH. First of all, I want to add my words of appreciation and welcome that you have just stated to all of our panelists

here today. We do look forward to their comments, and a special

welcome to my former colleague in the State Senate, Ron Stafford,

who certainly needs no introduction nor explanation to these good

folks of the terrific job he does, not just for this region, although

he certainly does that, but for the entire State, so welcome to all

of you.

But as well, Mr. Chairman, I want to express both my words of

welcome and appreciation to you. All of us who’ve had the honor

of serving in any legislative body always think of our districts that

we represent as someplace special, and I’m certainly no exception

to that. I hope that during your travels, as hectic as they have

been, you’ve had a chance to see the true beauty of this region. We

hope you had a chance to enjoy it. If not, please come back. There’s

about 13,000 square miles of the 24th District to the south and

west of here that we think are equally as special, as well. But I

particularly appreciate the effort that you’ve made to be here.

You mentioned yesterday your hearing at Highgate Springs. I

know last evening you had an opportunity to go up into Canada

and meet some of the folks up there. We were thrilled they let you

back in here to our side of the border. And I have long been very

impressed with the very ambitious hearing schedule that you defined here this morning, and it speaks very highly of your commitment, and more importantly your understanding of the very formidable issues that face us. As you noted, Mr. Chairman, through

your work, September 11th, while bringing unimaginable and truly

profound changes to this country, was not really the beginning of

the challenges that we’re facing along both the northern and the

southern border, but I think it has brought new focus to the challenges here in the northern border region.

This issue has really been at the core of focus for many of us for

some time now, working with great leaders like Governor Pataki,

Senator Stafford, Chris Ortloff; with the local government representatives here in the North Country of Clinton and Essex CounVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
4

ties in particular, with our partners on the Canadian side, and of

course, with the business community, from whom we’ll hear here

today. We’ve had some success. We’ve initiated what we’re calling

a Border of Excellence that will, when completed, produce about a

$30 million program designed to modernize and to streamline the

facilities located here at Champlain.

But the fact of the matter is, new buildings, new processing

lanes, safer approaches, for all of their importance, are simply not

enough. The Federal officials that staff this crossing, all of the

crossings across the northern border, have been and remain simply

amazing. Long hours, very effective work, often thankless tasks

with incredible efficiency and with incredible effectiveness. This

border spans, as you know, some 4,000 miles, and yet when you

look at, in just one area alone, the Customs area, only 14 percent

of the assigned inspectors nationwide are stationed along that

northern border. Only some 1,000 inspectors. And if you compare

that to a place like JFK International Airport, where there are 500

inspectors at that one point, we can begin to better understand the

very difficult manpower challenge that these good folks face.

Yes, we need better facilities. We need safer access. We need,

clearly, the latest in technology. But most importantly, in my opinion, we need the personnel who can make these crossings work and

who can keep our borders safe, and at the same time, as you noted,

Mr. Chairman, keep them effectively processing that flow of commerce.

The Canadians are, as I mentioned, our partners in this effort.

Ours is an extraordinary relationship. We are each other’s largest

trading partners. And while I’ll defer to the Canadians to describe

their perspective, but to those of us here in the North Country,

they are our partners, they are our welcome neighbors, and they

represent, collectively, an irreplaceable thread in the economic fabric of our region.

Mr. Chairman, during a brief conversation we had just last week

off the House floor in the Speaker’s lobby, I was very impressed

with your comments about the critical nature of balancing security

with the essential flow of commerce, and I couldn’t agree more, and

that, it seems to me, is our two-part challenge. And I know, Mr.

Chairman, that’s your objective, as well. And while we deeply appreciate your making the effort to bring this subcommittee here to

help fill in the pieces of this puzzle that is obviously in all our interests to solve, and like you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to

hearing from our witnesses to learn their perspectives, hopefully to

borrow from their expertise, so that we can forge an effective policy

to meet this very critical challenge. So thank you, Mr. Chairman,

and I look forward to the hearing ahead.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John M. McHugh follows:]

5

6

7

8

9

Mr. SOUDER. I’d like to do a few procedural matters. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days to submit

written statements and questions for the hearing record and that

any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be

included in the record. I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and other materials may be included in the hearing

record, and that all Members be permitted to revise and extend

their remarks without objection is so ordered.

Also, for the record, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. McHugh,

a member of the full committee, be permitted to participate in this

subcommittee hearing.

Now, as a government-formed oversight committee, it’s our general practice that all witnesses have to be sworn in and testify

under oath, so if you could each stand and raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that the witnesses have each

answered in the affirmative. Our committee, for those of you who

aren’t familiar, when the Republicans took over Congress, this was

one of the more infamous committees, that we started with Waco

and proceeded into the travel office investigations, all sorts of different investigation-type things, which is why we, as an oversight

committee, have to do the swearing in.

But Senator Stafford, it’s a great honor to have you here today.

You’ve been a long-time respected leader in this area, and if you’d

like to make a few opening comments, we’d be privileged to hear

them.

STATEMENT OF RONALD STAFFORD, SENATOR FROM THE

45TH DISTRICT, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So now I’m under

oath, so I have to be careful what I say about Mr. McHugh, but

on a serious note, we all receive many, many invitations to attend

a number of gatherings, meetings, that type of thing, and we certainly can’t go to all of them, and I think even my staff had indicated that we had a conflict, and I changed that, because I wanted

to be here personally, first to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman

Souder, and Congressman McHugh, for being here today, and

you’re here considering issues that are so important to our area.

You can see why John is so well respected and we think so much

of him in this area. The statement he made covered it very well.

My dad was a Clinton County farmer, he had a lot of sense, and

he always said that it’s always good to keep your mouth closed and

let people think you don’t know anything than to open it and remove all doubt, so I won’t get into real specifics here. You will have

professionals here, others here in this area talking with you, testifying.

But again, I certainly want to compliment those in our area.

Garry Douglas—I’ve mentioned one name, so I should mention

about 20—but all here who have been so concerned about the problems and issues you’re here today to consider, as I’ve mentioned.

John, I think, has mentioned this. It isn’t difficult. We’re here between New York City and Montreal, two of the major cities on the

North American continent, and we’re here right in the main line

of travel. We trust you will use good judgment.

10

I know Congressman McHugh has been right in the forefront and

has been talking to you, Mr. Chairman, and others.

You’ll find our people here very knowledgeable. They know exactly what they’re talking about. And as John mentioned, we hope

you will come back, and I’m sure, out of this meeting and others,

we’ll have some decisions which make it possible, as John said, for

our people who work here who do such a tremendous job, challenged in so many ways and hours and other areas. And with that,

I will let those who are going to testify concerning some of the specifics and some of the others—not let them—but I will make it possible for them to testify, and thank you for being here from Wendell Wilke’s State. We all thought a great deal of him up here in

Clinton County. And on the other hand, you’ve had some other

great people from Indiana, and as you mentioned earlier, Notre

Dame will be back. But thank you so much for being with us, and

John, thank you very much for being here.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you, and I know that your schedule’s tight,

and we appreciate you working this in, and at whatever point you

need to leave, and if you want to make additional comments as we

go.

Mr. STAFFORD. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. But we really recognize that what we do here at the

Federal level has a huge impact in every State and local area. It’s

important that we work together on the questions involved, because one of the side tragedies of the major attack is what’s happening to our economy, and if we can’t figure out how to keep people working and in their homes and getting their bills paid—— Mr. STAFFORD. That’s right.

Mr. SOUDER. It will all come to naught in our security efforts.

Mr. STAFFORD. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Dambrosio.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DAMBROSIO, DISTRICT FIELD

OFFICER, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Good morning. Thank you for your invitation to

testify and for providing me the chance to appear before you today.

I would like to discuss the efforts of the U.S. Customs Service to

address the terrorism threat and the challenges that exist along

the U.S.-Canada border, commonly called the northern border.

As the guardian of our Nation’s borders, Customs plays a major

role in the great struggle against the forces of terror in which

America is now engaged. The Customs Service enforces over 400

laws and regulations for more than 40 Federal agencies. Naturally,

the northern border is a major focus of our efforts. Protecting our

broad expanding economic ties with Canada, while preventing terrorists from exploiting increased traffic flows, is a key goal for the

northern border.

The immense flow of trade and travel between the United States

and Canada requires that our two nations continue to work together to enhance the protection of our vital interests at this critical time. Trade and travel between the United States and Canada

has jumped dramatically since the implementation of the North

American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. The Port of Champlain

alone now clears approximately 400,000 trucks and nearly 1 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

lion vehicles a year. Champlain is also on a major highway that

connects the large metropolitan areas of Montreal and New York

City and points beyond.

The Customs Service was addressing security along our frontier

with Canada well before the attacks of September 11th. The previous arrest of an Algerian terrorist, the millennium bomber

Ahmed Ressam, by Customs inspectors at Port Angeles, WA, in December 1999, is an example of our previous efforts. That arrest also

set into motion a range of measures to bolster security along our

northern flank.

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the U.S.

Customs Service immediately implemented a level one alert for all

personnel and ports of entry. This is our highest state of alert calling for sustained, intensive anti-terrorist operations. We remain at

level one alert today.

Under level one alert, all ports of entry have increased vehicle,

passenger, cargo, and mail examinations commensurate with the

threat at their location. On the northern border, we have suspended remote inspection reporting systems and are staffing every

port of entry with at least two officers, 24 hours per day, 7 days

per week. In order to meet the demands of maintaining this highest state of alert, nearly 100 additional Customs inspectors have

been temporarily detailed to northern border posts to ensure that

this minimum staffing requirement applies even to our most remote locations.

In addition to the Customs Service’s enhanced efforts, and in

keeping with the tradition of partnership that has always marked

the close relationship between our two nations and Customs agencies, Canada Customs has pledged their full support and cooperation in preventing terrorists and the implements of terrorism from

transiting our northern border. We are working on a priority basis

with Canada to identify additional steps to be taken now to enhance security. We have also been asking for the public’s and the

trade community’s patience as we work to protect our Nation from

the immediate threat without turning our border into an obstacle

to legitimate trade or our lifetime’s freedom of movement, although

traffic volume is markedly lower since then.

Despite initial concerns about our level one alert placing an

undue burden upon normal border flows, we have in fact succeeded

in reducing waiting times at the border to the levels they were at

prior to the September 11th attacks. Cooperation with our partners

from Customs Canada and in the business community has been instrumental to our success.

As some of you may know, some of our Customs facilities on the

northern border need to be updated. To improve these facilities,

Customs recently was provided with $20 million for resources and

technology to support northern border security and aging infrastructure. Equipment will be deployed to various northern border

locations. For example, at the port of Champlain, construction has

started for the installation of a vehicle and cargo inspection system,

or VACIS for short. When completed, this will be the first permanent truck x-ray facility on the northern border. A portable version

of this technology is being procured for Champlain, and should arrive at the port by the end of this calendar year. Customs inspecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
12

tors at the port of Champlain are also currently using other technology, including radiation detectors to detect radioactive material

used for weapons of mass destruction, and vapor trace technology

to help us detect the presence of narcotics.

In addition, the Customs Service plans to use part of this $20

million in new funding to enhance the security of the ports of entry

all along the northern border by investment in key elements of infrastructure. There are many roads that connect to the border

which are unmonitored and allow for individuals or small groups

to gain entry undetected. Most remote, limited-hour ports of entry

have no monitoring or assessment capabilities. Our infrastructure

investments will be prioritized to those locations that have the

highest risk.

The Customs Service plans to install digital video security systems which can call remote monitoring locations, when they are enabled, at selected locations. These systems will complement pre-existing remote video inspection system sites. The Customs Service

also plans to install additional lighting and appropriate barriers,

gates, and bollards at those locations that lack barriers, to prevent

unauthorized vehicle crossings, and to increase officer safety and

deny anonymity to law violators.

From an overall perspective, the vast volume of trade and traffic

on our northern border has put immense pressure on our ability to

enforce the Nation’s laws while facilitating international trade,

even before September 11th. After September 1th, our challenge

has risen to a new level. Although we have taken many steps to

address these challenges, such as the planned improvements to our

facilities and the temporary detailing of additional Customs inspectors to northern border posts, we still face many challenges.

We are working within Treasury and the administration to address these challenges. For example, we are developing threat assessments and a longer-term perimeter security strategy for dealing with them, to secure our homeland defenses, including the

northern border. In considering such a long-term plan, several core

questions will need to be addressed. First, how do we measure the

added protection or risk reduction we will realize from additional

investments on the border? How will Customs’ plans properly interact and integrate with the other border agencies, the intelligence

community, and the Department of Defense? What are alternative

means of securing our far-flung border crossings? What is the best

system for examining the vast amounts of cargo coming across the

border?

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman McHugh,

for this opportunity to testify. The U.S. Customs Service will continue to make every effort possible, working with our fellow inspection agencies within the administration and with congressional

leaders, our Canadian counterparts, to address your concerns and

those of the American people.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dambrosio follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Ms. Holmes.

STATEMENT OF M. FRANCES HOLMES, DISTRICT DIRECTOR,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Ms. HOLMES. Mr. Chairman and Congressman McHugh, thank

you for inviting me here today to address you on behalf of the U.S.

Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS, which is part of

the Department of Justice, has a staff of over 30,000 people who

enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act. Their duties include

the inspection of persons applying for admission to the United

States, facilitating the legal entry of persons into the United

States, detecting illegal entry, arresting and deporting criminal

aliens, and naturalizing legal permanent residents for U.S. citizenship. The uniformed inspections branch of INS provides the staffing

at our Nation’s ports of entry. Additional staff is assigned to the

investigations, detention and removal, adjudications, and administrative support sections of the INS.

The U.S.-Canada border is over 4,000 miles long. The INS-Buffalo District portion of this border extends from the Vermont/Lake

Champlain border, west to Buffalo and Lake Erie. The district extends south to just north of New York City in the east and includes

Binghamtom in the west. The District Office is located in Buffalo

and there is a sub-office in Albany. Small offices serve the public

in Syracuse and Rochester. There are 16 major land border ports

of entry and multiple harbors where pleasure boats and commercial

vessels arrive and are inspected. Additionally, we staff Amtrak stations in two locations on the border and undertake immigration

preclearance activities at Canadian airports in Ottawa, Montreal

and Toronto. We have 289 full-time Inspections staff and additional

part-time or seasonal staff. In fiscal year 2001, the Buffalo District

completed 40 million inspections.

The Champlain port of entry is located 45 miles south of Montreal and 350 miles north of New York City. It is located at Interstate Highway 87, which connects these two cities. The current

Champlain facility opened in August 1973 and is scheduled for

modification and expansion in the coming years as funds are allocated.

The INS management staff at Champlain provides oversight to

ports of entry from Rouses Point, which is adjacent to Lake Champlain, to Fort Covington in the west, and to ports of entry in between. There are currently 38 full-time permanent staff here, with

additional part-time staff.

The Champlain staff is responsible for conducting inspections of

the Amtrak train, which arrives daily from Montreal at Rouses

Point. It also inspects pleasure boats from Canada which arrive on

Lake Champlain. Our primary activity, however, is inspecting arriving passengers in private vehicles. We complete this work with

the U.S. Customs Service, and the Department of Agriculture’s

Animal and Plant Inspection Service makes up the third government agency which conducts inspections here at Champlain. Besides the inspection of arriving persons, the INS Champlain also

handles a significant number of aliens and U.S. citizens returned

from Canada under the U.S.-Canada reciprocal agreement. Of

these aliens, about 300 annually are denied refugee status in CanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
19

ada and are returned to us just here at this port of entry, and they

require interviewing to determine if they are allowed to be in the

United States. Some are processed for removal hearings from the

United States and some are held in custody.

Over the last few years, we have seen a decline in the number

of inspections performed by our inspectors here at Champlain. For

example, 5 years ago, in fiscal year 1996, this master port, the

larger port, performed over 5.5 million inspections. In fiscal year

ending 2001, that figure was slightly over 3.8 million inspections.

INS Champlain has held three stakeholder meetings in 2001 to

meet with individuals, local employers, trucking associations, the

Plattsburgh Chamber of Commerce, and other interested parties to

improve the processing of applicants for admission at the port of

entry. Suggestions have been received and implemented. The management staff is committed to facilitating admissible applicants,

while enforcing the laws and regulations of the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there

has been increased vigilance at the border. Annual leave of inspectors has been canceled. Overtime has increased, and additional

staff has been detailed to enhance border security. We remain cognizant that legitimate cross-border traffic must be allowed, while

ensuring persons who are inadmissible or who wish to harm this

country will be denied entry. Staffing has been doubled at the

small ports of entry so that no inspector works alone. More applicants for admission are checked through law enforcement data

bases, and all adult applicants are asked to produce governmentissued identification. Trunks of passenger cars are opened and contents scanned.

Within the first few days following September 11th, there were

traffic delays. Today, however, there are minimal waits for passenger cars—in most cases, under 10 minutes. Lanes are opened

and closed based on need. The Immigration and Naturalization

Service remains committed to securing the borders of this country

against those who wish to harm it.

The INS Buffalo District was pleased to receive one additional

inspector for Champlain during the fiscal year 2001, and a total of

eight for our district land border ports. We are proud of the service

we provide to the public at the U.S.-Canada border, and look forward to working with the Congress to keeping up that level of service and to help protect the security of our Nation. The administration’s request for additional staff and technology resources is of the

utmost importance now. Additional resources will greatly assist the

INS in securing the border, without closing it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to give testimony regarding the Champlain corridor and the Buffalo District border operations.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Holmes follows:]

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you all for your testimony. I’d like to start

with a few clarification questions. Thank you, Senator.

In your district for Customs, do you go also to Buffalo, or do you

go Eastern Great Lakes?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. It’s all of New York State. It’s the same as Ms.

Holmes’s areas. All of New York State except for New York City,

so my office is just on the outskirts of Buffalo.

Mr. SOUDER. If both of you could provide for the record some indication, in your regions, of the amount of traffic at the different

points so we can kind of get a feel. We originally were going to

start with the Buffalo/Niagara Falls crossings, and when I could

work out the times with Congressmen, we couldn’t work them out

with the Canadian Parliamentarians. Both of us had to cancel one

time. So we will be doing another hearing in that zone, but I’m particularly interested, if I can ask a couple questions on the area between here and Buffalo. Where would the largest crossing be between here and Buffalo?

Ms. HOLMES. Well, it’s the greater Buffalo area between the

Peace Bridge and the bridges at Niagara Falls.

Mr. SOUDER. But is Kingston, along the St. Lawrence River—— Mr. DAMBROSIO. Yes, and Congressman McHugh’s area. Actually,

our answers will be different because for commercial purposes, the

largest crossing is at Alexandria Bay, but for private vehicles, it’s

at Massena.

Ms. HOLMES. Are you talking other than Champlain?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, between Champlain and Buffalo, that area of

New York State. And in those crossings, how—for example, Alexandria Bay—how does that in size compare with Champlain for Customs?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. OK, at—— Mr. SOUDER. You said yours is Alexandria Bay and yours would

be Massena?

Ms. HOLMES. For passengers would be Massena, NY.

Mr. SOUDER. But Alexandria Bay, how does it compare to Champlain, roughly?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. In terms of traffic volume?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. DAMBROSIO. At Alexandria Bay, roughly 150,000 to 200,000

trucks a year; roughly 500,000 to 700,000 vehicles per year. Let me

just clarify that the port of Champlain provides commercial support

for Alexandria Bay, because Customs is engaged in commercial activities, which Immigration Service is not. The port of Champlain

has a commercial staff which consists of import specialists and

entry control specialists, who provide the commercial coverage that

goes all the way west to Alexandria Bay, and we have large commercial operations at Alexandria Bay, Ogdensburg, at the Peace

Bridge, Massena, and a small operation at Chateaugay, NY. So the

volume that’s handled there is handled by inspectors for release

purposes, but the entire range of commercial processing is handled

here at Champlain.

After the release takes place, there’s what’s called an entry summary. It’s the assessment of duty, correct country of origin; all of

the work that goes into finalizing the importation is done here at

Champlain.

27

Mr. SOUDER. And just to kind of get a context for me in the size

of that operation, if you put them all together, is that roughly half

of Buffalo-Erie, or more than half?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. May I look at some data that I have here?

Mr. SOUDER. Sure. Let me ask you a couple of the same questions, Ms. Holmes. On Massena, do you handle it similarly?

Ms. HOLMES. No, it is not. We have the master port at Thousand

Islands, which is Alexandria Bay, and that port director would be

responsible for the Thousand Islands Bridge, Ogdensburg, which is

the next bridge north, and then Massena, which is the next bridge

after that, and then that portion of the border is under the Champlain port of entry, but Massena has a great deal of cross-border

traffic. It is busy. It is not as busy as this port, here at Champlain,

and it has a different type of traffic, because it is not between two

major cosmopolitan cities—it’s more local traffic going back and

forth—but it is a very busy port of entry. It also is not supported

well. In fact, it has a very poor facility and outdated structure for

the size of the traffic that goes through there, and that exacerbates

part of the flow problem at Massena.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know roughly, at Massena, how many people would go through?

Ms. HOLMES. I’d have to find that out, how many annually.

Mr. SOUDER. If we can put it in the record, so as people look at

our different hearing records, we can get kind of a perspective.

Did you have—— Mr. DAMBROSIO. Yes, I brought along statistical data, just in case

you had questions like this. The port of Buffalo, in fiscal year

2000—and that’s the last year for which we have final total figures—privately owned vehicles was nearly 8 million for Buffalo.

That would be Buffalo and Niagara Falls. For the entire Customs

management sector, which is all of New York State, except for New

York City, there was a total of nearly 11 million privately owned

vehicles, so roughly 3 million are from Alexandria Bay to Champlain; the remainder are at Buffalo/Niagara Falls.

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to—one of the questions that came up yesterday in our hearing was a question of Customs employees are

hired out of the central offices rather than regionally. Have you

looked into that further, or could you explain to me briefly—I know

I’ve heard this before—but why that would be true, as opposed to

regional hirings, and does that impact your ability? Do you look to

hire in a region? Do you expect Customs inspectors then to move

between different ports and not be located at a particular port for

an extended period of time? What’s the philosophy there?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Well, Chairman, let me start at the beginning

of the process. It was about 21⁄2 years ago that Customs headquarters, working with OPM, decided to take the route of quality

recruitment. Prior to quality recruitment, we did advertise locally

for positions, but with the quality recruitment route, which is an

effort to streamline the hiring process, candidates are solicited nationally and they go onto a register and they have a lot of the background work done already, so that when a vacancy comes up in a

particular part of the country, there’s a ready list of people to be

plugged in. And that system is supposed to work more smoothly

than the previous system of you have a vacancy, you advertise, you

28

hope you get some good candidates, etc. Once the people are on

board from this quality recruitment effort, which is a national effort—it’s not a local or regional effort—once inspectors, for example, are at a port of entry and they would like to transfer to a different port within my area of management control, they would indicate that to their supervisor, and if there is there’s a vacancy at

the port where they want to go to, or if they want to switch with

somebody, a mutual swap, that certainly takes place.

Mr. SOUDER. Without getting you into trouble with OPM, let me

see if I can ask this question in a tactful way. Have you found— do you—well let me ask you this question: Do you believe, qualitatively, you’re getting better employees under this system, in a

factual way under this zone—not arguing a national policy right

now—and second, can you get your vacancies filled more rapidly

than you were able to before? Those are factual questions, not opinion questions.

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the speed with which people

are coming on board, I have to say that right now, for example,

we’re reallocating, within Customs to the management sector that

I have responsibility for, 47 positions. That’s a reallocation from

other parts of the Customs Service to the East Great Lakes CMC.

We are not actually transferring people that are already in Customs. What’s happening is that the Office of Field Operations has

determined its usual attrition rate, and based on that attrition

rate, is advancing the hiring and bringing additional people on

board and allocating additional positions, 47 in number, to the East

Great Lakes CMC. I have to tell you that we thought that process

would take longer than it’s taking, but the first person in the

Champlain area to get an EOD date—an entry on duty date—I believe is this week, or in the very near future.

Now, this decision to bring these people on board was just made

within the past month, certainly since September 11th, so the

speed with which we were able to plug into the quality recruitment

lists worked very well. If we had to advertise locally and then get

a list and then go through all of the background checks, it wouldn’t

have been nearly as quick. So it’s this recent experience, that I can

tell you it has worked very quickly.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you think your retention will be as well if you’re

bringing in people from outside into an area, as opposed to somebody who was recruited from an area?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Well, the way the system works is that people

do indicate a part of the country as their preference, so the people

that have indicated this part of the country as their preference,

even though they might today be living in San Diego, but they’ve

always wanted to move here or they have relatives here or they’ve

always wanted to get back to this part of the country, we find that

when people do come here, they tend to stay. Our attrition rate

from this area, from the East Great Lakes CMC is very low compared to other parts of the country.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman in his

comments talked about how we have to watch this border crossing

issue from the broadest perspective, because if you fix one problem,

it’s like a balloon—you tend to squeeze it in one end and it comes

29

out another. Both of you spoke about temporary assignments to

handle the challenges, particularly coming after September 11th.

Mr. Dambrosio, you talked about 100 officers temporarily coming

to the northern border. Where do those officers come from, generally?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Congressman, those officers have come from

other parts of the country. I have to tell you that none of them

have come to the East Great Lakes CMC, so I couldn’t tell you

their origin, because they didn’t come here.

Mr. MCHUGH. They did not come here?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. No, they didn’t.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, then, how are you handling the 24/7, two officers, which did not exist before? How are you accommodating

that? I assume that it’s just through overtime and such; is that

true?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Within the Customs management sector, additional ports of entry are Syracuse, Rochester and Albany. Because

they are not as impacted as the land border is, we’ve been detailing

people—one person from Rochester, one from Syracuse and two

from Albany—since September 11th to land border locations. That’s

a total of four people from within the CMC. The rest has been

taken up by a combination of resources, a lot of overtime. Our overtime has doubled in many locations. We have received great assistance from the National Guard; the New York State National Guard

provided us with great assistance, especially immediately after

September 11th, and we worked closely with our partners in the

Immigration Service to try and cover shifts as best we can.

Mr. MCHUGH. Ms. Holmes.

Ms. HOLMES. We’ve done two things. Immediately following September 11th, we had agents in Buffalo and Albany who we detailed

to the border to work with other government agencies, and most recently, headquarters has detailed U.S. Border Patrol agents from

the southwest to the border here to assist us and add security at

the ports of entry.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, I guess my point, or I was hoping you would

illustrate the point, that whatever we do to meet a challenge somewhere, if we’re dealing in an ad hoc way, as you seem to say you

are—which I understand, by the way. This is not a criticism of

what you’re doing. I think you’ve done an incredible job, particularly under the circumstances—but that places pressures in other

areas, as well, and that obviously it all comes back to a nature of

personnel. This is kind of a factual question. It may be an opinion

question, as well. Given how we probably are going to demand

these crossings be operated from now on, given the need to have

two inspectors at these crossings, given the need to try to do things

to accommodate these rather obscure road crossings that you

talked about, Michael, how many personnel nationwide, on the

crossings themselves, do you feel you’re short right now to achieve

a balance to do the job you need to do and to place a sustainable

work burden on your personnel that right now, as I understand it,

are operating at an incredible tempo—60, 70, 80 hours a week—

which most people would not be able to do over any extended period. Have you had a chance to look at that at all? Talking about

thousands, hundreds? How many?

30

Mr. DAMBROSIO. As far as the entire Customs Service is concerned, Congressman, I really couldn’t say. I could only tell you

from the perspective of the East Great Lakes CMC.

Mr. SOUDER. OK.

Mr. DAMBROSIO. The 47 reallocated positions from other parts of

the country was in response to my discussions with Customs headquarters to tell them that we needed to provide relief to inspectors

here that they cannot work indefinitely 16 hours a day, day after

day. So we are getting 47 reallocated positions. In addition, we

have requested additional National Guard support which would

help alleviate the Customs staffing requirements, which would

allow people to work an 8-hour day, perhaps, instead of a 16-hour

day. So when the 47 reallocated positions are on board, and if we

continue to have New York State National Guard support, we believe that we can handle the situation as it is now, assuming that

the technology, which goes hand in hand with the people, is also

available. For example, I did reference VACIS being installed here

in Champlain. One high-technology system can equal numerous

Customs inspectors. To devan one truck would take two or three

inspectors perhaps all day, and that would use their resources an

entire day. With VACIS, with the x-ray system, we would be able

to do a truck every 5 minutes going through the x rays, to see if

there’s anything inside that truck that merits a devanning. If we

can avoid the manual labor that comes with lack of knowledge by

applying to high technology that gives us better knowledge so that

we don’t have to use the manual labor, then we can manage with

the resources that we will have on board. So the two really do go

hand in hand.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I don’t

think it’s reasonable to expect the National Guard of the State of

New York, who are people who come from private employment, as

you well know, to become part of our permanent border presence.

I’m suggesting that we have a real personnel challenge here that

has to be met where the responsibility lies, and that’s with the

Federal Government.

If I’m asking something coming up here that you don’t feel you

can answer in a public forum, I understand, but right after September 11th, it was my understanding that the practice was inspect every vehicle, every trunk crossing, true?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Yes.

Mr. MCHUGH. That has now lessened in frequency; is that true?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. It has, Congressman, because a lot of our crossings—and believe it or not, even in the Buffalo area—a lot of the

crossings are people that are seen every day and they actually

cross many times a day. For example, at Massena, NY, where the

POV count is actually higher than Champlain, they’re at over a

million POVs a year. A lot of those crossings are the same people

crossing four and five times a day and they’re local people. And immediately after September 11th, we said every car, every trunk, ID

for everybody, but we had to step back and take a look, and say

is this really reasonable? You know, the people that we see five

times a day, the people that we know live in the area that have

lived here all their life and we know are not a high risk. We

31

brought some of that to the process so that not every car today is

having its trunk opened or identification being provided.

Mr. MCHUGH. That brings us to the personal or frequent-traveler, frequent-flyer program that’s been kind of up and down. Is

that being resurrected, if you will, with the Canadian Government,

to try to evolve a system that formalizes the frequent-traveler situation that you just talked about?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. The Customs Service has no specific system of

frequent travelers. There’s a test system at Port Huron/Sarnia,

called NEXUS. There is a Canadian system called CanPass, which

allows for habitual crossers who have a card, who have had some

background checks, to be able to cross more quickly. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has a system, which I’m sure Ms.

Holmes can explain better than I can.

Ms. HOLMES. We have a system at the Peace Bridge called

Autopass, and we’ve been using it for many years, and it allows

people to apply, and we do background checks, and they are then

able to move through the border, coming in our direction, much

more quickly. We did suspend it after September 11th and we have

not yet reopened it. It is a much more simple system than what

they use in this Port Huron test called NEXUS, but it is something

I think we’re going to be moving toward. Also, the INS has a biometrics system called INSPASS that we use at a number of airports for frequent business passengers, both U.S. citizens and

aliens, and it is biometrics, using the hand, and that works and we

are able to continue to use that after September 11th, because it

does identify the individual and the individual has had extensive

background checks, so I think that is something that the agency is

moving toward, is more expanded biometrics, as the techinology

gets better, to continue to use that. It is more problematic at a land

border port of entry because although the car, maybe the driver

may be enrolled, all the passengers with the driver would not be,

and whether the agency has decided to do that, I’d have to defer

to our headquarters, but it is something that we are constantly

looking at. I’d like to address the staffing issue, if I may.

Mr. MCHUGH. Please.

Ms. HOLMES. We obviously rely and work with the Customs

Service to staff ports of entry, and the National Guard has been of

great help. Certainly, if the bill as proposed, we were to receive

three times the number of staff that we have here, we would be

thrilled. Personally I was thrilled last year when we received eight

additional land border positions for the whole 400 miles. I mean

that was a great increase for us, so any increases would be welcome, but we are right now canceling annual leave for our employees, they’re working double shifts, they’re working long days,

they’re working with very few days off. I think we are soon going

to hit a point where they are tired and not well as a result of all

of this work, and I don’t know that we’re going to get the relief

soon enough to prevent concerns with their health. It is quite a

lengthy process to bring people on board. We always anticipate attrition with the agency, and we have people in the queue ready to

clear, but whether we’ll get it—we haven’t yet received any additional positions, unlike the Customs Service, so that I haven’t been

able to bring any additional staff on yet. And it will take time. SeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
32

curity clearances take time, training then takes time, and to make

them contributing members of the inspectional staff here will take

a while, and so I don’t see any immediate relief to the staffing

crunches that we’re experiencing right now here at the land border

post.

Mr. MCHUGH. I appreciate that you look somewhat envious toward Mr. Dambrosio in that regard. I’m sure he’s looking enviously

toward you in terms of a recent funding bill that not just tripled

an authorization—everybody was taken care of there—but unfortunately, in my view, didn’t provide the funds for Customs, and that’s

something we’ve got to work on.

Last question, Mr. Chairman; I appreciate your patience. The generic hearing question: If you had two wishes that could be fulfilled

from the U.S. Congress, what would they be? What could we do for

you?

Ms. HOLMES. Well, two wishes would always be additional staff— I think we definitely need new staff—and we need some facilities,

at least here in the Buffalo District for the INS. Some of their facilities, if you’ve seen them, have long since passed their prime.

Some of them were built in the 1930’s and 1940’s, and they just

don’t meet the technological needs that we have now, and I think

we could do a better job with better resources like that. I would

have many more, but those would be my top two.

Mr. MCHUGH. That’s why I said two. I understand. Mike.

Mr. DAMBROSIO. I would have to echo that, that we have the resources that will provide the quick transit of the volume at the

northern border that continues to grow. Right now there’s been a

temporary reduction because of the events of September 11th, but

in the long term, the traffic volume at this northern border is going

to increase. And it has doubled and doubled again in the recent

decade, and the resources that are available at the northern border

essentially are static, and they date back to years ago. The infrastructure is old, many of these buildings date from the 1930’s. Port

of Champlain will be rebuilt within the next 3 years. That’s the

kind of advancement that I’d like to see at the northern border,

that the major crossings have the kinds of facilities that will expedite the flow of trade and people, that the staffing be sufficient,

and that the technology be there and technology advance as we

learn more about what will help move goods and people more

quickly.

Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but I did want to address—thank you both for that—one final question, which you may

not be prepared to answer right now, but if you could, if you’re

not—if you could provide it for the record. My office has received

a number of communications from individuals who are concerned

about the Canadian Pacific Railway that currently maintains 11

people at the Rouses Point rail crossing. There’s talk about an internal restructuring that may remove some, perhaps all, of those

11 people. I’m concerned about what role those folks play, if any,

in the current partnership that both of your agencies have with

those firms that ship across this border, and what their absence

may mean to the processing times, if they’re not there to facilitate

the job, that you have to do in inspection of railroad cars, which

probably is not done as thoroughly as all of us would like right

33

now, out of certain necessity, what would that mean without those

11 people? I don’t know if either of your agencies have a formal

view or have any familiarity with that, but if you could look at

that, I’d appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. I have two additional questions I wanted to followup. On the Autopass at Peace Bridge and the INPASS you referred

to, particularly the Autopass or the NEXUS, how do they handle

the passengers in the cars?

Ms. HOLMES. Well, the people receive a decal that goes on their

car and they are allowed to go to a dedicated line. However, we

still do have an officer who works in the booth just to be sure that

there are no additional passengers, but it does make for a quicker

inspection, because people have been precleared and you know

that.

Mr. SOUDER. So if somebody has been precleared, they can’t have

somebody else in the car and still use the——

Ms. HOLMES. Correct. Either that, or it negates the whole point.

No, it’s only for the people who have been cleared.

Mr. SOUDER. That’s fine. And if you get preclearance, can you

take your kids with you?

Ms. HOLMES. We would do a——

Mr. SOUDER. The whole family precleared?

Ms. HOLMES. Exactly.

Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to followup by Mr. Dambrosio, in your

statement you said this new VACIS system is coming to Champlain. Was that a pre-September–11th commitment to do that?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. And what’s the rough cost of that?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. I recall discussions with my headquarters people that one VACIS, the type that we’re getting, it’s called a portable VACIS. It’s called portable, but once it’s set down, it really is

not portable. It’s roughly $1 million.

Mr. SOUDER. Have you heard any preliminary—as to how the additional expenditures on the northern border might affect this

zone? Do you put requests up and have any process started inside

Customs or INS at this point?

Ms. HOLMES. Concerning?

Mr. SOUDER. On the northern border, additional expenditures.

Like do you already have a wish list in?

Ms. HOLMES. We always have a wish list in.

Mr. SOUDER. And have you—has anybody asked you for opinions

to how that might change after September 11th, or was it a wish

list that was sent in at the beginning of the budget cycle?

Ms. HOLMES. Well, certainly resourcewise, the necessity to staff

ports with two people all the time changed after September 11th,

and so we revised it then. Facility wish list has been in for years.

We are constantly pointing out deficiencies in the ports of entry.

Although some of them, Massena included, that was pre-September

11th.

Mr. SOUDER. In your case, for limited amount of dollars, do you

put more of a premium on being able to have two staffers, or for

additional structural facilities?

Ms. HOLMES. People. Absolutely people.

34

Mr. SOUDER. In the—you seem to indicate a little bit different in

yours, Mr. Dambrosio?

Mr. DAMBROSIO. I guess it’s because the Customs Service is responsible for the commercial processing, and it’s the technology

that’s needed for that endeavor that could help to eliminate a need

for lots of additional people. The VACIS that I spoke about could

help us to identify what is inside trucks or trains far better than

people could, because we could never have enough people here at

the northern border to look inside those containers the way that x

rays can. And Congressman McHugh mentioned Canadian Pacific

at Rouses Point. At the rail crossings at the northern border, there

is a real deficiency of any kind of infrastructure. There are no facilities to examine cargo, there are no VACIS units, and we have

had—when you asked about what kind of lists have we had into

headquarters, Customs headquarters has had lists of what is needed at rail crossings, specifically, for a long time, and is continually

working with the rail companies to try and get examination facilities, and is trying to get funding in order to put VACIS units at

the rail crossings. When it comes to the smaller ports of entry, I

would have to echo what Ms. Holmes said, that if we’re going to

keep stations and ports open 24 hours a day staffed with two inspectors, in order to reduce the overtime expenditures that are occurring now, you of course would need more staffing resources.

Mr. SOUDER. That’s a problem, by the way, on the southern border, too, with the rail. I think you said that there has been a temporary reduction in traffic. Has this been—Let me ask the question

this way: I think both of you said, before the hearing started and

in your testimony, that the delays are relatively short at this point

along your sector. If traffic were normal and you continued at level

one, what would the delays be?

Ms. HOLMES. Well, we would staff so that the delays would be

minimal. We would—— Mr. SOUDER. But you don’t—where would you—in other

words——

Ms. HOLMES. They would work more time, they would have less

time off, there would probably be more leave canceled. We are trying to give people days off, but our goal, in working with Customs,

is of course to keep the waits as minimal as possible, so—— Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask the question a different way. If you

don’t do those, in other words, how much would you say it’s reduced, the traffic is reduced? 10 percent, 30 percent? And obviously

the first weeks were probably a greater drop than—— Mr. DAMBROSIO. Well, at Champlain alone, and I can’t say just

since September 11th, but just because of the differential in the

Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar in recent years, the amount

of traffic I would say has reduced significantly.

Ms. HOLMES. Well, in my testimony I stated it’s gone up, but

since September 11th, at least in the Buffalo corridor, my staff tells

me it’s down about 30, 40 percent.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, the reason I ask the question that way is that

if you’re already—and my understanding from Mr. Ziglar was INS

is getting fairly tapped out in ability to use overtime, which is a

whole other question we have, and some others, if you had that

traffic go up 30 to 40 percent and you’re already tapped out on your

35

overtime and you’ve already canceled leave, unless we get more

personnel in at level one—either we’re to back off of level one or

get personnel relatively rapidly, because we’re hitting a wall.

Ms. HOLMES. The waits will get longer.

Mr. SOUDER. And we can’t both try to say we want the economy

to pick up and stay at level one, and yet at the same time, what

we’ve seen, the terrorists historically have hit us somewhere in the

world about every 6 months, because they know we tend to back

off, and also, if under this pressure any other major incidents happen where there’s a border—basically you have to come in by air,

water or land unless they’re already in the United States, and it

won’t take but one more major border incident where somebody has

crossed to see a desire to never go down from level one. In fact, to

not have unmanned crossings at all, that the pressure is going to

be huge on the government to try to address the question, and

that’s part of what we’re trying to do in the assessment.

I have one other technical question that I wanted to ask. We

have been discussing a lot about language questions, that my understanding from our hearing 2 weeks ago with the U.S. Marshals,

Customs, and INS in Washington in personnel questions, that the

INS, for example, has heavily focused on having Spanish as a second language. Yesterday, when I asked the knowledge about

French, and let alone Farsi, that while you can get up to a 5-percent bonus, if I understand this—3 to 5 percent annual increase in

salary for learning a second language, few people are taking advantage of that, partly because they have to pass a State Departmentlevel test. One of my—and, for example, a couple of the people informally we talked to after the hearing actually were French, that

has their first language, and couldn’t pass the test. Which leads to

the question, could we even pass English tests if we were doing

that? In other words, what we don’t need here is somebody who can

teach French or teach Farsi. The question is that in our system,

particularly given the risk that we are currently looking at in the

United States, it is almost incomprehensible to some of us that we

don’t have people at the borders who can talk—or have access,

even—who can talk or read literature in the language that we’re

basically concerned about from the terrorist perspective right now.

Do you know, in Customs and INS, whether there has been any

discussion about making a more functional-type test with a different kind of bonus system which would say you don’t have to be

able to teach this language, you don’t even have to be completely

literate, but you have to understand certain things, and maybe

know what ‘‘anthrax’’ looks like in Arabic? And Congressman

Wolfe, who heads the Appropriations Committee is looking in the

report to tell us how we might do something in the language question and look for a creative way to do it, but we’re running into

very complicated walls and traditions with this, and I’m wondering

how the tradition started, and whether you have any grassroots

suggestions in your zone, because it’s not a particularly comforting

prospect to this elected official or the average taxpayer to realize

our language vulnerabilities at the borders.

Ms. HOLMES. Well, if I could address that. We do something a

little different from the Customs Service, and we hire through the

OPM register, but we also use the VRA and we also use the outVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
36

standing scholar. And in this district, we make an effort to interview every applicant, and one of the things we look for is language

abilities, and place people appropriately at our ports of entry so

that if we have an Arabic speaker, and we do, we put that person

in Montreal, because in Montreal there’s quite a large Arabic population.

We have quite a few French speakers here in Champlain. We

certainly, at our academy, teach Spanish, because a number of our

predominant ports are where they deal with many Spanish-speaking people. But as an agency, we certainly look to get people who

have language ability to make a well rounded inspector. But as far

as recruitment nationally, excuse me, national policies on that, I

am unaware of the OMM process.

Mr. SOUDER. At Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and Massena, do you

have anybody who can speak Farsi?

Ms. HOLMES. Not that I am aware of, no. I am pleased to have

an Arabic speaker.

Mr. SOUDER. You have an Arabic?

Ms. HOLMES. We have an Arabic speaker in Montreal. In fact, we

moved her to Buffalo to work with the FBI, because they didn’t

have one, either.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you have a resource of people that you can call?

Ms. HOLMES. Yes. Well, we certainly have translation services,

and we use them all the time, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. Dambrosio.

Mr. DAMBROSIO. Mr. Chairman, in the Customs Service, I’m not

aware of any discussions along the line that you’ve asked the question, but I can look into that, if you’d like.

Mr. SOUDER. We’ll pursue it in Washington, as well. Mr.

McHugh, do you have any more questions?

Mr. MCHUGH. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. If the second panel could

now come forward. Before you sit down, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Duford

and Mr. Keefe, if you will stay standing and we’ll do the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that each of the witnesses have

answered in the affirmative. First we’ll start with Mr. Douglas

from the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce. We’re

appreciative that you could join us today.

STATEMENT OF GARRY F. DOUGLAS, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

PLATTSBURGH-NORTH COUNTRY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, thank you, and your colleague will confirm

that it’s a dangerous thing to put me in front of you and ask me

to talk about the border, so it’s a subject that I and the business

community in this region feel passionately about and have been

working actively on long before September 11th, which, of course,

has brought fresh attention from new quarters to a lot of the things

we were already talking about.

First of all, let me welcome you, Mr. Chairman, to Montreal’s

U.S. suburb. That has come to be the way that we refer to ourselves, because in a short, bumper-sticker sort of way, it frames the

reality of what’s happening in this area and other areas approximate to the border, like Plattsburgh. We are becoming bi-national

37

economic regions. There are a series of them across the U.S.-Canadian frontier. It is no longer about trade. It is about common economic regions. Trade brings about images of boxes moving back

and forth, and I would suggest it’s something more related to the

U.S. relationship with Bulgaria or Finland than it is with Canada

at this point in time. This is a different sort of relationship. It’s far

more integrated, it’s far more personal, it’s far more important. It’s

actually far more precious—at least it certainly should be—to all

the United States and to all the American people. If you’ll indulge

me, I’d like to, first of all, talk in terms of a couple of frameworks

within which I think we need to think about the border in places

like Champlain, and then I would like to hit on several specific requests, recommendations, issues that our coalition has some definite opinions on.

First of all, economics. It is important. It’s vastly important to all

Americans. Of our 50 States 35 now have Canada as their main export mark. If you talk about economic security, Canada is our No.

1 source of economic security, and that certainly needs to be as

much a part of thinking about security as other elements of security, which certainly also need to be thought about and addressed.

I won’t bore you with the numbers that we all hear all the time, the $1.8 billion a day in trade, the at least 1.8 million U.S. jobs

directly dependent on simply selling products to Canada; never

mind all of the other ripple effects of that. The stakes are absolutely huge. But in our area—and we’ve submitted this for the

record—our chamber does a study every 2 years to document— we’re the only place in the country that does this—to try to put

numbers, and then track them, on the impact of a neighboring

country, in this case Canada, on a border jurisdiction like ours, in

this case Clinton County, NY, which is the area around Plattsburgh. 80,000 people. To put the numbers in some context, we’ve

established that for calendar year 1994, that annual economic impact amounted to $784 million U.S. dollars, per year. Extraordinary.

But then we further documented that in just 4 years’ time, that

doubled to $1.4 billion. That tells us the stakes are huge. It also

tells us they’re growing exponentially. We now estimate that 14

percent of the work force in Clinton County out of the 80,000 population works directly for a Canadian employer. Companies like

Bombardier in Quebec or Champlain Plastics, and the more than

100 Canadian employees we have working here who have transcended those boundaries and working both sides, they’re about far

more than the boxes in trucks moving back and forth, which more

and more now are a symptom or a sign of what’s happening, rather

than the be-all and end-all of what’s happening.

I’m fond of pointing to the Canadian border as really America’s

No. 1 economic asset, and when you think about it in those terms

and realize that is indeed a fact, frankly it becomes disgraceful to

also realize that it’s America’s most neglected economic asset, its

most taken for granted. And finally, we’re coming to grips with

that.

There have been many determined, but often lonely, voices like

our good Congressman here in the past, but their frustration—and

it’s natural—is that most of their colleagues are from places like

38

Nebraska, and both to engage their attention, but then also to have

them understand the kinds of relationships that areas like ours

have with this neighboring country is difficult, but hopefully we

have an opportunity now to get through some of that lack of awareness or misunderstanding and to protect our economic security and

make sure that these border crossings work in excellent ways—excellent in all regards: Excellent in terms of protecting national security, excellent in terms of enforcing the laws that they have to

enforce, but excellent also in terms of facilitating economic activity,

because it’s vital that all three of those pillars be upheld.

The other framework that I really have to touch on on behalf of

our Canadian partners—and they are our partners; our friends; we

work with them every day. They aren’t some other country that we

visit once in a while on a mission and do business with. It’s more

than that. And hope that we all agree that Canada and Canadians

that aren’t the enemy. And I’ve seen the degree to which even some

hysteria is attempting to be created that somehow Canada is some

great center of bomb-throwing madmen and that Canadians somehow are our enemy because they don’t care about our security or

whatnot. And there are things to be addressed, but we need to be

very careful about doing it within a framework of, first of all, acknowledging and understanding our very special relationship with

Canada.

In NORAD and in NATO, they’re our allies. They’re at our side

right now in the campaign in Afghanistan. We know about the economic links that I’ve mentioned. They’re at our sides, our stakes

are the same in that way.

But the relationship is more than that. We’re neighbors, we’re

friends, we’re family. And as with any family, the attack on America has been regarded as an attack on Canadians as well, and I can

tell you it’s felt very deeply there. Witness the 100,000 grief-stricken Canadians who gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. It

wasn’t reported much in the United States, which is too bad. It was

an extraordinary event. Or the volunteers, just one moving example of which I’ll cite: The little rural community just across this

imaginary line is called Lacolle, Quebec. Very small community.

Their municipality brought $1,000 donation to our Chamber to

pass on to the American Red Cross just last week. This shows they

aren’t the enemy, they’re our friends, and we need to treat them

as such. This relationship is truly special. It is unique in the world.

It is of enormous value to all Americans.

As we react to current security concerns, it is surely and clearly

vital that we do nothing to undermine or diminish this bond and

connection with our Canadian friends. The economic security

stakes are huge for our country and its people. But the subtler

stakes inherent in preserving the most special relationship in the

world between two nations and two peoples are even greater. It

must be appropriately cherished and fully secured as we go forward.

We do not need a more restrictive relationship with Canada any

more than we need a, ‘‘tighter border,’’ if tighter means the raising

of walls. What we do desperately need is a commitment by both our

nations to take our past cooperation and partnership to new levels

and into new areas of endeavor, and we need border facilities and

39

operations which are modern, efficient and effective, in balanced

support of all three key objectives: Security, enforcement, and trade

and travel facilitation. In short, we need a smarter border and a

smarter cross-border partnership.

Let me touch on a few priorities if I may, and recommendations.

I speak on behalf of the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of

Commerce, which is a 2,100-member regional business organization

servicing the northeast region of the State of New York. I also

speak for the Quebec-New York Corridor Coalition, which unites

more than 1,000 chambers of commerces, businesses, economic development agencies, public and private interests in both Quebec

and the State of New York and for our group, the committee of 100

Plus for a Port of Excellence.

First of all, we need the right tools for our people, and let me

agree and concur and join in aplauding the INS and Customs folks

here at Champlain. I know across the country, but I know personally of the folks here at Champlain, who are doing an extraordinary job under great pressure with a great weight of responsibility on their shoulders, without leave, putting in extraordinary

hours, keeping things working here. It is because of that extraordinary effort—which we cannot expect them to engage in going forward forever—but it’s because of that we have not had significant

additional delays here at Champlain, because they understand that

multiplicity of responsibilities and that they have to make things

work not just in one dimension, but in all dimensions here, and

they’re doing that. And I can’t thank them enough, but we need to

give them the proper tools to make sure that we continue to meet

all three of those responsibilities, and one of those is certainly a

proper facility.

This Champlain facility I think is an embarrassment, it’s a disgrace. I think the U.S. Government needs to be embarrassed that

it went for 40 years with this kind of inadequate facility with the

responsibilities that it then expected its people to carry out here.

But we have an opportunity to fix that. With Congressman

McHugh’s assistance, we have a project in the first stage of the

pipeline. There’s a copy in the testimony submitted to you of the

site plan prepared by GSA of the conceptual design for what we

call a Port of Excellence at Champlain. We have some initial funding for design work, and some funding has also been provided to

do a few initial things here to make the situation less awful—not

to fix it, but to make the situation less awful, until we can get to

this, which is the real solution.

We want a facility here—and I suggest really we ought to be

talking about a Border of Excellence. This is what we should be

seeking at all facilities, but I’ll address Champlain. We want a facility here that is excellent in all respects, that is so modern, flexible, expansive, efficient, effective, that it is in fact the model of a

facility in our U.S.-Canadian border, that it will actually draw and

encourage commerce and travel, not discourage it.

Some of the other things that have been talked about, applying

technologies to moving people, I’m going to get to that in just a second, but facilities have to come first, because it doesn’t make a difference if you’ve got a NEXUS pass and you’re 2 miles back in the

40

line and you can’t get through to that special booth to get through.

We need to get on to the job, because nothing——

Mr. SOUDER. We didn’t put the clock on individuals, but if you

could kind of just summarize your other points, we’ll insert your

full statement in the record.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will. We need to accelerate this particular

project, so hopefully not breaking ground 2004, but hopefully as

soon as 2003. Border staffing: we thank the Congress last week for

the tripling of U.S. Border personnel on the northern border, including critically needed staffing for U.S. Customs so that new security procedures can be carried out while still facilitating and

moving trade and traffic. We need to make sure that we get those

folks out in the field and get them properly allocated. I’ll state a

number; my friends at U.S. Customs didn’t. In addition to those

that are already in the pipeline, we need at least 50 additional U.S.

Customs inspectors here at Champlain, and that’s what we hope

our folks will be working for.

Third, a shared security perimeter. We need to redouble the

United States and the Canadian Governments’ efforts to work toward that goal, so that somewhere down the road, hopefully not in

the too-distant future, we can put more. I think there’s a window

there. I think the Canadian people are ready for it. They weren’t

6 months ago; I think they may be now.

Pre-clearance technologies: NEXUS and other types of pre-clearance procedures that can take some of the pressure away from the

actual borders. Senator Clinton has suggested the creation of a position at the new Office of Homeland Security devoted to coordination of northern border activities. We cautiously endorse that, with

the caveat that it be very well defined if that does go forward.

However, I think what she was touching on is a problem, which is

the multiplicity of Federal and State agencies dealing with places

like Champlain, and the often lack of coordination and agreement

and common approaches and strategies among those. If not done

through such a position as this, I hope the committee will consider

other ways that we can bring greater coordination to the number

of agencies that have responsibility.

And then finally, while we work to do the right things, we also

have to make sure that the wrong things don’t get done, even if for

well-meaning reasons. We have to make sure that the types of exit

controls don’t rear their ugly head again. We don’t need to go down

those kinds of roads. There are kinder, gentler ways to address the

kinds of needs that are seen in going after those kinds of things.

I know there have been proposals out there, and there will be, in

the well-meaning interests of national security, to do things that

actually would be wrong and injurious things to do here in the

northern border, and we need to be vigilant about that.

With that, I thank you for the time. I told you it was dangerous

to ask me to talk about the border.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, thank you. And if you could also submit for

the record, depending what you’ve already sent to our office, if the

different groups that you were representing have any summary reports, this is really good data to get into our hearing book as we

41

look at other borders.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will.

[NOTE.—The attachments to Mr. Douglas’ statement may be

found in subcommittee files.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Douglas follows:]

42

43

44

45

46

47

Mr. SOUDER. Sounds like you’re a little more developed in some

of your reports. Mr. Keefe.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS KEEFE, PRESIDENT, ST. LAWRENCE

CHAPTER 138, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. KEEFE. Thank you. Chairman Souder, Representative

McHugh, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony at the

world class port of Champlain, NY. I am proud to be 1 of over

13,000 Customs Service employees who serves as the first line of

defense against terrorism and the influx of drugs and contraband

into the United States.

I’m a second-generation Customs inspector. I followed in the footsteps of my father, who was an inspector until his death in 1982.

In light of the recent tragedies at the Pentagon and the World

Trade Center, Customs personnel in New York and across the

country have been called upon to implement heightened security at

our land, sea and airports, and may I say I know of no greater way

to consecrate the tragedy and the lives that were lost in New York

than to do our job as we’ve done prior to September 11th, and it

is an honor from the people that I represent to be able to do so.

My chapter’s jurisdiction covers over 17 ports of entry from

Champlain to Alexandria Bay to Albany, NY. We further have the

responsibility to cover Lake Champlain ports of the Salmon and St.

Lawrence River and two of the Great Lakes for boat reporting. The

boat reporting is done telephonically, as we do not have resources

to cover these waterways. We also cover freight trains. These trains

are both in and outbound. Again, with limited resources, these conveyances are rarely, if ever, examined. To further complicate matters, part of the chapter, at Fort Covington, NY, borders an Indian

reservation, and while it is unpatrolled by Federal agencies, it is

not unknown to those who are professional smugglers looking to

avoid detection. The task is daunting, to say the least.

Customs personnel are working under a heightened level one

border security as a result of September 11th, and a fact that must

not be overlooked is that business and all other Federal inspection

agencies has not ceased. We still have an active border here, we

still have our regular jobs to do. Many inspectors are working 60

to 70 hours a week with no days off. Unfortunately there has been

a relatively small increase in personnel nationwide, despite the

dramatic increase in trade from NAFTA, the increased threat of

terrorism, drug smuggling, and the opening of new ports and land

borders across the country each year.

In fact, the port of Champlain processes over 1 million private

automobiles and approximately half a million commercial trucks

and a daily passenger train. The port of Champlain has the responsibility for providing commercial support for the ports of Albany,

Massena, Ogdensburg, and Alexandria Bay.

My career spans 19 years in law enforcement. It includes two

Federal agencies. When I began my Federal career with the Immigration Service in 1984, there were over 75 full-time Customs inspectors at Champlain. When I transferred to the Customs Service

in 1989, the number was about 65. As I sit here today, in Champlain there are 43 full-time Customs inspectors. Customs recently

conducted an internal review and commissioned the company of

48

Price Waterhouse, at the tune of over $1 million, to create what

was called a resource allocation model [RAM], and it showed nationwide that Customs needs over 14,776 new hires just to fill its

basic mission.

In fact, according to the resource allocation model, the port of

Champlain would need over 79 new inspectors, 2 canine enforcement officers, 4 import specialists, and 12 special agents alone. The

administration and the Congress must show the men and women

of the Customs Service they respect and support the difficult and

dangerous work these officers do, 365 days a year, by providing an

increase in funding to the Customs Service.

This country needs to make some decisions about the northern

border. As a wise man once told me in reference to the northern

border, he said, ‘‘I have been to many castles in Europe, and none

have only three walls.’’ Nothing could be truer about the northern

border. The port of Montreal receives over a half million containerized shipments a year, and many of these are placed on trucks and

rail cars destined to this port. We need an increase in not only

staffing, but technology, and we need the right technology. We do

not need the technology that is simply the lowest bid and does not

perform the job for us.

Deploying any new hires along the area ports of the northern

border would be a good start, especially since international terrorism has forever changed the landscape of this Nation.

Another important issue that needs to be addressed is law enforcement status for Customs inspectors and canine enforcement officers, and also our brothers and sisters in the Immigration Service. The U.S. Customs Service inspectors and canine officers continue to be the Nation’s first line of defense against terrorism and

smuggling of illegal drugs and contraband across our borders. Customs Service inspectors have the authority to apprehend and detain those engaged in drug smuggling and violations of other civil

and criminal laws, and for example, it was a Customs inspector

who stopped the terrorist attack planned for New Years Day 2000

by identifying and capturing an individual at Port Angeles, WA.

Canine enforcement officers and Customs inspectors carry weapons, we have to qualify three times a year, yet we do not have law

enforcement status. We are being denied the benefits given to our

colleagues who they have been working beside to keep our country

safe. Customs employees face real dangers on a daily basis, and

granting us law enforcement status would be an appropriate and

long-overdue step in recognizing the tremendous contribution Customs personnel make to protecting our borders from terrorism and

drugs.

I’m extremely proud that Congressman McHugh has cosponsored

H.R. 1841, which would give us this important status, and I would

encourage the subcommittee to consider this very important legislation.

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on

behalf of all my colleagues in the Customs Service, and especially

the employees that I have the honor and privilege to represent in

Chapter 138, and I’d be glad to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keefe follows:]

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. Duford.

STATEMENT OF CARL DUFORD, PRESIDENT, CHAMPLAIN

CHAPTER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

COUNCIL

Mr. DUFORD. Mr. Chairman, Senator McHugh, I would like to

take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for

traveling all the way to Champlain to listen to our views and see

what we need for northern border security. I would also like to

thank you for allowing me to present my views. I’ve been an inspector with the Service for approximately 13 years, and involved

with Local 2580 for 10 years. Only the last 3 I’ve been involved as

an officer. Currently I’m the vice president of our local union. Prior

to that, I spent 23 years in the Air Force as a Security Police officer.

Inspections in general has a problem retaining inspectors, and

the Champlain port of enty is no exception. It is a constant struggle to keep inspectors. Many newly hired officers leave Inspections

for other Federal law enforcement agencies when they realize promotion potential is poor for inspectors. INS is treated as an entrylevel position, used for entry into ‘‘real’’ law enforcement occupations. Others leave the service altogether. For example, at this port

we recently have had one inspector leave for better benefits to Customs. That happened just this week. One will be leaving to go to

Secret Service, and we had a 20-year veteran that recently resigned and went to work for construction because of the lack of pay

and benefits and retirement package. There was just no promotion

potential for him, either. We have two more officers—we have one

that’s leaving INS to go into the New York State Police, and we

have another one that’s going into Secret Service. The Service has

spent thousands of dollars on each officer to provide a 16 or 18-

week training course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center in Georgia. It is a terrible waste of INS dollars to bring

these people on, only to have them go somewhere else. But it does

provide a ready pool of pretrained applicants for other agencies.

Treating Immigration inspectors as clerks, not law enforcement

officers, with no promotion potential, does not serve the interest of

individuals, the service, or the government. We work side by side

with U.S. Customs inspectors doing the same type of work, yet

their agency has provided their officers with a much better pay and

retirement. If two officers, one Immigration, one in Customs, start

on the same day, working side by side until retirement, the Customs officer will have earned more money, had more time off, and

will receive better pension, thousands of dollars higher than that

of an Immigration inspector.

The INS has great employees who want to step up and do their

part to protect this great land. Three times in less than 2 years we

have been put on heightened alert. Each time, inspectors have

risen to this challenge, working double shifts, giving up leave,

standing out in the brutal North Country winters conducting inspections, such as we did during Y2K just a few years ago. Most

of the terrorists apprehended were apprehended on the northern

border.

57

In the year 2000, the Champlain, NY, port of entry initiated 248

criminal prosecutions. The U.S. Attorney pursued prosecution in

139 cases. The cases were for document fraud, paid alien smuggling, and reentry after deportation. We daily deal with aggravated

felons, many of whom are wanted. These numbers do not include

violators turned over to local law enforcement or State officials. I

think it should be brought to the committee’s attention that INS

officers arrest more individuals than any other Federal law enforcement agency combined.

The time is long overdue for INS inspectors to be brought up to

the same GS level as other officer positions within INS. We should

receive law enforcement retirement in our positions. The Service

and Congress must change the emphasis placed on appeasing the

airlines and business interests and concentrate more on enforcing

the immigration laws designed to protect the United States. As recently as August this year, the Buffalo District proposed disarming

our detention officers traveling with prisoners because the airlines

did not like the officers carrying their weapons onboard the aircraft. Could you have imagined how ironic it would have been to

have two unarmed Federal officers with a prisoner on one of the

aircraft that crashed on September 11th because the airlines were

uncomfortable with armed personnel onboard?

All Federal law enforcement officials bury their head in the sand

on the issue of control of local waterways. Government officials

since before the French and Indian War have recognized Lake

Champlain as a primary invasion route into the United States. Yet

the agencies charged with control of Lake Champlain refuse to accept this responsibility for the protection of the homeland. The I– 68 program has only facilitated the complete disarray on the lake.

Government officials are quick to forget the last time the United

States was invaded as an act of war was September 11, 1814, via

Lake Champlain at the Battle of Plattsburgh. Washington, DC, and

Baltimore, MD, were also attacked on that same day. This country

should learn from all its lessons taught on September 11th, no

matter what the year.

Inspectors in the Buffalo district have been ordered by the service to inspect boats that are hundreds of miles away up in the St.

Lawrence River via television cameras. The inspector cannot see

the boat nor who or what is in the boat, nor can it tell if there’s

any additional passengers on that boat, because the individual

comes before a camera, which is not even located anywhere near

where the boat comes in. Quite often, the picture is fuzzy, we can’t

make out who the person is. Sometimes we can’t even get a picture.

Sometimes we can’t get the sound. But during the current crisis,

ineffective remote inspections continue. It’s time to regain control

of our waterways.

The Service must rethink a number of policies if we are to be effective. We must have effective control of visitors within the United

States. The student program is out of control. The visa waiver program needs modification. The work permits for trade, NAFTA, and

L–1s, must be controlled. An immigrant to Canada only has to live

in Canada 3 years to naturalize. Then they can obtain permission

to live in and work in the United States easily by using these same

programs. The computer systems used by the Service are arcane

58

data bases which do not effectively work. I will be supplying a written statement from our local president, which addresses some of

these same subjects which I don’t want to get into.

In closing, I would like to say that our inspectors understand

that most people we deal with are honest tourists and business

people. We appreciate the fact that they want to be cleared as

quickly as possible. We want to inspect them as efficiently as we

can, but we do not wish to put our country in jeopardy for the sake

of convenience. Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the

new INS Commissioner, Mr. Ziglar, for recent expressions of support for INS inspectors. For too long, the concerns have taken a

back seat to the wide range of other issues, such as technology and

training. Mr. Ziglar’s support for law enforcement benefit and pay

grade increase will do much to improve morale, effectiveness, and

retention of our most experienced front-line workers. It also represents a significant departure for policies of past INS commissioners and hopefully will mean a new era of better management.

Again, we thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this opportunity to present our views from the local union.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duford follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. SOUDER. First, thank all three of you for your testimony.

This is one of the great reasons why we have field hearings, as opposed to just in Washington. First we’re in and out all the time,

and here we get to have concentrated attention, and we also tend

to hear very pragmatic, intense—it’s not even just that the people

are different—it’s that in Washington often they come in and the

testimony is just more inhibited. Here you each let fly from a number of different points, and I have a couple of comments I want to

make, then I’ll yield to Mr. McHugh for questions. But I have quite

a few questions to followup with, too.

I want to assure you of a couple of things. One, Mr. Ziglar came

in aggressively, both in our committee in arguing for the law enforcement and pay grade, the pension, but also at a meeting sponsored with Chairman Wolfe, and I’m trying to think who the ranking Democrat is on the committee, but they had about 30 Members

there, and he lit a fire of concern about the INS, because so many

Americans are looking at the border right now, and we’re—and I

need to point out for all of you here that authorizing and appropriating are different, and we’ve authorized the new agents. We’re

appropriating more money, but it isn’t the same level. That’s

what’s still being battled over.

But the day before he spoke to this group, INS had lost five

agents, and he pointed out that already there is a shortage of applicants, and here we are looking at tripling these things, and we’re

losing people. There was a disconnect between the public policy

statements and the practical pressures that we put on at the grassroots, and that’s part of what we’re trying to do is figure out how

to address this question.

A second thing related—similar to that same subject—we’re

going to deal with this week, in airport security, is that when we

boost one agency, where do people think the employees are going

to come from? If we’ve suddenly Federalized all the airports and

fire all the existing security, what is that going to do to State and

local law enforcement and the Customs and the INS? It’s going to

be like a giant sucking sound, particularly if you have differentials

in benefits, that we have to think through in these steps of how

we’re going to approach this and how fast somebody can be trained

to bring into these different things.

Because what we heard in our hearing 2 weeks ago was that 37

percent of new employees in the—particularly Customs and INS—

are from local law enforcement, that 30 percent are retired military, and we’re trying to keep people from not retiring from the

military at a time when we’re in conflict, too. So there’s somewhat

of a zero-sum game, particularly if you need trained people. And

we’ve got to sort through this process, make sure our benefit structures are logical, that our law enforcement status things are logical, because we’re clearly facing the pressures.

And I understand the economic side, but we also need to acknowledge that, in fact, Montreal has become a center of some of

the activities that have been around the country, and we’ve got to

watch that clearly, in narcotics. Ecstasy is coming from the Netherlands and largely into Canada and into the east coast, unlike

where we’ve been so focused, on the southern border, with cocaine

and heroin, we have a different problem in the precurser chemicals

64

and in the ecstasy directly, so it isn’t even just the current terrorism question, it’s the narcotics question, as to how we’re going to

deal with the border, but I have some technical followup questions

I want to ask, but I’ll yield to Mr. McHugh at this point.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quite honestly, I can’t

imagine what I would ask any of these three gentlemen that they

haven’t already told me many times. I even know where Thomas

buys his ties, so I can’t even ask that. But I do want to, first of

all, let me associate myself with the remarks that you made. The

candor that you receive at these kinds of hearings, I think, are extraordinarily helpful, and help all of us to better understand what

is happening, where the battles are being fought. In places like

Champlain, I don’t think it’s tending toward the extreme to say we

are fighting the battle, and with respect to Mr. Duford and Mr.

Keefe, they are on the front lines, and I would hope through my

comments earlier, it’s come through the admiration that I hold for

those individuals who from September 11th have worked so incredibly hard with such effectiveness to do a very thankless, but very

necessary job, and has only grown dramatically since that time.

I know that Garry is going to be able to provide you with data

to your heart’s content. He has been to Washington, testified before

other subcommittees in support, and as he mentioned, we have had

some success, and that’s probably due more to his persuasiveness,

that unlike some, when he’s in Washington, he speaks about the

same way as he does here. So the appropriators were very supportive as a result.

But as he said, as well, we need to do a better job, and I think

it’s—I don’t know who scheduled which panels, but I think it’s illustrative that you would have these three individuals sitting at

the same table, because there is no separating what happens at

this border and the resources that we provide to the Federal agencies involved there from the ability of the business community here

in this part of the North Country to thrive.

You don’t have to drive too far to the west of this particular community to find unemployment figures in the double digits, to find

economic challenges that are very, very perplexing, and in conventional terms, are defying solutions. I don’t mean to suggest that in

this corridor there are not challenges, because there are. But this

part of New York State is doing very well, in relative terms, to

other parts of certainly my district and other parts of the State.

And Garry, am I not correct, the unemployment rate here in Clinton County is actually below the State level?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, it is.

Mr. MCHUGH. Now, which perhaps may not seem like such an

achievement, but in this part of the world it truly is one, and that’s

because of this partnership. So I really don’t have any questions for

these individuals, but I just wanted to underscore what I attempted to say in my opening comments about the need to do better across the board. Facilities has been attested to here today,

VACIS and other kinds of technology to allow them to do an even

more effective job, but in my opinion, first and foremost, and as

Carl mentioned, obviously to bring more people on, but we have to

address the quality of the profession that we ask these profesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
65

sionals to do, as well, and again, I know that’s why the chairman

is here, and I appreciate that, so I’d yield back to you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I take it, Mr. Duford, that you don’t believe that three Coast Guard boats, two of which aren’t here, are

enough to patrol Lake Champlain? Is that a—— Mr. DUFORD. I think what I’m talking about mainly is crossing

from Canada into the United States. Not only do we have the Coast

Guard, but we have Border Patrol, we have the sheriff’s patrol up

here in the summertime. There’s still an opportunity at night, you

know, during the nighttime for people to come across into the

United States through Lake Champlain. It’s been proven it’s been

done in the St. Lawrence many, many times, sneaking aliens

across, smuggling across in the night, and the time of the year

doesn’t seem to make any difference. Even in the wintertime, they

take the chance of trying to cross the St. Lawrence River.

Mr. SOUDER. We talked about this a little bit yesterday. I’m more

familiar with Michigan, and as I looked at a particular northern

peninsula, that as I looked at how we try to seal the borders and

basically channel people through in as orderly and as efficient and

as fast as we can, that the logical thing is that people who don’t

want to follow the law will bounce outside that system and, for example, Manitou Island, as you move up to Sault Ste. Marie, you

can’t quite walk across the water, but it doesn’t take much of a

rowboat to get across. When you go through the islands here and

the border, what becomes apparent between the two interstates,

and there’s this point, is that there’s a corridor coming in between

two different points. How exactly would you monitor this, particularly at night? What would you do?

Mr. DUFORD. When they initially built the bridge, it was my understanding that the contracting people were willing to put up a location for inspections. Why that never materialized, I really don’t

know. As it is now, there’s three locations that we can go to in

Rouses Point to inspect boats, but even during the daytime, you

can see boats coming down that never come in. Were they

preinspected by Immigration? Well, we don’t know, because they

just keep going down the waterway. We’re not sure. We have no

idea what it’s like at night.

Mr. SOUDER. Not having a really good picture of exactly what’s

around the water at different points there or the fishing and pleasure boating that goes on in the water, is it a border that moves

freely? In other words, do fishermen move across, people have cottages, go up to a boat marina, for lunch at another place? Is this

a big tourism factor, too? And how much would it inhibit having

crossing points or checking points? I mean is it feasible? Mr. Douglas, do you have any—— Mr. DOUGLAS. Yeah, well, I think it is. It is a shared lake, two

States and two nations, and people do as they do on a lake, as you

say on a lake, go down to the marina, visit Plattsburgh, go back

and forth. There are Canadians who have second homes, maybe in

Vermont and Quebec, for example, and go back and forth. And we

certainly don’t want to inhibit that. Also the important thing to understand is that Lake Champlain is actually part of a through-way

on the water. The Hudson River is connected to the Champlain

Canal at the south end via the State barge, and the Champlain

66

Canal to the north takes pleasure craft up and down to the St.

Lawrence, so there are boats that are going vast distances through

the lake on to other places.

But there certainly are solutions. And Dick McCabe, the INS’ Port Director here, has had a pet project for several years that we

just haven’t been able to have to come together. There is a pier

over in Rouses Point that would seem a reasonable and feasible

place to establish a docking place, where at least with remote camera technology or so on, Quebec visitors could easily stop, check in,

be seen, versus just going through. What they’re expected to do

now, in the absence of a public place, frankly, is to stop and check

in via a private marina which charges them to stop, so it isn’t rocket science to understand that, well, gee, I think I can avoid that

docking charge; I’m just going to go through. You need to have a

no-cost public docking place where you expect them to stop and

make that kind of check-in.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Keefe, one of the things—because I’m interested about the night-running, whether it be snowmobiles or boats.

We met with some of the Canadians last night. This isn’t about

catching somebody with turkeys where they’re selling turkeys for

additional money. This has become a major route, and we heard

over in the other side, at Highgate, and also from a DEA briefing

yesterday afternoon, that we have people walking across with

backpacks with this really high-grade Quebec Gold or B.C. bud

variations of marijuana, which is not really marijuana—it’s closer

to cocaine than marijuana in its content mix—that it is not obviously being supplied for this zone. There aren’t enough people in

this zone, given the amount that’s coming through. It’s predominantly become a major route for certain things for New York and

Boston. We heard from both regions. That we’re not—like I say,

we’re not trying to catch this random person who’s trying to avoid

a Customs question. Could you give me your input, from the Customs perspective, of particularly narcotics or the smuggling individuals across?

Mr. KEEFE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and may I say you gentlemen

are very quick learners, because I’ve been very impressed in some

of the things that you’ve said and picked up in the last couple of

days. I think you have to look at law enforcement, and the essence

of law enforcement has always been, you know, you’re not going to

have a police officer or a presence at every single location. The

key—and the word ‘‘seal’’ is not the appropriate—I agree with

Garry: we do not want to seal the border, but we want to be able

to put the most deterrence there to let people know that we are

checking. And that can be done in a variety of ways, and there are

a lot of solutions. There is personnel, and we do support, of course,

personnel. You know, this is our profession. We think we do it very

well, but we also are pragmatic enough to understand that we’re

not going to put agents and inspectors in every location. So that

has to be augmented with technology, and that begs the next question is it’s got—the technology has got to be the latest science. It’s

got to be up-and-running stuff that we can use, and there’s tons of

it out there.

And I was on the negotiating team with my national unit, and

we did something with what’s called remote video inspections. And

67

the concept itself is not a bad idea. Where it kind of fell down was

the technology was not adequate enough to do what we needed to

do. You know, to give us a comfort level. And I’ll never forget, I

was in Washington negotiating this, and I’ll never forget. I was

down doing the tourist thing, as I’ve done thousands of times, and

I walked by the White House, and these cameras that we looked

at had a 15-second delay, basically. And I said to myself and I said

to the people the next day, ‘‘I bet you if I jump that fence, by the

time I hit the ground on the White House grounds, somebody

would be on me, and I bet you they don’t have a 15-second delay

in the video transmission.’’ And my point is this: they shouldn’t. It’s very important, but it

is also very important to do the best deterrence job we can do at

the border. We don’t want to do low-budget at the border. I hear

a lot about national defense, and I echo that. We need a strong

military. We need them to be ready, but there is no greater presence than those of us that stand on the line at the border.

There are many things we can do. My boss, I know, is looking

into some infrared technology just to try to see if we can get an

idea of what’s there. But what we have now is nothing, you know,

and one of the complaints that I have heard from the people I represent is, ‘‘Here we are out here doing a level one alert, and I’m

answering a phone clearing a boat in one of the Great Lakes.’’ I

mean that’s just unacceptable.

Again, we don’t want to choke off the legitimate trade, we don’t

want to choke off the legitimate tourist industry, and I don’t think

we have to, but we do have to do something more than nothing.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Duford, in the INS inspectors—and first let me

thank both INS and Customs people for the amount of hours you’re

putting in. We’ve learned the hard way in Washington where we

were focused in this latest anthrax scare in our offices, and found

out that the postal workers put their lives on the line, and we

should have been checking at the core. For whatever reason, that

wasn’t suspected that was going to happen, but you are at the front

lines and we thank you at the front lines for trying, in effect, to

make the rest of America safer, whether it be narcotics or from terrorists.

But as INS inspectors, if they’re working long hours and losing

their vacation time, does that impact their ability to screen, particularly at the end of a shift? Realistically, from a human standpoint, what happens?

Mr. DUFORD. If we’re working extended hours, I’d say toward the

end of those extended hours, it might possibly do that. I know since

we’ve gone at heightened security, our alertness has been so much

more advanced than it ever has in the past because of the concerns

of what might be coming into the United States through Champlain or one of the smaller ports. I can’t vouch for anybody else,

but I know that the way I do things when I’m out there in that

primary line and I’m talking to people, I ask all the questions

that’s necessary to ask. I look in that vehicle, I go through everything. I don’t want to have anything come through here and then

have it come back and say, well, one of our inspectors at the Champlain port of entry, because he wasn’t doing his job, something

came into the United States that should not have been in here.

68

So I’d say probably after working a double shift, maybe toward

the end of that double shift, maybe my alertness is not going to be

quite the same, but as of what happened after September 11th, I’m

in a lot more heightened security, and I believe the rest of our people are, too.

Mr. SOUDER. It’s a question of how much you can push your

adrenaline button for how long. It’s a human physical question. It

isn’t a desire or confidence question. If you continually tax people,

it is human nature—I mean we probably become a little less concerned about the particulars of an amendment that’s offered when

they haul us in at 2 a.m., than if it’s in the middle of the afternoon.

And there’s a question of safety risks here, too, as we continue to

use employees the way they are.

Let me ask you a couple other questions. In the physical changes

here at this particular border crossing, do you see fencing and

lighting additionally required? What equipment would you focus on

most to assist the INS?

Mr. DUFORD. In the last year our technology at Champlain has

increased a lot. I’ll give you an example. We have license plate

readers now which we never had before, and as a result of this— and the technology of these computers is quite advanced—I don’t

have to spend my time reading the license plate and not being able

to look at that individual when I try to talk to him. Now I can look

at that person and I can look at him in the eye, and I only have

30 or 45 seconds that might tell me this person has to go in for

a secondary. There’s something not quite right about this person;

we’re going to have to send him in. Where before, the technology

was basically ourselves. We’re down there, we’re typing the license

plate in before we ever look at the person, and by the time we got

done, we were just about finished with our questions. I think the

lighting has improved quite a bit, which is really necessary for

what we do, especially at night. For some of us older people, it’s

hard to see things that we can see during the daytime. The lighting, the license plate readers and all the other technology that we

have out there in that line to help us do things, it’s increased quite

a bit, and instead of having one officer on the primary now, we now

have two officers, so you’ve got one officer that’s asking questions

and doing the computer work; we’ve got another officer that’s actually taking a look inside the vehicle, the van, the car, the truck,

whatever it is, and looking in the trunk, inspecting the trunk. So

we’ve basically doubled, since September 11th, what we’re doing

out there on that line, and I think it’s been for the better.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Douglas, one of the things we’re looking at,

clearly we’re going to do more of the Fast Pass preclearance, that

type of thing, particularly if we have to either stay at level one or

even tighten further on the border, which could happen. The question then comes is how can we move the regular commerce, how

can we get additional lanes, I mean what do we need to do to try

to not get the backup, but in the Fast Pass system yesterday one

of the things we heard is that within the last week on the Vermont

border, one of the major drug busts was somebody who in fact was

a regular person who was going across on a long-term basis.

And let me ask you a couple of questions, if you could take this

back to your group as to how to address these. What type of penVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
69

alty would you have for the company if one of—if they had a Fast

Pass system and were precleared and a driver came through?

Would you suspend that for 5 years, for the entire company, what

about if it’s—my understanding is sometimes the cab is privately

leased, and sometimes—and then they hire different trailers on.

How would you address this question to make sure there is a disincentive, or an incentive, that the companies themselves are closely checking with their contracted employees, because this is going

to undermine the credibility of that system if in fact, for the violators—now, they’re going to be rare, and there will be spot checks,

but it is a fundamental challenge to the Fast Pass system.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, actually I suggest that’s when it comes to

commercial traffic, and Tom, disagree with me if you do, that the

real challenge, more than the companies or the shippers or the customs brokers or the things that are in the truck coming down the

road, the challenge and concern is more frequently around the driver.

Mr. KEEFE. Yes.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Because the driver’s perhaps more apt to be the

one who’s trying to get away with something and gee, I’ll take

something across the border in the cab with me unbeknownst to

the company or the others dealing with the progress, which argues

for the fact that we’re certainly not, in the foreseeable future, going

to get to the point where trucks are going to plow down the road

without stopping at the border, even though you know you’ve

precleared all the cargo and you have no high concern about that.

Because you’re still going to have those concerns about the drivers,

and no matter how much you try to work with the shippers, with

the trucking companies, to try to preclear or toughen background

checks or so on—and I think some of that probably does need to

be done—the reality is going back to something you referred to earlier with getting Federal workers to do jobs: there’s a crisis in this

country and Canada to get truck drivers, so it almost has come to

the point, do you have a pulse and are you willing to drive the

truck and can you pass the driver’s test? There’s high turnover. It’s

endemic to the whole country and to Canada, as well, and that

means that you’re not going to have the stability or predictability

with the actual drivers that you may have had 20 or 30 years ago.

And it’s a challenge. I don’t know that there’s an easy answer. I

think you would have to be careful, though, in that context of

thinking that the answer is simply, well, let’s penalize the company

if some trucker happens to be driving a truck with their shipment

and is trying to get away with something, because there’s a degree

to which they can’t control that, and particularly in an environment of current labor market for truck drivers, at the end of the

day, somebody’s got to take that truck down the road. So there just

needs to be vigilance at facilities like this, with adequate staffing

and technology to check those things and to have that kind of

deterent that Tom referred to.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Keefe, one more question—and you can comment on that last one as well—to kind of do a supplement to the

last one. And my last question, that in the trying to get the truckers accelerated, if a company is precleared, that they’re generally

doing it, you’re still going to have to do checking. And last night

70

we were looking at the differences if they leave gaps in their loads

it’s easier to check, other types of things, because it doesn’t do a

whole lot of good to preclear the company, if in effect the drivers

are the people at risk.

I’d like to hear your comments on that, but then the last question is, I take it that I will be meeting with Border Patrol before

I head back to Washington, too, at their inland office, as well as

the Coast Guard, so we’re doing that as a supplement and get

those things in the record, but part of the problem here is that this

is—I’m trying to figure out how much this is going to be a problem

along multiple parts of the northern border and potentially the

southern border. Because Indian reservations and Indian nations

are treated as independent nations, there’s a different standard for

law enforcement. At the same time, that has predominantly been— for internal regulation reasons, we haven’t had this extent of concern about smuggling. Now, smuggling is one thing, in the traditional types of smuggling. As we move to more serious types of narcotics and as we potentially push more toward those ones that are

joint along a border, particularly if it’s on both sides of the border,

it becomes really problematic, which I understand an island in the

river is a Canadian First Nation’s group, so you have it on both

sides, and it really becomes a potential problem without a lot of cooperation if also terrorists move through that area.

If you could give me some suggestions on how great you think

the problem is, how vulnerable, the cooperation that you’ve had,

other suggestions to deal with that, as well as walk-across questions or the whole range of if you squeeze it at one point, besides

Lake Champlain and the Indian reservation, where else would be

points vulnerable?

Mr. KEEFE. If I could just comment on what Garry said, he’s absolutely right, and what’s kind of ironic, when we built this new

port project is even people I deal with in my union in Washington

is amazed how the chambers of commerce and people in the union

could actually go down the same road together, and we’ve been

down the same road together and we have more in common on this

issue than we do in opposition. And he’s absolutely right about the

drivers, and again, you have to kind of jump back and take a forest

or the trees look and say you’re never going to be able to stop everything, you’re never going to be able to get 100 percent certainty.

The essence of law enforcement is to put the best deterrent forward

that you can, and if we can do that type of stuff, we will screen

most of the drivers. The freight that is precleared, that is a separate issue to the conveyance, and that is also a time-consuming

issue when they cross the border. There’s the people that cross the

border and there’s the conveyance and the merchandise that cross

the border, so if we can preclear some of this stuff and have a reasonable certainty that this is in compliance with law, that takes a

lot of time and allows us to focus then on the driver. And we’re

very good at focusing on the driver.

If you properly manage your caffeine, you can do it a little better

than other people can. But you may miss, like you said at Congress

at 2 a.m., there may be some nuances you’re going to miss, but

you’re not going to miss a big thing, I don’t care how tired you are.

You do it every day. So if we can focus on those kinds of, like DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:42 Oct 28, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81865.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
71

troit, the big three, there’s a GM shipment that we’re going to want

to look at, and if we can preclear that, then we can focus our attention on the driver. So they’re not mutually exclusive. You don’t

want to say, why, if I’m going to have driver problems anyway,

should we bother with the preclearance? You still get a net gain,

is my point, on the drivers. You don’t want to throw the baby out

with the bathwater on that.

About the reservation, while they are separate entities, I find our

biggest problem is putting resources to the problem. It’s not that

we have a lack of problem. Many sovereign nations do not want to

participate in illegal activity. They do not want their land used to

engage in smuggling. There’s always a very small amount of people, whenever you have anything for profit, back to the bootlegging

days, will try to smuggle, and if we can get some type of technology, human resources—or the best solution, I think, is a combination of both—then you have—again, you’re not there all the

time, you’re not going to be there all the time. You’re going to be

there enough where people are going to think before they do this

type of stuff, so you’re going to have a reduction in what they’re

doing.

And it is a problem with people walking around. Marijuana—the

active component in marijuana is THC, and back when marijuana

first broke in this country, the rate of THC was 3 or 4 percent.

What’s grown now is hydroponic marijuana. The component of THC

is now up to 40, 50 percent, I mean it is so potent it is frightening.

You talk about ecstasy. This port had an internal carrier, which

is unheard of, somebody that swallows drugs in condoms or in latex

wrappings and then dispels them at a later time. We actually

caught one here smuggling ecstasy, so I mean ecstasy is a big-ticket item. It comes in from Europe here. We don’t do enough to target—and again, it’s just a question of personnel and getting us all

working together.

We have resources in Canada, we could target some of the European flights. We could do a better job. It’s not an impossible job.

It’s a daunting job, but it’s not impossible.

The walkers—and again, when you squeeze one place or another,

the unfortunate thing about these borders is they were designed

back in the—you know, the turn of the century, and to have a border was a status thing. If you take South Dakota, for example—

where there’s a border and there’s 400 miles of trees and bears and

that’s it—that’s not the case here. You will have a border crossing

in Mooers, and as the crow flows, another mile west you have another border crossing. If you put up the wrong technology at these

border stations, you will actually force people to try to beat the system instead of vice-versa, because the roads are all so intertwined

and close together. It’s not like a vast wilderness. There’s all these

ports that are kind of clustered along the border.

We have to make some decisions. If we want to keep these open,

and I believe we do, we have to staff them adequately, and I don’t

think we will choke anything off, per se. Conversely, if we put technology that is conducive to trying to be beat at one of these places,

we will take it and put it to those locations, because it’s not that

far out of the way.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Do you have any other?

72

Mr. MCHUGH. Just one question. Thomas, you talked about your

canine officers. Is my understanding correct that your access to a

dog now is a dog that is trained for drugs only; is that true?

Mr. KEEFE. That’s correct.

Mr. MCHUGH. So if you have an occasion where there is a suspected explosive, as I understand happened a few weeks ago, you

actually have to bring a dog team either from Albany or Fort

Drum?

Mr. KEEFE. Or actually, in that instance, Congressman, we were

lucky enough to get a canine team from Montreal that came down

here.

Mr. MCHUGH. Or the Canadians?

Mr. KEEFE. Yeah, or the Canadians.

Mr. MCHUGH. So, Mr. Chairman, it seems like a simple thing,

but there’s a potential, particularly in the winter, which in spite of

how you feel about it, is not here as yet, if they find a suspected

package on this crossing, it could literally close it down for 3, 4,

perhaps more hours while we’re awaiting the arrival of a dog just

to sniff something that we hope turns out to be, you know, baked

cookies for Thanksgiving or something. So another small dedication

of resources that could be shared, as Tom has said, amongst a

number of points here, if you had a location of a dog team that had

the explosive capabilities.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, Mr. Douglas?

Mr. DOUGLAS. If I can, I want to clarify some numbers that you

asked for earlier, and I don’t know how important it is, but you

were looking for the impact on traffic figures here at Champlain.

Actually, if you were to look at the truck and passenger car counts

here for September 2000, compared to September 2001, they’re almost right on the penny, which would lead you to believe that well,

it really has had no impact, traffic has held up. But the fact is, if

you would then look at June, July and August, would see that for

passenger car traffic, it was up 20 percent from a year earlier, and

truck traffic was up significantly as well, so what we lost was the

continuing growth rate in that traffic, but we are still—those folks

are in fact still working with numbers here that are equal to what

they were working with a year before. And as far as that loss, of

course, that’s something that we want to get back as soon as possible.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you have any idea how much that was softening

in the recession?

Mr. DOUGLAS. It hadn’t been up until September.

Mr. SOUDER. So in August, it was still——

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, in August the car counts were up approximately 20 percent.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, I thank each one of you, and as you have additional information and suggestions, we’re kind of in a short-term

fast track in Washington, and I would assume that—who knows

where we’re going to be, but we’re not in a short-term war on terrorism and drugs. The war on terrorism is now going to find out

how difficult those who said we weren’t succeeding in the war on

drugs are now going to get a feeling for what it feels like to try

to catch every terrorist. Similar to like fighting child abuse or rape

73

or spouse abuse, we fight those things because they’re evil, not that

we’re going to completely defeat them.

We have direct authorizing end oversight on the narcotics question, so we spent a lot of time in South America, and what we’ve

seen is you put the pressure on in Colombia, then it moves back

to Peru and Ecuador and starts to move other places, and try to

get a step ahead so we don’t get in the Vietnam syndrome of where

we’re just far enough behind that we have to keep escalating. And

that’s what we’re trying to do here, and to do it that way, because

Americans want to be safer, but they also want to have jobs and

they want to be home and pay their health insurance and do this

in a way as our countries become more interdependent.

I’m not from a border area, and we’ve lost a ton in NAFTA to

Mexico, but we’ve had our trade in Canada, and it’s an auto belt.

These parts are moving back and forth multiple times a day, and

the entire Nation is finding out how interconnected we are, both in

a bad way and a good way, so hopefully we can continue to look

at this.

Thank you for your testimony, and with that, our hearing is adjourned.

[NOTE.—The publication entitled, ‘‘Investing in the Futures, The

Customs Action Plan, 2002, 2004,’’ may be found in subcommittee

files.]

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

Æ