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

23–098 PDF 2006

H.R. 1509, THE RECREATIONAL BOATERS

STREAMLINED INSPECTION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC 

SECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE 

PROTECTION, AND CYBERSECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 19, 2005

Serial No. 109–14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

PETER T. KING, New York 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND

CYBERSECURITY

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California (Ex Officio) 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio)

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairman Subcommittee on Economic Security, 

Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity ..................................................... 1

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 

Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity ..................................... 2 

The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security ..........

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3

The Honorable John Linder, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Georgia .............................................................................................................. 20

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., a Representative in Cngress From the 

State of Florida ..................................................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mark Foley, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Florida: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

Mr. Jim Ellis, President, Boat Owners Association of the United States, 

BOAT/U.S.: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Mr. Robert Jacksta, Executive Director, Border Security and Facilitation, 

Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 11

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13

(1)

H.R. 1509, THE RECREATIONAL BOATERS 

STREAMLINED INSPECTION ACT 

Thursday, May 19, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND CYBERSECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in Room 

210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Dan Lungren [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lungren, Linder, Rogers, Sanchez, and 

Langevin. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Economic Security Infrastructure Protection and 

Cybersecurity will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today for a legislative hearing on 

H.R. 1509, the Recreational Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I would first like to welcome our witnesses and 

thank them for taking the time out of their schedules to be with 

us today. We are holding this hearing to discuss legislation that 

has been referred to the Committee. H.R. 1509, the Recreational 

Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act was introduced by Mark Foley 

of Florida on April 6th of this year. I would like to welcome our 

colleague from Florida, who is here to testify before this Subcommittee. 

Last week this Subcommittee held a hearing regarding the 

screening of airline pilots by the Transportation Security Administration. Since 9/11, the Federal Government has spent more than 

$13 billion on this function. The problem with this policy appears 

to be that it treats all airline passengers the same, including the 

pilots, who ultimately wield a lethal weapon once they take control 

of the aircraft. 

Airline pilots are subjected to psychological exams, FBI criminal 

background checks, a number of other tests, before being able to 

hold a badge that allows them to fly the planes. I believe that the 

man hours and dollars spent by DHS to fund these screenings 

might better be used elsewhere. Similarly, with all screening activities, precious DHS dollars and efforts should be focused on those 

persons that pose the greatest threat to our nation’s security. 

Today’s hearing is similarly focused on ensuring that security 

policies and resources are appropriately directed. H.R. 1509 is intended to make it easier on travelers entering the United States by 
2

recreational boat to comply with the immigration custom laws of 

the United States. 

Currently recreational boaters entering the United States 

through one of Florida’s marinas must report to U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection offices after arrival to complete their required 

immigration and custom entry declarations. I am advised that 

these offices are quite far away from the ports oftentimes, requiring car rentals, long drives, things of that sort. 

The legislation that we are discussing today aims to relieve some 

of this burden on law-abiding travelers. As we will hear shortly 

from Mr. Foley, H.R. 1509 is intended to allow these travelers to 

meet Custom and Immigration requirements by creating an inspection program that uses two-way video phones. Video phones, under 

this legislation, would be installed at 13 ports in the State of Florida through which travelers could communicate with Customs and 

Border Protection officers during inspection. 

Currently, 35 marinas along the northern border, including Detroit, Michigan; Buffalo, New York; and Portland, Maine utilize 

similar systems called the Outlying Area Reporting Station program, sometimes referred to as OARS. This subcommittee is particularly focused on evaluating how security programs and policies 

impact economic security, as well as how security programs can be 

developed in a manner that actually facilitates trade and travel. 

We have an opportunity to further this discussion by reviewing 

options for travel facilitation in southern Florida, and the security 

implications of the proposed changes. We will hear from Congressman Foley, this bill’s sponsor, Mr. Jimm Ellis, President of 

BoatU.S., and Mr. Robert Jacksta from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection at the Department of Homeland Security. 

I, once again, thank our witnesses for joining us today and look 

forward to their testimony. And the Chair would now recognize the 

ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, for any opening statement she 

might have. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you 

calling this Congressional hearing. And I would like to welcome all 

of our witnesses, of course, including our own colleague, Congressman Mark Foley of Florida. Thank you for your testimony today. 

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to consider this bill, 

the Recreational Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act, as introduced 

by Representative Foley. The bill under consideration aims to ease 

the compliance burdens that recreational boaters face in Florida, 

and would require DHS to develop an inspection program for these 

boaters. And like my colleague from Florida, I believe that the Department of Homeland Security should put policies in place that do 

not overly burden our citizens. However, I have some concerns in 

which I hope he and the other witnesses will address during their 

testimony. 

First, I am concerned that a video phone system such as the one 

that Congressman Foley proposes may be used by drug smugglers 

to facilitate their operations. And second, I am concerned that Customs and Border Protection does not have adequate staffing to conduct these inspections. CBP would have to increase staff to inspect 

boats year-round. The Great Lakes program, on which the proposal 

is based, runs for a much shorter period, as you know. Being on 
3

the northern border, the boating season is shorter than what we 

would anticipate in Miami or southern California. 

And finally, I am unaware as to whether or not DHS has determined that the video phone technology used by boaters meets our 

current security requirements. I would appreciate the Congressman’s response to this question, in particular. And again, I look 

forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony, and I yield back my 

time and we will get on with it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. 

And now the Chair recognizes the Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Cox, for any statement 

he may have.

PREAPRED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

HOMELAND SECURITY

Good afternoon, I would first like to thank Congressman Lungren for chairing this 

legislative hearing. The bill we are discussing today—H.R. 1509, Recreational Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act—addresses the important issue of how we can facilitate the efforts of recreational boaters to comply with customs and immigration requirements. 

As we have all realized, the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001, forever altered our daily routines, our way of doing business, our travel plans, and our perceptions of safety and security. Where we once could run into the airport and board 

a plane with only minutes to spare before takeoff, we now must allow extra time 

for passenger and baggage screening. Where it was once a rare occurrence to walk 

through screening portals upon entering an office building, it is now expected. 

The task before all of us now is to balance security requirements while establishing an atmosphere of travel facilitation and preserving the American way of life. 

The bill we are examining today provides an opportunity to examine the issue of 

entry requirements for U.S. citizens involved in the marina industry and recreational boating. 

H.R. 1509 aims to facilitate the compliance of recreational boaters with customs 

and immigration inspection requirements. This legislation would create a system of 

video conferencing units that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents could use 

to remotely complete inspections upon their arrival at any one of 13 Florida marinas. 

Current policies call for boaters arriving in Florida to travel to the nearest official 

manned port of entry to comply with entry requirements, which in most cases is an 

airport. 

We have an opportunity and a responsibility to weigh the security value of requiring US citizens to travel miles to a port of entry after docking their boat, rather 

than allowing them an easier alternative. 

We have no data on how many boaters, citizens or non-citizens, refuse to comply 

with the reporting requirements. As the Palm Beach Post discussed in a March editorial of this year, South Florida residents used to enjoy hassle-free trips to the Bahamas. Now, however, the trip means either ‘‘a hassle or a flouting of the law.’’ 

The use of video conferencing to meet inspection requirements is not new to Customs and Border Protection. A similar program, called ‘‘OARS’’—the Outlying Area 

Reporting Station program—has been in use since prior to 9/11 along the Northern 

Border. OARS is currently deployed at 35 ports of entry. This hearing provides an 

opportunity to explore lessons learned from OARS and how this program or a similar program might be expanded to other locations to provide greater travel facilitation. 

Would deploying the OARS program in Florida or at other southern ports of entry 

pose a new set of challenges and concerns that must be considered? How likely 

would it be that travelers entering through Florida ports would utilize this inspection and reporting tool? 

I look forward to discussing with each of our witnesses the potential of using 

video conferencing technology to streamline the inspection process. I also look forward to examining the differences between the Northern Border, where this technology is in use, and the Nation’s Southeastern Border, to where it is proposed for 

expansion in this bill. 
4

I am pleased we have with us today Congressman Mark Foley, the sponsor of the 

legislation, Mr. Jim Ellis of BoatU.S., who is representing the interests of the recreational boating community, and Mr. Robert Jacksta of Customs and Border Protection at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Again, I thank our witnesses for their appearance today and look forward to their 

testimony.

Mr. COX. I thank the chairman, and I want to thank you first 

for holding this hearing. 

The Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity, as its name implies, is focused first on the 

need to balance the economic security of the nation with its physical security. One of the things that Osama bin Laden seeks to destroy is the American economy, we want to be sure that in our response to terrorism, we don’t do that for him. The bill we are discussing today, H.R. 1509, the Recreational Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act, which is authored by our colleague from Florida, Mr. 

Foley, addresses one aspect of this profoundly important issue, how 

can we accommodate the ongoing needs of our American way of life 

and of our economy with the security needs of a post 9/11 world? 

It is now commonplace that the terrorist attack of September 

11th forever altered our daily routines and our way of doing business, but while that is undoubtedly true, it should not mean that 

we cannot balance security requirements with the American way of 

life, the very way of life, after all, that Osama bin Laden seeks to 

destroy. 

The bill that we are examining today provides an opportunity to 

examine this issue in microcosm, it addresses the balance between 

entry requirements for U.S. citizens and the needs of recreational 

boaters. H.R. 1509 aims to facilitate the compliance of recreational 

boaters with existing Customs and Immigration inspection requirements, it doesn’t change those requirements, rather, it would create 

a system of video conferencing units that U.S. citizens and legal 

permanent residents could use to remotely complete inspections 

upon their arrival at any one of 13 Florida marinas. 

Current policies call for boaters arriving in Florida to travel to 

the first official manport of entry to comply with entry requirements, in most cases, that is an airport. We have an opportunity 

and a responsibility to weigh the security value of requiring boaters to travel miles to an airport after docking the boat. 

I have a number of questions, Mr. Chairman, for our witnesses. 

I am looking very much forward to hearing both the merits and the 

demerits of this proposed legislation, but as I said at the outset, 

I think that this bill, in microcosm, offers us the opportunity to 

focus on this great question of whether we are going to change our 

way of life dramatically in order to accommodate security, or 

whether as we give Americans better security, we can’t maintain 

and indeed perhaps improve our way of life. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Other members of the Committee, you are reminded obviously 

that opening statements may be submitted for the record. 

Our witnesses today, again, are the Honorable Mark Foley, Congressman for Florida’s 16th district and sponsor of the legislation; 

Mr. Jim Ellis, President of BOAT/U.S. an association for recreational boaters, and Mr. Robert Jacksta, the Executive Director 
5

for Border Security and Facilitation at U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me just remind the witnesses that their entire 

written statement will appear in the record. And so that we might 

be able to get through questions and answers, we would ask that 

you strive to limit our oral testimony to the 5-minute period allotted. And first off, we would like to hear from the author of the legislation, Congressman Foley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK FOLEY 

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Sanchez, Chairman Cox for this opportunity. 

Congressman Shaw, Congressman Kendrick and Don Manzullo 

are my co-sponsors—excuse my voice, I am having a little allergy 

attack—are my co-sponsors of this bill. And I think the debate that 

you were just having crystallizes the bill. It is an interesting situation we find ourselves in Florida; huge recreational boater industry. 

The Bahamas is 90 minutes by boat from our shores. What this 

legislation has required, the change has required, and you clearly 

enunciated it, that when a recreational boater comes back to the 

port with their boat, their trailer, their family, they then leave the 

marina, the dock, wherever they are, and are required to go to an 

airport where the Customs official is located and present themselves, including all passengers, for inspection by customs. 

What happens in Florida, regrettably, is that in the afternoon 

Sundays, when most boaters are returning from the islands, the 

Customs office is closed, so the boater has to then return on Monday morning and miss valuable work or school. 

Legitimate law-abiding citizens are trying their best to comply 

with the requirements of the law, but unfortunately, once again, we 

have devised a system that is only checking on the good, and ignores the bad. Osama bin Laden or a drug smuggler or a human 

smuggler is not going to comply with this regulation, they are 

going to come to our shores anyway. 

I understand the ranking member, Mrs. Sanchez’s, concern about 

these video machines, and I don’t want to defeat the purpose of my 

bill by suggesting I would settle for something else, but I want to 

prove to you I am willing, a simpler system. They used to do it, 

I believe, by phone, and they would check in and out by phone. 

Anything to help provide security, and at the same time provide 

comfort for our citizens I think is critically important. 

I told Chairman Cox the other day in conversation, a firm in my 

district came up with an impenetrable cockpit designed in 1993. It 

would not have allowed bullets to be fired through, it would not 

have allowed entry, it had a design for a bathroom for the pilot 

separately access from the cockpit. You couldn’t put smoke devices 

in or anything else. It included a camera in the cabin of the plane 

and one in the belly of the plane for the pilot to observe what was 

going on in this plane. 

The total package would have cost $10,000 per plane. The airlines rejected it out of hand because it was too expensive. Had we 

spent that $10,000, we would have prevented 9/11 from occurring 

because they never would have gotten to the cockpit. But instead, 

we spend hundreds and millions of dollars on airport security and 
6

other things that I don’t think provides the level of security we 

need. This is one further example where, while we are attempting 

to control our borders and protect our citizens, we have done nothing more than frustrate and hamper the lives of average citizens. 

So rather than read the testimony, I would like to get to the 

questions and answers. I apologize to John Hildreth, who did 

many, many hours of work preparing these multitude of pages. But 

it really comes down to simple discussion on the merits of the current system; is it providing safety? Is it providing security? Does 

it make sense? I would welcome the chance not to install 13 kiosks 

with phone devices and videotape machines; I would love to save 

the taxpayers money, but unfortunately, it seems to be the only answer if homeland security insists on putting citizens through the 

ringer as they return from recreational boating. 

It has hampered our economy, it has hurt Bahamian travel to 

that island. And again, I want to strongly underscore, legal citizens 

are trying their best to comply, illegals and others simply aren’t 

going to pay attention. So if the law is designed for security, then 

it has failed on its face miserably. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Foley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK FOLEY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding 

this hearing and for inviting me to testify in favor of H.R. 1509, the Recreational 

Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act. 

I am also pleased that Jim Ellis, President of BOAT/U.S., will be testifying in 

favor of the bill. This legislation is vital to the vast number of boaters in Florida 

who have been living under new, burdensome federal regulations when returning 

from so-called ‘‘foreign ports’’ or in vessels in international waters that may have 

visited a foreign port. 

Florida is a state with many recreational and charter boaters who frequently visit 

nearby places such as the Bahamas, which are considered foreign ports. Doing so, 

however, has become incredibly burdensome as a result of Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) requirements put into force two years ago. 

Under on-going procedures, recreational and charter boat captains and their passengers returning from a foreign port still contact and clear themselves through customs by calling a hotline number. But under the DHS requirements, they also now 

must report in person to an immigration officer at a U.S. Port-of-Entry (POE) within 

24 hours. 

This second requirement often means car rentals and long drives to the closest 

seaport or airport to wait in lines that often consume several hours. In addition, if 

the vessel returns when the immigration office is closed—which is usually the case 

for weekend boaters—both captain and crew must report the following morning. 

This often means missed work or school. 

The second requirement is a result of H.R. 2500, the Commerce, Justice, and 

State Department Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, which amended Section 

231 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to require that all persons entering the 

United States ‘‘shall present’’ themselves to an immigration officer. This small provision, tucked into this enormous funding bill, presented the boating and charter community in my state with a stark contrast to the previous compliance regime. 

Prior to implementation of these new regulations in May of 2003, boat captains 

made one telephone call from the marina or from their home. They were briefly 

interviewed and cleared for entry or ordered to stay on their vessel with their passengers until an agent could come and inspect the vessel. 

Being forced under the new requirements to appear in person to often distant 

ports of entry has absolutely no impact on our overall efforts to tighten border security. In reality, only the law-abiding comply—when they do comply—and those 

wanting to harm us ignore the rules. No vessel carrying illegal aliens or contraband 

or terrorists will present themselves at an immigration office where they will face 

certain detention and arrest. This reporting requirement simply makes no sense. 

Moreover, it isn’t just ordinary private citizens who are being burdened under this 

new system in Florida. The entire marine industry has suffered as people decide not 
7

to travel or charter to avoid the hassle. Many have moved their vessels to docks in 

the Bahamas and flown back and forth. The same applies to many seeking charter 

fishing services—opting to fly directly to the Bahamas and use a vessel docked 

there. When they fly back to the U.S., they clear immigration much easier and faster than by sea. This is inflicting serious harm on an entire segment of Florida’s 

economy that provides dock slips, fuel, bait, maintenance, and other products and 

services to the boating community. 

While I strongly support, and my record reflects, the implementation of effective 

border controls, the government must use common sense in this process. 

My legislation would require the Department of Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to implement a system nearly identical to one that has proven to be effective 

in dealing with this same problem for boaters using the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. 

H.R. 1509 would require Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to institute a system in Florida that uses videophones to satisfy CBP requirements for boaters returning to the United States. It would require that they install a videophone system 

at 13 (thirteen) maritime points-of-entry (POEs) in southeast Florida. The thirteen 

ports will be Sebastian Inlet, Fort Pierce Inlet, St. Lucie Inlet, Jupiter Inlet, Lake 

Worth Inlet, Boynton Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Hillsboro Inlet, Port Everglades Inlet, 

Bakers Haulover Inlet, Miami Harbor Inlet, Islamorada, and Key West. These locations were chosen because they are the only points of entry to Florida’s inland waterways on over 200 miles of coastline between Sebastian in the north and Miami 

to the south. The waters between Miami and Key West would be served by 

videophones at Islamorada and Key West. 

The purpose of the videophone system is to allow recreational and charter boaters 

and their passengers, who are also American citizens or lawful Permanent Residents of the United States, to satisfy BOTH the immigration and customs requirements of the Department of Homeland Security when returning to the United States 

from foreign ports or from international waters. 

As I mentioned earlier, this system will be modeled on the videophone system 

called OARS, or Outlying Area Reporting Station (OARS), which was developed as 

an alternative to requiring all American boaters on the Canadian border from reporting in person to an Immigration office when returning to an American port. The 

OARS program uses videophones, typically located at public marinas or state parks, 

which boaters may use to report to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. Currently 35 OARS units have been deployed along our maritime border with 

Canada. 

These videophones transmit and receive both voice and video images over standard telephone lines and consists of a monitor, camera and telephone. Two 

videophones must be in use to place and receive video telephone calls. The 

videophones may be accessed 24 hours a day. Each phone has two cameras: one 

views the face of the traveler and the other reads the traveler’s papers and identification. This allows the inspector to examine proof of citizenship and compare photo 

identification to the face of the traveler. 

The new system in Florida will allow Immigration and Customs inspectors to retain the option of requiring boaters and all passengers to wait for a customs inspection or visit the nearest Immigration office. 

Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Sanchez, distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, I urge you to approve this legislation. Without it, law-abiding boaters 

in Florida are being forced to choose between non-compliance and onerous regulations that contribute absolutely nothing to national security or stem the flow of illegal aliens, terrorists or drugs into South Florida. In fact, these regulations place a 

burden on DHS agents to clear these law-abiding people who have volunteered 

themselves for inspection when these same DHS agents could be interdicting at sea 

those who are intent on violating our laws. 

As a Floridian who has spent a lot of time on Florida’s coastal and inland waterways, I can tell you that once a vessel with illegal cargo or persons enters a Florida 

inlet, it is virtually impossible for law enforcement officials to confront them. They 

blend into a maze of inland waterways, marinas, private docks and moving boat 

traffic. Vessels with illegal cargo must be confronted on the high seas and coastal 

waters well before they enter an inlet. 

My legislation leaves enough leeway for CBP to modify these videophones as technology progresses. Such advances may one day include biometric data such as fingerprints or iris scans. Thus, this system could be incorporated into any larger, nationwide system that might be implemented. 

There are nearly one million registered boaters in Florida who contribute $7.8 billion into our economy. Some have estimated that nearly 70 percent of Florida boaters ignore the new rules in order to avoid missed work or school. 
8

I urge you to approve this legislation and stop the practice of making outlaws out 

of these well-intentioned people. 

Thank you.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Congressman Foley. And 

before I ask Mr. Ellis to speak, if there is no objection I want to 

enter into the record a statement submitted by Congressman Clay 

Shaw on this subject. And without objection, it is so ordered. 

[The information follows:]

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF E. CLAY SHAW, JR. (FL–22) 

Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Sanchez and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to express my support for the Recreational Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act (H.R. 1509). 

I am concerned about the burdensome immigration and customs reporting regulations being required of boaters taking recreational trips to foreign ports. As you 

know, current federal policy enforced by the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) requires recreational boater captains and their passengers, returning from a 

foreign port, to contact and clear customs by calling a hotline number and to report 

in person to an immigration officer at a U.S. port-of-entry. The current regulations 

place an undue burden on law-abiding boaters in South Florida, who in most cases 

are taking day trips to The Bahamas on a family recreation day. 

In response to the concerns, Representative Mark Foley and I introduced the Recreational Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act (H.R. 1509). H.R. 1509 would create 

an inspection program that uses videophone systems at certain points of entry in 

Florida to satisfy customs and immigration reporting requirements. The proposal 

would allow boaters to use videophones to show agents themselves, their passengers 

and their documents. It is modeled after a system used in Great Lakes states for 

boaters returning from Canada. The change would cover 13 ports of entry from Sebastian Inlet, north of Vero Beach, to Key West. I am committed to working with 

DHS and South Florida boaters to find a quick resolution to this process, and a long 

term solution that balances our security needs with common sense policies for our 

recreational boaters. 

As co-chairman of the Congressional Boating Caucus, I certainly understand the 

impact these issues have on recreational boaters. I am committed to working with 

DHS, the Members of the Subcommittee and South Florida boaters to find a quick 

resolution to this process, and a long term solution that balances our security needs 

with common sense policies for our recreational boaters. Thank you for your time.

Mr. LUNGREN. Now, Mr. Jim Ellis, President of BOAT/U.S. 

STATEMENT OF JIM ELLIS, PRESIDENT, BOAT OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. ELLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Jim Ellis, President of Boat Owners Association in the 

United States. I am pleased to be here today representing more 

than 590,000 BOAT/U.S. members who are recreational boaters, 

and include over 113,000 of whom reside in Florida, where one out 

of every seven registered boaters is a BOAT/U.S. member. 

Since it has been entered into the record, I will try and summarize my statement today by going directly to my personal experiences with this entry procedure. 

I had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to experience the immigration process myself when my wife and I returned from a trip to the 

Bahamas in 2003. We left West End Bahama and returned to Lake 

Worth Inlet in West Palm Beach on our trawler. 

Upon arrival at the marina, we called U.S. Customs, and after 

a brief and pleasant conversation, we were cleared through Customs. However, the Customs officer informed us that we needed, at 

that point in time, we needed to also clear through Immigration as 

well. After several phone calls and waiting on hold for a while—
9

it seemed like about an hour—we finally got through to an immigration officer who informed us that we needed, according to the 

law, to present ourselves in person at the West Palm Beach Airport. So we managed to get a cab at that point in time and travel 

the 4 miles over to the airport and tried to locate the Immigration 

Office, but were unsuccessful in doing so once we got to the airport 

because actually after another phone call we were informed that it 

was at the private aviation terminal at the back side of the airport. 

The cab driver had no idea at that point exactly where that was, 

and frankly was very nervous about going to the Immigration Office to begin with, but did agree to take us over there as long as 

he could wait a half a block away. Nevertheless, we finally arrived 

at a somewhat poorly marked concrete building with no windows 

and a speaker out in front, which we pressed the button nervously, 

but a very nice, congenial officer came out, eventually appeared 

and took our passports and asked if we would wait outside, disappeared for only about 10 minutes, returned our passports, said 

that he had entered them dutifully into the computer, but since 

there are no cabs at that end of the airport we had to have our cab 

driver wait for us. 

And we made it back, eventually, to the marina, and about a $25, $30 cab fare to get roundtrip and the wait. By the time we 

had returned, it end up taking us about a half a day to actually 

go through the entire check in procedure. 

To put this tale in context, we had gone to the Bahamas on an 

organized trip of 25 boats. The instructions for clearing back in described in some of the materials our organizer had given us were 

accurate, but even so about half of the boats that we spoke to after 

the trip did not comply with the clearing in process, some gave up 

after repeated phone calls that they couldn’t get through, others 

checked in with immigration, but did not bring everyone to the immigration office as required. Some didn’t want the expense of a cab 

ride when they came into some other ports other than West Palm 

and found that it was going to be $50 or more for them to actually 

get a cab; and still others had come back a couple of days later, 

and on a Sunday, and found that the office was not open. And since 

they were headed back up the east coast and expected to be on 

their way immediately, they simply did not check in. 

In our case, we complied as timely—in as timely a manner as 

possible. We had spent several hours wandering around south Florida before getting to the government’s official stamp of clearing in. 

Had we had any intention to do anything illegal, certainly there 

was plenty of time and opportunity to do so along the way to the 

immigration office. 

It is our belief that any system that requires checking in of recreational boaters coming into this country, especially in south Florida, will have to end up being a voluntary one. And it only makes 

sense for us to come up with a system that encourages compliance. 

The current system does not encourage compliance. And we would 

be far better off with the system that is recommended in H.R. 1509 

for getting recreational boaters to comply with their legal responsibilities in clearing back into this country. 

I would be glad to entertain any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellis. 
10

[The statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]

PREPARED OF STATEMENT OF JIM ELLIS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Jim Ellis, President of Boat 

Owners Association of the United States. I am pleased to be here today representing 

more that 590,000 BOAT/U.S. members who are recreational boat owners, including 

over 113,000 of whom reside in Florida where one out of every seven boat owners 

is a BOAT/U.S. member. 

Many of those boaters live in southeastern Florida and cruise to the islands of 

the Bahamas, only to find it difficult to check in with U.S. Customs upon their return. Congressmen Mark Foley and Clay Shaw have been searching for a solution 

to this problem for the past few years and BOAT/U.S. believes that the provisions 

of H.R. 1509 will ease the burden for Florida boaters when reporting in to U.S. authorities at various Florida ports. 

Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to experience the immigration process myself, when my wife and I returned from a trip to the Bahamas in 2003. We left West 

End Bahamas and returned to West Palm Beach on our trawler. Upon arrival at 

the marina we called U.S. Customs and after a brief wait and pleasant conversation 

were cleared through Customs. However, the Customs officer informed us we needed 

to call Immigration and clear through them as well. We called several times and 

after waiting on hold for what seemed like an hour we finally got through to an 

officer who informed us we needed to present ourselves in person at the West Palm 

Beach airport. 

We called a cab and made our way the four miles to the airport but couldn’t locate 

the Immigration office. After another phone call we were informed that it was located it was at the private aviation terminal in the back of the airport. The cab driver had no idea how to get there and seemed nervous about going to the Immigration 

office anyway. Nevertheless, we finally arrived at a poorly marked concrete building 

with no windows and pressed a speaker button. A very nice officer eventually appeared, took our passports and asked us to wait outside. He disappeared for ten 

minutes and then reappeared to return our passports. Since there were no cabs in 

that part of the airport we had to have our cab wait for us. The round trip fare 

was about $25. By the time we returned to the boat, a half day had been used up 

completing this procedure. 

To put this tale into context, we had gone to the Bahamas on an organized trip 

of 25 boats. The instructions for clearing back in were described in some materials 

the organizers had given us, but even so, about half of the other boaters we spoke 

with after the trip did not clear back in with Immigration. Some gave up after repeated phone calls; others checked in with Immigration but did not bring everyone 

who was aboard their vessel and others, who returned to different ports, did not 

want to go to the time or the expense of a long cab ride to an airport miles from 

port. Still others who returned from the Bahamas on Sunday did not check in because some Immigration offices are not open on Sundays. In these cases, taking a 

Monday off from work to report to Immigration or delaying a flight out with the 

added expense of an overnight hotel stay was just too much. 

In our case, where we complied in as timely a manner as possible, we had to 

spend several hours wandering around south Florida before getting the government’s official stamp of approval to clear in. Had we intended anything illegal there 

was plenty of time and opportunity along the way to the Immigration office. 

Mr. Chairman, the current method of enforcing this regulation is inconvenient, inadequate and inefficient Law abiding American citizens are turned into scofflaws by 

a system that has not changed to meet the needs of the times. Instead of turning 

law abiding citizens into criminals, we should embrace new or existing technologies, 

such as that recommended by H.R. 1509, that will get the job done in less time and 

less expense. 

Consider the billions of dollars the Department of Homeland Security has spent 

on getting the latest technology for our nation’s airports. They are installing irisscan readers to identify passengers and recently unveiled a scanner that can see 

through a person’s outer garments. They have readers that measure the unique geometry of a person’s hand to protect the baggage handling area, with motion-tracking video systems to keep unauthorized people from entering the area. Even our 

highway’s borders have adapted new technology with their NEXUS and SENTRI 

programs that speed vehicles through Customs checkpoints. 

Unfortunately, very little has been spent on technology to secure the thousands 

of miles of our coastal waters. Certainly, there must be a way to leverage some of 

the technological advances in aviation to make our coastlines more secure while at 

the same time simplifying a boater’s reporting procedure. 
11

The ‘‘Recreational Boaters Streamlined Inspection Act’’ offers a practical way for 

recreational boaters to report back to customs officials after visiting the Bahamas, 

as well as other Caribbean islands. H.R. 1509 requires the Department Homeland 

Security to establish a program allowing boaters returning from outside the U.S. to 

use videophones at a number of Florida marinas and public docks. This plan has 

worked successfully in the Great Lakes for a number of years. Recreational boaters 

returning from visiting Canada simply pick up a videophone and complete the necessary verification in a matter of minutes. In fact, videophones have been so successful in the Great Lakes that they are now installed at over 30 locations from New 

York to Minnesota. 

Recreational boaters are needed as eyes and ears on the water in our quest to 

make our homeland secure. Meaningless regulations and low compliance destroy the 

governments creditably and do nothing for homeland security. 

While the government’s reorganization combining Customs and Immigration into 

one Customs and Border Protection office is a step in the right direction, it still does 

not solve the problem of requiring a law abiding citizen to find a cab and travel 

miles to report into a government office in person. There has to be a simplier way 

for the government to protect our borders and at the same time enable law abiding 

citizens who pose no threat to obey the law. 

I commend the committee for holding this hearing on H.R. 1509 and urge you to 

approve it this year so that 13 south Florida locations can have videophones installed in early 2006. Again, thank you for this holding hearing. I am happy to respond to any questions that you might have.

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Robert Jacksta, the Executive Director For 

Border Security and Facilitation at the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Department of Homeland Security. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT JACKSTA 

Mr. JACKSTA. Good afternoon, Chairman Lungren, Chairman 

Cox, Ranking Member Sanchez, and distinguished members. 

I am honored to appear before you today to discuss U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection’s efforts to improve and streamline the reporting process for travelers who enter the United States by small 

pleasure crafts. 

CBP’s Office of Field Operation works closely with our border patrol and air and marine officers to ensure coverage and reporting 

of all small boat travellers. We are also working with the U.S. 

Coast Guard and State and local law enforcement officers to provide coverage and report suspicious marina activities. In addition, 

CBP field officers conduct special outreach with marinas and attend local boat shows in order to advise boaters of our reporting requirements. And finally, CBP field officers have developed special 

enforcement operations to ensure targeted high-risk areas of vulnerability. 

As you know, CBP is a new agency bringing together the authorities of Customs and Immigration. Title 8 United States Code requires that every applicant for admission to or transit to the 

United States must be inspected by a CBP officer. The implementing regulation requires that every application for entry into 

the United States must be made in person to an officer at a port 

of entry at a time when the POE is open. A person claiming to be 

a U.S. citizen must establish the fact to the examining officer’s satisfaction. 

Title 19 requires that the master of a vessel report immediately 

upon arrival at the nearest facility or designated place. The implementing regulations, Title 19, require boaters to immediately report their arrival by any means of communication approved by the 

agency. 
12

Pleasure boaters are required to comply with these reporting requirements. Boat masters, family members and all guest entering 

the United states must report for inspection. Inspection may be obtained in one of three methods. On the northern border, boaters 

must be in possession of a pre-approved I–68 form, or a NEXUS 

number, or they can utilize an outlying area reporting stations, 

ORES. And for all other arrivals, boaters must physically report for 

inspection to the nearest open port of entry. 

As mentioned, the alternative inspection programs are available 

for those travelers by boat along the northern border, specifically 

the I–68 Canadian boat landing program will be continued this 

year. Under the form I–68 program applicants for admission into 

the United States by small pleasure boats are inspected and issued 

a single boating permit for the entire boating season. Each applicant must appear in person for inspection, interview and various 

other law enforcement checks. The fees are $16 for an individual, 

or $32 for a family; the same as last year. 

If approved, the I–68 will bear the photograph and fingerprint of 

the applicant. The I–68 permits boaters, allows the boaters to enter 

the United States from Canada for recreational purposes with only 

the need to report to CBP for further inspection by placing a phone 

call to report their arrival. 

These persons eligible for the I–68 who are enrolled in any other 

alternative program, such as NEXUS, may enter the United States 

by pleasure boat reporting without obtaining an I–68 form. Boaters 

on the northern border not in possession of a valid form I–68 or 

proof of enrollment in NEXUS must either report in person for inspection at a port of entry, or utilize the outlying reporting system, 

or its video phones. 

The OARS program was established to simplify reporting requirements for boaters who are members of the Registered Travelers programs, such as I–68 or NEXUS. In addition, it allows 

them to call up without being members of those programs to be 

cleared. Under the OARS program, video phones installed at public 

marinas along the Canadian borders provide an automated inspection service, enabling a two-way visual and audio communication 

between the CBP officer and the applicant for admission. 

Whichever program is used, each small boat arrival is tracked in 

our CBP pleasure boat reporting system within our tech system. 

Any person that does not comply with these procedures may be 

subject to adverse actions under the provisions of the INA, and 

may be subject to a penalty as well under the Customs Authority. 

While OARS may be a potential solution for the Miami area, 

CBP is not opposed to OARS as an alternative means of reporting. 

CBP is currently developing a strategy or method to secure the borders and the small boat program, but as well as looking at other 

alternatives. This strategy will identify key locations where remote 

reporting is beneficial to the public. CBP will determine these key 

locations based on risk factors associated with securing our Nation’s waterways. The discretion and the decision to decide on 

where to place these remote reporting processes must remain with 

CBP, rather than fix it at a predetermined location. 

CBP must be able to maneuver or relocate to more operational 

feasible areas based on resources and/or potential risk factors. In 
13

addition, CBP needs to explore technology that includes not only a 

video phone, but a system to read travel documents, and to receive 

biometrics. 

In summary, CBP is continuing to explore new solutions for 

small boat reporting in low traffic areas in conjunction with a 

trusted traveler program; however, the large volume of pleasure 

boat traffic in the Florida area, the smuggling and migrant threat, 

all create additional challenges to CBP. 

Chairman thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. 

I will be happy to answer any questions if you have any. 

[The statement of Mr. Jacksta follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT JACKSTA

Chairman Lungren and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am Robert Jacksta, Executive Director for Border Security and 

Facilitation, Office of Field Operations. I would like to discuss the efforts of the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the process of improving and 

streamlining the reporting processes for travelers who enter the United States by 

small pleasure craft. 

The Outlying Area Reporting Station (OARS) was implemented in remote areas 

along the Northern border to facilitate compliance with statutory and regulatory reporting requirements. The OARS videophones allow the master of a small boat to 

call into a CBP monitoring site and establish a video feed (face-to-face reporting) 

to report arrival into the United States and make an oral declaration. The OARS 

program was established to simplify reporting requirements for boaters who were 

not members of a Registered Traveler Program such as the Small Boat Landing Permit (I–68) or a Port Pass (northern border). 

The current authorized procedure for small boat reporting under 19 USC 1433 requires the master of the vessel to report the arrival at the nearest customs facility 

or such other place as the Secretary may prescribe by regulations. These reports are 

tracked in the Pleasure Boat Reporting System within the Treasury Enforcement 

Communications System (TECS). Pursuant to 8 CFR 235.1, an application to lawfully enter the United States must be made in person to an immigration officer at 

a U.S. port-of-entry when the port is open for inspection. For the northern border 

only, alternatives to the regulatory face-to-face reporting requirement are the Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit (I–68) that is issued seasonally to qualified small 

boat operators and the ‘‘Port Pass’’ enrollment. The I–68 satisfies the boat operator’s 

legal requirement to report to a port-of-entry for face-to-face inspection in accordance with 8 CFR 235.1, but a phone in arrival is still required to satisfy 19 USC 

1433. Port Pass is an alternative inspection program for Registered Travelers, such 

as NEXUS. 

OARS could be an optional method of reporting entry for boaters who are not participants in the I–68 or any other Registered Traveler Program. However, while the 

OARS system is effective along the Northern Border, CBP cautions that, due to the 

large number of boaters along the Florida coast, OARS may not be able to handle 

the volume of calls. In some cases along the Northern Border, even with a relatively 

small amount of boaters utilizing the OARS phones, boaters have experienced unusually long waits connecting with CBP monitoring sites. 

While OARS may be a potential solution, and CBP is not opposed to OARS as 

an alternative means of reporting, CBP is currently developing a strategy on secure 

remote reporting process for low-risk boaters. The strategy will identify key locations where remote reporting is beneficial to the public. CBP will determine these 

key locations based on risk factors associated with securing our Nation’s waterways. 

The discretion to site the remote reporting process, rather than fix it at pre-determined locations, is essential. CBP must be able to maneuver and/or relocate to more 

operationally feasible areas based on resources and or potential risk factors. 

Similarly, program eligibility will impact the remote reporting process. Although 

U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residence are considered low risk (as indicated 

in OARS draft), CBP seeks to expand the program to all low-risk travelers (non U.S. 

citizens), as part of a Registered Traveler Program, to develop expeditious and secure cross border travel. 

In summary, the OARS program is a viable solution for small boat reporting in 

low traffic areas, in conjunction with a trusted traveler program. The large volumes 

of pleasure boat traffic in the Florida area, however, would likely overwhelm the 
14

OARS system. CBP is developing a strategy to expand the Registered Traveler Program nationwide to simplify the reporting process while meeting the reporting requirements. 

Thank you again, Chairman Lungren and members of the Sub-Committee, for giving U.S. Customs and Border Protection this opportunity to testify. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much for your testimony. And I 

will recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin this round of questioning. 

Mr. Jacksta, you indicated certainly some flexibility in the program that already exists with respect to the northern border, and 

it sounds like you are suggesting, on behalf of the Department, 

that there is a view towards flexibility with the problem articulated 

by the other members of the panel. Do I read you correctly? 

Mr. JACKSTA. That is correct, sir. What we are looking at right 

now—we had a group come in this week, members from Blaine, 

Washington, from the Miami area, from the Boston area to take a 

look at our small boat program and to determine what is the best 

way to move forward. Obviously we think there are a couple of opportunities for us to move forward. First of all, we believe a trusted 

traveller or a Registered Traveller program would help the situation with the small boaters by allowing them to register, 

preregister, when they arrive back in their boat, be able to call up 

and we can verify that it is that individual and have them cleared. 

We are also looking at the whole issue of the OARS and the capabilities of that system. And specifically, as we look at the northern border, it is a system that has been out there since about 1997. 

We think that it has capabilities, but we probably have to took at 

the technology and see if we can improve it to bring it up to today’s 

standards. And one of the things that we would want to look at is 

maybe having additional cameras in the area to view the area, the 

total marine area, take a look at whether we can place biometrics 

at these locations so we can verify the biometrics of the individuals 

that would be coming back. So we think there is opportunities here, 

and we are looking at that. 

We are also looking at the issue of the authorities to have a 

trusted traveller program down in the Florida area. The regulations and the law currently limits it to the northern border or 

southern land border locations. So we think there are some things 

we need to do to look at it to address the concerns that are being 

raised by various members. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I noted in your prepared testimony as well as the 

testimony that was given that you indicate that the much greater 

volume of boat traffic in Florida versus the northern border might 

make it problemic or make it more difficult to implement an OARS 

program or something similar to that. Let me take the other side 

of that argument. Isn’t the fact that you have such a high volume 

in the Florida areas—and having heard the testimony of the first 

two gentlemen which suggest that there is probably a lot of lack 

of compliance, not because people don’t to want follow the law, but 

just because there is an inconvenience—wouldn’t that suggest that 

perhaps the best place for the use of technology, including OARS—

by itself or in conjunction with the other things you have talked 

about—would be Florida, that is, you probably have a lot more peo-
15

ple slipping through the system down there than you do in the 

northern part of the country right now. 

Mr. JACKSTA. We understand that the traffic down in the Miami 

area is very high. I can tell you that based on statistics, it is probably right up there with the Washington area, Blaine, Washington 

area, Seattle area where there is a lot of small boaters that come 

across the northern border up there. 

Clearly we recognize that the Miami area has a concern or 

threat. We have problems with that area being utilized by narcotic 

smugglers, as well as individuals who are smuggling individuals. 

We think that the Florida area gives us the opportunity for those 

people who are in compliance, who want to be in compliance, to 

give them an opportunity we think we should look at and explore 

the Trusted Traveler program as well as the OARS program for 

that area. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Congressman Foley, how do you react to the testimony you heard? 

Mr. FOLEY. Well, I am very delighted that there is an effort underway; I was unaware of it. And I have written the agency repeatedly asking for some details of some hope and opportunity, so I 

welcome looking at a better system, because I believe in my heart 

one can be designed that both offers flexibility and security. 

My question would be, obviously, is, from the gentleman from the 

agency, do you think the requirements for an individual to report 

in person to an immigration officer have been a success? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Yes, sir, I think so. I think there is a requirement 

to make sure that people who are arriving in the United States are 

in compliance with our law. There are obviously people who have—

good citizens who make that extra effort, an example of that is Mr. 

Ellis, and we appreciate that. And that is what we expect of all 

travelers coming in. 

What we also recognize is that we have to make it as easy as 

possible and give the opportunity for those travelers to report. And 

I would be the first one to admit that taking a cab for 3 hours or 

going down there is a concern. So that is why we are looking at 

this, how can we explore better ways of addressing those people 

who want to be in compliance. 

Those people who are not in compliance, that is where we have 

our enforcement efforts, that is where we work closely with the 

State and locals, with the Coast Guard and border patrol, our air 

and marine units to identify those people who are coming back. 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for turning a question to 

him. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, that is just fine. I would rather have that so 

we have an exchange of ideas. 

I would just say that—well, before I recognize the Ranking Member—that Mr. Ellis mentioned one of the times he returned to Florida where he made this extra effort. I am not going to ask about 

all the other times. 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the one question I probably would 

have for the agency is how many illegal aliens have presented 

themselves? I guess that is the fundamental question. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Not the ones with Ph.Ds probably. 
16

Mr. FOLEY. What is the purpose? And not that it is about 

illegals, it is about protecting the borders. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, the other question is, what are we doing to 

put unnecessary burdens on those who are most likely to follow the 

law? And to the extent we put money and effort into that, are we 

wasting that money that could be directed elsewhere? And we are 

looking at that all through this. And it is not an easy question, and 

I am not trying to suggest that the Department is not doing a genuine effort, but we have got to look at what is actually effective. 

And now 5 minutes—I recognize the gentlelady from California, the 

Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I represent an area, along with Mr. Cox, Orange 

County, California, one of the wealthiest areas in the Nation, and 

there have been plenty of times where I have got—we have the 

highest general aviation coming out of our airport there, John 

Wayne Airport. And there are plenty of times when I get on a 

plane and I go over to Mexico or someplace, and on the way back, 

we have to make a stop in Brown Airfield to get checked by Customs and Immigration and everything. 

It is a pretty laborious process, it takes time to come down, it 

takes time to get up, it costs money to do that. And there are plenty of people who say all the time, we would pay extra if you would 

put somebody to check us at John Wayne Airport. We have never 

done that. 

I just wonder, Mr. Jacksta, what would it take to have something 

closer to a port, a water port of entry in Miami or Palm Beach or 

something? And could we not maybe do that by charging more to 

people who go through that process rather than have them do what 

Mr. Ellis did, which was to take a $40 cab ride back and forth and 

half the day of his time—I am sure his time is worth a lot of 

money, especially when you are a recreational boater. Have we 

looked at those figures or those numbers to see what we could do 

with respect to that? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Well, Congresswoman, let me start off by indicating that currently small boats, 30-foot boats or bigger, require 

a user fee, it is a very minimal fee, it is about $25 per vessel for 

an entire season with that, so there is not much revenue coming 

in that way. 

What is our concern, and something that we are always challenged with, is exactly how many places small boats can arrive at 

at a port of entry. Take, for example, the Miami area, I might be 

off by a couple, but there are something like 50 marinas right in 

an area when you come into that Miami area. So the question 

comes down to, first of all, where would you put that system that 

you want to put out there, do we put it in a public park area, do 

we put it on one of the marinas? The question comes down to is 

that we don’t have enough resources to put our officers at every 

marina to be ready and available to respond to every type of phone 

call that comes in at all different hours. 

So the challenge of the program is that we are trying to make 

it so that people who are trusted, people who are in compliance 

have the opportunity to report their arrival, be cleared, and be sent 

on their way. But the private boat program does have a lot of chal-
17

lenges. We have not looked at specifically reporting—or putting a 

proposal to report to specific locations simply because of the concerns that would clearly come up if we pinpoint specific areas. 

Mr. SANCHEZ. Mr. Ellis, do you think that would be inviting in 

any way to someone like you? 

Mr. ELLIS. Congresswoman, it could; however, I also see it as 

being a very significant expense. 

One of the problems that exists, as Mr. Jacksta pointed out, is 

that the number of ports or marinas far outnumber the number of 

general aviation airports that are out there where you have a concentration of planes. Also, where the average recreational plane 

might be a $100,000 investment, the average recreational boat in 

this country is 16 feet in length, and probably represents a couple 

of thousand dollar investment. And some boats at 18 feet are regularly transiting between the U.S. and the Bahamas. I understand 

that here in Washington my $25 cab right got to be a $40 cab ride 

within a half an hour. But the $25 user fee for the 18 foot owner 

out there is actually a pretty significant amount of money they are 

putting out to begin with. 

Mr. SANCHEZ. $25 a year? 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, annual fee of $25 a year, which is about equal 

to what they pay the State of Florida to register their vessel in the 

State of Florida. 

And I guess what I am trying to point out is that recreational 

boaters, over 12 million registered recreational boaters in the U.S., 

are not, as an average, a wealthy group. Certainly there are 

wealthy individuals where $25 would not make any difference to, 

but there are a number of them out there that are very concerned 

about the cost. 

Mr. SANCHEZ. Mr. Jacksta, one of the briefings that you brought 

up with your staff was the technology that H.R. 1509 would mandate. In that briefing, you mention that you believe that equipment 

would have a biometric component and document scanning capability. Does technology like that exist today? Is it being used on the 

northern border? And what type of biometrics requirement would 

CBP like boaters to use? 

Mr. JACKSTA. The issue of equipment, currently the equipment 

on the northern border, is for the most part very basic equipment, 

it is a video phone, it has a camera, it has a document camera to 

view the documents. It also gives the capability for the officer and 

the traveler to see each other. 

What we are looking at—and that is technology that has basically been out there for the last 5 years. What we would like to do 

is if we were going to move forward with the next level, we want 

to improve on the security features and the capabilities of the system. First of all, we would like to have a system that might be able 

to read the documents that the person is presenting. For example, 

if they have a machine readable passport, we would like to be able 

to query that and use that; that allows us for a better security feature. We would also like to have the better cameras so that we can 

have a better view of the area and actually a better view of the 

traveler himself or herself. 

We would also like to take a look and utilize biometrics. And why 

we would want to use biometrics, if we did have a trusted traveller 
18

program and someone called up and said I am Bob Jacksta, here 

is my fingerprint, we could verify it with the—we would verify it 

with the record that we had when the person actually registered 

in the program, once again, to validate that that is the person that 

is in front of us, and that there isn’t any threat. 

We would also be able to utilize that system to help us with the 

whole process of registering people who might be coming in under 

the U.S. VISIT side of the House. The current requirement is if you 

are a nonimmigrant visiting the United States, you have to be 

cleared through the U.S. VISIT process at airports and at most of 

our major seaports. We would like to bring those capabilities to any 

type of video phone or OARS process system in the future. 

So we believe, if we are going to put a system out there, that we 

should have the best technology to be able to do the job the right 

way, and allow us, when we say to that person, go on, it would fulfill the legal obligations. 

Mr. SANCHEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to come at this from the other direction. Most of the 

discussion has been focused on how we can relieve the burden for 

beleaguered vacationers; I want to come at it from the homeland 

security standpoint, from the counterterrorism standpoint. 

This requirement that is being complained of by the author of 

the legislation didn’t exist before 9/11; is that right? 

Mr. JACKSTA. The capabilities to be cleared by the OARS system, 

sir? 

Mr. COX. No, no, no. The requirement that the master of the vessel report in person to a physical facility such as an airport, that 

didn’t exist before 9/11; is that correct? 

Mr. JACKSTA. The authority existed, sir, from my understanding—. 

Mr. COX. I just wondered whether the procedure and the requirement existed before 9/11. 

Mr. JACKSTA. The procedure did not exist, sir. 

Mr. COX. Okay. So I think it is safe to infer that, since we had 

immigration policy concerns pre-9/11, we had Customs revenue 

concerns pre-9/11, that the difference was 9/11, that we have put 

these provisions in force because we have a counterterrorism purpose. I want to see now whether we are getting anywhere with our 

counterterrorism measures. 

In your view, does the system that is in place present a hurdle 

to terrorists? Do you believe or does IA at the Department of 

Homeland Security believe that there is any scenario in which terrorists would present themselves voluntarily to this system? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Sir, I think that there is a reporting requirement 

for people arriving to report—. 

Mr. COX. I understand there is a bureaucratic requirement. What 

I want to know is whether there is, in the IA office at the Department of Homeland Security, an assessment that terrorists would 

ever present themselves voluntarily in this reporting system. 

Mr. JACKSTA. I can’t speak for IA, sir. 

Mr. COX. You are unaware of any IA input into this? 
19

Mr. JACKSTA. My understanding is that it is, in our view, the 

best interest of the U.S. Government to register, have people come 

in—. 

Mr. COX. Let me ask the question very simply then. Is there any 

IA put into this requirement? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Not that I know, sir. 

Mr. COX. Let me ask the next question. Do you know whether 

or not anyone on a terrorist watch list has ever presented themselves voluntarily in this system? Has it ever happened? 

Mr. JACKSTA. I know of no example, sir. 

Mr. COX. And would you—I am going to ask a question that you 

can answer any way that you feel comfortable, because I am not 

really asking for DHS policy, but I am just going to ask you to reason with us here. Do you think that somebody who was part of an 

Al-Qa‘ida cell or someone who was like-minded, a terrorist bent on 

doing injury to the American territory of people, would ever voluntarily go out of their way, by hours and miles, to check in in this 

system? 

Mr. JACKSTA. I would think that it would be very unusual, unless 

they had—. 

Mr. COX. I think so, too. So I think we should write off any 

counterterrorism value to these procedures that have been put in 

place post 9/11. And if that is the case, we would ask two questions; first, is there something else that we can do that would have 

better counterterrorism return? And second, if we are willing to 

write off—as apparently we have with the system in place—any 

counterterrorism value, shouldn’t we just focus on the Customs and 

Immigration pieces of this, and in as much as both of those require 

maximum voluntarily compliance, shouldn’t we make the system as 

easy as possible? 

If we are going to jump to the second question, I want to ask 

whether you might imagine something even more significantly different than what presently we do that is what is in Mr. Foley’s 

bill? I have been listening during this hearing and wondering why 

it is, if we want to make this system efficient and usable for travelers, and we want to collect as much in the way of Customs revenues as we possibly can, and we want to encourage that person 

who is coming here, maybe legally, maybe illegally, to, when they 

are thinking about should I check in with immigration to do so, if 

they have any possibility of doing so, why wouldn’t we decentralize 

it all together and say that you have got to check in by cell phone? 

Just call. Why wouldn’t we go to that system, instead of building 

stations and so on, to maximize the amount of people that would 

voluntarily comply if all we are after is the Customs benefit and 

the Immigration benefit? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Well, I think that, sir, in all honesty, there is certain requirements from the Customs side, which is the requirement 

to make sure that people are in compliance, that they are not 

bringing in anything that is illegal, anything that might be of concern. Some travellers might not know that until actually getting 

questioned by an officer. But from the Immigration side of the 

house, I think there is a clear responsibility to make sure that individuals who are coming in are in compliance with the INA law. 
20

And specifically, if you are visiting the United States, that you are 

eligible to be entered into the United States. 

Mr. COX. Well, that is a fair point. The paradigm that Mr. Foley 

outlined for us is a U.S. group of people vacationing for the weekend. If we start with that universe of people, might we not have 

a requirement that kicks in when they are leaving the marina, and 

then if they don’t call back we will know we have a problem? 

Mr. JACKSTA. That is exactly what we would like to do, sir. We 

would like to get people to register in the program, and that registration process might start before they even leave. Maybe they 

know they are going to take a trip, they might want to take a trip 

down to the Customs Office—. 

Mr. COX. May they could do it by the Web, by Internet, print the 

out the forms in PDF and do whatever they can over the Internet 

so we wouldn’t have to have all of these physical locations. And 

then if they don’t check back in when they return, it is sort of like 

a flight plan, if they don’t come back ever, we will know we have 

a problem. 

Mr. JACKSTA. I mean, that is what we are looking at, sir, and 

that is exactly what the group came up. I mean, the people that 

we had in from the field are familiar with the issues, and trying 

to build the best way possible for people to be in compliance. And 

there are a lot of opportunities. 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. If there is an opportunity for a second round, I would like to get back to the 

counterterrorism question and ask if there is something that we 

can do better to fulfill that mission. 

Mr. LINDER. I will yield my time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You have got 5 minutes, and you have yielded. 

Mr. COX. Well, in that case, let me ask the question. If our purpose were to find people—and this is a big problem, as you know, 

I mean, it’s a problem not just Florida, it is a problem along thousands of miles in our border, it is a problem certainly in the Caribbean, it is a problem in the Virgin Islands, it is a problem virtually 

uniformly on our maritime borders. 

You know, in our other subcommittee, which Chairman Linder is 

responsible for, we were looking at the problem of nuclear attack 

against the United States. If someone were going to import fissar 

material, one of the leading scenarios is they would bring it in a 

row boat or they would bring it in a power boat. But they are not 

going to come through a radiation portal monitor in San Diego or 

New York, they are going to show up on our shores, probably; or 

maybe they will bring it in a 4x4 across the Canadian border or 

what have you. But they are going to do it someplace that is away 

from what we are looking at, and they might do it in a boat. So 

this is serious stuff. We would like to look for terrorists on our 

shores, how can we do it? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Well, I think, sir, that it looks—to have a proper 

strategy we need to make sure that we are all working together. 

I would like the committee to know that there is clearly good cooperation taking place at the ports of entry, and that the whole 

process of our air and marine, where we have boats, close to 60 

boats out there making sure that people are in compliance, and 

that if there are any kinds of questions that we do stop those ves-
21

sels. We stop them out on the water, out at sea before they come 

into the port of entry. 

We have the Coast Guard, who we work very closely with, where 

it is not unusual for the Coast Guard to stop vessels that coming 

from various locations. We also have at our ports of entry, we do 

have our officers that do go to the various marinas on various enforcement actions to see who is coming in, to ask around, to work. 

We need the support of the public on this one here, is there anything unusual, is there a marine operator that sees somebody who 

comes in that they have never seen before? It really is an effort by 

a multiple number of groups to try to ensure that we are coordinating and communicating. 

The back end of it is that the person has to report the arrival; 

that is the closing of the entire process. But it really—please understand that it is not just the reporting requirement that CBP has 

out there, there are other assets that we utilize. The State and 

locals are very engaged; it is not unusual for us to work with them. 

The various boat operators at the piers, I mean, it is a group effort. 

So I think that obviously there could probably be more in that 

area, but remember the small boat is a community that can be 

watched very carefully, too, I mean, in the sense that there are the 

capabilities to know who is coming into an area that you might not 

have seen before, and we depend on that cooperation. 

Mr. COX. Well, I would suggest that we get the Information Analysis Office at DHS in collaboration as you take a look as this. I am 

very pleased that Customs and Border Protection are working together. And there is no reason in the world that we shouldn’t infuse this process with more intelligence so that we are looking at 

terrorist capabilities and intentions, and our own vulnerabilities 

and problems like this with the real measure of counterterrorism 

in mind. 

I would yield whatever time Chairman Linder has remaining to 

Chairman Linder. 

Mr. LINDER. I just have a question for you, Mr. Jacksta; do you 

have any problem with this bill? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Sir, I think that we have some concerns with it 

when it specifically pinpoints what areas we should be going to or 

what inlets. I think that what we need to do is look at it from a 

perspective of what is the best place for our resources, and let us, 

if we are going to move forward, make the decision on what the 

right place is based on that intelligence, based on an evaluation of 

the workload issues, evaluation of what is available for us in those 

areas to do the job. 

Mr. LINDER. How about the Net, how about the Web, and a 

phone call? 

Mr. JACKSTA. I am concerned about that, sir. I will tell you that 

that is something that we have looked at. We clearly would like 

people to come to us and identify themselves. If you call up on the 

phone or on the Web and we never get to see you, there is no capabilities to verify that you are actually that person. So we would like 

to have somewhere in the process, before we register you in any 

type of trusted traveller program, to have the capabilities to verify, 

first of all, is your documents okay, and if there is any issue, not 

issue clearance. So we think that—we can start the process with 
22

the Web application, but we don’t want to close that process until 

we do a face to face. 

Mr. LINDER. What do you think the chances are that somebody 

who is coming here intending ill will is going to cooperate with 

you? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Well, I think that there—I mean, if you look at 

people who are of concern to us, not all of them want to come into 

the United States illegally; they want to get in here and be able 

to move freely and be able to get across the border, and if necessary go back and forth. So people who get into the country illegally in one way are sort of trapped here in the sense that they 

don’t have the capabilities to go back and forth, and if they get 

stopped they are a concern and can alert—. 

Mr. LINDER. So is it your position that if they sign up with you, 

even though they are intending ill will, and get here legally, and 

go back and forth to the borders legally, you are going to give them 

that credit? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Based on our background check, based on what we 

know about that person, if there is anything that would prevent us, 

we wouldn’t issue that person a travel card, a trusted card. I think 

we have some historical background on the northern border and on 

the southern border with the Century programs and the NEXUS 

program where we require the 10 fingerprint check, we verify who 

they are. We do a check of them. The officer does an interview of 

them. We ask them questions about their employment, what they 

are doing. Clearly that is not going to be the perfect system, but 

it definitely weeds out those individuals who might be of concern. 

Mr. LINDER. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I would like to ask Mr. Foley and Mr. Ellis this. 

And that is, we in Congress are engaged in trying to strengthen 

our borders. There has been a big argument in the House, as you 

know, to add Border Patrol officers to intensify our eyes and ears 

across the board. Some might look at this proposal as an effort, yes, 

make it more convenient for boaters, but in the process to make 

our borders even more porous. And while we might not conclude 

that those who want to do us ill would necessarily sign up and 

come through the process, part of what we do is for deterrent effect, the show, if you will, the sense that it is tough to get in illegally. 

And what would you say to those who would say this goes in the 

wrong direction in that it would look like we are sort of giving up 

to the sense for convenience? And I am not underestimating the 

difficulty of someone coming back, spending half a day running 

around doing it. 

If you have, on one hand, securing our borders and concern about 

terrorism, and on the other hand, inconveniencing people who 

spent a weekend in the Bahamas now coming back and having to 

spend several hours, maybe we can cut it down by having places 

a little bit closer to them. The balance ought to be for safety. I wonder what is your response. 

Mr. FOLEY. I would welcome tightening the borders with security. If you are asking people to comply with the law and then you 

don’t provide the people at the building when they arrive to present 

themselves, what was the point? I think it is better to have Immi-
23

gration—and they have been very helpful on holiday weekends, 

Memorial Day, Labor Day—to station people at the inlets so they 

can be doing good enforcement, monitoring the boats coming in and 

having face-to-face interviews. 

I personally do not want to spend money on the OARS system 

in Florida. I don’t want to waste money. I am not sure it would 

work. When you fly a plane, you fly a flight plan, and when you 

land you have an exit plan. That works for aviation. Boating is a 

little bit different. 

But to assume somehow that we are going to toughen our security profile by having people show up at an airport when they are 

boaters and assume somehow that gives comfort and terrorists are 

going to go, woo, I don’t want to go to America, my God, you know 

what you have to do now? If you get in a boat, you are going to 

drive to an airport; how inconvenient. 

We have to have some sense around here. And the reason I introduced the bill with the OARS program, it was the only way I could 

get a debate on this failed system. But I think the phone, as suggested by Chairman Cox, placing Immigration on the inlets so the 

boats come alongside and check in and stamp permits, I see everybody on the boat. But the burden of the poor Customs man at the 

airport, as he is trying to clear flights, to go outside and look at 

a trailer with kids in the back, okay, I guess you are all here. I 

don’t know who left, because we didn’t require you to file a plan 

before you left; but since there are 20 in the boat, I assume they 

were with you when you left. Welcome home. They don’t even know 

who left, and yet they want them to check in when they come 

home. 

Preflight or pre-boat trip, after-boat trip, if they explain that to 

me, great, 1–800 number. Yesterday I called on my credit card. I 

needed to buy something. So quickly and easily enter your credit 

card, press pound. Last four digits of your Social Security number, 

pound. Took me right into the system. How many people returned? 

Five. You hit the buttons, 5 minutes later, automatically entered 

under the frequent program. But to sit here and frustrate legitimate boaters under the current system is a total joke, and I don’t 

mean to demean the agency, but once again the best questions 

were asked: Has anybody presented themselves that have ill intent 

against America? That has to be answered, ‘‘absolutely not.’’

Mr. LUNGREN. To the extent we know. 

Mr. ELLIS. I would like to add, first, if recreational boaters want 

to be enthusiastic participants in increasing our homeland security 

and basically whatever can be done to shore up our borders and especially along our coast, I think of the fact that 2 weeks ago I came 

back by airplane from outside the country and basically was shuttled down a glass-enclosed hallway, talked to several armed officers, went through a complete check where I felt it was tough to 

get into this country. When I arrived at that inlet at Lake Worth 

and pulled up to that marina and had to take the cab ride, I didn’t 

think it was tough to get into this country. I felt the borders were 

so porous, I am not sure there could have been anything more. I 

am not aware of probably all the surveillance that went on of my 

boat or my vessel or whatever may have happened back behind the 

scenes, but this requirement did not add anything to that. 
24

My belief is that if we want to secure or have a more secure 

coastal border, we are going to have to enlist the help of the millions of recreational boaters in helping us do this. And if we have 

regulations that don’t make sense, the government destroys its 

credibility with that particular group. And we would much rather 

have a partnership than a destroyed credibility. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. You might be one that suggested that 

prohibition didn’t work. 

The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just—it doesn’t seem like this OARS program is a very good 

one. So I have a question for you gentlemen. What about—I am 

trying to figure out maybe there is a way in which we can—I am 

thinking maybe if we just don’t spend the money on more people 

in the port area to do random checks on the sea than having a 

whole check-in program—I left the country, I came back-type of 

thing—considering that most of the people who will check in are 

the ones who are decent people, and you aren’t going to have a terrorist check in, maybe we don’t go into this whole thing and maybe 

we take the limited resources we have to do more random checks 

of boats coming in or leaving or what have you. 

I am trying to figure out where we use limited resources for its 

best use. And maybe we just have a little shack somewhere in the 

inlet where people know they bought more than the $800 can come 

in and declare their Customs or what have you, versus having this 

check-in, where it seems to me like we are never going to catch everybody anyway, especially if we do it at the airport. Not everybody 

is going to come. And wouldn’t we be better off using our resources 

to actually go after possible bad guys? Do you have—any of you 

have a comment on that? 

Mr. ELLIS. There is one point in there that I don’t want anybody 

to get down the wrong path on. The Fort Worth inlet, which is a 

secure inlet from a safety standpoint, large ships use that inlet. 

Having said that, the day I came in, there were 4-foot seas running, and there will be no individual place within that inlet or 

within a confined area where you would be able to actually put up 

a station to pull aside or talk to any Customs or Immigration officials. 

So I am afraid you may find that geography may force you into 

the point you may have to look at multiple points of contact. But 

going to your point of trying to use limited resources as best as possible, to me it seems very simple that you make compliance relatively easy and then focus 95 percent of your resources on noncompliant individuals, and you will get your highest opportunity for 

interdicting problems out there. 

Mr. JACKSTA. I would like to add, once again, it is a very difficult 

issue. If you are familiar with the boating areas, when you go in 

there, trying to filter out who was actually coming back from an 

international trip versus who just went out 3 miles to do some fishing and coming back is very difficult. 

It is extremely important for us to once again work with all the 

various agencies involved with securing our borders to make sure 

we can spot anyone who might be of concern. I agree that we need 

to use risk management. It is something that is important to us. 
25

And putting a lot of money into this is something we are trying to 

evaluate right now. The OARS system is a system that will help 

out. If you ask me my feeling, I think the position of the agency 

is we want to have a trusted traveler-type program; people who 

register before, whether it is before the boater leaves on the trip 

or weeks before they leave, that they let us know, they come in and 

register: I am Bob Jackson, I am going on a trip, and this is my 

family. And we put them in a system so when they come back, we 

can verify that they are in compliance and that can be done by telephone. That is an easy process and we don’t need to see those individuals. 

We also need to recognize that there are other people other than 

U.S. citizens coming in here. There are a lot of other people that 

are not U.S. citizens and visiting the United States and they come 

in through this small-boat environment. That is where the immigration requirements come in, and that is why we ask them to 

come, because we need to verify that their documentation is correct 

and they are eligible to come into the United States. 

Miami is a difficult area and there are a number of reasons why 

that is, but clearly something we have to pay attention to because 

of illegal immigration and narcotics. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. If they don’t come in—say you are a foreigner and 

coming to visit Miami for 3 weeks, and my mom is here and I am 

from Columbia, but I am living in the Bahamas or whatever it is, 

and I come in by boat and I don’t have a visa to be in the country. 

The alternative is I just don’t check in; right? They come in on the 

boat, unload at the marina, and I am there for 3 weeks and friends 

come by and pick me up; 3 weeks later take me out, or I use my 

boat to go out and what have you. We are not catching all those 

kinds of people. 

Mr. JACKSTA. That is correct. That is a vulnerability that we 

have there, and the question is, you know, how much risk do you 

want to put into trying to correct that? Do you want to put an officer at every marina? That would cost a large amount of money. 

To put the OARS system at every location would be extremely 

expensive. We are trying to look at what is the best way to do this, 

and make it easier for the people who want to be in compliance, 

and then focus our efforts on those that we know are not. 

Mr. FOLEY. I would like a date certain when we leave this hearing that something will be decided, hopefully by the agency, whether it is that frequent program or maybe the OARS system; that 

somehow we don’t go years down the road under the same current 

burden. 

I think the Congresswoman is absolutely correct. I would rather 

have people out in the inlets patrolling, looking for suspicious people. I think that does a face-to-face job better than assuming this 

group is going to show up again at an airport. It is absolutely nonsensical to me that anybody is going to comply that either has ill 

intent or is seeking to sneak into the country. 

Enforcement money spent, rather than OARS, on putting people 

at inlets to monitor. You are right about inlets. There is no place 

to pull over. You have to go inside and find some kind of place. But 

at the end of the day, I am afraid we will do this month after 

month and frustrate the legitimate boater and create economic 
26

problems in south Florida which have been exacerbated by this 

more recent requirement. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentleman from California. 

Mr. COX. I like the direction this discussion has taken because 

we are starting to focus on what we are paying and what we are 

getting. 

What is our purpose here? We have three potential purposes. 

One is counterterrorism, one is Customs revenue and one is enforcing immigration regulations. Obviously, immigration and secure 

borders is part of counterterrorism, but there was an immigration 

policy priority before 9/11 and before we decided that this was a 

terrorist hole. So I think those three pieces are the right three 

pieces. 

I want to continue to explore the counterterrorism piece because 

that is the genesis of these burdensome requirements. What I have 

heard makes me think that this is another example of a change 

that we made post-9/11 that has placed burdens on law-abiding 

Americans but has not given us a security payback, it is not making us safer. And I think we actually have agreement all around 

on that; that there really isn’t a high counterterrorism value to the 

system that is in place. 

So I want next to move to challenge what we might do next as 

being weak on the same ground, and that is this idea we are going 

to apply registered traveler to boaters who can come in along this 

miles and miles and miles-long shoreline. 

The fallacy, it seems to me, is in comparing the airport model, 

which is a involuntary system, to this model, which is a voluntary 

system. If I have a cube at an airport and everybody is lined up 

and I can get some of those people through the cube faster because 

they are registered travelers, that is reducing the size of the haystack and making it easier to find the needle. But the needle is in 

line somewhere. 

Whereas if I have a voluntary system and all I am doing is registering all the law-abiding people, I haven’t reduced the size of the 

haystack because the other folks aren’t volunteering to be in my 

line. I don’t understand the security payback. Am I missing something? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Sir, I think what is of concern is that what we 

want to do is to make sure that people who arrive are documented 

that they arrived. 

Mr. COX. Is this an immigration purpose rather than a 

counterterrorism purpose? 

Mr. JACKSTA. I think that ensuring that the immigration requirements are met, it helps our antiterrorism effort. 

Mr. COX. Why? 

Mr. JACKSTA. I think it is important to make sure that people—

that we document those people who are arriving at our ports of 

entry, whether it is at an airport, a land border, or at a seaport. 

Mr. COX. If we could do that, if we could corral the universe of 

people coming here and identify them and then search for the exceptions to the rule, that would be a workable system. But I think 

we have all conceded in this discussion thus far that that is not 

possible. You told us that an objection to OARS is you don’t have 

enough people to answer the phones, and yet we are proposing a 
27

system that is going to require background checks on all Florida 

boaters. Is that realistic? 

Mr. JACKSTA. Yes, sir, I do. Obviously it would be difficult to 

begin with. If people want to register in this program—remember, 

the small boat program is only based on our numbers from the 

international side of the house. We have somewhere in the area of 

50,000 arrivals in fiscal year 2004. With that, I mean, if we can 

get people to participate in the trusted traveler program, we already have 75,000 people registered on our northern border. We 

have 70,000 on our southern border. We think that that is an opportunity for these boaters who go back and forth to register. 

Mr. COX. Let us assume we have 100 percent compliance by all 

Florida recreational boaters in the registered traveler program and 

we have done background checks on every single one of them; have 

we gained access to a single one of the problems of the terrorists 

who still are participating in a voluntary system? The problem, it 

is a voluntary system so there are no boundaries to it; whereas in 

the airport, you have to stand in line and go through the magnetometer, get on the plane and there ain’t no choice. 

Mr. JACKSTA. The only other alternative, which is a Draconian 

effort, is to make the small boats arrive at specific locations. Make 

them—instead of giving them the authority to arrive at the port of 

entry which is a vast area, make the small boats arrive at specific 

locations where we could have a CBP officer 24/7 and have the boat 

processed that way. I don’t know whether that would go very well 

in the boating community. 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say while this hearing 

has been focused on issues surrounding recreational boating, it 

really is a useful example of problems that we have got to debate 

and decide throughout our economy, because we have to find a way 

to balance our way of life with the security demands in the post9/11 world. If we can constantly go back to square one and say 

what is our point, how are we doing in tracking down these terrorists, measure our results, is this system working to find terrorists, 

I think we will in the end spend our dollars much more wisely and 

simultaneously achieve our objective of making this country better 

every day instead of worse. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentleman for his questions. I thank 

Mr. Jacksta for helping us with our inquiries here today; Mr. Ellis, 

and, of course, Congressman Foley. 

One thing I would like to say, Mr. Jacksta, I am happy to hear 

you and your cohorts are looking at this problem in trying to figure 

out what is effective. I hope as you do that, you would take the 

words of the Chairman of the full committee to heart. We need to 

go back to first principles, if you will. That is what is the purpose 

in what it is we are doing. We all get caught up in having started 

doing something and trying to do it better, and it may not be what 

we want to do when we look back on it. 

So I thank all of you for presenting today. I thank our colleague, 

Mr. Foley, for inducing this presentation, this discussion, by virtue 

of the bill he has introduced. I think we have got valuable testimony. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to those in 

writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days. We 
28

thank the members of the committee and our witnesses and the 

committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ