Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Border Security

BAUCUS:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I am pleased with the manner in which you've held this—held the hearing on the nomination. And I—we did expeditiously and it took some time, as you know, to get the information to the committee. And it took some time for the nominee to answer the questions. That's basically because the confirmation process is quite involved. It's not easy. And should not be easy, frankly, particularly for a position as important as Treasury Secretary. That is—we at the committee have a constitutional obligation under the vice (ph) consent provision of the constitution to look at a nominee very closely, to determine whether or not we believe—the Senate believes, that the nominee is appropriately qualified to serve as Treasury Secretary.

We asked of him, frankly, a lot questions in lots of different subjects, tax policy, prescription drug benefits, budget deficits. We also asked him—Mr. Snow about matter involving corporate governance and executive compensation. And he has replied to all those questions. It took some time, as I said, but that's partly because he's led a varied life. I mean, he's been on many boards, been very active in business world, and so it took some time to get all his information that we asked for.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, this committee does have a tradition of very promptly but appropriately moving our presidential nominees. I think that's important. It's important continuity. It's important to keep our government running. I think the American people too are anxious about our flagging (ph) economy and the prospect of war. And with the future a bit uncertain, I think we have responsibility to move as expeditiously as we appropriately can to help fill the position, and without delay.

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, and I'm very happy to see our majority leader here, I urge the Senate leadership to bring this nomination to the floor, frankly, today, believe that's possible. I understand that all Senators clearly have the right to debate any measure before the Senate, to vote yes, vote no. That's a Senatorial prerogative, and I highly respect it, but I do ask our leadership to at least bring the nominee to the floor so that he can be—so Senators can make their own decisions as to what seems the most appropriate.

One final comment, Mr. Chairman, I am a bit concerned about how we handle upcoming debates about the budget, taxes and health care. We need to get to work. There's a lot that has to be done here. And I clearly—we need to work in a very bipartisan fashion. And I look forward to working with you, and now our view, Mr. Chairman, the full committee and other members of the Senate.

BAUCUS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing couldn't be more timely. Just two nights ago President Bush spoke to the nation, reminded about the war on terror, and how high the stakes are. And the—in his reference to the war on terrorism he said, quote, "As we fight this war, we will remember where it began, in our own country." He said, "We've intensified security at the borders and our ports of entry," something that's very necessary.

The primary function of government is protecting the homeland. Americans depend upon border security personnel to ensure their safety, protect their freedoms. And they expect them to be vigilant, expect them to thorough.
Four security agencies have played a considerable role in the history of our country. In 1853, members of Teddy Roosevelt's rough riders secured our Southern border. And securing our borders today has become even more complex and more challenging. Our Southern border of Mexico is 2,000 miles. Our Northern border with Canada is 5,500 miles. The terrain varies from the deserts of Arizona to the mountains in Montana.

Every day more than 1.5 million people cross into the United States. They have different rules of entry, depending upon their citizenship and where they're coming from. Americans can use a variety of means to establish their citizenship, including driver's licenses and birth certificates.

Today's hearing is not about closing our borders, but rather protecting our borders from—against those who mean us harm. Montana has the longest international border in the country, 550 miles. Border security has been the concern of mine for many years, and last year I held a series of hearings in my state with many citizens living in our border communities. They're concerned, lots of concerns. They run the gamete, all the way from the commercial concerns back and forth to security concerns. And they're, frankly, not convinced that our government is doing enough to secure the borders for their safety. And that's why I, along with Chairman Grassley, requested the GAO to investigate the security of our borders as well as our ports of entry. GAO's findings raised many questions about whether we're doing enough.
I see three issues. First, we must identify and address the availability of fictitious documents to any individual seeking entry into the United States. Let's just consider an entrant who claims to be a U.S. citizen. They can use a birth certificate or driver's license as proof of citizenship. More than 8,000 state and local officers issue driver's licenses, birth certificates and documents that can establish residence or identity, but there's no standardized document for entry. Our border security officers do not have a checklist of authorized state driver's license formats. They are not consistently checking the embedded holograms in the license as proof of authenticity. Anyone with a personal computer, and the right software, and materials from and arts and crafts store can create a birth certificate. More troubling, for $12 you can get a copy of someone's birth certificate over the Internet. And even more troubling, someone can go to an international airport and buy an affidavit of U.S. citizenship for $5.

Second, talk is cheap, securing our borders isn't. As a nation, we continue to talk about the urgency of securing our nation's borders from further terrorist attacks, but the resources are not getting to their targets fast enough. For example, in Montana, our U.S. Border Patrol has been preliminarily—has approved for three new border patrol substations along our 550 mile border—three. Now, in Montana we regard that as exciting news. On the other hand, it will take four to five years for those offices to become operational, just too lengthy approval procedures. And I believe that this does not exemplify the urgency of this situation.

Third, homeland defense is not just about securing ports of entry, but also about the vast spaces of land in between ports of entry. In Montana alone, we have 13 federal jurisdictions responsible for securing the border in and between the ports. Yet only five of those 13 are part of the Department of Homeland Security. The spaces in between are policed not only by the U.S. Border Patrol, but also the Bureau of Land Management, Park Service, (inaudible) Indian Affairs and Tribal Law Enforcement. Border security is about coordination. It's about cooperation and communication. It's essential that a fully comprehensive and streamlined approach to border security be developed to allow all policing agencies access and communication with other agencies.

I remain deeply concerned that our nation's progress to secure its borders is inadequate. The terrorist attacks of December 11 were over 16 months ago. Clearly, we can and must do better to stop the fraud, commit the necessary resources and work together.

President Bush recently said that this government has responsibility to confront the threat of terror wherever it is found. I agree. And much of that threat is at our borders.

The millennium bomber drove across the U.S. border in December of 1999. He had links to Al Qaida and bomb-making materials similar to those used at the embassy bombings in Africa and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Almost three years later, GAO's agents crossed the same border, expected tight security, expected to be stopped, expected that lessons were learned, they were surprised by the lack of enforcement. So am I. And this hearing will further investigate what's been—what this state of play is and, perhaps, what we can do to accelerate solutions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BAUCUS:

What about that, Mr. Williams? What about that? I mean, just...

WILLIAMS:
Senator, I just...

BAUCUS:
...—that is the point that it's with the development of modern technology and, you know, off-the-shelf computer software and off-the-shelf computers you can manufacture all of these new documents with—I mean, it's very hard to detect whether they're counterfeit or not. Doesn't that put a lot more pressure on agents—INS personnel that they probably don't want to have. They don't want to have to rely only on their sixth sense, my guess is. They would like to have something to back them up—something to back them up with.

WILLIAMS:
Yes, sir, Senator. I'll respond to that. Of course, as you heard Mr. Jacksta respond, we have—we have come a long way on a lot of the documents that have added biometrics—have added scanning capabilities—databases have been enhanced. And the sixth sense or the gut reaction I'd like to respond to just a moment—that's gone by a little too quickly. That really means what a really capable law enforcement officer experiences.

And when they come out of the academy, that computer between their ears has been formatted with law, et cetera. Over the months and years of experiences, they are—they have all of these experiences at hand. It is—that's what the gut reaction is—it is—it is not simply things that you—that are invented. They are many years of experience.

I agree with you that new documents, biometrics, facial recognition technology are the things we are looking at. We must increase those kinds of documents to help us move the low-risk traffickers out of the way so we can spend more time on the high-risk.

I just recently came back from the border in San Diego and saw a month's worth of passports that had been confiscated at San Isidro. They covered a full table. Passport pages had been removed and placed back. Pictures had been changed. And it was those inspectors that found those documents. But certainly biometrics would be an enhancement in some of those documents.

BAUCUS:
OK.
Mr. Cramer, in your investigation, how many agents were—how many agents were involved in this operation? And how many stopped?

CRAMER:
There were...

BAUCUS:
How many were not stopped?

CRAMER:
... three agents who came in using the counterfeit identification.

BAUCUS:
You only used three agents?

CRAMER:
Yes, three different agents. Other agents were along, but they were not using the counterfeit...

BAUCUS:
Well, I'm no good expert in this subject, but it just seems to me just cool common sense that if we're going to make a—if not an indictment, at least a criticism, that, you know, a few more agents going back and forth might increase the, you know, the degree to which we could understand how much is being stopped and not being stopped. Wouldn't you think? Three is a little bit isolated, isn't it?

CRAMER:
It is - it is a small number, but we were responding to the requests we had and believed that we would be able to perform the tests with that number. But I agree with you, certainly if we wanted to expand the scope of it, we could do that—sure.

BAUCUS:
What is—you know, in North America, you don't have to have a passport. You know, you show your drivers' license or birth certificate when you come into the United States. Is that right?

CRAMER:
Yes.

BAUCUS:
Do you recommend the requirement of the passport?

CRAMER:
We've had some discussions with INS and other people about possible solutions here. We're not in a position to make a recommendation.

BAUCUS:
But your best guess—you know, you're a person—you've been around.
(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER:
I do know that this is—this is not an easy fix because there is certainly interests out there that are opposed to requiring Americans using passports to come into the country. So I'm not...

BAUCUS:
What's the—what's the argument in opposition?

CRAMER:
Frankly, I don't know. And I don't well understand it. But I know...
(LAUGHTER)
... it's important—it's an important argument and one that has to be taken seriously.

BAUCUS:
Anybody here want to take a crack at that? Why not require passports? Anybody disagree with requiring passports? Anybody have any reservation? Anybody hear of a legitimate reservation?
(LAUGHTER)
I see heads—I see nobody wishing this venture (ph) for (ph) through (ph).
What do we do about these porous borders? I mean, it's—the report didn't go into that, but I'd like Mr. Devaney to respond to some of the points that Mr. Wirth and, particularly, Mr. Murphy made about the Park Service.
I've got to tell you, guys, my general impression is an agreement—to considerably agree with Mr. Devaney. I mean, the Park Service to me comes across as a little—like they think they're special. They're not quite subject to the same, you know, standards and attitudes that the rest of the government agencies—particularly domestic agencies—should be subjected to. Almost—I'm trying to avoid the word "arrogance." But there's a touch of that, I have found, frankly, in the Park Service, generally.
So when I hear Mr. Devaney saying what he said, I—it rings true with me.
Could you—I'll ask, first, Mr. Devaney to respond to what they've said—Mr. Murphy said, particularly, about what they're trying to do.

DEVANEY:
Well, Senator, I'm—I really don't know what they're going to be doing because they've been very long in telling the rest of us in Interior—and for that matter, the secretary—exactly what they are planning on doing to respond to both my recommendations and her directive.
All of the other bureaus, at this point, are making significant progress in implementing the secretary's directive to do that. And the Park Service sort of stands alone as dragging their feet, quite frankly. And they need to move out smartly and get this done. This is a serious issue. People's lives are in danger. And they can't study this as they like to study other issues. This has to go to the top of the pile. And we do, for instance, assessments on a regular basis of the icon parks that the park is guarding for our nation's homeland security. And, once again, there's this lack of a sense of urgency about the—about what they are doing. And they just don't move as quickly as almost any other federal law enforcement agency I've ever been familiar with.

BAUCUS:
Mr. Murphy?

MURPHY:
Sure. Our report to—of the things that we're implementing was due...

BAUCUS:
The goal here is to assess relations...

MURPHY:
... yesterday.

BAUCUS:
... we're not here to get in an argument. We're just trying to find a—find a solution here.

MURPHY:
That's absolutely right. And we are—we are responding, Senator, and have responded. As I mentioned earlier, one of the Inspector Generals' first priorities for the National Park Service was to get accountability and leadership at the national level. And we have done that. We just interviewed—finished interviews yesterday. The deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement participated in those interviews and that person will be in place by the 15th.
Officer safety—our National Leadership Council, which the Inspector General just referenced in his testimony, committed several million dollars to putting in place a field training officer program to address officer safety—a field training program which is long overdue and should have been instituted long ago. And that has happened and that will be fully up and running in October. I think that's extremely important.
One of the other problems we were having is getting qualified law enforcement officers into the National Park Service. And towards that end, we have instituted a bridge training program to bring non-federal law enforcement officers into the National Park Service in a seamless way so that we can get officers on the ground.
This whole issue about homeland security—one of the other things we were charged with doing is hiring a security manager—full-time security manager. We have identified the person. He works for the Air Force. He has consented to come—to coming on board on a detail for 120 days while we hire a person full time in that—in that position. I think that's a major—a major step forward for the National Park Service.
But let me address this issue of apparent arrogance on the part of the National Park Service. I think it really stems from a venerable organization that's been very proud of its history and its traditions and it is slow to change, like organizations like that often are.
However, I've been there just a year. I spent my entire career as a law enforcement officer running the park system in the state of California. We did things a little bit different there. All of our rangers and superintendents were law enforcement officers. And I have a little bit different take on it. But I also recognize the tradition of the ranger and where it's come from and its history and recognize that because of that, the National Park Service may be a little bit slow in adjusting.
But times have changed. I think there is a clear recognition now that things have to be done differently. As long as I am here and on board, I want to be held accountable for making sure that those changes do take place. But it's going to take some time because you've got an organization with a huge history and a long history. But I'm committed to working with the Inspector General to see that those changes are made.

BAUCUS:
What's a reasonable period of time within which to have made those reasonable changes?

MURPHY:
Well...

BAUCUS:
By when? Say if we're going to have this hearing again at a later date to check up and see whether, you know, things have pretty much been taken care of, what's a reasonable date?

MURPHY:
Well, as I stated earlier, some of them are already underway. And I would say if we were back here in six or eight months—the next fiscal year—even additional changes will be made—they will be incremental. If we're back in a year, significant changes will have been made in the National Park Service.
But I really have to address this issue of the superintendents, too, and some of the decisions that they make. Some of these decisions are motivated by pressures that result from a lack of resources. When a superintendent has to decide what a ranger does or doesn't do—whether it's search and rescue or whether it's doing a campground hike or walk or tour—they have to ask themselves, within the limited resources that we do have, what are we going to have our staff do? And so it's not always motivated by a lack of concern about law enforcement.

BAUCUS:
I agree—I agree with that. So how much is the president's budget going to increase—be increased to take care of your concerns?

MURPHY:
Well, as you saw from my testimony, I mainly addressed the budget that we know we have. But the '03 budget will have some increases. For example...

BAUCUS:
Do you know what the '03 budget—that's '04 budget.

MURPHY:
Well, we haven't passed on '03 budget.

BAUCUS:
No. Now we're talking about this—the president's proposal—budget for '04.

MURPHY:
Well, I know that the '04 and the '03 budget include additional increases both for security, for icons and additional staffing as we complete our assessment. And I can talk specifically right now about Organ Pipe. I think that one of the significant things the National Park Service has done out of this year's budget and redirection of resources is currently recruiting for additional rangers at Organ Pipe. I mean, that's right now—in this—in this budget where we will, on the ground, have an additional 19 rangers once this recruitment is completed. And that means that we can have three full time rotating 24 hour shifts to address the kinds of problems that Mr. Wirth showed you on his video clip.

BAUCUS:
I, along with Senator Grassley, was in House chambers when the president spoke Tuesday night about the need for greater homeland security. And I hope the president lives up to his words. I mean, it's one thing to talk the game. It's something else to produce. And...

MURPHY:
I agree.

BAUCUS:
... the proof's in the pudding here. It's up to the president and his budget to provide the resources that you all need.
Now, he says, in his statements that we're going to provide these resources. But we'll find out when he presents his budget to the Congress because it's—words is one thing—deeds is another.
And I very much hope the president—because it's his responsibility, as commander in chief and the chief executive officer—to provide the resources or suggest the resources. And you can be doggoned sure that if the president suggests the appropriate resources, Congress will approve them. There is no doubt of that. There is no doubt of that whatsoever. But if the president does not suggest in his budget the appropriate resources, it's going to be difficult in tight budget situations for the Congress to find additional money to put back in.
So this is really—it's the president's—he's the man—main person here. He's the—he's the man. It's up to him to decide whether or not he wants to put the appropriate resources in his budget.
BAUCUS:
Yes. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Malfi, could you describe what happened at—I guess at Miami International Airport where you were denied boarding because you had—although—denied getting a boarding pass because you did not have a second piece of identification—but almost immediately the airline representative referred you to—the luggage officer obtained something called an affidavit for citizenship for $5? Could you describe what happened there and how that works?

MALFI:
Sure. When we left—actually it wasn't myself, it was the other agent...

BAUCUS:
Yes.

MALFI:
... that was accompanying me—inadvertently left his real birth certificate—didn't have it with him. So we were boarding the plane...

BAUCUS:
You were boarding where, now?

MALFI:
From Miami to go to Jamaica.

BAUCUS:
Right.

MALFI:
And they checked—they airlines checked to see what type of identification you have. It's like the first screening-type process. She realized that he didn't have his birth certificate or any other proof of citizenship. We told her that we had to get to Jamaica, it was important. She then sent us to a luggage storage facility that was located in the airport. She says, "This is common." She says, "What we do is you go there, you show them, you know, you talk to them. You show them your drivers' license and you'll get an affidavit of citizenship, which will be accepted in Jamaica as a proof of citizenship."

BAUCUS:
A proof of U.S. citizenship.

MALFI:
That's correct.
So the agent went to the location. It was a storage, you know, a luggage storage facility—spoke to the clerk there—asked him that he was sent there to get some sort of affidavit of citizenship. The clerk knew exactly what it was—says, "Yes, no problem." She gave him a form, which he filled out. We have a copy on one of the boards, which I'll show you.
He filled the form out. After he filled the form out and signed it, he gave it to her. She stamped—she notarized it. Prior to notarizing it, she looked at his drivers' license and basically looked to see that the picture was the same as the person that was presenting the affidavit.
We went—he went back to the airlines. They accepted that—put us on the flight and that was actually accepted by the Jamaican government as proof of American citizenship.
We did not—when we returned back into Miami, we were very curious because we had just learned about these affidavits. After we cleared through immigration and Customs, we both went to this location and, using the false drivers' licenses that we had—the counterfeit drivers' licenses, gave them the same story—that we were flying to Jamaica. We didn't have our birth certificates. We needed to get out of the country and could we, you know, obtain an affidavit of citizenship.
The clerk said, "No problem." Again, same routine—we filled out the two forms. We paid her the $5. She checked our drivers' license, which were counterfeit, gave us the affidavit. It was stamped and we left at that time.
We have three copies of the actual affidavits on the board here. First, the one in the middle was the actual one that was originally used by the agent. The two on either side were the ones that we used—not used, the ones that we obtained after we arrived back into the country with our fictitious drivers' licenses.
The third copy—the last copy, rather, on the left—or the right-hand side is a copy that our agency—the person that does the work for us in regards to putting the counterfeits together screened this and showed how easy it was to duplicate it. So she took one of the originals that we had, put it in the computer, scanned it—cleaned—took off the writing that was on there and produced a blank sheet that's exactly like the original sheet for an affidavit.

BAUCUS:
So you're, in effect, saying that for five bucks, you can show a fictitious drivers' license and make or manufacture an affidavit of citizenship.

MALFI:
That's correct.

BAUCUS:
Do you know whether this practice is still continuing?

MALFI:
As far as I know it is, yes.

BAUCUS:
Do you think that's a good idea?

MALFI:
Absolutely not.

BAUCUS:
Yes. I don't either.
What's being done about that, Mr. Williams? That's INS, isn't it?

WILLIAMS:
No, sir. I believe what I heard is that that was presented...

BAUCUS:
That's airlines.

WILLIAMS:
... to Jamaica for entrance, not the United States. It would not—it would not be a document we would accept.

BAUCUS:
But you've been briefed on these findings.

WILLIAMS:
Yes, sir. No, I said I believe what I heard was that the affidavit was presented to Jamaican officials, not U.S. officials.

BAUCUS:
It was presented as I—if that's correct—that's correct.

WILLIAMS:
But on the return trip, an affidavit—an affidavit such as this would not be a document that we would accept as proof of citizenship.

BAUCUS:
Mr. Malfi, was your experience any sense of that?

MALFI:
We didn't use these to try and get back into the country. But if Agent Ryan was coming back in under his real name, that would have been the only proof of citizenship that he would have had on him. So we don't know if immigration would have accepted these or not on the return trip.

BAUCUS:
I would like to ask you, though, Mr. Williams, while I can, very briefly...

WILLIAMS:
Sure.

UNKNOWN:
Congressional relations told us that those documents are used to come into the country.

BAUCUS:
Well, why don't you...

GRASSLEY:
Let me—let's just see if my staff was told right in briefings. Now, I think this is to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams, in—congressional affairs of your office—or of INS said that those documents can be used to bring people into the country.

WILLIAMS:
No, sir.

GRASSLEY:
OK. Well, at least then that's the point of my question. So then they were wrong by saying that to it?

WILLIAMS:
Yes, sir.

BAUCUS:
OK.
Mr. Williams, just a question for you—on September 6, 2001, before 9/11, Border Security personnel were flown from Montana to Washington D.C. to brief Washington on their analysis of increased border crossings—a very significant increase of border crossings by Arab nationals. And they were brought back to that briefing—that is U.S. officials were brought back on September 6 because they had previously been reporting over the past several months a very significant increase, suspiciously—suspicious increase of a number of Arab nationals crossing the border into the United States.
We've asked for a briefing of the INS what—of what happened—what was done with that information, et cetera. And so far, your agency has not responded.
Could you—what—could you tell us today whatever you can appropriately tell us about that September 6 report?

WILLIAMS:
Senator, I just learned of it myself last night—that the request had been made. And I talked to your staff before the hearings today. We will arrange for a briefing for you on the entire border situation.
I am not familiar with it today. I don't have that. I respect your question and I would like to get back to you in writing or in person.

BAUCUS:
Chairman Grassley tells me he supports the request to gain the information as quickly as you possibly can.
I'm just very concerned about how—not only our border sites, but such a vast area between entries. How many people, first, enter the United States daily?

WILLIAMS:
Well, let me put it this way, last year, the United States Border Patrol and the assets within the INS made just under a million arrests.

BAUCUS:
A million arrests?

WILLIAMS:
A million arrests.

BAUCUS:
Last year?

WILLIAMS:
Last year.

BAUCUS:
But how many enter the United States—just how many people come into the United States every day?

WILLIAMS:
We inspect over one-and-a-half million people a day.

BAUCUS:
OK. How many of those—how many people do you think come into the United States that are not inspected?

WILLIAMS:
Well, we believe that in the border strategy we're doing a better job than ever.

BAUCUS:
Oh, that's not the question I asked. I asked how many people do you think—I think Mr. Wirth's got a sense and Mr. Devaney's got a sense and—an answer to that question, but how many people do any of you think—gut—best guess—are coming into the United States uninspected or get—and/or get through the system—who are checked, but get through it, a day?

WILLIAMS:
We know half of the illegal population came to the United States legally and then abandoned or violated their status. We know that from our studies. But anything else would be, certainly, a guess on my part.

BAUCUS:
That's what I'm asking—I'm asking for a guess. And I know that, frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you don't know how many people come to the United States unchecked.

WILLIAMS:
Unchecked?

BAUCUS:
Unchecked—come across our borders daily.

WILLIAMS:
Without being apprehended between the ports?

BAUCUS:
Without being—yes, without being apprehended or checked.

WILLIAMS:
Again, Senator, I would say that that would be an educated guess.

BAUCUS:
Well, I'm asking your—you're an educated man.
(LAUGHTER)
And you certainly are able to guess.

WILLIAMS:
I would say that in my experience, just leaving San Diego sector as the chief there, we went from guesses of apprehending two or three out of five or 10. Our efficiency rates now are in the 85 and 90 percent level. So we're doing much, much better.

BAUCUS:
Well, wait a minute, now that's a bit inconsistent. You're contradicting yourself. How do you know what your efficiency rate is if you can't tell me how many come in?
(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS:
I have told you that that would—that I could not give you that answer on a—on the whole border situation.

BAUCUS:
Oh, but wait a minute—come on—we're here together to try to find an answer to some of these problems. And we have a responsibility—we, in the Congress—just as you do. And this is a joint—it's just an oversight hearing to try to get some answers to help Americans. And for us to do our work and to help you do your work, it would be helpful if we had an idea how many people come into the United States daily unchecked—on average or week—I don't care.
Is it 1,000 -- is it two? What is it?

WILLIAMS:
I respect your question, Senator, and I'll try to get back with you with a better answer.

BAUCUS:
You don't know today?

WILLIAMS:
I do not—I do not know that specific answer.

BAUCUS:
I mean, it—being the—if somebody's watching some of this on television in the country, wouldn't they find that a little bit alarming that INS doesn't know—or, in fact, can't even give an educated guess?

WILLIAMS:
I couldn't answer that, sir.

BAUCUS:
Well, my supposition—my guess is that people would be a bit concerned that you can't give us an educated guess.
It (ph) could (ph) reach (ph) another (ph) setting (ph).
Mr. Murphy?

MURPHY:
Well, I was just going to say at least on the park lands, we—you know, our estimate, as I said in my testimony, is on an annual basis we have 250,000, you know, a quarter of a million people coming through our park lands—that's just park lands. And that was the estimate from the—that we got from the Border Patrol in 2001. And of that quarter of a million, about 200,000 of those come through Organ Pipe, alone. And those were estimates we asked for as we were trying to do an analysis of what we needed to do to get the proper staffing at Organ Pipe and along our borders.

BAUCUS:
Well, that leads clearly another set of questions. What criteria do you use as to—as to whether or not you're effective in your job? What are the criteria? I mean, how do you know whether you're doing a good job at the borders? How do you know?

MURPHY:
I can address...

BAUCUS:
You know, it's a—it's a—it's a pretty basic question. Do you have numbers? Do you have standards? Do you have criteria? Do you have benchmarks? Do you have data? Have you got dates? Or—and I'm not being critical—do you tend to, as some federal agencies do—some private agencies do—just kind of—just kind of—kind of go through the motions? You know, we're trying. We're doing these things, but we really don't know how effective we are. You know, we need some kind of criteria here, I would think, so that when we have this hearing again six months—seven—eight months—a year from now, we know jointly together whether we're doing a better job or not.

MURPHY:
Well, I could respond a little bit. I mean, one of the glaring problems of the National Park Service has been not having an incident reporting system so that you know exactly what incidents have been taking place in parks and whether or not your responses over time have cut down on those incidents—so you have data to collect. So we just invested in a system, working with the Department of Interior, to put in a new sophisticated incident reporting system, because that was a glaring lack not having that data. And we recognized that, because before we were, basically, this—it was our best guess what we have. And that's just absolutely not acceptable. And we have taken steps to do that.
But I mean in our criteria, you know, we ask the question in terms of visitor safety, employee safety and resource protection, we can collect data on crimes that are happening against visitors—incidents that involve employee safety or our employees are hurt. And then we can look at our resources and see to what extent they're being damaged—measure that and then get some sense of what our needs are to prevent that from happening.
And this incident reporting system is going to be critical in helping us do that.

BAUCUS:
My time has expired. Go ahead.

BAUCUS:
Mr. Williams or anybody else, where is the cooperation working best—which agencies and which areas? And the second question is where does it need to be worked on—improved upon?

WILLIAMS:
I'll tell you...

BAUCUS:
I assume—I'm assuming it's not exactly the same all the way across the board everywhere with all agencies.

WILLIAMS:
...—I'll tell you, Senator, just reflecting on your state, as well, I think, as I mentioned in the statement, 9/11 galvanized enforcement. We came together quickly—things about funding and who's going to provide what went to the way side for the most part. We'll get back to that, I'm sure, but not to the degree we had before 9/11.
Not only partners on our side, but on the Canadian side, as well, where they—you know, they have...

BAUCUS:
Are you going to answer my question?

WILLIAMS:
I'm sorry?

BAUCUS:
Are you going to answer my question?

WILLIAMS:
I would—I would say that our cooperations, for instance, with Customs has increased. They are our big partners.

BAUCUS:
No, but what's—that's not the question I asked. The question I asked is where is it working best today—which agencies—what areas? That's my one—first question—second question is where—what agencies—which areas do we need to work on so that, you know, we kind of do better?

WILLIAMS:
Well, I'll just finish by saying, concentrating on the positive, I think our relationship with our Customs partners at the port of entry is probably the best.

BAUCUS:
OK. Where is the worst?

WILLIAMS:
I really—I'm really at a loss to think where that might be. I think...

BAUCUS:
Where is it—on a scale of one to 10 -- maybe not a 10, but a nine?

WILLIAMS:
Well, I'll say the 10s are certainly with our Customs partners and truly, I think—I think law enforcement around this country are getting along at that level.

BAUCUS:
Well, it used to be—I don't know what it's like now, but a lot of law enforcement agencies used to just be so upset with the FBI. The FBI is—they were just—thought they were, you know, gods—love everybody—wouldn't cooperate with local law enforcement, for example. I don't know about other agencies. You say that's background.
Would anybody else like to take a—I can—I can go down the line here—start first with you, Mr. Murphy.

MURPHY:
Sure.

GRASSLEY:
Mr. Murphy, which—where are we—where is it working and where is it not working?

MURPHY:
I think there is a very good relationship with the—with the Border Patrol, to my knowledge, at Organ Pipe. I would say that's one place it's working best. We support the agents there and they certainly do support us.
Where it's working the worst, I think, you know, there's probably a need for just better coordination with all the federal agencies. You mentioned the FBI, but now we have the joint terrorism task force, so all of these groups actually come together and they—and they talk. And that's been a very good vehicle for us solving our law enforcement problems.
I'm not hedging at all. It's hard for me to know, not being in the field anymore, where it would be...

BAUCUS:
Right.

MURPHY:
... the worst. But I've gotten very good feedback.

BAUCUS:
OK.
(CROSSTALK)

BAUCUS:
And Mr. Wirth, why don't you take a crack at that?

WIRTH:
OK. We work very, very good, as Mr. Williams said, after 9/11 everybody's pulling together. A good example of that is like at the hydas (ph) -- the Arizona hydas (ph) because you don't get just the federal interal (ph) involvement, you also get the state and local, which is critical...

BAUCUS:
That's right and...
(CROSSTALK)

BAUCUS:
... in Montana and we really like it.

WIRTH:
Yes. The hydas (ph) are very important—it works very effectively—the Operation Cubyou (ph), which is a by-product of the hydas (ph) is very effective. The BCI (ph) initiatives—we are in partners with them—we're affiliated with them—we work very closely with that.
The geographics of the situation is all these resources and allocations around the ports of entry—if you go down to a port of entry such as Nogales, you'll see a huge landing mat wall.

BAUCUS:
Right.

WIRTH:
You've got stadium lighting—you've got new roads—you've got a Border Patrol unit every quarter mile. You've got sensors. They've done a tremendous job at stopping crime and immigration in those areas.
You go five miles away, out into the rural areas—and in Nogales' case, you hit Forest Service first before you hit our land—it's wide open. The resources aren't—they don't have enough resources to spread across the entire border. So when you come out to our land, there's nothing.
As an example, in the Tohono O'odham Nation, you can—I fly over there routinely and you'll see three Border Patrol units. They're at their X spots—they're at SanNagal (ph) Gate, Christmas (ph) Gate and Manager's (ph) Dam. That's where they park. And then the rest of the people that are on the other three people are going to respond to incidents that happens that there's no way they can cover that geographic distance.

WIRTH:
And us, with our 30 officers, with other duties—our primary duties with land management, we can't—we don't have the time to patrol the border, per se. We're responding to incidences...

BAUCUS:
Thank you.

WIRTH:
...—we're being utterly overwhelmed.

BAUCUS:
Thank you.
Mr. Devaney?

DEVANEY:
Well, I'm a little lost as to who the Border Patrol and Immigration would actually liaison with at Interior. I mean, the resources on the border are minimal, at best, as I—as I've indicated today.
And the other thing that I think I—the point I'd like to make is that not all problems need to be solved by new money. There can be some reassignments of rangers from the Park Service to those border points—reassignments of ranger from Fish and Wildlife to the Fish and Wildlife refuge that is next to the Organ Cactus—reassignment of BIA forces to the—to the Indian reservations next to the Organ Cactus.
And not everything gets solved with new money. It's not a new problem. And I don't think that they only answer is to ask for additional money.
I think the law enforcement components of Interior need to look to themselves, prioritize this new burgeoning problem as their number one...

BAUCUS:
So you say...

DEVANEY:
... problem.

BAUCUS:
... what area to work on is prioritization?

DEVANEY:
Absolutely. And something else gets not done next year.

BAUCUS:
Yes. I appreciate that. Thanks.

DEVANEY:
Yes.

BAUCUS:
Mr. Jacksta?

JACKSTA:
Sir, I think there's a number of areas that—where we are actually working very well with—the first one is, obviously, the port of entry where the inspectors from Customs and Immigration work very closely. We have been sharing information. We have daily meeting—musters—to make sure that everyone's familiar with what's happening at that port of entry.
Where actually, before we actually had this committee, we had been working on a joint training effort for Immigration officers and Customs officers to make sure that they are aware of the Customs responsibilities and were aware of the Immigration responsibilities.
We have also been working here in Washington D.C. with other federal agencies. We've been working with Department of State regarding their class system and their visa application process—how can we use that information to provide better...

BAUCUS:
OK. Right. OK.

JACKSTA:
...—better information for us?
So there are a couple of areas that I think we need to work on. And one area probably is that we need to make sure that we get the right information to our inspectors and to the Border Patrol agents so that they can make the right decisions when they get to someone.

BAUCUS:
OK.
Mr. Goonzar (ph) I have spoken with you.
Mr. Cooney?

COONEY:
Well, Senator, having taken part in the investigation, my observation was that the Customs inspectors and the INS inspectors were very professional at the border crossings that we utilized. However, they were unable to determine our counterfeit identification. Other than that, they did their job and were very professional and did their mandated...

BAUCUS:
Right.

COONEY:
... work.

BAUCUS:
But you've got—but you don't have any experience there—cannot comment on what happens between the...

COONEY:
No, Senator.

BAUCUS:
... ports of entry—yes—right.
Mr. Malfi?

MALFI:
I can't comment on their relationships or their problems.

BAUCUS:
Don't you have—based on what you're—you know, you—your feel?

MALFI:
My feeling is...

BAUCUS:
In other words, what's working?

MALFI:
... the committee should realize one thing that we haven't touched on much that I think is very, very important—is the fact that these checks that are done at the borders and these various systems that are put in are all negative checks. None of these systems would have picked up what we did here. While our names were entered in certain locations—we saw them type in information from the fictitious drivers' licenses, but if the name is fictitious and there is no record of those names or those identifiers and it's not someone that has a record using that name, nothing is going to bounce out of these computers. These are all negative checks...

BAUCUS:
Yes.

MALFI:
... not positive checks.

BAUCUS:
Yes. That's a good point.

MALFI:
I think that's important.

BAUCUS:
That's a good point—yes.
Mr. Cramer?

CRAMER:
I have nothing to add—I think Mr. Malfi...

BAUCUS:
OK.

CRAMER:
... covered it all. Thank you.

BAUCUS:
Yes, that's a very good point, Mr. Malfi.
Turning to Montana, could anybody—who—I should probably ask this question about—this U.S./Canada Smart Border Initiative—it was—it's been underway for about 13 months. There's supposed to be 13 actions included in this plan—joint U.S./Canada border crossing facility is being considered for Opheim, Montana. Anybody know anything about that?

JACKSTA (?):
I know that the Canadian agreement is that we are looking at various locations to establish what we are calling the NEXUS program, as I mentioned earlier. And we are looking at a number of places—we just opened up one additional one up in Detroit this week. And our plan is to move out to try to get as many locations as possible with the understanding that this allows us to get the low- risk traveler through the process and allows us to focus in on the high-risk traveler.

BAUCUS:
OK. I appreciate that.
As you also know, at least Customs know, the—there's a concern among—well, two questions—a lot of the commercial interests in our country are concerned that with the creation of homeland security and Customs being transferred to homeland security from Treasury that a lot of the commercial operations will not be—will not be very efficient because the emphasis will be so much on enforcement and not so much on, you know, on the commercial side of Customs.
Could you comment on that, briefly, Mr. Jacksta?

JACKSTA:
Well, I would—I would state that the Customs Service has had a strong commitment to working with the trade industry since the very beginning of the Customs Service. And I believe very strongly that the president, as well as the new secretary, are going to make sure that the Customs Service continues making that effort to work in partnerships with the industry to ensure the expedited flow of traffic and trade...

BAUCUS:
OK. And I...

JACKSTA:
... across the borders.

BAUCUS:
...—and I know you're very sensitive to this, but I just encourage you to be, you know, quite sensitive to it because a lot of the commercial industries are very concerned that...

JACKSTA:
Yes, sir.

BAUCUS:
...—just feel that they are going to be given short swift (ph) because of the—of the transfer, which raises another point and that is the Treasury secretary has the authority to decide whether or not to transfer the Customs collections systems to the homeland security. That's not—none of you are Treasury here, but I think Senator—the chairman of the committee joins me in saying that we believe that to be inappropriate. That the revenue collection should remain—all revenue collection should remain in the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, just to facilitate revenue matters. But that's, again, something that's going to have to be worked out.
Well, I have no further questions. I just appreciate the long time we've spent this morning. Clearly, we're making progress. And clearly people sense—you all—in your agency the sense of urgency. But, clearly, there are a lot of problems yet to be solved.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know what your intention is, but my recommendation would be at some appropriate future date, maybe, to get, you know, the same folks back again and see what's—where we are.

GRASSLEY:
Well, I have a note down here for the audience, as well as for the people that are on the panel and their respective departments, about the next time we meet. I haven't set a time for that. I would work that out with you. But I think you're admonition is very correct to follow up just to make sure and keep on top of it, particularly involved in securing the homeland and war of terrorism, generally—the ongoing projects they are—it would be wrong for this committee not to pay proper attention to it.
I think we've heard some disturbing news today about the questions that we asked about how safe is our border—how porous are they? Are they sieves or are they really sound? And I—you can't help but get the view that the door—that some change is made, but I think we still have to draw the conclusion that major improvements are very much needed—that we must have better news the next time we meet. And I look forward to that opportunity, hopefully, to hear that better news.
I thank all of your for your kind attention and the three hours you've given us.

BAUCUS:
Yes—yes. When you're finished...

GRASSLEY:
Oh, yes. Well, I am finished.
I say thank you.
And Senator Baucus would like to...

BAUCUS:
Well, just...

GRASSLEY:
... say something.

BAUCUS:
...—it's just—you know, it's a huge challenge we have here because we're known as an open country. It's part of the—what's made America great. It's a melting pot—it's—around the world it's known as a great opportunity and so forth. And—but at the same time we've got to keep some bad guys out. And it's a challenge. And I—and I know a lot of this comes down to personal judgment and sensitivity on the part of various officers on a one-to- one situation and so forth. And I just—I thank you for all that you do and particularly the people in the field do because I know it's tough, dangerous work. And it's—and I know Americans very much appreciate what you do.
Thank you very much.

GRASSLEY:
Thank you all very much.
And thanks, Senator Baucus.