Sweeney, McHugh: No to Additonal Checkpoint

SWEENEY, MCHUGH: NO TO ADDITIONAL CHECKPOINT

Washington, D.C. - Reps. John E. Sweeney (R-Clifton Park) and John M. McHugh (R-Pierrepont Manor) wrote today to the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding the agency's proposal to construct a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 87 in Essex County, following up on a meeting held with agency officials last week.

"Border security is critically important, and our first line of defense must be to allocate limited resources directly at the border," Sweeney said. "I am still not convinced that constructing a checkpoint 100 miles inland in the hopes that we catch people who are already in the country is a wise use of tax dollars. Our focus must be on the first point of entry, not arbitrary checkpoints that impede economic vitality."

"So many questions remain about the proposal for a permanent checkpoint, and it is imperative that we get answers before any further decisions are made or dollars are spent on this project," McHugh said. "However, my initial reaction does in fact remain the same - this idea is, at best, ill-advised. Yes, enhanced border security is a necessary component to creating a safer, more secure homeland. But to do so by creating a permanent stop on a busy, highly commercial corridor simply does not appear to be either a safe or cost-efficient option."

The letter to CBP Acting Commissioner Deborah J. Spero follows:

Dear Acting Commissioner Spero:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to a proposal by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to construct a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 87 in Essex County, New York. This checkpoint would have serious ramifications on the local economy, as well as the safety of the highway. Furthermore, we have serious concerns that this proposal is not the best use of taxpayer dollars.

We are aware the Border Patrol maintains the position that such a checkpoint would act as a deterrent to smugglers and others who are able to circumvent U.S. border crossings and enter this country illegally. In a recent meeting, Ronald Vitiello, Chief Patrol Agent for CBP's Swanton Sector, explained how individuals sneak in to our country: they simply walk parallel to the border as to bypass the official crossing station, cross the border on foot, then walk back towards the highway to meet a legally documented accomplice in an automobile which was driven through the border station.

Frankly, we cannot understand CBP's logic in devoting its already scarce resources to fight smugglers after they enter the country illegally, rather than attempting to intercept them before they cross, or as they are in the process of crossing, the border. This constitutes a significant waste of precious dollars that we in Congress have appropriated to make our borders stronger and our nation safer. Why must we wait until they travel nearly 100 miles into our country before we attempt to intercept them? Why not bolster our forces adjacent to the existing border station in an effort to capture individuals as they are trying to cross illegally?

According to your office, more than $1 million has been spent on a feasibility study of the proposed permanent checkpoint in Essex County and at other locations south of the Canadian border. Before CBP makes a final decision on the construction of this or any other permanent facility, we request that you conduct a thorough analysis to determine the effectiveness of spending taxpayer dollars on a facility 100 miles south of the border; versus allocating these dollars to increase security measures at and around the existing border crossing. Our constituents deserve to know the rationale behind the manner in which their tax dollars are spent.

Additionally, we remain unconvinced that such a permanent checkpoint would actually serve as a deterrent for smugglers. We request you provide to us the studies and evidence from which you stake this claim. If an individual is, in fact, deterred from crossing the border at Champlain due to the presence of an additional checkpoint 100 miles south, what would deter that individual from sneaking across the border in Ogdensburg, Massena, or Burke? How would CBP be prepared to pursue those who successfully bypass the new checkpoint? How would CBP detect those who sneak around the Champlain checkpoint, but do not travel down I-87?

Since September 11th, we have made enormous strides in better ensuring that our homeland is protected in a proactive manner. Simply put, this proposal would send us right back to the archaic, reactive, pre-September 11th mentality and certainly undo much of the progress that has been made over the past five years.

We thank you in advance for your prompt response to our query. Please be advised that, until we receive satisfactory answers to all of the questions posed within this letter, we are not equipped to make a decision on whether to offer support for this proposal and will continue actively working to oppose a permanent checkpoint.

Sincerely,

John E. Sweeney
Member of Congress

John M. McHugh
Member of Congress

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny20_sweeney/PR040606Border.html