Statement Of Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Homeland Security Subcommittee Hearing
On The DHS Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
March 4, 2008
(audio and video for questions
are below)
LEAHY: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am going to be leaving
questions. I know the GAO Reports says that Customs and Border
Protection staffing allocation needs up to several thousand additional
CBP officers. Of course, the budget that Sec. Chertoff is backing allows
for only 234 additional offices at land borders and 295 for Radiation
Monitoring. We had, I saw in Vermont, where they say we need 60.
Assistant Commissioner Thomas Winkowski said that we’ll get 8, we won’t
get the 60, but we will get the 8. Of course we haven’t even gotten
those. So, it’s a concern. It’s almost as though it doesn’t make a
difference if they say we need 50, 60, 70 if we aren’t going to get any
anyway. It’s a nice study to read.
But while we have all that shortage, DHS established a temporary
checkpoint on I-91 in Hartford, Vt. from Dec 2003 –May 2005. I’d
wondered how you can spend that kind of money so far from the border.
Even people like former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
said this is unnecessary government intrusion. If it made us safer it
would be one thing, but of course there are about 20 parallel two-laned
roads that go down there. And the checkpoint picked up a couple lazy
people with drugs. But mostly it just ticked off everybody. So I’d asked
about that at my last hearing because we had heard that the department
was quietly conducting a feasibility study to see whether it would build
a permanent checkpoint there - a hundred miles from the border. I
finally got a response 5 months after I asked the question. You said the
results of the study and any decisions on project advancement would be
shared with your office through the office of congressional relations.
Well then, now I see in the President’s budget that we have a $ 4
million request for installation of permanent border checkpoints. That’s
plural. In Vermont. Again, all on Interstate highways where everybody
knows they’re there. All with dozens of roads that parallel the
interstate highway. So I was told we would hear if there would be more,
obviously that was form letter 12 because we never heard till we saw the
President’s budget.
I’m worried only because we don’t have the adequate number of people
on the border. We sometimes have hours, hours wait, just for tourist to
go across the border. And of course it will get worse once it starts to
require more paperwork. Many of the lanes aren’t open, we are short of
people there. But somehow we can put symbolic checkpoints 100 miles from
the border.
It’s interesting - I went through one of those symbolic checkpoints
in the state of New York driving back here. It was about 125 miles from
the border. In a car with license plate one on it from Vermont. With
little letters underneath it that said US Senate. We were stopped and
ordered to get out of the car and prove my citizenship. And I said “what
authority are you acting under?” and one of your agents pointed to his
gun and said “that’s all the authority I need.” Encouraging way to enter
our country.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
# # # # #
Questions of Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee
Hearing On The FY
2009 DHS Budget Request
Tuesday, March 4,
2008
BORDER STAFFING
The Northern Border has been chronically understaffed for years, and
we saw tremendous backups at our border crossings during last
summer’s tourist season – sometimes hours of unnecessary wait time –
because DHS lacked the workforce to open every lane. I am very
concerned that in addition to implementation of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative next June, the new document
requirements you imposed at the border in January will further
strain our resources and officers.
The Customs and Border Protection’s own staffing allocation models
and a recent GAO report state that nationwide CBP needs “up to
several thousand additional CBP Officers and Agricultural
Specialists at its ports of entry.” The President’s budget, though,
includes funding for only 234 additional officers at land borders
and 295 positions for Radiation Portal Monitoring staffing.
This staffing increase requested is fewer than two
additional CBP Officers at each air, land, and seaport.
When CBP Assistant Commissioner Thomas Winkowski was in Vermont last
August, he said that at least eight new agents would be assigned to
Vermont – even though the actual number of CBP officers needed is
estimated to be around 60. So far, though, no new agents have
come.
-
When will they
be coming? What steps are you taking to address the CBP officer
staffing shortages – particularly along the Northern Border?
And when will you have full staffing at all of our 326 official
ports of entry?
-
In addition, we
understand that DHS missed its promised target of Border Patrol
agents on the Northern Border by as many as 100. What is DHS
doing to fill these authorized positions?
INTERSTATE
CHECKPOINTS
As you may recall, DHS established a temporary checkpoint on
Interstate 91 in Hartford, Vermont, from December 2003 to May 2005.
While we occasionally heard about CBP making a drug-bust or
identifying an expired visa there, it seemed to me that the
checkpoint did far more to harass law-abiding Vermonters than to
protect their security. And I was not the only person who felt this
way. Former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich,
criticized the Hartford checkpoint as an unnecessary government
intrusion.
After DHS dismantled the temporary checkpoint three years ago, I
discovered that the department had begun quietly conducting a
feasibility study to see whether it should build a permanent
checkpoint on I-91 – a permanent Border Patrol station nearly 100
miles from the actual border. I asked you about this stunning
development at a March 2006 appropriations oversight hearing very
much like this one today. When I finally received a written
response from you five months later – in August of 2006 – you said:
“The results of the study and any decisions on project advancement
will be shared with your office through CBP’s Office of
Congressional Affairs.”
Well, imagine my surprise when I cracked open the President’s budget
proposal last month and saw a $4 million request for planning the
installation of permanent border checkpoints – plural – in the
Swanton Sector. Like many Vermonters, I have serious concerns about
constructing permanent checkpoints in Vermont. We all want to keep
our country safe, but we also want to make sure that in fighting
illegal activity we do not burden Americans in the exercise of their
constitutionally protected rights.
-
How many
checkpoints do you propose building in the Swanton sector – and
where would they be located?
-
We have heard a
lot about how your resources are stretched thin and you cannot
have people everywhere along the border. What sense does it
make to deploy Border Patrol agents permanently to an Interstate
checkpoint in Vermont that is a hundred miles from the actual
border – especially when the Border Patrol claims not to have
the resources to guard the neighborhood streets along the border
of Derby Line, Vermont, and Stansted, Quebec?
-
Can you explain
the usefulness of these checkpoints for apprehending immigration
violators when there are numerous roads that circumvent the
Interstates in both areas?
LAW ENFORCEMENT
STATUS OF CBP OFFICERS
Last year, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act
to grant federal law enforcement officer status to all Customs and
Border Protection agents. Our hardworking CPB officers deserve this
status, and the change was long overdue.
I was disappointed to see that in his Fiscal Year 2009 budget
request, the President asked Congress to repeal this legislation and
rescind the $50 million funding that was provided to begin the
program in July
2008.
While this administration has made it clear that this program is not
a priority, recent GAO testimony has shown the importance of such a
program for officer retention. According to the GAO, “CBP data
shows that, on average, 52 CBP Officers left the agency each 2-week
pay period in fiscal 2007…CBP Officers are leaving the agency to
take positions at other DHS components and other federal agencies to
obtain law enforcement officer benefits not authorized to them at
CBP.” This is precisely why Congress made this statutory change,
and why it should not be rescinded or repealed.
-
Does DHS intend
to comply with the new law? Is CBP going forward with
implementation of Section 535 so that it is in effect on July 6,
2008, as authorized by Congress?
-
Has the OMB
directed you to cease efforts to implement this program
authorized and funded by Congress in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008?
# # # # #
