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

89–330 DTP 2003

S. HRG. 108–148

BORDER TECHNOLOGY: KEEPING TERRORISTS

OUT OF THE UNITED STATES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 12, 2003

Serial No. J–108–5

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND HOMELAND SECURITY

JON KYL, Arizona, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

STEPHEN HIGGINS, Majority Chief Counsel 

DAVID HANTMAN, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

CAMILA MCLEAN, Majority Chief Counsel 

JAMES FLUG, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ..................... 4

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 12

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................ 11

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 6

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 49

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 8

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 1

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 9

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

WITNESSES 

Flynn, Stephen, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security 

Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York .......................... 33

Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Safety, 

Department of Homeland Security; accompanied by Robert Mocny, Director, 

Entry-Exit Program, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Department of Homeland Security, and Woody Hall, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Information and Technology, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, D.C. ....................................................................... 13

Kingsbury, Nancy, Managing Director, Applied Research and Methods, General Accounting Office, accompanied by Richard Stana, Director, Homeland 

Security and Justice, General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. ............... 31

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Flynn, Stephen, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security 

Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 42

Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Safety, 

Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement .. 51

Kingsbury, Nancy, Managing Director, Applied Research and Methods, General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ....................... 62

(1)

BORDER TECHNOLOGY: KEEPING 

TERRORISTS OUT OF THE UNITED STATES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY

AND HOMELAND SECURITY, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Kyl, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and 

Homeland Security, presiding. 

Present: Senators Kyl, Chambliss, Craig, Cornyn, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Leahy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Chairman KYL. This hearing will come to order. It is a joint 

hearing of the Judiciary Subcommittees on Terrorism, Technology, 

and Homeland Security, and Border Security, Immigration, and 

Citizenship. Like the new Homeland Security Department, we have 

some new names and have moved some things around here on the 

Judiciary Committee. I think it is propitious that as we begin work 

with the new Homeland Security Department, these two Subcommittees begin work together on issues of importance to us all. 

We are going to welcome for his first hearing Asa Hutchinson, 

who is the Department of Homeland Security’s Under Secretary for 

Border and Transportation Security. I would note that while he 

was sworn in on January 24, I believe, he and his staff joined together March 1. So with about 10 days under his belt with this 

new department, we are going to grill him about why things 

haven’t gotten done yet. 

I am being facetious, of course. The primary point of this hearing 

is to share an understanding with Secretary Hutchinson about 

what needs to be done and to try to get at least his first impressions as to what the department will need from the Congress in 

order to fulfill the legislative mandates that we have imposed with 

some of the recent legislation that we have passed. 

In addition, our second panel will include the General Accounting 

Office’s Nancy Kingsbury, and Stephen Flynn, who has testified before the Terrorism Subcommittee before. Accompanying Nancy 

Kingsbury is Rich Stana, and I will let Secretary Hutchinson propVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

erly introduce the two people that have joined him, but it is Robert 

Mocny and Woody Hall, both of whom have expertise in areas that 

we will be inquiring into. 

This hearing is also propitious because Secretary Hutchinson is 

going to be joining Senator McCain and me this weekend on the 

Arizona border with Mexico, studying not only the issues that need 

addressing at our points of entry, but also how to apply technology 

to the large stretches of land between the points of entry. I think 

we will be getting a good firsthand look at the vastness of the land, 

the fact that people can’t possibly patrol the entire area, and therefore we are going to have to continue to enhance the application 

of technology not just at the ports of entry, but also in those areas 

in between. 

The hearing is going to obviously focus on technology, and while 

my particular Subcommittee deals also with terrorism, it is not 

limited to the object of keeping terrorists out of the country, though 

given the nature of that threat there will be a lot of focus on that 

particular issue. 

There are really three primary parts of the hearing, I think. The 

first is to identify how far along the administration and the Congress have come to implement the technology systems that we have 

mandated specifically in the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002; second, to examine the current Customs infrastructure and technology policies, and identify future infrastructure 

and technology needs at our land ports of entry; and, third, to examine the technology and border needs in between the ports of 

entry, as I spoke of before. 

Broadly speaking, there are three ways that terrorists exploit our 

Nation’s visa processing and immigration inspection system. First, 

they come here legally with at least facially valid visas that they 

have obtained by the State Department, and most of the hijackers 

of September 11 entered the country in that fashion. The application of better technology can perhaps prevent the entry by terrorists into the country by that mechanism in the future. 

Second, it is clear that many illegal immigrants and smugglers 

and potential terrorists use fraudulent documents to get into the 

United States undetected, and again an integrated interoperable 

intelligence system will be better able to identify individuals who 

should not be coming into the country in that fashion. 

Third, of course, there is the vast number of people who are 

smuggled across the border or who smuggle themselves across the 

border through alien smuggling networks and bring contraband, including drugs and potentially other more dangerous things, into 

the country. 

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act that I mentioned before creates a whole series of technology-related requirements. The automated Entry-Exit System is one of them, which requires the electronic exchange of entry and exit information on all 

travel document-holders. Now, we want to have this in place, if we 

can, by the end of 2005, but we will hear about whether there may 

need to be some changes made to that. 

The biometric entry documents. The Act requires that all travel 

documents, including passports issued after October 26, 2004, include a biometric feature. 

3

Three: the readers at ports of entry for these biometric travel 

documents. It is not clear when we will be able to get this accomplished, but the Act requires that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, use biometric data readers 

and scanners at all points of entry after October 26, 2004. 

Fourth is the Chimera Interoperable Data System. The Act requires INS to fully integrate all of its data bases, and requires the 

President to develop and implement an interoperable electronic 

data system that contains Federal law enforcement and intelligence information relevant to making decisions on visa admissibility and removal of aliens. The President is required to establish 

a commission on this and requires it to report to the Congress annually on its findings and recommendations. 

Of special interest to me, from the State of Arizona, fifth is the 

Mexican Laser Visa and Reader Program. One of the provisions of 

the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996 required that the Mexican border-crossing card contain a 

biometric tamper-proof identifier. 

This is the card issued to people who frequently travel back and 

forth, who come into the United States for up to 72 hours or up 

to 50 miles. There is just a tremendous amount of that cross-border 

traffic with my State, and I am sure with the other border States 

as well. 

We extended the deadline for obtaining these cards, and literally 

millions of Mexicans have gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining the cards. But we have found that, notwithstanding the appropriation of over $10 million for the purchase and deployment of 

readers, we still have readers at only six ports of entry. And we 

will want to find out a little bit more about what is necessary to 

actually complete this process. 

I would conclude by noting that, along with these technological 

requirements in statute, it is also clear that we are going to need 

additional infrastructure. Legislation has been introduced to this 

effect, but Senator Feinstein has certainly focused on the Container 

Initiative at our ports, for example. Our truck-size x-ray systems, 

the personnel radiation detectors—all of these things are useful. 

We will want to hear more about them, but obviously also more 

needs to be done. 

The 2000 report of the Customs Service indicated the need for 

$925 million in facility and equipment improvements at that time, 

and that was prior to September 11. So clearly we have additional 

needs here and this hearing will afford us an opportunity, as I said 

in the beginning, to identify what all of us think some of those requirements are and focus on ways that we can work with the Department of Homeland Security and the person primarily responsible, Secretary Hutchinson, in that regard. 

Let me turn next to the new Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee that I identified before, Senator Chambliss. Following 

that, I will turn to Senator Feinstein, who is the ranking member 

on the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee, and then Senator 

Kennedy, the ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee. 

And because he is the ranking member on the full Committee, we 

obviously want to give Senator Leahy an opportunity to make any 

comments that he would want to make as well. 

4

I hope that this process isn’t too cumbersome. When we have the 

witnesses testify—Secretary Hutchinson, since this is your first 

time, I am not going to use the usual red light system that we 

have, but we will ask Members to constrain themselves to 7-minute 

rounds for questioning and hope that we can get through two panels in that fashion. 

Senator Chambliss, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator, and I apologize for running late. And I literally am running late. I got held up, I ran all 

the way over here and I am out of breath. So if I have to stop in 

the middle of this, I apologize. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and asking my Subcommittee 

to participate, and I appreciate very much Senator Feinstein, Senator Leahy, Senator Leahy, as well as Senator Craig being here. 

This hearing addresses some very important issues facing our 

Nation. I am glad that we have an opportunity to have a discussion 

with some of the key players at the Department of Homeland Security who will now be in charge of securing our borders. 

I am particularly pleased that Secretary Hutchinson is here, an 

old colleague of mine, a gentleman that I know very well and have 

utmost respect for. I traveled around the world with him and know 

him to be not just a great guy, but a great leader. We are sure 

pleased to have you where you are. 

I am pleased that we are able to have a discussion in the form 

of a joint Subcommittee hearing because I think it is critical that 

both the Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security Subcommittee and the Border Security, Immigration, and Citizenship 

Subcommittee be involved in solving these issues because we do 

need the cooperation of both Subcommittees to find a solution to 

the problem that we are now facing at our borders. 

I do not think that anyone here would argue that the events of 

September 11 brought to light a glaring hole in the security of our 

Nation, and that is our immigration system. It is overwhelmed and 

undermanned. 

I would say to Secretary Hutchinson that you have a tremendous 

responsibility on you, and I am glad it is you there and not me. 

It seems that things slipped through the cracks, and as a result 

three terrorists who hijacked the planes that flew into the World 

Trade Center and the Pentagon were in this country with expired 

visas. The problems with our immigration system cannot be fixed 

overnight and I do not think anyone realistically expected them to 

be. But we can take steps, and we have taken steps to address the 

myriad of issues that we are currently facing with our immigration 

system. 

The USA PATRIOT Act, which we passed in the 107th Congress, 

resolved some of the ambiguities in the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding the admission and deportation of terrorists. It 

also provided the Attorney General with the power to detain suspected terrorists before they had an opportunity to do more harm. 

We built upon that legislation with the passage of the Enhanced 

Border Security and Visa Reform Act. This legislation closed sevVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
5

eral loopholes in immigration law by providing additional staff and 

training for our borders and by facilitating comprehensive datasharing between law enforcement officials, intelligence agencies, 

the State Department and the INS. 

It also mandated the use of biometric technology to enhance our 

ability to confirm the identities of those seeking admission to the 

U.S., restricted the admittance of nationals from countries that 

sponsor terrorism by requiring the State Department to first conclude that the individual does not pose a national security threat, 

and improved upon our foreign student monitoring program. 

I am very pleased with the legislation that the Congress passed 

and the President signed into law. And I realize that we attach 

short deadlines with many of the mandates that we incorporated 

into that legislation, but we were eager for action. 

Now is the time to check the progress of implementing this legislation and see what more needs to be done to determine the areas 

in which performance needs to be more effective and to assess how 

realistic the goals of our last legislative efforts were. 

I know that I remain committed to working with my colleagues, 

our President, his administration, the Department of Justice, the 

Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the 

Treasury Departments, and all other necessary parties to ensure 

that we are taking the needed steps to secure our borders. 

I am concerned with a number of the aspects associated with our 

immigration system. For instance, I want to know what steps we 

are taking to track foreign national visitors in the U.S. with expired visas. I have concerns about the number of illegal immigrants 

coming into our country between ports of entry. I am worried about 

the smuggling of drugs or weapons across our borders and what we 

are doing to prevent it. 

Today, I will focus on what the departments are currently doing 

and what mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate the entry of 

people authorized to come into this country, and to ensure at the 

same time that certain inadmissible people are prevented from entering. 

I am interested in hearing more about the possibility of adding 

biometrics to visas and passports, and of creating a biometric 

watch list to identify travelers who are inadmissible to the United 

States before issuing them travel documents or before allowing 

them entry into the U.S. 

However, I do have questions about the cost of implementing 

these tools, about the reliability of current biometric technology, 

and about the effect that pursuing one or several of these options 

will have on our trade and commerce and on our relations with 

other nations. 

I am eager to begin our discussion with today’s witnesses. I 

thank them again for being here and participating in this important exchange, and I look forward to a dialog. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Next is the ranking member of the Terrorism and Technology 

Subcommittee, formerly the Chairman of the Subcommittee. And I 

have said it before and I will say it again that there is probably 

no one on the Democratic side that I have introduced or cosponVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
6

sored more legislation with, and probably more with Senator Feinstein than most of my Republican colleagues, because we have seen 

eye to eye on many of the issues that we have worked on and it 

has always been a real privilege for me to work with her. And for 

her to be the ranking member of this Committee now at this important time is also a real benefit for the people of this country. 

Senator Feinstein? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those comments. As you know, I share those sentiments, 

so thank you very much. 

For a year-and-a-half now, Congress, the administration and the 

American public have searched for answers as to how a large group 

of coordinated terrorists could operate for more than a year in the 

United States without being detected, seize control of four different 

commercial jetliners, and then use those jetliners as weapons of 

mass destruction without being stopped. 

The benefit of hindsight provides a clearer picture of how existing technologies might have been used to at least alert the appropriate officials that some, if not all, of the hijackers’ visas should 

have been denied. Furthermore, these technologies might have 

tracked the previous history of the hijackers’ immigration violations, which should have led immigration inspectors to deny entry 

to at least some of them. 

We all know too well, under our current system, a determined 

terrorist with unlimited resources who is willing to risk his life as 

well as the lives of others can probably find a way to enter this 

country. Since September 11, we in Congress and the executive 

branch have undertaken efforts to make it harder for that to happen. But if those efforts are to be effective, Federal agencies will 

have to have the necessary tools to enforce the laws governing the 

Nation’s borders. 

We have seen how the September 11 terrorists exploited the Federal Government’s lax oversight of our immigration laws. They also 

exploited what was then our immigration system’s inability to 

transform itself from its current paper-driven and unmanageable 

bureaucracy into a modern technological system. 

For example, had the foreign student tracking system, commonly 

known as SEVIS, been in operation, the INS might have known 

that Hani Hanjour, one of the 19 hijackers, had violated the terms 

of his visa. In late 2000, Hani Hanjour entered the United States 

on a student visa to learn English at a school in Oakland, California, but he never showed up at that school. He managed to 

evade detection until that fateful morning of September 11, when 

we learned that he was at the controls of American Airlines Flight 

77 when it struck the Pentagon. 

Immigration authorities might have prevented Mohammed Atta 

from entering the United States. He had violated the immigration 

laws by previously overstaying his visa long before he flew a plane 

into the World Trade Center. Atta arrived in Miami on January 10, 

2001, claiming that he wanted to take flying lessons. But he carried only a tourist visa, not the required vocational training visa. 

7

Either of the two infractions was sufficient to deny him entry, but 

like his comrades in terror, he simply slipped through the cracks. 

Because of the recordkeeping problem, Miami inspectors were 

unaware of Atta’s overstay violation. So when he convinced the inspectors of his good intentions, he said he had applied for but had 

not yet been approved for a student visa. Yet, despite the lack of 

a valid visa, he was allowed to enter the United States. 

These blunders and missteps and the consequences that flowed 

from them represent the end result of having an unfocused, 

unconnected and unsophisticated technological infrastructure, as 

well as the systemic lack of resolve to provide the right training, 

the right tools, the right management and the right incentives for 

our front-line officers to do their job. 

The challenge for our border agencies, therefore, is to establish 

a state-of-the-art border infrastructure that supports the dual goal 

of national security and legitimate border crossing. 

For example, how do we build on successful pre-screening programs like the SENTRI initiative, which permits Mexican nationals 

to be pre-screened and pre-inspected in exchange for more rapid 

travel access across the border in a specially designated lane? 

Is it feasible or desirable to extend programs like this to foreign 

nationals of other countries? I think it deserves a good look. What 

quality control checks would have to be in place to expand such a 

program without increasing the risks? 

I realize that technology is not the sole answer to meeting the 

challenges of securing our country from entry by those who wish 

to do us harm, but it is an essential element. Without it, our border 

inspectors are essentially left with their hands tied, unable to compete with those who would use even more sophisticated means of 

gaining illegal entry to the country. 

Another example: How do we build an efficient process so that 

front-line inspectors are not tasked with logging on to several lookout data bases to search for and interpret a complex intelligence 

report where more scrutiny is required? How can that important 

step be handled at the front end so that the inspector has only to 

see a red flag that tells him to send the traveler to secondary inspection? How do we better invest in the skills of our border personnel so that we can be sure that laws are clearly understood and 

strictly followed? How do we invest in training and retraining on 

new techniques and new technologies to enhance their risk management skills? 

At today’s hearing, we hope to hear a distinguished panel of witnesses assess the steps that have been taken since September 11 

to harness technology to help our dedicated front-line officers keep 

terrorists and instruments of terrorism out of the United States. 

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and I look 

forward to today’s testimony. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

When I was a new member of the Immigration Subcommittee, 

then-Chairman Alan Simpson took me to see Senator Kennedy. He 

said this is something you need to get to know because even though 

he may be cantankerous at times, he has been here longer———

Senator KENNEDY. I thought you had forgotten that word that 

Alan used. 

8

Chairman KYL. Well, that is a Simpson word, as you know. 

He said he has been here a long time and he knows more than 

anybody else about this immigration stuff and you really need to 

work with him. And I have found over the years that the latter is 

true, never cantankerous, but very knowledgeable and always 

pleasant to work with. I might way that both Senator Feinstein 

and Senator Kennedy have extraordinary staffs who are also very 

easy to work with and that makes our job a lot easier, too. 

Senator Kennedy? 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. We have 

worked together, particularly on that important border security legislation last year, in a strong bipartisan effort strongly supported 

by Senator Leahy. I want to welcome Secretary Hutchinson here. 

As we have heard, much can be done with technology. A great 

deal can be done with technology and we have to make sure that 

we have the best technology. That is true about our service men 

and women, to have the best technology and be well-led, and it is 

true in terms of homeland security. We know that a great deal 

more has to be done in this area not only in getting the best technology, but also having it interoperable. That is absolutely essential. 

We have seen, as we did at the time of 9/11, that we had the CIA 

actually fail to provide the INS with the information on the watch 

list which would have given them a heads-up. The fact that the 

CIA did not provide it permitted the INS to let two of the hijackers 

to gain entry into the United States. So you can have the best of 

technology, but if you don’t have the policies in terms of sharing 

information and using it effectively, it is not going to be effective. 

Second, if you don’t have the best trained people who are going 

to stay there and be highly motivated, highly committed, and with 

good morale—and this is constantly a challenge particularly in the 

INS. We have got a lot of very dedicated, committed people. It is 

an enormous challenge that they are facing, with 500 million people coming in and out of this country over a period of a year. How 

are we going to follow them, keep track of them, and do it in a way 

which is sensitive to their rights of privacy, gaining the right information but not unnecessary information, making sure that the information that is gathered is not going to be released in such a way 

as to compromise people’s privacy or identity kinds of crises in 

terms of duplication and replication of this? So this is an enormous 

challenge. 

In many instances, the newest technology isn’t always the answer. We want to try and do this, but we are mindful that sometimes technology slows the process down with all of its implications. So it is a tough job for you to be able to finally select and 

make that judgment, and we want to try and work with you. 

Finally, there were reports that were required from the agency 

in our legislation which we all sponsored and was supported and 

signed by the President about the relationship between the CIA 

and the INS and sharing information. That was due in October of 

last year. That was before you even sort of thought about these 

9

matters. We should have that when you have an opportunity to get 

that to us at the earliest possible time. 

The NSEERS program also requires that you provide information 

to us by early March and we haven’t gotten that information from 

you. I don’t want to be overly bureaucratic, but those are very important policy issues about shared information, which is the key to 

the success of this program. 

Also, the NSEERS program—I know you have got some reference 

in your testimony about this, but we are trying to work with local 

communities, helping to get their cooperation in helping to identify 

potential terrorists within various communities, because we know 

there are cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, and on the other 

hand with the process of fingerprinting and other kinds of activities 

and the extent to which that is counterproductive. These are 

judgmental values and I think we want to monitor these closely 

and find out your reasons for doing it, what is working and what 

isn’t working. 

We thank you very much and congratulate you on your job. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

Now, we have the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee with us as well and I would like to Senator Leahy to make 

any comments that he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for 

your courtesy which is consistent with what you always do, and I 

appreciate that very much. 

It is nice to see our friend, Asa Hutchinson, here. I recall on your 

last appointment I think we set a world speed record getting you 

through this Committee. In fact, it surprised somebody at the 

White House who, when I was talking to them, said, well, are you 

going to be able to get him up there soon? I said we did it this 

morning, and they said but we thought it was going to be 2 weeks 

from now. 

Senator Kyl, I think you and Senator Chambliss and Senators 

Feinstein and Kennedy are doing great service in having this hearing. I am glad you are doing it as a joint hearing because you have 

got to improve the technology to keep terrorists from coming across 

our borders. No matter how much personnel we have, technology 

is going to play a vital, vital role. But then we also have to make 

sure the technology is such that it keeps an orderly flow across our 

borders. 

I think of it, of course, from a somewhat parochial view, living 

less than an hour’s drive from my home to the Canadian border. 

I am also aware of the fact that Canada is our largest trading partner and we need an orderly flow across that border. Besides, it also 

helps when my wife wants to go and visit her relatives. 

But in seriousness, it is difficult to strike a balance, and yet we 

have to. It is going to be very, very difficult. I think this is going 

to be one of the things that is going to bedevil you during your tenure, and probably appropriately so because what you do may well 

set the standards for years to come. 

10

In the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress and the President supported 

my proposal not only to triple the number of INS inspectors and 

Border Patrol agents and Customs officers at our borders, but also 

to provide $100 million to improve the technology we use to monitor the northern border. Actually, it requires more monitoring and 

equipment. 

Last year, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and 

Visa Reform Act that added additional steps to improve our security. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think what we are doing is using our 

oversight to make sure that that is implemented. 

Just this past week—and I brought this up when Secretary Ridge 

and Attorney General Ashcroft and Director Mueller were here—

the day before they testified, a helicopter had come through and, 

by accident, some snowmobilers saw them dumping a huge amount 

of drugs in Vermont. Yet, it could have been a terrorist, it could 

have been any type of thing, and it was totally undetected either 

on the Canadian side or the U.S. side. 

When you discuss border security, you have to consider both the 

administrative challenges the new Department of Homeland Security faces and the budgetary constraints the administration has imposed upon it. We have to have the effective integration of dedicated officers who worked for 22 different Federal agencies at this 

time last month—22 different ones. They have a lot of questions 

about what they are going to be doing now. 

It is a national concern and a local concern. It is a national issue 

because performance suffers if they don’t know what their future 

is going to be. It is a local issue. I know many dedicated people in 

Vermont who are now Department of Homeland Security employees. There are more than 1,600 INS employees in Vermont who are 

now working for DHS. They protect our borders, they assist in the 

enforcement of our immigration laws in the interior, and they foster legal immigration and commerce by processing applications for 

immigration benefits. 

They are well-trained, highly educated, and extremely professional. We want to make sure they are still there working for all 

of us and helping you and everybody else. So I would hope the DHS 

would provide as much guidance as you can to these new employees. 

I am supposed to be at an Appropriations Committee meeting 

with CIA Director Tenet right now, but I want to raise an issue 

that we will discuss in Appropriations. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Young, with whom we have all served, called it 

a pointless and harmful debate with the President’s own party on 

the question of underfunding of homeland security. 

When the bill passed, the last bill, it was gone over line by line 

by the administration. Now, they say they want more funding for 

homeland security. If they had even asked for it during that time, 

they would have gotten it. They would have had support from everybody in the committee. I think we have to make sure that we 

back up the money to what we promise. We can’t just say the check 

is in the mail. 

Many, many months after the September 11 attacks, the White 

House declined to respond to repeated bipartisan requests from 

Congress to begin funding the northern border security section of 

11

the USA PATRIOT Act, ones that I negotiated with the White 

House and which they said they strongly supported, until it came 

to asking for the money. The new budget the President is proposing 

does not come close to meeting our security needs. It provides less 

than a 3-percent increase. 

These are questions where, Mr. Secretary, you are going to get 

strong bipartisan support both in the authorizing committees and 

in the appropriating committees for the money, and I think now is 

the time to ask for it. 

So, Messrs. Chairmen and Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, I 

think you do us all a great service, the four of you, in holding these 

hearings. Thank you. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

I am afraid our two other members would feel left out if I didn’t 

give them an opportunity to make a brief comment. 

Senator Craig? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I will be brief. I am one of the freshmen 

on this Committee, so my colleagues to my left in most instances 

have a great deal more experience and knowledge in this area than 

I. 

I come to the Committee with a micro view instead of a macro 

view as it relates to immigration and what happens when you 

tighten up and gain border security, and I strongly support it. As 

a border State where not much entry occurs but could occur, the 

security of those borders is critical. 

At the same time, when you secure a border and you limit access 

and you don’t have public policy that allows the kind of access necessary to address an economy, you create an even greater crisis. I 

believe the impending crisis in agriculture today, because we are 

doing the right things at the border, could well damage the food 

and fiber processes of our country. 

We process about 40,000 H2-A workers through each year, and 

yet there are a million illegals in this country in that economy necessary to make that economy function. That is a reality. But as we 

tighten the border and we deny that kind of illegal access, as we 

should, we create a crisis. 

We have got another policy issue to address here that is very important. If you are on the border in Texas, it takes on a different 

dynamic. If you are on the border in Arizona—and I have visited 

closely with my colleague, Jon Kyl—it takes on another dynamic. 

If you are in Idaho and your crops are rotting in the field, it takes 

on another dynamic. 

The other side of this great concern of ours is that we also dehumanize the process, and I mean it in this simple way. It is now 

costing a great deal more at the hands of a coyote to move across 

the border, and the risk as you tighten the border down of these 

innocent people simple trying to find a job could well cost them 

their lives. 

We have got to address this issue because as we tighten our borders, we put a lot of people at risk both domestically and in the 

economies of food and fiber in this country and the service indusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
12

try. And those who come to seek out that economy, we put them 

at risk. It is a phenomenal catch–22, but we are doing it and we 

are doing it for all the right reasons, in some instances with the 

wrong impacts. 

I am very anxious to hear from all of you this morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

Now, the Senator with the longest border with another country, 

Senator Cornyn from Texas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Kyl. I want to say how 

much I appreciate the witnesses coming to address this very important issue to the United States, and particularly to my State which 

does have a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. These immigration 

issues that I know subcommittee Chairman Chambliss is going to 

be addressing and the issues that Senator Craig just talked about 

are of vital concern to me as well. 

I will cut my remarks short so that the witnesses can talk, but 

let me just say that I am mystified when I hear members of the 

U.S. Congress talk about budgetary constraints imposed by the executive branch, since the way I read the Constitution and the way 

I understand the process to work it is the legislature, it is the Congress that appropriates money, not the executive branch. 

In fact, I know the President has expressed his concern that 

some of the money that he asked to be appropriated for first responders, in particular, was not appropriated during the omnibus 

appropriation bill that was passed after I got here, after January 

7, for the year 2003, since we did not pass a budget when ordinarily we would have. 

So we all have an important responsibility, each branch of the 

Government, but I think Congress ought to own up to its responsibility and not try to foist that or point fingers at the administration 

when, in fact, we are the ones that appropriate the money and not 

the executive branch. 

With that, I will yield my time. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Now, the moment we have been waiting for, the second part of 

the two-way dialog here, to hear from our new Under Secretary, 

Asa Hutchinson. 

Welcome again, and we really appreciate your willingness to 

come here after all of 10 days or so with your department. Thank 

you. 

13

STATEMENT OF HON. ASA HUTCHINSON, UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT MOCNY, DIRECTOR, ENTRY-EXIT 

PROGRAM, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND 

WOODY HALL, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator Kyl, and thank you for the 

welcome. Ranking member Feinstein, thank you, and members of 

the Committee. I want to first tell you that I am very encouraged 

by each of your comments this morning. The expertise that resides 

in this Committee is very helpful to the Department of Homeland 

Security and I think that we can build a good team together to 

take on these tasks. Your background, experience and knowledge 

is certainly encouraging to me, as well as the right questions that 

are being asked. 

As the Chairman indicated, this is my first appearance before 

any congressional committee as the first Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, and I am honored to be able to 

be here with you. 

I am pleased to be joined by two experts in some of the subject 

matter areas of your interest. Robert Mocny, to my left, is the Director of the Entry-Exit Program at the Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement. And then to my right is Woody Hall, who 

is the Interim Director of the Office of Information and Technology 

in the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. I am very pleased 

that they have joined me today. 

Before March 1, the INS and Customs Service were working to 

develop and deploy technologies to enhance the screening of people 

and goods at our Nation’s points of entry and between. These efforts continue today as they become a part of the Department of 

Homeland Security under the two bureaus that have been created—Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Many lessons were learned on September 11, 2001. Some of those 

have been pointed out by the members of this Committee. Congress 

has responded by providing aggressive leadership, and the men and 

women of the agencies that now comprise the Department of 

Homeland Security have responded with long hours, dedicated 

service, and a commitment to get critical information about cargo 

and people to the decisionmakers at our points of entry. 

For example, more information is available to our inspectors at 

the points of entry on the thousands of people who seek visas to 

enter our country everyday. But as we all know, much remains to 

be done, and the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security understands the enormous challenges ahead. 

One of the challenges is the Entry-Exit System, including the 

biometrics that have been required by the USA PATRIOT Act, and 

the Enhanced Border Security Act which the members of this Committee provided the leadership on. The goal is to collect records of 

arrival and departure from every alien entering and leaving the 

14

United States. In addition, it will capture and process biometric 

data and improve information-sharing among the agencies. We 

share Congress’ desire to field this system as soon as possible 

based on a well-defined project plan, and look forward to working 

with you to do so in the coming months. 

As part of that overall objective, the NSEERS, or the National 

Security Entry-Exit Registration System, was launched by the Department of Justice. That responsibility was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. The NSEERS allows us to continue welcoming visitors to our country, but it also allows us to 

intercept terrorists and criminals at ports of entry and identify 

aliens who deviate from their stated purpose or overstay their 

visas. Certainly, that is an objective that we have to have. 

Nearly 90,000 enrollees have been fingerprinted, photographed 

and interviewed since its implementation. I sometimes point out 

that that is the same requirement of someone who wants to engage 

in public service, and anybody who has appeared in a confirmation 

hearing has gone through that same process. We have now required that for certain visitors who come into our country for national security purposes. 

It also requires the non-immigrant aliens who came to the 

United States before it began to report to an interviewing office to 

be registered. All of these aliens must fulfill continuing registration 

requirements and complete a departure check when they leave the 

U.S. 

NSEERS has provided a benefit. Eight suspected terrorists have 

been apprehended, 40 investigations of suspected terrorist activity 

have been opened, and 555 aliens with warrants or other criminal 

violations have been apprehended or denied admission. But others 

go about their legitimate business in our country with minimal inconvenience. 

In another area, since 1988 over 6 million biometric border-crossing cards have been issued. Funding was provided in the fiscal year 

2002 budget to deploy card-readers, and a recent pilot program 

identified more than 250 impostors. It also has helped us to move 

commerce and people through our ports of entry. We hope to employ additional readers at targeted points of entry by the end of 

this fiscal year. 

Two other tools we are using to ensure the integrity of the immigration and visa issuance process include the SENTRI and NEXUS 

programs. These allow pre-screened low-risk travelers to proceed 

quickly through dedicated lanes at our land borders. SENTRI is deployed at three southwest border-crossings and NEXUS is deployed 

at six northern border-crossings, and we have a strong partnership 

with both the Government of Mexico and the Government of Canada to implement these initiatives. 

We are also working to ensure the integrity of our borders between the ports of entry. We have increased the number of Border 

Patrol agents at our northern and southern borders, and are using 

many technologies, including aerial surveillance and other sensors 

where practical. We work closely with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate to continue to identify and deploy additional 

technologies that make sense, are cost-effective, and produce a good 

result. 

15

In regard to our efforts to ensure the security of goods and materials entering the United States, Customs and Border Protection 

has deployed over 6,000 personal pager-sized radiation detectors to 

our ports of entry. I think it is important to note that on March 

1, as these 22 agencies came on board Homeland Security, the day 

before that the Customs inspectors had the detection monitors, but 

the INS inspectors did not. The first day, as they came over, they 

were deployed to everyone who are inspectors on our borders. 

We also deployed 112 large-scale, non-intrusive inspection systems at our air, sea and land border ports, and additional systems 

have been ordered. We are also testing and deploying other technologies, including portal monitors and isotope identifier devices 

that will help inspectors conduct non-intrusive inspections quickly 

and efficiently. 

We are employing and refining risk-based targeting systems to 

incorporate intelligence and target unusual, suspect or high-risk inbound and outbound shipments for intensive examination. This is 

our Container Security Initiative, combined with others, that will 

help us to target the cargo of risk coming to the United States. 

Customs and Border Protection has successfully required airlines 

to submit passenger manifests to our advanced passenger information systems prior to departure. We hope to issue regulations by 

October to require advanced provision of electronic information for 

all modes of transportation. Finally, Customs and Border Protection’s Automated Commercial Environment, or ACE, will improve 

the collection and sorting of trade data, expediting trade and enhancing our targeting of high-risk cargo. 

Technology is a critical tool that enables the hard-working men 

and women of the Department of Homeland Security to balance our 

national security imperative with the free flow of goods and people 

across our Nation’s borders that form the essence of our culture 

and values here in this country. 

We look forward to an important partnership with this Committee, as well as the State and local and private partners that 

help us to implement these initiatives and to comply with the mandates that Congress has given to us. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before this Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Well, thank you very much, Secretary Hutchinson. I will begin by asking you a couple of questions, and would 

ask all of the members of the panel to address your questions to 

Secretary Hutchinson and if he needs to defer to one of his colleagues at the dais, then he will do so. 

In your testimony, you note the force-multiplying nature of technology, and I especially appreciate that at the border between Mexico and Arizona where we have such vast stretches of land that it 

is really impossible for Border Patrol agents to secure that border 

by their mere presence at all times. As a result, they are using 

technology. 

Since we are going to be there this weekend and see some of this 

firsthand, and also recognize the vastness of the area that needs 

to be covered, perhaps you could talk a little bit about what you 

have learned about the department’s deployment of technology and 

16

what you think we might be looking at in the future to use this 

force-multiplier at our border. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator. Technology is critical if 

we are going to protect our borders between the points of entry, in 

particular. I am delighted that Congress gave the Homeland Security Department a Directorate of Science and Technology, an R and 

D shop, and I envision even our Border Patrol agents out there 

identifying technologies that might be helpful, or industry applications that will be reviewed by the Science and Technology Directorate to see if they are appropriate to be deployed. 

At present, we are using aerial flights, of course, but also motion 

sensors. And then, in combination with that, we have the integrated surveillance and intelligence system that has cambers on 

poles that are triggered by sensors that are monitored. That allows 

the Border Patrol to monitor what is happening in the open spaces 

and to be able to respond. Of course, those are between the ports 

of entry. 

We have to look at new technologies. Drones have been mentioned, unmanned surveillance vehicles that can be used. Those 

have previously been tested by the Border Patrol in a pilot study 

and they declined to use them. I think that we have to revisit some 

of this technology since September 11 and see if it has greater application. We have relied upon the Defense Department to explore 

and develop this technology to a greater extent and, as they have 

improved its capability, we have to look again to see if there is 

some capability on the border. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. One of the things we will see when 

we go to Nogales, Arizona—Senator McCain and I visited there a 

couple of months ago, and you mentioned the bright, hard-working 

people who now work with you at the department. Some of these 

people literally on their own designed a facility for large semi-tractor trailer trucks to pass through in a very rapid way, permitting 

them, however, to check for a variety of things. 

I won’t mention all of the things they can check for here, but it 

looks just like a huge, giant car wash for a truck. But I am told, 

as they proudly pointed out all these different kinds of sensors, and 

so on, that it will enable them to rapidly pass the vehicle through, 

but at the same time be able to detect pretty much anything that 

they would want to try to find. So I am looking forward to hearing 

from some of the folks who are actually at the border having to 

make these things work. 

Quickly turning to a couple of different subjects with the money 

that we have made available and just to see if you have determined 

yet how this might be spent or, since you have been there such a 

short period of time, to at least acknowledge the issue that we will 

have to deal with, in the President’s 2004 budget $500 million is 

available for additional inspection technology to increase our border 

and port security. Do you have any knowledge yet as to how the 

department will be putting that money to use? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That money will be handled through the 

Science and Technology Directorate, and we have, I believe, Under 

Secretary-Designate Chuck McQueary, whom I have talked with on 

a number of occasions. That is going to apply good standards as to 

looking at existing technology. That money can be used to provide 

17

grants to businesses or academic institutions to explore technology 

and test and pilot projects for implementation. 

So from the operational standpoint, we will work closely with 

Science and Technology to carry on these pilot projects. Some of 

that will be in the Entry-Exit System because we are going to have 

to obviously pilot areas there and work with Science and Technology to make sure we get the right system. 

Chairman KYL. One other item of expenditure. In our homeland 

security 2004 budget outline, we have a comment that true homeland security requires technology that guarantees real-time information-sharing, improves response time to detect and respond to 

terrorist threats, and improves decisionmaking. We go on to talk 

about the inclusion of the Chimera interoperable data system to 

help facilitate that purpose. 

Even though the law that the President signed last May didn’t 

outright fund the program and money was not included, therefore, 

in the 2003 omnibus appropriation bill, there was $245 million 

dedicated to IS information technology infrastructure. I am wondering if you have determined yet how to apply that $245 million 

and whether any of it can be dedicated to the interoperable systems such as Chimera. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The answer is yes. We are working very diligently to accomplish the goals of the interoperable system. Steve 

Cooper is our chief information officer at Homeland Security and 

I have visited with him, looking at how we can accomplish these 

goals. He brings the expertise in from an IT standpoint. 

We have made significant progress and I want to invite my colleagues to comment further on that. 

Mr. MOCNY. As I understand it, Senator, the 245 is a ceiling that 

we can spend up to in order to supply this technology. I think what 

we are looking at is across the board, as the Secretary has mentioned, exactly how to best apply that technology. 

One of the things that we have included within our spend plan 

for the Entry-Exit System is an infrastructure increase. As noted 

earlier, biometrics will be part of the entry-exit program. We currently don’t have the infrastructure in place to accommodate that. 

So I think money such as that $245 million, plus portions of the 

$362 million that we received for entry-exit, will go for that infrastructure improvement. 

Chairman KYL. Mr. Hall, anything further? 

Mr. HALL. Yes. There is a review currently underway that was 

mandated that is being jointly done with the Department of Justice 

that is nearing completion and we will be reporting back in the 

May timeframe. 

Chairman KYL. All right, thank you very much. 

Senator Chambliss.

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, you have probably heard Speaker Hastert use this 

example and I want to cite it to you as a real flaw in the procedure 

that has been ongoing particularly at our border on the south, and 

that is that at any one location, whether it is Nogales or whether 

it is Laredo, we have any number of stalls that every vehicle has 

to go through. And it is very obvious that the bad guys have people 

18

sitting in the woods on the hill with binoculars checking each of 

these sites where the vehicles are going through. 

Because of the various jurisdictions that are in place at the border, the INS folks may be checking one lane and they have the 

power and authority to do certain things, maybe look in trunks, 

maybe not. DEA may be at another location and they have power 

and authority to do certain things, maybe look inside the vehicle, 

maybe ask people to get out, maybe not. 

The people who are sitting on the hill are directing their truck 

drivers or their automobile drivers to a certain number of entry 

points based upon where they have illegal people or illegal drugs. 

The folks are going to that particular location knowing that that 

particular agent can’t look in his trunk. I know this was somewhat 

addressed in the Border Enhancement Security and Visa Reform 

Act. 

Have you had an opportunity to address this in the short time 

you have been in your position? What are we doing with respect 

to long term trying to solve this problem? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Senator Chambliss, likewise I have been with 

Speaker Hastert and he has made that comment and there is some 

reality there. Certainly, those who want to bring illegal goods in 

across the border do their own surveillance and they look for weaknesses. 

I think from our standpoint, strategically we have to be flexible 

to respond to that. We have to shirt our mode of operation so that 

it is not as predictable, and then I think we have taken a good step 

at the Department of Homeland Security. 

As you know, you had Customs inspectors and you had INS inspectors and Agriculture inspectors at each port of entry all reporting up to three different port directors, all reporting up to three different departments of Government. We have combined the inspection services with the Border Patrol into the Customs and Border 

Protection Bureau. So you have clear leadership, lines of authority, 

and you have got the greater potential for cross-training that will 

address some of those weaknesses. 

I think, finally, obviously it is intelligence. They try to look at 

what we do. We need to know what they are planning, and so we 

want to be able to enhance our human intelligence capability, too, 

so that we can have effective procedures to counter that. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. So is everybody that is going to be checking 

at the border now going to be physically under your jurisdiction? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is correct, through Commissioner Bonner, 

who will be head of Customs and Border Protection. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. That will make a huge difference. 

Second, as you know, one primary focus that I have had over the 

last couple of years is information-sharing between Federal agencies as well as vertically down to the State and local level. 

Picking up on what Senator Kennedy said and what Senator Kyl 

mentioned there, how are we doing with respect to informationsharing with regard to INS, APHIS, everybody that is under your 

control, and the respective law enforcement agencies—FBI, CIA, or 

whoever? 

The CIA and FBI are doing a better job, but it certainly doesn’t 

need to stop there. That is just the very, very beginning point. I 

19

want to make sure that your folks have an ongoing relationship at 

the horizontal level of sharing this information across agencies; 

also, your relationship with the State and local folks particular at 

these borders, where intelligence information has got to be shared 

in real time. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is the goal that we have and the urgency 

of that is very clear. Substantial progress has been made since September 11. The mandate of the President, the Attorney General 

and Secretary Ridge is to make sure that we share information. 

There are some obstacles in terms of systems and that is what we 

have to work with this Committee to overcome. 

For example, since September 11 the visa applications and information from our overseas consular offices have been made available to our inspectors at the border. When you look at what the 

FBI has in their NCIC system and their wanted persons, those 

have been added to the immigration IDENT system. 

This last week, I was at the Newark Airport port of entry and 

the inspector was showing me that they have access to the INS 

data base and they have access to the FBI data base, and it has 

made an enormous difference. These are new accesses since September 11. 

The problem is there are two different systems. We still need to 

make them more interoperable, but enormous progress has been 

made. Since January 2002, INS checks have produced over 4,500 

hits on this new availability of records. That is more than 300 a 

month, on the average, of individuals being checked that have committed crimes or have some basis to explore further. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. The integration of those systems, I agree 

with you, is critical. Are we giving you the resources to do that? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think we are where we need to be right now. 

I think it is important as you look at the commitment of resources 

that we get organized, we have a good plan, and we have a logical 

way to evaluate that. So Congress has appropriated money to start 

on these initiatives and we report back as to the progress that we 

are making and continue to evaluate it. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to quickly followup on something Mr. Chambliss 

said. The street name for the people he is referring to are called 

spotters, and I have been to the border at Otay Mesa twice and 

watched the spotters work. In the last administration, I weighed in 

as heavily as I could to try to create an effort to do something 

about it and it always came back legally that there was nothing the 

department could do. 

I suspect that some of them are legally directing traffic. I suspect 

that others are illegally, when contraband comes across, diverting 

that traffic to an overcrowded area where they know that truck can 

go through. But it is a problem out there and I can even show you 

where to stand at Otay Mesa to observe without being seen. I think 

it is important that, in view of 9/11, we take another look at that 

issue. 

20

I wanted to ask you for a couple of updates in two areas. One 

is the entry-exit area and the other is visa waivers. The bill that 

we passed in 2000 requires that automated entry-exit systems be 

deployed at all land and sea ports by December 31, 2003—those are 

ports of entry—at the 50 largest land ports by the end of 2004, and 

all land ports of entry by December 31, 2005. 

Are you on track? What problems do you find? Is this doable? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. There has been a substantial amount of work 

that has gone into that and after I make some comments, I would 

like to ask Bob Mocny, who has worked on that very closely, to add 

to my comments. 

They have worked in a planning arena. The biometric component 

has been added to that, which adds to the complexity but also the 

effectiveness of the program. It is now over at Homeland Security. 

We are going to do our own measurements and move very aggressively on it. 

We believe that the first deadline of entry-exit information at our 

airports and seaports can be met this year. The greater challenge 

will be the 2004 and 2005 deadlines of the land ports of entry because that takes new systems, new infrastructure likely to be built, 

and systems that are not even in existence today. We are going to 

more closely evaluate that and report back to Congress as to where 

we stand on that and where we stand in relation to the deadlines. 

We believe there is an urgency there. We are going to work very 

hard, but there are many challenges there. 

Bob? 

Mr. MOCNY. Thank you, Mr. Under Secretary. 

As the Under Secretary mentioned, we plan to meet the date for 

December 31, 2003, for the Entry-Exit System. What we will 

buildupon is what Congress also mandated as of October 1, 2002, 

for the visa waiver program. So we are currently collecting arrival 

and departure data for all visa waiver passengers arriving to and 

leaving from the United States. We will buildupon that to meet the 

2003 date, December 31. 

But again I will reiterate the challenges for the land border are 

daunting, especially when you talk about the 50 largest land border ports of entry—some of the environmental laws that apply, 

some of the infrastructure improvements that we will have to take 

care of—without doing some of the things that we have talked 

about here which are backing up traffic. We have to make sure we 

have an efficient flow, at the same time a secure flow. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me, if I might, followup on that and ask 

you about the visa waiver. I believe there are 27 countries and 

about 23 million people that come in without a visa, and nobody 

knows if they leave again. 

Can you say that that is no longer the case? 

Mr. MOCNY. Again, yes, we collect the arrival and departure 

records of all visa waiver applicants at this point. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you know if somebody comes in and 

doesn’t leave? You know that? 

Mr. MOCNY. Well, yes. We would have an exception report that 

would tell us who hasn’t left. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And then what happens? 

21

Mr. MOCNY. Well, it is a resource issue about applying the appropriate resources to go and find that individual. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are not saying nothing happens? 

Mr. MOCNY. No, I guess I am not saying nothing happens, Senator. One instance I know for sure is that we have had some visa 

waiver applicants encountered as part of the NSEERS process and 

we have been able to deny their entry. But as far as immediately 

understanding when a visa waiver applicant has not left the country, at this point we are not in a position to be able to go and find 

that person immediately. That is why we want to work on expanding the program to do so, but we are collecting arrival and departure data as we speak. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I know how difficult it is, so I am not trying 

to be critical. Of these visa waivers, how many has your system 

shown up do not leave the country? 

Mr. MOCNY. I don’t have that number with me today, Senator. 

I could provide that to you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I would like to ask some questions in 

writing, then, if I might, about that particular program. 

Let me ask you about false documents. Current immigration law 

doesn’t require all travelers, such as U.S. citizens and Canadian 

nationals, to present documentation when entering our country at 

land border ports of entry. But one concern that has been raised 

is that aliens might falsely claim United States or Canadian citizenship and circumvent the Entry-Exit System. 

What changes, if any, to administrative law, treaty obligations or 

current practices will be required to address this potential limitation of the Entry-Exit System? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. There is going to have to be a substantial review of our working relationship with Canada and our other partners that have traditionally had minimal documentation to enter 

the country. As part of the Entry-Exit System, Congress is requiring travel documents to have a biometric qualifier that is readable 

and that has a level of integrity, forgery-proof. 

So when that is in place, that will impact all of our partners and 

we are currently discussing these relationships with the State Department and others, and with our Canadian counterparts. There 

are going to have to be some changes in order to accomplish those 

objectives. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I note that the GAO report entitled ‘‘Border 

Security: Challenges in Implementing Border Technology’’ on page 

3 mentions that they have found four different scenarios in which 

biometric technologies could be used to support your operations. 

They make the point that certain biometric systems don’t help with 

forgeries, et cetera, and others do. I am sure you are probably 

aware of that and whatever system you choose will be one that 

supports being able to get at forged documents. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely. That is the mandated objective and 

if we can’t accomplish that, then we have wasted a great deal of 

effort. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. 

22

Looking at false documents, Secretary Hutchinson, I can remember my good friend, Al Simpson, having hearing after hearing on 

this and the one conclusion he came to, and I agreed, is unless you 

have a temper-proof birth certificate, you are not really going to be 

able to get a handle on the legitimacy of these documents. 

The idea of getting a tamper-proof birth certificate and for the 

Federal Government to require this from every town and village in 

this country is really unthinkable, although he talked about it and 

tried to do it, quite frankly. So you are facing a daunting challenge, 

and you have got a lot of able, gifted people in your department 

and if they have other ideas about how to get back to that root document, it is just incredibly important. Otherwise, you are going to 

get whipsawed through this. 

You talked about risk management, I think, and you talked 

about the visa waiver countries. The visa waiver countries have to 

have, as I remember, 96-percent return in order to continue to be 

part of the whole program. I think it was 96; there was a 3- or 4-

point difference. That has to be maintained or they can’t maintain 

that. 

The basic point, as I remember, when it was developed was to—

as you mentioned, you are talking about risk management and the 

allocation of personnel. These are people from these various countries that come back to the country and therefore they pose less of 

a challenge in terms of following people that are coming into the 

United States and overstaying their visas. 

They present less of a challenge, and therefore you need less personnel in terms of monitoring this and setting up shop in these 

various countries. That is the principal reason that program had 

been set up and worked reasonably well, I think, over the period 

of time. It is constantly being reviewed, but I, like others on the 

Committee, want to continue to make sure that it is doing what it 

should. 

There are two areas I want to cover and that is the training of 

personnel that you have and how you are going to keep good personnel. It has come to our attention that a lot of the very skilled, 

trained personnel in immigration are going out to other agencies. 

How are you able to really keep the best of the personnel that 

can really help you do the job? What are the training methods, if 

you could review those? You can provide this in greater detail, but 

this is, I think, very important. 

Then I want to get just finally to the issue of risk management. 

Your response to an earlier question about the border—we have got 

130 million vehicles that come into the country every year, and 500 

million people moving back and forth. I always thought that the 

terrorists are the problem, not immigration. The real question for 

you people is how you get the difference on it using the technologies. 

I am interested in how you are setting up these risk management decisions. I mean, that is going to be key in terms of trying 

to do it. Maybe some of this is classified. I don’t know, but how do 

you do it? We don’t want to have others that want to try and break 

through the system listen to you and then find out how to avoid 

it. but as much as you can tell us on what you are doing on the 

training, what you are doing to get good people to stay in the deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
23

partment, and also if you can talk a little bit about the risk management, those are two areas I would like to just cover in the time 

that I have, please. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. In reference to 

the visa waiver program, the Justice Department started the review and we are going to complete it as to some of the countries 

and their compliance rate, whether there needs to be any adjustment on that, and we owe some reports to Congress on that. 

In reference to the training, you hit it right on that this is essential to keep a motivated work force, to keep them on top of the 

technological skills that are necessary. I am delighted that in the 

Border and Transportation Directorate, in addition to the agencies 

that are out there on the front line, we have FLETC, which is the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. So we want to utilize 

them, as these agencies have done, from TSA to Customs to INS, 

to make sure that training is at a high quality. 

One of our challenges for the worker is that we have disparate 

pay scales for the different agencies that have come on board, the 

inspectors for Customs versus INS, and the Agriculture inspectors. 

Janet Hale, our Under Secretary for Management, will be working 

with the employees over the coming months, having hearings and 

looking at ways that we can bring this together. This is a congressional mandate and we owe a report back, I believe, in November, 

as to how we are going to be reconciling these different pay scales. 

Finally, on risk management, this is an essential part of the 

strategy that we have to implement. In reference to the cargo side, 

we have the Container Security Initiative that gives us manifest 

information for cargo coming into this country 24 hours in advance 

to the time that it is loaded on the foreign port. If it is Hong Kong 

or Rotterdam, we get the information in advance going to the national targeting center at Customs, and then you have the analysts 

that look at this cargo and they have a rules-based system that 

asks the questions—is it a trusted supplier, what is the record, 

what kind of cargo is being represented—a whole host of rules. You 

give it a scale and you identify the risk to it. 

The objective is not to inspect one hundred percent of all the 

cargo coming to the United States, but a hundred percent of the 

at-risk cargo. So that is the system. I saw it demonstrated in Newark, again, when I was there. It is not perfect by any means, but 

it certainly moves us in that direction. 

We are doing the same thing for at-risk people. One of the responsibilities is we look at the visa issuance overseas and take a 

greater role in making sure that it does not go to high-risk people. 

Senator KENNEDY. Also, just with regard to people, you want to 

make sure that the visa that you are giving to the person is actually the person that has been cleared and the one that is arriving 

is the person that goes back to the country. That is a continuum 

and we tried to spell that out in the legislation, and that has been 

area that has been a challenge in the past and that is absolutely 

true about the people, as well. 

Well, if you could just supply the other training programs and 

how you are setting up this training to get your people up to speed 

on this, I would be interested in what the department is doing. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would be happy to. 

24

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. To just add on what Senator Kennedy was just talking about, to retain the Border Patrol agents, for 

example, who speak Spanish by their required training and are not 

paid particularly well compared to some other law enforcement 

agencies who constantly raid the Border Patrol for these experienced agents, I think that is also referred to in Senator Kennedy’s 

comments and we would like more information on that, too. 

With my Republican colleagues’ indulgence, I would like to turn 

next now to Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and thank you again 

for your courtesy. I especially wanted to hear what Secretary 

Hutchinson had to say, although I should also note that any time 

I have called the Secretary, he has been immediately available and 

I have always felt that he was willing to answer questions. I appreciate that. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. I think it comes from his experience here on the 

Hill when he was faced with having to ask similar questions, and 

all of us do our jobs better when they are answered. 

I mentioned earlier what a massive undertaking the Department 

of Homeland Security is—170,000 employees, 22 different agencies. 

One day they are all separate; the next day they are one agency. 

It doesn’t say anything that you don’t already know that a lot of 

those 170,000 employees are not quite sure how their jobs changed 

on March 1 or what their future is. They are focused first and foremost on protecting America, not just on their job security, but you 

know it has to be in the back of their minds and that can affect 

job performance. 

What kinds of steps are you taking to communicate with the 

rank-and-file in the DHS to assure them that questions they might 

have on their own status don’t affect the mission of improving our 

domestic security, a mission that we all agree upon? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is essential to give them the facts, communicate with them clearly. We are doing it in a couple of ways, obviously through Internet communication, but Secretary Ridge has 

been very engaged in employee town meetings both in Washington 

and in Miami. I have done the same thing, listening to them, but 

also trying to assure them that when they came on board March 

1, same mission, same pay, same job responsibility. The only issue 

was whom they would report to and there were minimal changes 

there. 

As time goes on, there will have to be more changes that are 

made. We want to work with both the union leadership as well as 

with all of the employees to make sure there is a good line of communication both ways. We don’t want them to worry about it, and 

I think that there is really not reason to worry. Congress has protected it, rightly so, for a year to make sure no one is displaced. 

But we are still growing in numbers and so I don’t think there will 

be a displacement; there will just simply be effective reorganization, I would trust. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, that goes to another issue. Incidentally, I 

would invite you or your designee at any time to come up to 

Vermont. As has been pointed out, it is a tiny State, but we———

25

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Can I get some syrup? 

Senator LEAHY. Yes, sir, I will give you that anyway, as you 

know. But come on up. We have the northern border. Senator Kyl 

spoke about agents who speak Spanish. Right where we are, we are 

more apt to find them speaking French. 

But we have the border. Actually, we have a couple of the alien 

tracking facilities and others that we have in Vermont. You see 

some very dedicated people, but you also see the kind of problems 

we have; on the one hand, keeping commerce and families moving 

back and forth on a border which they think of almost being like 

a border between two States, and at the same time, as we saw, one 

of the terrorists came down on the northwest border with designs 

against the Space Needle in Seattle. So there are all the different 

issues there. 

But I look at the fact that the Justice Department Inspector General recently reported that 26 percent of the INS inspections work 

force was hired in fiscal year 2002, showing a lot of attrition and 

change. Now, this is a very important fact. If you have 26 percent 

of it in 1 year, are you focusing on the fact that you don’t want attrition beyond the normal attrition you always face because some 

of these are highly skilled jobs? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely, and we want to be able to keep the 

morale up. I think that some of the factors previously were morale, 

a tremendous amount of responsibility. Congress has helped on the 

pay scale side of it, and then we also had TSA setting up and that 

was a factor in losing some Border Patrol and INS personnel. I 

think it has settled down substantially since that timeframe because TSA is organized now and functioning. They are not having 

to have that huge hire-up. 

And then, second, the fact that Homeland Security was created, 

I believe, is a motivating factor and the mission is renewed. But 

these are things that I assure you we are attentive to because we 

want to keep a motivated work force. 

Senator LEAHY. I don’t mean to keep harping on the northern 

border, but we always focus on the southern border, and rightly so, 

but they are entirely different things. We are not having people 

streaming across our northern border looking for jobs or a better 

standard of living. They are very happy with the standard of living 

in their own country, in Canada. 

We face other issues and I think because of that, well before September 11, we kind of neglected the northern border. We always 

worried about what was happening on the southern border. We 

have proposed increases. S. 22, for example, is pending, the Justice 

Enhancement and Domestic Security Act. We propose additional increases in the Border Patrol. 

I mentioned the helicopter that came down, and in this case a 

group of snowmobilers spotted the bales of marijuana, 250 pounds, 

being tossed out. Well, we can handle the issue of the marijuana. 

I am far more concerned, and I am sure you are, too, if that been 

explosives, weapons, or terrorists coming down, knowing that they 

then could drive to New York City or Boston or several of our 

major ports in literally a matter of a very few hours from where 

that was. 

26

Do you support our efforts to authorize additional border security 

personnel? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I support what you have done in terms 

of increasing the presence at the northern border. I want to make 

sure I understood the question correctly. 

Senator LEAHY. Let me put you in a more difficult position, if I 

might, and you may not want to answer this, but I want you to 

think about it. The President’s budget for the Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection calls for less than a 3-percent increase over 

his budget for those functions in fiscal year 2003. That is not going 

to even cover inflation. 

Is the status quo in terms of personnel on our northern border 

adequate? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me answer it this way, Senator, with great 

respect. We certainly need to finish the deployment of more Border 

Patrol agents on the northern border. There is an increased need 

there. Since February 8 of this year, 220 agents have been deployed to the northern border, so we are continuing to do that. 

There needs to be an increase. 

In reference to the overall budget, which I think is the essence 

of your question, my figures show that there was a little bit more 

of an increase in the overall homeland security budget. The discrepancy might be the fact that TSA obviously had some enormous 

startup costs that were not reflected and needed in the 2004 budget. 

I think it is important that Homeland Security gets an opportunity to organize effectively, then to evaluate our needs, and we 

will report back to you. So I think we are where we should be right 

now, but obviously we need to continue to evaluate it with you. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. 

I would say, Mr. Secretary, I know you obviously are constrained 

by what is in the President’s budget and I understand that. I would 

expect that of anybody speaking for the administration, but please 

understand that I and many others feel that we are not doing 

enough on the northern border. I would like some time perhaps in 

the near future where you and I might discuss this because I really 

feel strongly that we have some problems that could come back to 

bite us both from a security angle, but also from the question of 

just keeping the free flow of commerce between two great nations. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I welcome that opportunity, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

again I applaud you and the other Senators for having this hearing. I think it is one of the most important ones this Committee 

will do. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—well, I am used to 

calling you ‘‘Mr. Chairman.’’

Senator LEAHY. Oh, I love it. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman KYL. There is a University of Texas study now a few 

years old and we need to be sure and get that to you, Secretary 

Hutchinson, if you haven’t seen it. It calls for about 16,000 Border 

Patrol agents on the southern border and doesn’t even begin to address the number that would need to be put on the northern border 

27

to secure that border. That was a pre-9/11 study, so it is the kind 

of thing that we would maybe appreciate to get your feedback on. 

It is probably not possible to achieve that level any time soon, 

but Senator Feinstein and I have sponsored legislation that was 

adopted that called for adding 1,000 new agents each year, net. We 

are now beginning to fall behind that again, so perhaps we can revisit that. 

Senator Craig? 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, you in one of your questions 

and Secretary Hutchinson’s response was one of my questions as 

it relates to the vastness of these borders beyond points of entry 

or between points of entry and how you deal with it. 

I come on the heels of Senator Leahy’s questions to react very 

similarly. The uniqueness of these borders, north and south, are 

very real. The port of entry that Idaho has is one of many. There 

is an official one and then there are hundreds of small, back-country wilderness roads, logging roads, because that relatively small 

border expanse compared to Texas that Idaho has against the Canadian border is in many instances wilderness or very close to it. 

But people traffic it and it is nearly impossible to control it, patrol it, shape it in any given day or hour unless you just had a phenomenal work force that is probably not that justifiable at the moment, compared to the southern border or more concentrated areas 

where heavy commerce is moving, although the commerce between 

the Pacific Northwest, Idaho being a conduit, has increased rapidly 

over the last couple of years. 

I guess my question would be, briefly, could you talk about your 

working relationship with Canada, because if you gain access 

through Canada and your intent is to come into the lower 48, my 

guess is you can get there without going through a port of entry 

and you can probably get here without being detected if you spend 

a bit of time studying the terrain, whether it is the State of Washington, Idaho, Montana or Vermont. Those northern borders are in 

many instances obscure, almost dense forested wilderness areas 

that have very little patrol. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator Craig. It is important that 

we make sure we protect the northern border and devote resources 

to it. In reference to Border Patrol agents, we have increased them 

substantially on the northern border. Eighty-one percent of the requirement for the northern border, a goal that Congress gave us, 

has been met for 2003. We are going to continue to make that deployment. 

In reference to our relationship to Canada, it is excellent. Both 

while I was at the DEA and here, I have had a great relationship 

with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Secretary Ridge has met 

numerous times and developed the Smart Border Accord with Canada that has a number of different points to it, including shared 

information, including some of the fast lanes at our ports of entry, 

but also the information for our rural areas, our isolated areas. We 

have to know what they observe on their side, what the risks are, 

threats are, and then we have to share that information. The relationship is good. The challenge is great. We are going to continue 

to focus on that. 

28

Technology is important. We have enhanced the number of helicopters that the Border Patrol has available and their presence is 

becoming more significant on the northern border and needs to continue to do so. 

Senator CRAIG. Do they do a good job screening those who enter 

Canada from foreign countries? Do they have a fairly rigid system 

of control, application, tracking of those coming in, because part of 

my question, Mr. Secretary, was if you can gain access through 

Canada—that means to Canada from outside—and your intent is 

to come to the United States through that conduit and you spend 

any time trying to do it, my guess is there is probably a pretty good 

chance you can get here without going through a port of entry. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is a significant area of concern. I know that 

Canada has tightened up their entrance requirements and their 

protective systems since September 11. It was a wake-up call for 

us and Canada, but there is much work to do there. We are continuing to work on that, and obviously the interest of both is to 

make sure we don’t stop the flow of commerce. That is their objective and our objective, but they recognize a huge security need, so 

we will continue to work with them. 

Senator CRAIG. What kind of sharing goes on of information of 

individuals flowing into Canada that for some reason would draw 

attention, or is there any of that kind that they share with us? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. For example, when I was in Miami—we have 

an exchange with Canadian Customs so that a Canadian Customs 

officer was physically located in Miami working side by side our 

agents because there is a great deal of commerce going from Canada down to Miami. The same thing was true in Newark. We had 

a Canadian Customs officer there working side by side. We have 

the exchange there so that we have access to some of their data 

bases and their information through their Customs officers, and 

likewise for our personnel up there. Whenever we are looking at 

our data bases for names and suspects, we can have that relationship to exchange information with Canada. So it is getting better 

everyday. There are some real signs of encouragement there. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Given that all 19 terrorists from September 11 

entered the United States on legal visas, would you just summarize 

what both the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department have done to address that specific challenge? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The first thing that was done is that whenever 

the consular offices overseas get information on visa applicants, 

that information for the first time has been made available to our 

inspectors at the ports of entry. That was a significant breach in 

communication prior to September 11 that has been remedied. 

That way, you really have a layered protection so that now they 

can screen them closely in the overseas consular offices, look at 

them, interview them, and then there is information so that before 

they arrive at the port of entry, they will be again examined. Hopefully, both of those checks will keep someone who has harmful intent from coming into our country. 

29

The visa issuance responsibility for regulation and training has 

been transferred to Homeland Security. We are now negotiated 

with the Department of State on a memorandum of understanding 

to accomplish this exchange of authority, because they will continue the technical work of issuing the visas, but we have the oversight responsibility with people present there in some of the overseas offices to make sure that program is working effectively. 

Much progress has been made, but it is an ongoing effort. We 

still need to enhance the information in those data bases for checks 

and for a quick response. Now, when those applications are made, 

they go through the State Department lookout list. They also go 

through the FBI and all the other checks interagency-wise to try 

to make sure we detect those that might have a harmful intent or 

a criminal record. 

Senator CORNYN. Knowing what we know now about these 19 individuals, could the changes that you have just described have prevented their entry into the United States? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I don’t know if I would want to—I would 

certainly hope so. It would increase the likelihood of it. I would add 

that Senator Feinstein made reference to some that were here on 

expired visas, and that is what the SEVIS program, the student 

visa monitoring program and information, will help us with. 

We will know who is here on an expired visa or who is not reporting to school when they are here for that purpose. So we have 

enhanced our capability to better protect America and we are continuing to do so. But as was pointed out, it is one thing to have 

the information of people who are here visiting our country and 

leaving and maybe they didn’t leave in time, but it is another thing 

to have the analytical capability to pinpoint them, find them and 

make sure they leave our country. So we are working on each of 

those levels and it gives us a safer America. 

Senator CORNYN. As you know, the United States and Mexico are 

important trading partners and a lot of the commerce that flows 

between our two countries comes across the Texas border. And, of 

course, it is important to the economy not just of my State, but to 

the United States, that we maintain as free a flow of commerce as 

possible. One of the things I know of at the State level, because I 

worked on it when I was attorney general, is the establishment of 

one-stop border inspection facilities. 

Could you describe for us from the Federal perspective what the 

Federal Government is doing to try to implement a one-stop inspection facility? In other words, notwithstanding the fact that Customs 

and Immigration may need to do an inspection, we also need to 

make sure when a truck comes across that the Department of Public Safety in my State, for example, can assure that this truck is 

in a safe condition so as not to jeopardize the safety of the driving 

public. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me ask Mr. Woody Hall to respond to that, 

if I might, Senator. 

Mr. HALL. We are doing a number of things. We have always had 

cross-designated inspectors and we are going to put more emphasis 

on that training so that folks who come from a different background as we stand up the new bureaus can be interchangeable. 

30

We also are working closely with the Department of Transportation to see what we can do to improve this relationship with the 

State organizations that need to do these safety inspections. And 

we are also investing in the modernization of our information technology infrastructure so that we can share this information not 

only across the bureaus within Homeland Security, but as appropriate with other departments and local law enforcement agencies. 

I think all of these efforts taken together will help improve the situation that you have described. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I certainly don’t underestimate the challenge that you have or that our country has in this area of trying 

to strike a balance between our security and commerce. Both are 

important and we need to strike the right balance, but I would like 

to have my staff perhaps talk at a staff-to-staff level to try to get 

some more details. 

I think it is very important that the Federal Government work 

closely with local officials and with State officials to make sure that 

as much as possible we try to remember that the commerce aspect 

of this is also an important element to consider and that we do as 

good a job as we possibly can striking that right balance. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator, and we would be glad to 

visit with you more about that. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Chairman KYL. Senator Cornyn, I agree with you. Because of our 

same issues in Arizona, I remember kidding with then-Senator 

Spence Abraham, who, of course, representing Michigan at the 

time, had a border with Canada. He was really irate about these 

2-minute delays at the border. And I said, Spence, 2-minute 

delays? I said we would be happy if we could it down to 2 hours 

at certain points of time. 

So we do have those kinds of issues of accommodating the interests both of commerce and recreation, I might add, visiting families 

back and forth, as well as the whole need to ensure against contraband, against illegal alien smuggling, and certainly against terrorism. 

Secretary Hutchinson, you have mastered a lot in a very short 

period of time. I think what we will do is submit any other questions—unless anybody else on the dais would like to make a point, 

submit any other questions we have for the record, and we will 

leave the record open for a couple of days, let’s say 3 days, so that 

anybody that would like to submit additional questions to you can 

do so. 

Perhaps after you have had a lot more time under your belt and 

had a chance to digest some of the things that have been thrown 

your way, you could come back and report status to us at that time. 

In the meantime, we would invite you to be sure to let us know—

as you discover things that we could help you with that we could 

either put in appropriations bills or give you more authority or 

whatever might be needed, please convey that to us because our 

two Subcommittees and the full Committee are really dedicated to 

helping you be effective in your job. 

We are just very glad you are there and, as I said, your very 

quick command of a lot of details is very, very impressive. We apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
31

preciate Mr. Mocny and Mr. Hall for being with us today. Thank 

you very much. All the best. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Now, our second panel—and we promise not to 

take as much time speaking from dais here and we will hear from 

our witnesses a little bit more quickly—is comprised of two people 

and I will ask them to come forward as I am introducing them. 

One is Nancy Kingsbury, who is the Managing Director for Applied Research and Methods at the General Accounting Office. In 

this capacity, she manages the GAO’s advanced analytic staff, including economists, computer engineers, statisticians, and other 

scientific experts. She has done a great deal of work in the entire 

area of homeland security. She will be accompanied by Richard 

Stana, who is Director of Homeland Security and Justice at GAO. 

In addition, Stephen Flynn is the Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow in 

National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He 

is the Director of the Independent Task Force on Homeland Security Imperatives, which is commonly referred to as the Hart-Rudman Commission, and was a consultant on homeland security for 

the previous Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security, and 

as I mentioned before, has also testified here and probably was listening carefully when we talked about moving our perimeter out 

further and getting more cooperation from people abroad even before we get to the border here as the last measure of defense. I 

read your testimony. Thank you. 

So, Ms. Kingsbury, let’s begin with you, and then I will turn to 

Stephen Flynn. Since we do have two votes in about 40 minutes, 

we will try to move forward as quickly as we can. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY KINGSBURY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

APPLIED RESEARCH AND METHODS, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD STANA, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Ms. KINGSBURY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. I think you have been advised to limit your testimony to 5 minutes. 

Ms. KINGSBURY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Ms. KINGSBURY. I will whiz right through it. 

Thank you for accepting our longer statement and we are very 

pleased to be here. Rich Stana does most of our work on our immigration issues in GAO and so he is here to represent that work as 

well. 

Facilitating the flow of people while preventing the illegal entry 

of unwanted travelers at our many ports of entry requires an effective and efficient process that authenticates the traveler’s identity. 

Based on our work, we believe that biometric technologies—that is, 

technologies that can be used to verify a person’s identity by measuring and analyzing his or her physiological characteristics—have 

a lot to offer over the current paper document examination and 

32

interview processes to facilitate travel while protecting our borders 

and also facilitating commerce. 

That said, it is important to understand that technology is only 

a part of the solution. Effective border security at ports of entry requires technology and people to work together to implement a decision system that is grounded in well-developed and implemented 

policies and procedures. 

The Department of Homeland Security faces huge challenges to 

implement the requirements of recent legislation to improve border 

security, and I think, Mr. Chairman, you have cited some of the 

numbers—440 million border crossings, 300 designated ports of 

entry, et cetera. I don’t need to belabor the magnitude of this task. 

Last year, under a pilot technology assessment process directed 

by the Congress, we evaluated the utility of a variety of biometric 

technologies for use in border security. Our report, which, as you 

can see, is fairly thick, provides considerable detailed information 

on the maturity of the technologies and on the policy context in 

which they would be used for border security. 

In the end, it appears to us that fingerprint recognition and facial recognition, perhaps in combination, are the most mature of 

the technologies for this purpose, and that iris recognition held considerable promise as a unique identifier for future use, but it hasn’t 

really been tested yet. 

Even in the case of fingerprints and facial recognition systems, 

however, there are issues of scalability that will require considerable testing and development to bring to the point where hundreds 

of millions of identity checks annually are feasible, accurate and efficient. 

By way of an example, the current fingerprint system, while now 

automated and very efficient, only contains about 60 million 

records. So when you are talking about that many border-crossings 

and that many checks, you have got a real issue of scalability, we 

think. 

Biometrics have been used in border control environments for 

several years. In the U.S., INS has used hand geometry in its 

INSPASS system at U.S. and Canadian airports to facilitate the 

movement of trusted travelers, and INS has implemented a bordercrossing card, as we have talked about this morning. Several foreign governments have also adopted limited programs of biometricbased identification for transit of travelers across borders, but they 

are all on a fairly small scale. 

While biometric technology is currently available and used in a 

variety of applications, questions remain regarding the technical 

and operational effectiveness of biometric technologies in applications as large as border control. 

In addition, a number of other issues need to be considered—the 

system’s effect on existing border control procedures and people, including how you transition from one type of system to another. The 

costs and benefits of the system need to be assessed. We did some 

analysis based on some assumptions. I think Senator Feinstein referred to our scenarios in her question a few minutes ago. 

Suffice it to say we are talking billions of dollars just to implement biometrics in this application. We believe it is very important 

that a thorough and documented concept of operations be created 

33

and examined before these decisions are made and before this 

starts down the path of spending huge amounts of money. 

Finally, the system’s effects on privacy, convenience and the 

economy also need to be assessed. Representatives of civil liberties 

groups and privacy experts have expressed concern regarding the 

adequacy of protections for security, data-sharing and identity 

theft, and about the potential for the evolution of secondary uses 

and so-called function creep. 

These issues can be addressed, and should be, early in the development of a concept of operations. Because there is no general 

agreement yet on the appropriate balance of security and privacy, 

or to go back to Senator Craig’s point, security and commerce, further policy decisions are clearly required. And I am very encouraged by the interest of this Committee in participating in that 

process because I think that is very important. 

Because visa policies are often reciprocal with other countries, introduction of new requirements could stimulate additional new requirements on American travelers to other countries. This is another policy issue that probably needs to be addressed. 

In any event, it is important in that regard when we do this that 

countries work together to seek a common standard for the introduction of biometric technologies at border-crossings. The inability 

to do that is likely to escalate the variety of equipment and processes needed at our borders and consulates, potentially further increasing costs. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have some ongoing work on current 

practices for screening travelers at land border crossings that offer 

some information about potential challenges faced by the Department of Homeland Security as it introduces new technology at our 

borders. You and your colleagues have talked about a few of these. 

We have found problems with the integrity of the inspection 

process that permits entry into the country with false or even no 

documents, and some inspection processes are inconsistent or incompletely implemented. Current technology is sometimes cumbersome or not available. There was some comment earlier about 

multiple entries into data systems. Workload demands prevent 

meaningful processing or sharing of available intelligence. 

And last but not least, the merger of INS and Customs brings 

together inspectors that to date have been trained in two separate 

academies, using different curricula, and on-the-job training is 

often pushed aside by the pressures of inspections itself. They have 

got a huge job ahead of them. 

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kingsbury appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Flynn? 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. FLYNN, JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK 

SENIOR FELLOW IN NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. FLYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be back 

here today, and this time you are in the Chair. Last time, it was 

34

Senator Feinstein when I testified here with Senator Rudman in 

November of last year. I would like to be able to submit my testimony into the record and maybe just make a couple of, I think, important points to inform our process here. 

One, overall, of course, a conclusion of the Hart-Rudman task 

force report that I had the privilege to direct was that America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and in all likelihood the next 

attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy. 

The need for immediate action is made more urgent by the prospect of the United States going to war with Iraq and the possibility 

that Saddam Hussein might threaten to use weapons of mass destruction on America. We said that in October. In my view, that 

chilling finding still holds true today. It speaks to the enormous 

importance of what this Committee is looking at here today because we know the new front-line warriors in this new challenge 

that we are confronting turn out to be these rather mundane folks, 

in the traditional sense of things—INS agents, Border Patrol, 

Coast Guard men and women, now all put together under this new 

department. 

The scale of the challenge, of course, is enormous, as has been 

cited by the figures here today. Secretary Ridge put it well when 

he assumed his new mantle as Secretary: getting right the job 

about a billion times a year. When we are talking about the total 

numbers of front-line field agents, the folks who are really doing 

the meeting and the greeting and the checking, we are talking 

about a number of people that is smaller than the NYPD, if we 

take the TSA portion out of it. 

I mean, this is an incredible challenge and if we are not seriously 

talking about the issue of resources, we really are just engaged in 

talking, because this is an issue of such vital nature and it requires 

clearly a long-term investment that I don’t believe we are pursuing 

with the level of zeal that we must. 

Just by putting it in context, Secretary Rumsfeld testified last 

month before the House Appropriations Committee that he is 

spending $5 billion protecting U.S. bases from a would-be terrorist 

attack. He also said that 20 percent of those bases he didn’t even 

need because he doesn’t have the force structure to fill them. So he 

said we are spending about $1 billion a year protecting bases essentially that he doesn’t need. 

We are talking in the area of seaport security, for instance, in 

this upcoming bill on the order of $100 to $150 million. We are not 

really getting the scale right. This Nation depends on trade and 

commerce, and it depends on being a globally engaged, open society. The folks who are at the front lines of managing the risk of 

that at our ports of entry are woefully understaffed, working with 

obsolete technologies, inadequate support for training, and are just 

simply not up to the challenge, not because of desire, but because 

of the commitment of the national Treasury, frankly, that we 

haven’t put at their disposal. 

Now, how do we get a handle on this job when it is a billion a 

day? And this is a key point that I guess I want to drive home. It 

shouldn’t be a balance, security versus trade; the two are symVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
35

biotic. The heart of this enterprise, when you have a billion checks 

to make, is about risk management, but how do you do risk management? 

Risk management is fundamentally about having sufficient intelligence so that you can basically detect what is high-risk versus 

low, and having the opportunity to act on that intelligence. The primary tool used in enforcement and the regulatory world is what is 

called pattern recognition; it is the ability to be able to pick something out that doesn’t look right. 

What we saw about the 9/11 folks is that they tried to blend in. 

I spent 10 years looking at the problem of smuggling from the Caribbean up and across the southwest border, and what you find 

about good, capable smugglers is they try to blend into the real estate. The ability to pick that up is often not based on intelligence. 

It is based on a sharp front-line person who says, you know, these 

goods are coming in on Friday, the farmer’s market is on Saturday, 

it takes 3 days to get to the market, there is something wrong here. 

Those are the tools. 

Now, let’s get to this key point—commerce and security. If the 

system is inefficient, the border is inefficient, it makes the border 

less policeable. If, because of lack of infrastructure, we have bottlenecks in traffic, a fragmented trucking industry and virtual chaos, 

you can’t detect, which is the only tool we can bring on, given these 

numbers, the aberrant activity. 

So this means that the only way you get toward security is to 

improve the efficiencies at the border, which is about building the 

roads, building the bridges, improving the inspection facilities, 

numbering them with the right number of people so that you can 

detect them out of the normal rhythm of commerce. 

What we know about capable terrorists and criminals is they try 

to act like market actors, but they usually never get it quite right 

because they are not market actors. Markets are complex places 

and you can pick them out. It will be the key tool, but only if there 

is sufficient transparency within the border setting, and ideally upfront capability, are we going to get to that point. 

So it comes down also to this issue of technology, how important 

it is that it must be integrated in an overall functional systems approach to managing our borders. If the technology is layered on 

without being adequately prototyped and tested and creates inefficiencies that essentially add to the chaos of the environment, then 

those eyes and ears of inspectors, the human judgment that is so 

essential, is just awash with numbers. 

I mean, I stood at San Ysidro with INS agents and with Customs 

agents, and I have been across the border with the Border Patrol 

and I have been to Laredo and I have been to El Paso and I have 

been to McAllen, Texas, and Brownsville. In all those places, it is 

the human judgment that still remains key, though they need the 

enablers of the technology. 

In the chaos of San Ysidro—75,000 people herding across the 

border to go work in San Diego—if you can’t find the means to filter the bad from the good, we are just not going to get to where 

we need to go. So the point, I guess, I would make and I hope we 

can explore a little more in the questions is technology is a critical 

36

enabler, but it must be looked at by an overall investment that 

rationalizes the way our borders and ports of entry work. 

We built our national transportation system for internal development, Canada and the United States especially, to ‘‘go west, young 

man.’’ All of a sudden we changed that, post-NAFTA, onto an axis 

that went north-south, and the infrastructure simply is not there 

to support that. That contributes to the opportunity for organized 

crime and terrorists to exploit. So this is not an either/or; this is 

a must. 

The conversation going on over transportation, about building 

new roads and building the ports, must have a security component 

in it. An intelligent transportation system can get us where we 

need to go, and a part of the tool, a collective approach, versus just 

simply dropping in specific applications—radiation detectors or 

whatever—must be a part of this approach. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much. I am going to box that 

testimony up and send it over to the Appropriations Committee because that is exactly the kind of point, it seems to me, that we need 

to make to those who are responsible for appropriating the funds 

for these purposes. 

Those of us in border States have been trying to make this point 

for years that it is not only good for our business, but would enhance our security, to have an efficient port of entry system. So everything you have said makes a great deal of sense to me. 

I think, as I said to Secretary Hutchinson, we need to take a look 

at the Customs report of 3 years ago and advance forward to today’s requirements, have them update that and see what they 

think we need in terms of infrastructure. We have all talked about 

the relationship between people and technology, and everybody acknowledges we need both and they have to work together. 

It seems to me the key challenge is this, and this is the question 

I would really like to pose to all three of you and let me analogize 

here. Secretary Rumsfeld saw early on that if he was to develop an 

effective missile defense system to protect the United States, as 

President Bush asked him to do, he would be long dead and gone 

by the time it ever even got up and running, let alone deployed, 

if he went through the usual system of procurement and acquisition that the military relies on. 

So he decided to take what we had, put it together as quickly as 

possible, field a couple of those units, see how they worked, at the 

same time that we are continuing to develop other technologies and 

try to integrate them into a system, so that over time we could 

have a deployable system, but in the meantime we would have 

something to protect ourselves with because the need is now and 

under the old method of procurement, we wouldn’t have anything 

for another 10 or 12 years. 

Now, you have testified, Mr. Flynn, to the immediate need to secure our borders. There will be more terrorist attacks and we have 

got to match our resources to the rhetoric. We also have to match 

our programmatic system around here to the timely challenge, and 

this is, Ms. Kingsbury, where I get to you. 

37

You have properly said that we need to walk before we can run. 

There are a lot of bugs in the technology that have to be ironed 

out before we commit billions to a particular system in a particular 

place, and so on. But we don’t have that time, clearly. So the question is how we square that circle, how we make the best judgments 

about getting things into the field as quickly as possible that are 

the force multipliers, the technology that we know exists and that 

we are beginning to use to do it in a very intelligent way, but in 

a way that gives us some protection in the short run, while not 

committing errors that become costly in the long run. 

So I don’t think we have the luxury of waiting. Mr. Flynn makes 

that point. We don’t have the luxury of wasting a lot of money because this whole thing is going to cost a lot. So how do we square 

that circle? 

Is it possible, for example, that pilot projects, things like the 

laser visa system that is being tried with Mexico and the United 

States, are some of the answers to that? I will just ask that openended question for all three of you to quickly respond to. 

Is my time on here? I don’t want to take more time that I am 

supposed to. 

Ms. KINGSBURY. It just went green. 

Chairman KYL. Yes, and I have already taken 3 minutes, so 

knock off 3 minutes of my time. 

Let me start with you, Ms. Kingsbury. 

Ms. KINGSBURY. Well, I am not sure that the analogy is altogether helpful because that system is protecting against something 

that is likely to be very infrequent, but nonetheless I certainly take 

your point. 

Let me offer an example of the reason why really understanding 

the whole problem perhaps the way Rumsfeld understands the missile defense problem—the concept of the issue itself is pretty clear. 

You can have a perfect biometric—and let me make it clear none 

of the biometrics, including fingerprints, are perfect—but if you 

don’t also have a pretty darn good enrollment system at the outset, 

with real commitment and real resources to that, you guarantee 

the system will fail and you will buy no security at all, for all practical purposes. 

That is why we think the concept of operations is really so important. But once you have the concept of operations, then I think the 

opportunity and the technologies are there and the vendors are out 

there quite hungry to do something with them. The technology is 

there to have a lot of pilot projects and efforts of that sort, and to 

move fairly quickly in that regard to find out what works and what 

works better than something else. But I think the concept of operations is crystal clear and I think you have about said the same 

thing. 

Chairman KYL. Mr. Flynn? 

Mr. FLYNN. We are a great big, wealthy Nation. We have a lot 

of threats and we can afford to take them on, but one of the realities of pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative without dealing 

with these issues is if you solve the problem up there, you push the 

problem down into legitimate trade lanes. So you have to be dealing with, even in that concept world, both of these issues concurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:29 Oct 16, 2003 Jkt 089330 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89330.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
38

rently because the threat is a weapon of mass destruction. It is a 

launch vehicle. A truck can be the delivery vehicle. 

We are faced in this overall homeland security problem—I describe it sort of crassly as a bit like trying to, in the United States 

context, take a raised ranch and make it handicap-accessible. It is 

ugly, it is expensive, and it doesn’t work very well. We are struggling with taking basically this great big, open society, with a lot 

of emphasis on facilitating moving, getting stuff forward with not 

a whole lot of people in the way, and now suddenly trying to craft 

it virtually overnight into dealing with this new threat environment. 

The initial phase is not likely to look all that pretty. The key is, 

I think, some investment in resources at the outset because you 

have just got to get by. The long-term approach is that we have to 

understand this broader system prospect, and I think the key to 

getting there right away is the pilot programs. 

I have been a big advocate of something that has developed that is called Operation Safe Commerce. The initiative, which is $28 

million and has gone out to the ports of L.A., Long Beach, New 

York, New Jersey, and Seattle-Tacoma, is to go and basically recruit retailers, carriers, terminal operators from the point of origin 

of where goods come from and see if we can track and if we can 

monitor the integrity of shipments from the point of origin all the 

way through. 

Now, when you talk about mandating that tomorrow, it is a herculean task. But just stepping out and beginning to do it is a bit 

like a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle. Once you start doing it, patterns 

start to emerge and you start to get going and the relationships 

come together and you understand it. 

But the key is use the strength of federalism, drill down, get the 

money out of Washington down to the local levels and enlist the 

local Federal representatives along with Governors and mayors and 

their Chambers of Commerce. They can recruit often better than 

the feds can those retailers and those carriers, and so forth. And 

let’s begin the process of validating low risk. 

On the other set of issues, we have some very good programs. 

The SENTRI program, for instance, can work very well. But when 

I was on the San Ysidro border, I found with the SENTRI program 

that it took over 9 months to get into the program because INS 

didn’t have enough people to fill at the entry, and plus it was a 

pretty hefty fee for a Mexican. Our security improves when we take 

those frequent travelers and put them in a lane. So don’t charge 

a fee. It would be a relatively modest thing so you can do the prescreening and get those people going. 

There were 4.2 million trucks that came across the Laredo border 

in 1999, but it was 88,000 trucks that actually did those movements. And this is the key. I would push those one-stop concepts, 

one stop like the Brits and French do at the base of the Chunnel. 

One stop is Americans and Mexicans working alongside, away from 

the bridge where there is plenty of real estate, and then you could 

have long-haul truck meet long-haul truck. Now, you have taken 

thousands of trucks out of the mix and the result is you have a 

more efficient border. You have a more policeable system to operate 

from, less environmental congestion, and so forth. 

39

That is the kind of thinking that we need to push, and we can 

do it in a pilot kind of way virtually tomorrow. Use the Columbia 

Bridge or use a border-crossing in Arizona. I haven’t had the privilege yet to get to Nogales and across your entry, sir, but that is 

the kind of thing I think we need to move on. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Mr. Stana, I haven’t given you any opportunity. Please take an 

opportunity and then I will call on Senator Craig. 

Mr. STANA. OK, let me be brief, then. I agree with what has been 

said by the other panel members here. I would like to take it down 

to the front line, the few thousand men and women who really 

form our line of scrimmage at the border, and what they need to 

do to assess the risk of the individual that they have 15 to 20 seconds, on average, to evaluate. 

I agree that they do a very good job, particularly those that are 

well-trained, but we are talking about our national security hinging 

on somebody’s gut feel, no matter how well-intentioned they are. So 

they do need the tools to help them do it better. 

If you are talking about short run, I would concentrate initially 

on getting the intelligence systems in shape so there is not a lot 

of noise in the system, get the intelligence shops at the ports to filter out the noise that happened downstream, northern border, so 

that they are not burdened, frankly, with understanding and absorbing intelligence that doesn’t pertain to them. 

I would focus on the IT systems so that they don’t have to log 

on and off six different times, and they might only go to five because they don’t have the time. I would also concentrate on the procedures that would have them check more than just the license 

plate of a vehicle, since most of the traffic is vehicular, and get to 

the individual driver and the passengers to assess risk more on a 

random basis, not only on a gut feel basis. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Craig? 

Senator CRAIG. Probably only a comment, and I thank all of you 

for your testimony and your insight. 

Mr. Flynn, I think you have said it well and said it right. Historically, we were an east-west-moving people until NAFTA came 

along, and then we decided we would go north-south. Clearly, the 

greatest growth in commerce and activity over the next couple of 

decades could well be the north-south traffic. 

The greater growth will probably be in the U.S.-Mexican relationship, but the growth with Canada will be continuous and progressive. There is just no question about that, and whatever we do 

there we have got to do it right and we have got to do it with that 

eye for growth and the ability to handle large flows because large 

flows will also attract, as you have suggested, the individual who 

might try to access by acting as if he or she were a part of that. 

I thank you for that. 

We are seeing that in my State now. The traffic out of Canada 

into the United States through Idaho nearly doubles every year, 

and it has since NAFTA—tremendous traffic. We can see it by the 

forcing of us to improve our roads and widen them. But once across 

that border and into the culture, into the economy, it is a different 

story. 

40

Clearly, the ability to do as you last suggested, to prototype some 

things, to see how we can handle volumes, my guess is is going to 

be tremendously important because the lines entering Arizona, the 

lines entering Texas are phenomenal and they will stifle commerce. 

And it shouldn’t have to happen if we can go it smartly. 

Any additional reactions to that comment, I would welcome 

them, but it is more of a comment. I think some of us realize it. 

I don’t think our country yet realizes that all of a sudden it started 

looking north and south a good deal more than it is looking east 

and west. The east and west traffic is commerce that will continue 

and will grow, but the greater growth will probably be north-south. 

Mr. FLYNN. Thank you for that, Senator. The only thing I might 

say real briefly is if there is anything I learned from a 2-year 

project of marching along both the northern border and the southern border, it is there is no one-size-fits-all with regard to our borders. So part of the value of this prototyping is learning the unique 

challenges and the strengths and opportunities that each of our jurisdictions pose. 

Another critical point I want to come back to is what Ms. 

Kingsbury has said about the value of international cooperation 

and private sector cooperation. There will never be enough eyes 

and ears. So on the intelligence function, it is going to be coming 

from sharing with our allies the forward information, the trade 

partners, and also getting the private sector willing to share when 

they see things wrong. 

Again, if we do security measures that undermine that spirit of 

cooperation—the old axiom in the security business is if you look 

at everything, you see nothing. So if they find themselves robbed 

of intelligence with just volumes, it is a needle-in-a-haystack exercise. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. Let me just ask one last very specific 

question and make one last point. 

Mr. Stana, do you happen to know the status of the implementation of the reader programs under the laser visa program with 

Mexico, or should I just get an answer to that for the record? 

Mr. STANA. I believe they have demonstration projects at about 

a half a dozen ports and 250-or-so individuals who have been 

caught. I don’t know when the full fielding is expected to happen. 

Chairman KYL. What we need to figure out is what, if any, additional money we need to put toward that, and therefore how quickly that might get done. To the extent you could help us with that, 

I would appreciate that. 

Mr. STANA. Perhaps we can pursue that later. 

Chairman KYL. Let me just make a general comment. Just because of the strictures of time here, we are going to move on, but 

I think that this is a very, very important panel because it really 

sets up the dilemma well. 

What Mr. Flynn bringing his expertise here has pointed out I 

don’t think any of us can argue with. The question is how we get 

it done and committing ourselves to apply the resources that you 

quite properly indicate we are going to have to apply if we are really serious about this. 

41

The $5 billion that we spend to protect the military bases, for example—obviously, we are protecting a lot of people there, too, and 

there are some potential threats out there for that. But that is 

something we have learned to do well. We know we need to protect 

the bases. We have learned how to do it and we are willing to 

spend the resources for it. This new problem, however, is not something we have gotten used to, and we haven’t gotten used to spending the kind of resources that we are going to have to. 

I would ask Ms. Kingsbury and the folks at GAO to help us out 

by not—and I am not suggesting this has been done, but what we 

need to do is not just focus on the dollars and cents, but accept the 

public policy commitment to provide as much security as we possibly can, as quickly as we can, and evaluate programs in that context. 

It is easy for us to sit back and make it perfect 30 years from 

now after the horse is long gone from the barn. Your point is, unless we do a good job here, we could waste an awful lot of money 

and we don’t have the money to waste on it. So your point is very 

well taken, but we are going to need to do a lot more, a lot more 

quickly, than we would ordinarily be used to doing, and we need 

to find the fiscal ways of doing that in a responsible way. 

I think that is the challenge before us, and maybe in another 

year or so we can get back with all of you and see where we are 

at that point, having taken advantage of your expertise. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. Again, as with the first 

panel, we will leave the record open for any further questions for 

the record for all of you. Thank you very, very much. 

With that, Senator Craig, unless you have anything else, this 

hearing will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

42


89330.001
43


89330.002
44


89330.003
45


89330.004
46


89330.005
47


89330.006
48


89330.007
49


89330.008
50


89330.009
51


89330.010
52


89330.011
53


89330.012
54


89330.013
55


89330.014
56


89330.015
57


89330.016
58


89330.017
59


89330.018
60


89330.019
61


89330.020
62


89330.021
63


89330.033
64


89330.022
65


89330.034
66


89330.023
67


89330.035
68


89330.024
69


89330.036
70


89330.025
71


89330.037
72


89330.026
73


89330.038
74


89330.027
75


89330.039
76


89330.028
77


89330.040
78


89330.029
79


89330.030
80


89330.031
81

Æ


89330.032