- TRADE AND COMMERCE AT U.S. PORTS OF ENTRY

[Senate Hearing 115-815]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 115-815

TRADE AND COMMERCE AT U.S. PORTS OF ENTRY

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, CUSTOMS, AND GLOBAL
COMPETITIVENESS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JULY 18, 2018

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-448 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN CORNYN, Texas ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania
DEAN HELLER, Nevada MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island

Jeffrey Wrase, Staff Director and Chief Economist

Joshua Sheinkman, Democratic Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on International Trade,
Customs, and Global Competitiveness

JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
DEAN HELLER, Nevada BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Texas, chairman,
Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global
Competitiveness, Committee on Finance.......................... 1
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania..... 3

ADMINISTRATION WITNESS

McAleenan, Hon. Kevin K., Commissioner, Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.... 4

WITNESSES

Contreras, Sergio, vice chairman, Border Trade Alliance, Weslaco,
TX............................................................. 19
Saenz, Hon. Pete, Mayor, city of Laredo, and chairman, Texas
Border Coalition, Austin, TX................................... 21
Bucci, Mary Ann, Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh
Commission, Pittsburgh, PA..................................... 22
Nagle, Kurt, president and chief executive officer, American
Association of Port Authorities, Alexandria, VA................ 24

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Bucci, Mary Ann:
Testimony.................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr.:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Contreras, Sergio:
Testimony.................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Cornyn, Hon. John:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 43
McAleenan, Hon. Kevin K.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to questions from subcommittee members............. 53
Nagle, Kurt:
Testimony.................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Saenz, Hon. Pete:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 88

Communications

Center for Fiscal Equity......................................... 95
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)......................... 97
U.S. Travel Association.......................................... 103

(iii)

TRADE AND COMMERCE AT
U.S. PORTS OF ENTRY

----------

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International Trade,
Customs, and Global Competitiveness,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in
room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Thune, Isakson, Portman, Cantwell,
Nelson, Menendez, Carper, and Casey.
Also present: Republican staff: Madison Smith, Legislative
Assistant for subcommittee chairman Cornyn. Democratic staff:
Livia Shmavonian, Legislative Assistant for subcommittee
ranking member Casey.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, CUSTOMS,
AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

Senator Cornyn. The Senate Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global
Competitiveness will come to order. Thank you all for being
here today. I apologize, as I did to Senator Casey. We
obviously had a vote on the floor, so we were delayed but glad
to be here.
The topic of today's hearing is trade and commerce at the
U.S. ports of entry. It is one that is absolutely vital to my
home State of Texas, but I would argue not just to Texas, but
to the entire country. We are home to 29 air, land, and sea
ports of entry, more than any other State. Included in that
list are three of the five busiest land ports of entry and the
number one inland port in terms of total volume along the
entire U.S.-Mexico border. To put this in perspective, about
half of all U.S.-Mexico trade comes through a Texas port of
entry.
I am pleased to have Kevin McAleenan with us today, the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The
Commissioner and the Office of Field Operations within Customs
and Border Protection are charged with screening goods and
travelers at these ports.
We owe a great deal to you, Commissioner, and the men and
women who serve at these ports of entry day in and day out. And
I hope you will convey to them our appreciation for their
service.
Last year, CBP continued to experience remarkable growth in
terms of travel and trade. More than 390 million travelers were
screened at land, air, and sea ports and nearly $2 trillion
worth of imports were processed. The volume of commerce
crossing our borders has tripled in the last 25 years. While
this continued growth is an overall positive for our economy,
we simply will not be able to maintain it without adequately
addressing staffing and infrastructure needs.
While it is incumbent on the Federal Government to ensure
that CBP has the resources needed to carry out its core
functions, Congress must also conduct effective oversight to
make sure they are meeting mandates, implementing GAO and OIG
recommendations, and operating efficiently. It is concerning to
me that as of 2017, despite congressional mandates to hire
additional personnel, CBP still has staffing shortages of 2,500
officers. And I know the Commissioner will be prepared to give
the explanation for that.
The Government Accountability Office continues to reiterate
that the shortage in trade enforcement positions has led to
increased wait times, which in some cases could result in
shortened vetting processes and security risks, not to mention
just the congestion, the air quality issues, and the like. In
addition to staffing shortages, CBP officers are required to
work in an outdated infrastructure, creating conditions that
may affect their ability to expedite inspections and process
travelers through high-volume ports.
In 2015, CBP self-reported a study that revealed a need for
$5 billion to meet its infrastructure and technology
requirements. At the border, antiquated infrastructure often
leads to unnecessary delays--as I said--which result also in an
overall loss of commerce. In many instances, these delays are
translated into costs for an entity that ultimately is passed
on to the American consumer. So it is critical we make port of
entry infrastructure investment a top priority so that we can
adequately staff and fund the ports that make trade possible in
the first place.
I am proud to sponsor legislation, now a part of the law,
which directly addresses this issue, The Cross-Border Trade
Enhancement Act, which codified the reimbursable services
program and donations acceptance program. Public-private
partnerships are an effective way to give stakeholders and CBP
the ability to make improvements to all types of ports while
also saving taxpayer dollars. A number of Texas ports of entry,
particularly in the land and air space, have already seen the
benefits of this program.
I also look forward to discussing today other initiatives,
Commissioner, currently undertaken by CBP to ease the burden on
trade and travel. Programs like the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism, the NEXUS/Preclearance Program, the FAST
Program, and Global Entry can have big benefits for our
national security, for the consumer, and for the traveler.
Further programs like these allow CBP officers to focus on
higher-risk goods and travelers.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from the Commissioner on
implementation of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement
Act, which moved through this committee a couple of years ago.
TFTEA, which officially authorized the Office of Field
Operations and streamlined a number of trade enforcement and
facilitations issues, has the potential to further enhance our
Nation's trade policy.
I would now like to recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Senator Casey, for any opening statement he would
care to make.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears in the
appendix.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR.,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Senator Casey. Thanks very much. I want to thank Senator
Cornyn for his work and our work together on what has become a
series of subcommittee hearings on important matters for
national security and our economic security.
Our Customs officers protect both our national and economic
security. A secure border must be a priority, and Democrats and
Republicans have worked in a bipartisan way to secure $14
billion in funding for Customs and Border Protection, including
$1.6 billion for border security. As we work to secure our
borders, it is also imperative that our immigration laws are
humane and uphold American values. The administration's policy
of separating children from their families is an insult to
those values. And both parties must insist that families are
reunited. The administration must get this done. There is no
reason why we cannot develop a border policy that is both
humane and protects our national security.
It is also imperative that we ensure the safe and secure
flow of commerce and have the appropriate staffing and funding
levels to prevent unscrupulous actors and trade cheaters from
profiting from the sale of dangerous or illicit goods. It has
been 2 years since the enactment of the Trade Facilitation and
Trade Enforcement Act, so-called TFTEA, where we worked in a
bipartisan way to provide Customs with new and expanded
authority to combat child and slave labor, to protect
intellectual property, and to combat those attempting to evade
our trade laws.
Our Customs officers are on the front lines of this fight,
working to prevent pirated goods from harming U.S. businesses,
or dangerous fake goods from harming or even killing consumers.
Our Customs officers are responsible for an enormous area of
responsibility, from interdicting opioids like fentanyl, to
illicit goods, adapting to an ever-evolving threat matrix, to
our agricultural specialists who protect us from imported pests
and disease, and to ensuring that countries like China that
cheat on trade cannot circumvent our trade laws.
But our Customs officers are increasingly under strain.
Staffing shortages mean that officers are asked to work double
shifts, 16-hour days. Some are asked to serve 90-day tours away
from their home and families at facilities that are short-
staffed. It is impossible for this not to take a toll on an
officer's family's home life. Commissioner McAleenan, I know
that this is something that is important to you as well. And I
appreciate that.
Safeguarding our long-term competitiveness also means
making a sustained and coordinated investment in our
infrastructure. Trade is not simply about exports to the rest
of the world; it is about American-made goods flowing to
destinations across our Nation. Our inland waterways are
critical to that competitiveness. Our inland waterways provide
an economical, environmentally friendly mode of transportation.
From Pittsburgh to Louisville to the Twin Cities to St. Louis,
our inland waterways are responsible for shipping billions in
American goods throughout our Nation.
Our inland waterway systems served as an economic backbone
for our country as we grew and expanded, connecting pioneers
with the rest of our country, bringing goods from our
landlocked States to the coast. This system remains the
lynchpin of our intermodal system. One of the first things you
see at the Port of Pittsburgh is the rail lines. They are truly
integrated into the American supply chain, connecting
businesses and their products to markets across the country.
Keeping our waterway infrastructure navigable is critical to
competitiveness for the entire Nation.
To serve our growing U.S. markets, we must make the kind of
concerted infrastructure investments that our parents had the
good sense to provide for us. And we must ensure at the same
time that agencies tasked with protecting our Nation have the
funding they need to execute their jobs to the fullest.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Casey.
[The prepared statement of Senator Casey appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Cornyn. Commissioner McAleenan, if you have an
opening statement, please go ahead. And if you will hold it to
about 5 minutes, that will give us plenty of time for some Q&A.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN K. McALEENAN, COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON,
DC

Commissioner McAleenan. Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member
Casey, distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Trade, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you on these
important matters today. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
protects the people of the United States against dynamic
threats while simultaneously facilitating lawful trade, travel,
and commerce so vital to our Nation's economy. It is a broad
and diverse mission.
Over $4 trillion in international trade moves across our
international borders each year--25 million cargo containers
via sea, truck, and rail. The volume of packages that arrives
via air due to the rise of e-commerce has grown dramatically
over the past 5 years. During that time, CBP has seen nearly a
50-percent increase in express shipments, while international
mail shipments have increased fourfold from approximately 150
million to 500 million. These shipments, like their
containerized counterparts, post potential health and safety
risks to the United States and to the American people.
In terms of illicit narcotics, CBP continues to seize
increasing levels of methamphetamines, heroine, and synthetic
opioids at our ports of entry, both on our southwest border and
in the small parcel environment. We continue to confront trade
violations from dumping and duty evasion to intellectual
property rights to elements of forced labor in our supply
chains. CBP is undertaking a multifaceted effort to address
these trends. It relies on our human capital, advanced
technology and analytics, interagency and international
partnerships, and innovative application of our authorities. To
pursue these efforts, the men and women of CBP are our greatest
asset.
Over the past several years, CBP has faced challenges
meeting our hiring goals, but we are taking those challenges
head-on, making more than 40 improvements to our hiring
process, resulting in significant recruitment and hiring gains
despite record-low unemployment around the United States and
intense competition for highly qualified, mission-inspired
people. We have improved our administration of the polygraph
examination, and we are working with the private sector on best
practices for digital recruiting, applicant care, and
automation to reduce our time to hire.
We have demonstrated the tremendous value of our trade
professionals, from import specialists to regulations and
rulings attorneys, and the value they provide to the U.S.
economy. And we have requested further investments, for which
we will guarantee a return in these personnel, in our annual
budget requests. We are not yet where we need to be on our
staffing, but we are making progress across all categories of
CBP professionals required for our critical mission, and hiring
and sustaining a world-class workforce will continue to be my
top mission support priority for CBP.
Supporting our personnel is an array of technology as part
of a multi-layered risk-based approach to target shipments and
goods entering our country. For CBP, technology is a force
multiplier that helps us work more efficiently with less risk
to our front-line personnel. That starts at our national
targeting center, where every day we analyze 2 million
shipments through advanced systems. Through that intelligence
analysis, comprehensive data analytics, anomaly identification,
and identified trends of concern, CBP is able to segment out
high-risk cargo for additional scrutiny while facilitating the
flow of legitimate trade.
In the field at our ports of entry, CBP utilizes
nonintrusive inspection technology, or NII, to examine and
identify anomalies in shipments or vehicles. These systems
enable CBP officers to rapidly examine conveyances such as
shipping containers or trucks and privately owned vehicles for
presence of contraband. We are investing in new technologies
and capabilities using our Laredo field office, encompassing
several of our busiest land crossings--as you noted, Mr.
Chairman--as a pilot location to continually improve the
technology we use to inspect vehicles entering the country.
Forensic analysis is used to inform our targeting, support
prosecutions, and gather intelligence to continually refine our
enforcement actions. We are expanding that capability to
support controlled substances as well as radiological and
nuclear materials.
Lastly, infrastructure plays a key role in our ability to
detect threats and facilitate trade at our ports of entry. Of
our Nation's 328 official ports of entry, 110 are land ports.
However, most of these inspection facilities were not built to
support post 9/11 security and operational missions, much less
the tremendous growth in international trade and travel. CBP
continues to request funds to construct and modernize these
ports of entry along our northern and southern borders and find
innovative approaches to meet the growing need for new and
expanded facilities.
A key aspect of CBP's resource optimization strategy, in
addition to the workload staffing model, is the exploration of
public-private partnerships through activities such as the
Reimbursable Services Agreements program and potential
acceptance of donations. Thanks to the support of Congress and
the chairman and members of this subcommittee, CBP has expanded
authority to enter into these agreements and accept donations
of real property, personal property, and non-personal services
for activities at ports of entry. That is making an impact and
providing a return on investment.
Both international commerce and the threat environment are
dynamic, and CBP continues to adapt our posture to protect
American security and prosperity. I am proud of the CBP
dedicated workforce. I appreciate your acknowledgment of them.
They continue to meet these challenges with integrity and
commitment.
Thanks again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Commissioner McAleenan appears
in the appendix.]
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Commissioner. We will have 5-
minute rounds.
Let me just start with something that I know will come up.
Senator Casey raised the issue of families coming across the
border.
Secretary Nielsen said that if a family comes across a port
of entry seeking asylum, they are not violating any U.S.
criminal laws; are they?
Commissioner McAleenan. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. They
are not violating any laws presenting without documents and
claiming fair return to their home country.
Senator Cornyn. So the zero tolerance program of 100-
percent enforcement of illegal crossings would not apply in the
case of people coming across the ports of entry; correct?
Commissioner McAleenan. That is correct. There is no
violation of law and no prosecution of those adults who are
arriving at ports of entry.
Senator Cornyn. And so the only time where the zero
tolerance policy would apply, where somebody is committing an
offense under the laws of the United States, would be if they
attempt to enter the country between the ports of entry, which
is illegal; correct?
Commissioner McAleenan. That is correct.
Senator Cornyn. Well I would say, just in conclusion, that
I agree with Senator Casey. And I think all of us agree that
every effort needs to be made to reunify these families. And
Congress needs to come up with a solution here which only it
can provide to that issue.
You talked a little bit about technology at the border. I
remember that years ago--we have been trying to come up with
technology solutions for the U.S.-VISIT program where we are
able to document everybody who enters the country and everybody
who exits the country. I think there are some technological
advances I believe you alluded to, particularly the facial
recognition technology used at airports. Could you expand on
that a little bit?
Commissioner McAleenan. Sure. We are extremely excited
about the developments in technology in facial recognition, in
particular to meet our congressional mandate to take biometric
captures of everyone departing the country. We are working with
airports around the country, already in 12 airports, working
with multiple air carriers, U.S. and international, to test
this technology. We are piloting both an operation where it
serves as the boarding pass for the traveler as well as just a
comparison that allows our system to capture that that traveler
effectively made an exit from the country. We are seeing 98
percent match rates in those comparisons. It is working to help
enable carriers to board aircraft more efficiently.
A380s in Los Angeles International Airport, where we have a
common gate for Lufthansa and British Airways and others, they
are boarding them in half the time they were boarding before,
using our technology, providing that boarding pass capability.
So we think that is a tremendous answer for the entry-exit
mandate and will be a key area of how we transform the arrivals
process, again, to keep up with this growth.
We have had 4-percent growth in international air arrivals
every year since 2009. We are seeing that again this year. To
keep up with that travel, which is so critical to our commerce,
we are going to need to process those travelers more securely
and more efficiently. And facial recognition is going to be a
tremendous part of that. It is already in place in Miami and
other key areas upon arrival, and we are looking forward to
expanding that with our aviation stakeholder partners.
Senator Cornyn. You alluded to this briefly, and it is the
public-private partnerships at the border that help address
some of the infrastructure deficits that we have. And I know
this has been an area where CBP has experimented first with
pilot projects and is now implementing the Border Trade
Enhancement Act to take advantage of the generosity of local
stakeholders, including our cities and counties. How has that
turned out? How has that worked?
Commissioner McAleenan. That has worked tremendously well.
And yes, you are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. We started
with pilots, with your support and others in Congress, to prove
that we could do this, that we could partner with private-
sector entities, with State and local governments in a way that
provided a return on investment that enhanced the services that
we could provide at ports of entry.
So at this point we have 150 Reimbursable Services
Agreements at 111 ports across the country. We are able to
facilitate additional hours for officers either by overtime or
augmenting staff during peak periods. We have had 23
applications for our donation acceptance program, 12 of those
in Texas, where it is going to make a big impact in improving
the flow at our ports of entry on the land border. So we are
very excited about these authorities, and we are trying to
apply them faithfully and to expand our capacity to serve that
commerce.
Senator Cornyn. I recently heard a former head of Southern
Command talk about the transnational criminal organizations
that operate outside of the United States being commodity-
agnostic.
Commissioner McAleenan. Yes.
Senator Cornyn. Which I took to mean they will traffic in
people, they will traffic in contraband like weapons, they will
traffic in drugs, anything that suits their business model and
generates a profit. But could you talk a little bit about the
role of the ports of entry when it comes to illegal drugs,
because it looks to me like the OFO seized 41,000 pounds of
cocaine, 3,700 pounds of heroin, 228 pounds of marijuana, and
52 pounds of methamphetamine. And that was just in fiscal year
2008. But explain to us why it is so important to have the
adequate staffing and the adequate infrastructure at the ports
of entry when it comes to interdicting these illegal drugs.
Commissioner McAleenan. Absolutely. And the TCOs are
definitely commodity-agnostic. Drugs and illicit narcotics are
still their number one profit center, but they are also
profiting from moving people as well to a dramatic extent,
multibillion dollars a year in Mexico alone.
The ports of entry are critical for interdicting illicit
narcotics. That is the pathway of choice into the U.S., across
our southwest border, or through mail or express consignment.
Having adequate personnel to accomplish all of our diverse
missions, from the immigration side, to inspecting for
narcotics, to processing for agriculture protection, to
facilitating lawful trade and travel, is essential.
In the technology investments, we received a significant
plus-up in 2018 from Congress for our nonintrusive inspection
technology. And that is going to let us put a number of
conveyances through secondary examination and identify loads of
drugs that we were not able to see before in both personally
owned vehicles and trucks by actually keeping the travelers in
the vehicle during the x-ray.
The new systems are safe to use with people in vehicles,
and it is a very exciting development. We appreciate Congress's
support in that area.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
Commissioner, I wanted to start with a topic that is
important to me and I think important to people in both
parties, and that is how we counter terrorism financing. I have
had major legislation on this that focuses on this problem. I
know there are a number of agencies and also a number of
committees here in the Senate that focus on it.
I know that when you were going through the confirmation
process, you provided responses to us that we appreciated on
this topic. I guess two basic questions--could you discuss, to
the extent that you are able in this setting, the work that is
ongoing within your agency to coordinate with the rest of the
intelligence community to identify and investigate both
suspected modes as well as means of terrorism finance,
including trade-based money laundering and other means of
threat finance?
Commissioner McAleenan. Absolutely. Given CBP's posture at
the border, we have unique regulatory responsibility and access
to data on people and goods crossing that border. So we bring a
tremendous amount to the table when we are working with
interagency partners on investigative efforts to counter threat
finance, specifically for terrorism groups that do use the U.S.
economy to help raise money on the gray market, whether it is
trafficking in used vehicles or just trade-based money
laundering, intellectual property rights violations.
We have had several significant cases that we have
disrupted along with our partners at Homeland Security
Investigations in Senator Menendez's State and others. And we
have created a counter network division at the National
Targeting Center to specifically address these kinds of
concerns, where we can identify those connections between
illicit parties trying to use our commerce to raise money and
partnering with HSI right there at our NTC. They have a
division at the National Targeting Center for Investigations
sitting alongside us building these cases and then taking
action.
We are trying to use all of the authorities across the
agency. We have seen Treasury name a number of parties, denied
parties based on analysis that has been done at our National
Targeting Center, to prevent them from using our banking system
for accessing our commercial supply chain. We are very proud of
this work. We have expanded it significantly with support from
Congress over the last 5 years, and we intend to continue to
drive forward in that area. It is a critical mission for us.
Senator Casey. Thank you for that.
I would ask you generally, but in particular in this area,
if there are resources or authorities that you need to help
you, over the course of today, would you present those to us or
itemize them?
I want to go back to, as well--in the remaining time I have
in this round--to ask you about the budget again. I was
highlighting before the staffing levels.
According to your workload model, Customs would need to
hire an additional 2,500 officers, 721 agriculture specialists
to achieve its staffing targets. I know at the airport in
Philly alone, just in that one place, we are short 8 to 10
Customs officers. So there is an understaffing issue. To say I
was disappointed is an understatement that Director Mulvaney
did not ask for additional appropriated funds to address the
shortfall. But we can work together here to address it. We have
officers who are regularly asked to do double shifts, as I
mentioned, assignments away from their families. That can
affect the family as well as morale.
Can you walk through some of the strains just by way, if
you could, of itemizing where you need the most help in terms
of getting those dollars up for staffing?
Commissioner McAleenan. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for
asking about our staffing approaches for the ports of entry. We
were very pleased to receive support from Congress for 328
officers in the fiscal year 2018 budget. We intend to make that
hiring goal this year. We are making very good progress towards
it. We also saw in the Senate Appropriations Committee markup
continued support for CBP officers through appropriated
dollars, 375 additional officers, which is outstanding.
Just to clarify, this is an effort across the last two
administrations to provide a workload staffing model that gives
a good sense of the number of staff we need to carry out our
mission effectively based on volume, workload, emerging and
changing threats, but also the technology and the partnerships
we were able to bring to bear on our mission set.
Alongside that staffing model, we submitted to Congress
authorizing language requesting the ability to increase our
fees. In several cases, it has been over 15 years since we have
had any update of those fees. They have not kept pace with
inflation. And the requested increases in those fees we have
asked for would meet and exceed, actually, the total number of
staff that we have requested under the workload staffing model.
So that is something we would like to partner on. We do
believe that that is an ongoing partnership with the trade and
travel industries to make sure that we can provide the services
they need.
Senator Casey. Great. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Senator Cornyn. Senator Isakson?
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Senator Cornyn.
Welcome. Glad to have you.
At your confirmation, we discussed the numbers of employees
in CBP at the port of Savannah. Since the time we passed the
Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015, have you utilized any of
the programs in the 2015 act to expand employment at Savannah
or any other port in the country?
Commissioner McAleenan. We have made use of every authority
that Congress has given us in terms of streamlining and
enhancing our hiring. About 30 percent of our workforce are
veterans. We have done outreach to DoD across multiple major
bases where we have significant numbers of transitioning
members so that we can onboard them more efficiently--we can
treat their outgoing medical exam as our inbound medical exam,
for instance. And our hiring of veterans has increased.
And Savannah is no exception. My head of trade relations is
in Savannah today meeting with port authority leadership as
well as our Office of Trade Executive Director talking about
how we can keep up with the growth there in Savannah with the
additional dredging and the depth of the channel that you have
there. It is a critical port and an important partnership for
us.
Senator Isakson. We have 800,000 veterans in the State--
retirees. We have a number of bases in the State, many of them
close to the port of Savannah.
You probably do not have a better-qualified potential
candidate for employment for your responsibilities than your
veteran who has come back from training and services with the
country. So I am glad you are utilizing that. I hope you will
continue to.
As chairman of the Veterans Committee in the Senate, any
way we can be of help to you to promote your operation as a
place for veterans to come and work, we will be sure to do
that. Get in touch with our staff and give them any information
you would like us to have. We will disseminate that information
very readily.
Second on the port of Savannah, we are very proud of that
port. It is the largest boat port on the east coast of the
United States and profitable. It is being expanded thanks to
the graciousness of members of the House and Senate and the
President of the United States, the last three Presidents of
the United States. We are going to get to 47 feet within about
3 to 4 years. It is going to be bringing in the new Seamax
ships coming in, which carry 14,000 containers per boat. To
give you a little comparison, the boats they get now carry
9,000. So it is about a 30-percent increase in throughput.
My question is this: we have the Elba Island liquefied
natural gas port there. We have the tremendous number of tons
of materials coming in there. We have lots of ships from all
around the world coming in there. I am always concerned about
the security and how well we are enforcing the security, vis-a-
vis the potential of a terrorist attack. We have not had one,
and I hope we never do have one. But one of the reasons you do
not ever have one is the preparation you do to prepare
yourself--preparing for them.
Could you tell me for a minute, in terms of that port, how
you feel about our security in its current form? And do you see
any additional needs that we need to provide for you to be sure
it is as secure as possible?
Commissioner McAleenan. Sure, Senator. So on our security,
it is a collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard. They are the
lead for port security. As you know, Commandant Schultz, former
Atlantic Area Commander, has a very good handle on other port
security issues in Savannah and really all over the eastern
seaboard and around the country.
For CBP, we partnered directly with the Coast Guard, both
at the national level and in the field. Coast Guard has their
targeting unit sitting with us at our National Targeting
Center. So we are looking at the same data collected under
Coast Guard authority, but then processed and analyzed with CBP
systems to provide targets for them to look at, both in terms
of any risk presented by the passengers and crew on a vessel,
but also the cargo on that vessel.
So we have an integrated risk assessment process of the
people and goods on that vessel that are then conveyed out to
our field elements for appropriate action. The captain of the
port then decides which vessels they need to escort in and
provides safety.
CBP helps--from an immigration perspective--determine which
people and crew we might need to hold on board during their
stay in the U.S. and make sure they are secured during the time
they are in port. And that is a collaborative process, and I
think it works very well.
I will definitely circle back with my Coast Guard
counterparts to see if there are unmet needs in that port
security effort in Savannah or elsewhere. But we feel pretty
good about our collaboration and our common operating picture
that we have at this point.
Senator Isakson. That did not prompt the question. What
prompted the question, however, was to get a little information
out to the public.
I have people ask me sometimes, how in the world do you
protect the port? And I start off by telling them about the
known shipper program, and I tell them about the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard in Savannah flies out to the outer marker
where the ships report that come in and have not filed a known
shipper at the point of embarkation--when they left to come.
That ship is searched 3 miles out with the help of the Coast
Guard.
Commissioner McAleenan. Right.
Senator Isakson. The ships that are fully locked up, fully
searched, and fully inventoried when they come in--they come in
and can offload and unload pretty quickly. So the shippers are
motivated to bring in a full cargo that is completely itemized,
completely reported, easy to inspect. So you have a great
secure system, and the Coast Guard does a magnificent job.
Commissioner McAleenan. Tremendous.
Senator Isakson. Seeing to it that we get those inspections
done--so, I wanted that information to get out to every
Georgian and really every American, because of the value of
those ports.
Thank you for your service.
Commissioner McAleenan. Thank you.
Senator Cornyn. Senator Portman?
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner McAleenan, thank you for your service and that
of your officers. We appreciate what they do every day,
including of course, interdicting heroin, fentanyl, other drugs
coming into our country. We are trying to help you on that, by
the way.
The STOP Act, as you and I have talked about many times,
would be a tremendous help to give you the data that you need
to interdict these packages that are coming in from overseas,
primarily, mostly from China. As you know, fentanyl is now the
number one killer in my home State, and I believe among the
opioids, the number one killer in the country. So we hope to
follow suit with the House very shortly and get you those
tools.
I talked to you very briefly before the hearing started to
warn you about what I was going to talk about, but it is a big
issue. But you have a specific role that would really help. And
it has to do with these steel tariffs, their impact on our
economy, and how we go about ensuring a level playing field.
The section 232 measures which are under a national
security waiver under our trade law, do not require us to show
an injury to our industry. They do not require us to show any
unfair trade. But as you can see, other countries are
retaliating aggressively against us as we use this tool. My
fear is those trade escalations will continue and it is going
to hurt our consumers, but also our exporters and our
manufacturers.
So what is the problem? Well, the major problem--everybody
seems to agree--is over-capacity, steel production in this
world. And primarily that is China. About 15 years ago they had
15 percent of the global production. Now they have about half
of the global production. And they do sell their steel at below
cost. We have been able to show that and win some trade cases
on that. And I think that is good. One of the problems is, they
try to ship it through other countries. And that is why,
working with Senator Wyden and others, we passed this
legislation called the Enforce and Protect Act, also known as
the Enforce Act, because we recognized the overcapacity problem
and wanted to deal with the duty evasion issue and the
transshipment issue.
And we have vested a lot of responsibility in you and your
people. I know you have a lot to do with people and drugs, and
other issues related to commerce. But this one is really
important. And frankly, I do not know that we would need to
have a 232 case and have all of the potentially negative
consequences that come from that if we were doing a better job
on transshipment.
I know you appreciate its importance. We have had some
successes in the wire coat hanger case. For example, the
Enforce Act was essential in saving the last manufacturer in
the United States. We could not have done it without the
legislation, without your help. Unfortunately, with all of the
things that distracted your people and your lack of hiring and
so on--we talked about it earlier--the legislation remains
underutilized. One reason, I think, is that we do not see as
many allegations as we should, because we do not have this
ability to have Administrative Protective Orders.
The International Trade Commission, Department of Commerce
both successfully used the APOs, Administrative Protective
Orders, to facilitate confidential information-sharing with
interested parties. And I strongly believe that there is an
opportunity to apply that here to the Enforce Act.
I have heard from a lot of stakeholders about this. They
want this process at CBP, because they understand how useful it
can be. I know you do not have the legal authority to do it
yourself, but I want to hear from you today, do you believe
that creation of an APO process under the Enforce Act would
make the process more useful for petitioners, and thus increase
the number of petitions?
Commissioner McAleenan. Thank you, Senator, for the
question and to the committee for the authority under the
Enforce Act which we have taken on, implementing an interim
final rule within 6 months of the passage of the Trade
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act.
We are now up to 20 investigations, 9 completed, $50
million in evasion prevention accomplished. We have done
foreign site visits in over 18 locations, which have really
given us a sense of where there is a fraudulent issue, a fake
transshipment, if you will. We are able to actually look at
that factor using our international network, our partnership
with foreign governments and with HSI.
Senator Portman. By the way, your interim rules came out in
August of 2016.
Commissioner McAleenan. Correct.
Senator Portman. We are still waiting for the final
regulation. So if you could also tell us today when you expect
those final regulations to come out, that would be helpful. Do
you have an answer on that?
Commissioner McAleenan. Actually, I think that depends on
the second half of your question, the ongoing lessons learned
from these 20 investigations and incoming allegations under the
Enforce Act, the lessons we take from those and how we want to
apply them in a final rule.
The Administrative Protective Order process is something
that we have looked at and that we are happy to have an ongoing
conversation with Congress about. As you noted, we do not have
the authority or the resources to implement it today.
Senator Portman. Do you think it would be helpful?
Commissioner McAleenan. I think that the key elements of
it, the sharing of additional information----
Senator Portman. Confidential----
Commissioner McAleenan [continuing]. With interested
parties is very helpful. And whether we can do that through a
final rule on our own, or whether an APO would materially
advance that, that is worth discussing. Absolutely.
Senator Portman. But you want to get that confidential
information. Another area where we can improve the Enforce Act
would be to allow petitioners to file allegations when the
importer is not known, because that is the case sometimes. They
see innovation coming. They are tracking prices, market
dynamics--they know it is happening. They just are not sure who
is doing it.
Again, legal authority aside, do you believe that
permitting allegations when an importer is unknown would make
the process more useful for petitioners and help increase the
number of petitions?
Commissioner McAleenan. Yes. We agree with that. That is an
improvement we would like to make in the process.
Senator Portman. That sounds like the first change you
would like to make, whether it is through an APO or some other
way, and the second one, you believe people ought to be able to
file these cases without knowing the importer?
Commissioner McAleenan. Correct.
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cornyn. Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, let me first salute the men and women in the
service who work at Port Elizabeth in Newark and Newark
International Airport. They do a fantastic job at the mega-port
of the east coast. We appreciate their work.
But I want to turn to a line of questioning that started
off where the chairman started off his line of questioning. On
June 18th, Secretary Nielsen said that if an adult enters at a
port of entry and claims asylum, they will not face prosecution
for illegal entry. They have not committed a crime by coming to
the port of entry.
And the same day the Department of Homeland Security called
it a myth that families who cross the borders seeking asylum at
ports of entry are separated. But advocates and press stories
tell us a different story.
How many children were, in fact, separated from their
parents at ports of entry during the family separation policy?
Commissioner McAleenan. Under the zero tolerance and
prosecutions, family separation efforts, zero. We had seven
separations during that time period that were due to an
unproven family relationship or an unrelated criminal history
or violation.
There were several thousand, 5,200 families, that arrived
during that time frame. None of them was separated due to
prosecution just for claiming asylum.
Senator Menendez. None at a port of entry? You are telling
me none at a port of entry was separated?
Commissioner McAleenan. Not purely for the zero tolerance
initiative. There had to be an underlying criminal history
element or something else in the presentation, fraud or not a
family relationship.
Senator Menendez. That would be the only reason they would
have been separated?
Commissioner McAleenan. Correct.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you this: one of the things
that we keep hearing about is that DHS has repeatedly
encouraged migrants seeking asylum first to do it in their home
country, but if not, to do it--to cross at ports of entry and
not in between ports of entry.
Now we have seen pictures of Customs officers standing on
bridges on the border in El Paso keeping migrants on the
Mexican side of the border. And that has prompted some of those
seeking asylum to set up camps on the bridges while they are
waiting to make an asylum claim. Now CBP claims that no one at
a port of entry is being denied an opportunity to make a claim
of asylum, but that there are capacity issues. Effectively,
asylum seekers are being turned away at ports of entry and told
to come back later.
How long are the wait times at the port of entry on the
southern border to receive families who are claiming asylum?
Commissioner McAleenan. Sure. This is something we monitor
very carefully. We have a daily report that I receive, that our
Executive Assistant Commissioner for Field Operations receives.
And on any given day at our 26 international crossings at that
southwest border, there might be 3 to 4 ports that have any
wait time for people who want to present without documents.
Generally, one or two of the ports in Texas will have 10 to 50
people waiting. They will be waiting a matter of hours,
generally processed in the same day.
The one outlier we have is the port of entry in San Isidro,
which is between San Diego and Tijuana, as you know, where the
majority of people arriving seeking asylum come in. There is a
shelter network there. There is an effort coordinated by our
Mexican counterparts to provide people awareness on when they
can come to the port of entry--when we have space.
But that balance to try to make sure that people are housed
in space where we have capacity, where it is a safe and
appropriate environment, as well as balancing across all of the
other missions that we have talked about, is what we are trying
to manage.
Senator Menendez. How many potential asylum seekers are
waiting on the other side--have waited, have presented
themselves formally to a port of entry, but cannot be processed
because of capacity issues?
Commissioner McAleenan. Border-wide or in San Isidro?
Senator Menendez. Let us start with San Isidro. You said
that is the biggest.
Commissioner McAleenan. San Isidro is--the 95-plus percent
of the folks waiting are in San Isidro. It is over 1,000 right
now.
Senator Menendez. Over 1,000?
Commissioner McAleenan. Correct.
Senator Menendez. How long have they been waiting there?
Commissioner McAleenan. On average, 7 to 14 days is the
current information I have.
Senator Menendez. And what have you instructed CBP
officials to tell individuals seeking asylum when they come to
a port of entry, and what are you doing to accelerate the
ability to actually take their asylum applications?
Commissioner McAleenan. So as you know, our ability to take
people in depends on our counterparts in the immigration system
to pick them up after we finish processing them at the port of
entry. So it depends on ICE capacity to pick people up who are
in our custody. It depends on our staffing capacity.
Just to give the committee and the people watching a sense
of how much effort goes into this, at San Isidro, where we have
130,000 people arriving a day, 20-plus percent of our arrivals
on the southwest border, we take about 10 to 15 percent of our
staff----
Senator Menendez. Those are not asylum seekers.
Commissioner McAleenan. No. Those are lawful travelers for
commerce. We take about 10 to 15 percent of our staff to focus
on those arriving without documents. And we are taking in
anywhere from 50 to 100 a day. So it is a huge effort to
carefully process them, to do interviews and sworn statements.
And we are trying to balance that against that lawful travel
and the fact that San Isidro is one of our top locations for
illicit narcotics trying to enter the country.
So it is a balance every day. We are trying to take in as
many people as we can who present without documents. As you
point out, that is the lawful, appropriate way to seek asylum
in the U.S.
Senator Menendez. I will submit the question for the
record, but I would like to know what is the totality of the
other port sites. This is the largest one, obviously, but I
would like to know the totality.
Commissioner McAleenan. Today there was one port with 50,
and another with 25 waiting.
Senator Menendez. That is it.
Commissioner McAleenan. Correct.
Senator Menendez. That is it. Okay.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Senator. Senator Carper?
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Commissioner. It is good to see you. Thank you very much for
your service.
A couple of weeks ago, I believe, the Vice President was
going to head down to Latin America. He apparently had planned
to make a stop in, I think, Guatemala. And it ended up being a
longer stop than was initially anticipated.
My understanding is that he may have met with the President
of Guatemala, maybe the President of Honduras, and maybe the
Vice President of El Salvador. I have not heard much at all
about that meeting.
But as you and I know, you and I and others on this
committee, including our co-chairs, are interested in root
causes, not just addressing symptoms of the problems, but root
causes.
I have not talked to the Vice President lately to see what
kind of takeaways did he get from the meeting, what transpired.
Did they discuss Alliance for Prosperity? Do you have any--can
you shed any light on that?
Commissioner McAleenan. Certainly. I appreciate the
question, Senator Carper. Good to see you.
I had a chance to talk to the Vice President about some of
these issues before his trip, how important this engagement in
Central America is. Secretary Nielsen has been championing this
effort as well. She actually flew down and spent that day with
the Vice President in Guatemala and then subsequently led a
delegation down last Friday.
I joined her, along with a number of State Department
officials, Ron Vitiello, the Acting Director at ICE, to meet
with our northern triangle counterparts, foreign ministers and
interior ministers, but also Mexico, because it has to be a
shared effort. Canada sent a delegation as well to participate
in those discussions.
Senator Carper. Give us a report on those discussions.
Commissioner McAleenan. They were robust. Obviously, there
was discussion about U.S. immigration policy and enforcement
efforts, but also talk about how we can collaborate together on
getting clear messaging to potential migrants leaving the
northern triangle.
Their desire is to keep their youth and energy home, to
invest in them, to create economic opportunity. So they wanted
us to share that effort to message. We also talked, of course,
about tackling the smuggling organizations. But very
importantly, we had an extensive dialogue about the economic
prosperity opportunities.
The government of El Salvador talked about the Customs
union that they are creating among the three northern triangle
countries. I will be going down in September to talk about how
CBP, ideally with Mexico----
Senator Carper. When in September?
Commissioner McAleenan. Mid-September right now is the date
we are planning.
We want to bring a package of support, both on the security
side where we are already having vetted units--we are already
helping them with their targeting systems. But we want to add
that Customs element. If they could collect duties and VAT
taxes with integrity and transparency, that would add to the
government collections, enable them to invest in their economic
efforts. So it has really got to be multifaceted.
We then met with the ambassadors 4 days later, on Thursday
to----
Senator Carper. Do we have ambassadors in all three
countries?
Commissioner McAleenan. We do. Yes, CBP has staff in all
three countries on site as attaches, as well as advisors.
Senator Carper. We have confirmed ambassadors in all three
countries?
Commissioner McAleenan. I am sorry about that. I do not
know. I think we may have a charge in one of the three.
Senator Carper. Okay.
Commissioner McAleenan. But we met with the ambassadors
from the northern triangle then, that Thursday. My team met
with them again Monday on the messaging, and we have a vice-
ministerial meeting in Tegucigalpa on the 26th.
So the root cause effort, which has had bipartisan support
from Congress, to invest in the Alliance for Prosperity is
robust. It is a strong commitment from State alongside Homeland
Security, and CBP is committed to being part of that solution.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks. Let us stay in touch on this.
I have a longtime interest and very much want to stay on top of
it. That is good. I need to get back down there soon.
Commissioner McAleenan. Okay.
Senator Carper. Maybe September. We will see.
Commissioner McAleenan. All right. That would be great.
Senator Carper. I will be your wingman.
Commissioner McAleenan. Okay.
Senator Carper. Just to switch gears a little bit, aside
from root causes and addressing the root causes, give us one or
two other appropriate measures that are on your mind, the front
of your mind, toward reducing migration from the northern
triangle these days.
Commissioner McAleenan. Right. So I think we have to have
regional efforts to align migration policies and to make sure
that there are safety valves for those who need protections
without putting themselves in the hands of smugglers.
The situation we have now, with the most vulnerable people
in our hemisphere putting themselves in the hands of the most
violent criminal organizations in the world, is not acceptable.
They are profiting on the backs of these vulnerable people.
They are fighting over the territory, the access to the
river, in a way that is absolutely devastating to the people of
Tamaulipas, where they have had a 100-percent increase in the
murder rate in the last 18 months, based on an organization
just fighting for that last inch to the river where they are
able to charge an extra $500 to everybody trying to cross into
the U.S. illegally.
One hundred and twenty-two politicians were killed in
Mexico in the last election cycle--122 candidates. That is
fueled by our drug demand and fueled by our immigration policy.
So we need to find a way with the transition process, with
the new government, the President-Elect, to continue our
collaboration on targeting these networks, to partner on
migration flows in a way that reduces the demand and keeps it
out of the hands of these criminals.
Senator Carper. Thanks. I would just say to our chair and
ranking member that maybe the idea of a Senate delegation with
just Senators whose last names start with ``C'' should go down
to visit the northern triangle this fall.
Senator Cornyn. On some day that ends in ``y.'' [Laughter.]
Senator Carper's comments about ambassadors, and about
State Department and other staffing down in Central America, I
think are entirely appropriate. Secretary Pompeo, whom I
happened to talk to last night, confirmed that there are a lot
of vacancies in U.S. representatives, ambassadors, diplomatic
representation. And if we are going to try to figure out a
solution to this problem on a regional basis, like the
Commissioner said, we are going to have to have our best people
confirmed and in place.
Perhaps that is something we can work on together, along
with our friend from Pennsylvania, because that should not be
about politics. That ought to be about trying to advance
American interests and come up with solutions. So I appreciate
you raising that issue.
Commissioner, thank you very much for being here. There is
so much more we could talk about. But you have been very
patient along with the rest of our second panel. So we will
excuse you for now, and we will look forward to staying in
touch and trying to support your mission the best we can.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner McAleenan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. Great panel behind me here, so I will get out of the
way.
Senator Cornyn. Thanks to our second panel for joining us
today and providing your perspective on our Nation's ports of
entry. I see two good friends there from Texas. The first is
Mr. Sergio Contreras, the vice chairman of the Border Trade
Alliance, who also serves as president of the Rio Grande
Valley, Texas Partnership.
Our second witness is my friend Pete Saenz, the honorable
Mayor of Laredo, chairman of the Texas Border Coalition. And I
am sure he will tell us about the number of trucks and trade
that come across the border in Laredo, TX, which I think will
blow everybody away. They have no idea of the volume of trade
and legitimate commerce that crosses that land border.
Our third witness today is Mary Ann Bucci. Mary Ann is
Executive Director of the Port of Pittsburgh Commission. That
is in Pennsylvania, is it not?
Ms. Bucci. It is.
Senator Cornyn. Okay. And finally, our fourth witness is
Mr. Kurt Nagle. Mr. Nagle is the president and CEO of the
American Association of Port Authorities. Mr. Nagle, welcome
here today.
I would ask each of you to provide some brief opening
remarks. If you would keep it to 5 minutes or less, then that
would give us a chance to have a conversation. So, Mr.
Contreras, you are now recognized for your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF SERGIO CONTRERAS, VICE CHAIRMAN, BORDER TRADE
ALLIANCE, WESLACO, TX

Mr. Contreras. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Casey, for the
record, my name is Sergio Contreras. I am president and CEO of
the Rio Grande Valley Partnership, a regional chamber of
commerce in south Texas's Rio Grande Valley. I appear before
you, however, in my capacity as vice chairman of the Border
Trade Alliance, an organization that for 30 years has provided
analysis and advocacy on issues pertaining to the U.S.-Canada
and U.S.-Mexico border regions. I appreciate the invitation to
provide a few remarks. I have also submitted a longer written
statement for the record.
We applaud the members of this subcommittee for taking the
time to delve into the issues facing our ports of entry. Nearly
9 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Canada. Five million
U.S. jobs can be attributed to trade with Mexico.
Our three nations' supply chains are deeply integrated,
which has created a highly efficient, just-in-time
manufacturing environment that has resulted in an enhanced
quality of life throughout the region. Just moving goods across
the continent was responsible for nearly 50,000 jobs in the
trucking industry alone in 2016.
From fresh fruits and vegetables on their way to U.S.
grocery stores, ensuring that produce is never out of season,
to workers, shoppers, and tourists crossing to enjoy
attractions on the other side of the border or to visit family
and friends, or to component parts moving back and forth before
they become a part of a finished product, by any measure, well-
functioning ports of entry are essential to our Nation's
economic health and security. The BTA has long supported
additional resources for Customs and Border Protection
personnel for technology and infrastructure improvements to
increase legitimate trade and protect our Nation. The reason is
simple. More resources devoted to inspecting and clearing
legitimate freight and travelers means more resources for
interdiction.
Here are a few items the BTA would urge you to keep in
mind. CBP hiring takes too long, and it has too many unfilled
positions. In an April 2016 hearing of the Border and Maritime
Security Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee,
CBP acknowledged the agency's 18-month hiring process proves
challenging to its recruitment efforts.
Encouragingly, the trend lines of hiring appear headed in
the right direction. But there is still plenty of room for
improvement. According to a GAO report released last month,
thanks to improved recruiting efforts, applications to CBP for
fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2017 more than tripled. And a
larger percentage of applicants are getting hired.
Unfortunately, however, it still took more than 300 days on
average for CBP officer applicants to complete the hiring
process.
Our organization and members of both parties have supported
reforms that would ease CBP's hiring struggles, including
legislation that would streamline recruiting by waiving the
existing polygraph exams for current State or local law
enforcement officers in good standing. Approaches to
recruitment like this are important as we seek new ways to
attract talented, qualified individuals into CBP careers.
Border delays are expensive, and they hurt our
competitiveness and quality of life. There have been
deployments of late, however, that the BTA hopes are a sign of
positive signs to come. The BTA is very encouraged by the
concept of unified cargo processing, known as UCP, that has
been deployed to ports of entry along the Mexico border whereby
U.S. and Mexican personnel work side-by-side on U.S. soil to
conduct outbound and inbound inspections.
UCP represents an example of making our ports of entry more
efficient through better regulations, while ensuring security
and increasing capacity. Aging, outmoded infrastructure is also
a major challenge for the trade community. But the trade
community now has a viable option to work in tandem with State
and Federal partners to supplement staffing levels and improve
infrastructure to support secure international trade.
Under Reimbursable Service Agreements, local governments
and private-sector entities can apply available funds to secure
expanded services at their ports to facilitate trade and travel
processing. Federal agencies must recognize that a demonstrable
return on investment will be critical to attract private
dollars to these programs. CBP should be prepared to
demonstrate the financial upside for private-sector
participation, including through increased trade throughput.
Finally, we would recommend that the construction of new
ports of entry should only be undertaken where trade flows
justify new facilities. We believe that infrastructure
improvements and new construction should be made only at those
land ports of entry where traffic volumes make such upgrades
absolutely necessary. New construction where traffic volumes
are flat or declining diverts limited resources, especially
budget dollars allocated for inspection personnel, away from
those locations where they are needed most.
On behalf of the Border Trade Alliance, thank you for this
opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Contreras.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Contreras appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Saenz?

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE SAENZ, MAYOR, CITY OF LAREDO, AND
CHAIRMAN, TEXAS BORDER COALITION, AUSTIN, TX

Mayor Saenz. Yes, thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, I am Pete Saenz, Mayor of
the city of Laredo, chairman of the Texas Border Coalition,
TBC, speaking on behalf of more than 2 million Texans in 17
border counties of the 1,250 mile Texas-Mexico border. Thank
you for the opportunity to speak before you today regarding the
role border ports of entry play in our Nation's economy and its
security, and the improvements needed to increase efficiencies
in all such areas.
The widening U.S. trade war with Mexico, with Canada,
Europe, and China threatens sustained economic growth. Congress
and the White House need to end tariff uncertainty and improve
NAFTA, which is the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA
modernization is needed to address changes in economic climates
and technology. But we propose that it be done in a manner that
does no harm.
CBP is the second-largest revenue collection agency and
collects more than $44 billion in revenue per year for the
Federal Government. Some of it is used at ports of entry. We
need more money.
The three key elements of ports of entry operations revolve
around staffing, as you have discussed, infrastructure, and
technology. The combination of higher volumes of goods crossing
our ports of entry and the enhanced post-September 11, 2001
security procedures have led to longer wait times.
The Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress finds
that border delays cost the U.S. economy as much as $5.8
billion each year. The fiscal year 2018 workload staff model
and the agriculture resource allocation model show we are
understaffed 2,516 CBP officers and 721 agriculture
specialists. While the administration's fiscal year 2019 budget
provides no new funding to address the CBP officer staffing
shortage, we truly appreciate your, the Senate's, allocation of
375 new officers.
Also integral to the reduction of wait times is the
continued implementation of CBP operational strategies. We
support: (1) the dual U.S.-Mexico Federal inspection program;
(2) the expansion of certified trusted carrier programs, to
include pre-cleared certified mechanical truck and trailer
inspections as well, and utilization of dedicated FAST lanes;
and (3) increased inspection lanes and staff, and the
installation of state-of-the-art technology at land ports and
also Border Patrol highway checkpoints. We cannot forget about
those, and we are also in support of interagency data sharing
between Customs and Border Patrol highway stations to reduce
the duplication of inspections. Roads and highways leading to
and from border points of entry are equally important to the
free flow of goods and services.
We fully support innovative financing mechanisms that
enhance public-private partnerships, including Senator Cornyn's
and Senator Warner's proposal to improve private activity
bonds. Thank you.
While the donation asset program has successfully offered
and acquired donated assets at our border crossings, the $50-
million limit set for new Federal Government-owned land ports
of entry is a barrier and does not allow for that return on
investment needed when considering higher-cost projects. One
such project is the need of financing the city of Laredo I-35,
I-69 west corridor leading to and from the World Trade Bridge
port of entry. The total project cost is estimated to be $130
million, of which $78 million could be and would be federally
funded.
In regard to border security, the Texas Border Coalition
proposes that a one-size-fits-all barrier approach to border
security is not the solution. CBP data suggests between 80 and
85 percent of smuggled cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and
fentanyl enters the U.S. through the ports of entry. As stated
before, to combat the drug supply, we must increase personnel,
technology, and infrastructure needed at the ports of entry.
In terms of building a border wall, it is vital to consider
the border terrain. TBC supports that a mile-by-mile test be
conducted to determine whether a physical, or a virtual wall,
or other tactic would be the least costly and most effective
security solution.
Finally, it is important to add that we support the work of
ICE and their efforts to ensure homeland security and public
safety. However, zero tolerance must be redefined to ensure the
humane treatment of persons and families. We urge Congress to
pass a permanent legislative solution protecting against a
separation of families at the border and the indefinite
detention of families.
On behalf of TBC, thank you so much for the opportunity to
contribute to these important matters. And I will answer any
questions that you may have at the appropriate time.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mayor.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Saenz appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Cornyn. Ms. Bucci?

STATEMENT OF MARY ANN BUCCI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF
PITTSBURGH COMMISSION, PITTSBURGH, PA

Ms. Bucci. Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Casey, and
members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My testimony will focus on the importance of
ports in the waterway transportation system, and their
importance to our national economy, trade, and competitiveness.
I am the Executive Director of the Port of Pittsburgh
Commission, located in Pittsburgh, PA. In order to create jobs
and improve the quality of life in southwestern Pennsylvania,
it is the mission of the Port of Pittsburgh Commission to
promote commercial use and development of the inland waterway-
intermodal transportation system and to integrate that system
into an economic, recreational, environmental, and intermodal
future for all the residents and industries in southwestern
Pennsylvania.
There are 12,000 miles of navigable inland and intra-
coastal waterways transporting more than 550 million tons of
cargo valued at over $300 billion. The Port of Pittsburgh
handled 22.5 million tons of cargo in 2016. This included 15
million tons of coal and over 1 million tons of petroleum
products. Another 5 million tons was comprised of sand, gravel,
and other basic building materials. Because cargo must pass
through several locks as it moves through our port, our locks
are quite busy, locking through an average of 100 million tons
of cargo or 130,000 barges.
Beyond enabling commercial and recreational transportation,
the inland waterways provide flood control, enable stable water
supply for communities and industries, facilitate hydroelectric
power, offer recreation such as fishing and water sports,
enhance regional economic development, and secure our national
defense. The ports and inland waterways also provide one of the
best returns on investment. According to the Corps of
Engineers, for every dollar expended by Corps Civil Works
Mission projects, $16 is generated in annual net economic
benefits to the Nation. According to the International Trade
Administration, Pennsylvania has 176,000 jobs that are
supported by exports, ranking 11th among all States.
America's inland waterways system is number one in the
world, but it is not without its challenges, as international
competitors continue to improve their systems and facilities.
More than half of the locks and dams on the U.S. inland
waterways are past their 50-year design life, with most locks
and dams built in the 1930s. In fact, Pittsburgh has some of
the oldest locks and dams in the Nation. Our locks and dams,
and our ports, require attention and financial recapitalization
for operation and maintenance, dredging, and channel and harbor
improvements to maintain reliability and sustain the Nation's
economic well-being and standard of living.
Currently, there are 25 high-priority inland projects
underway or awaiting construction on the inland waterways
system. A top priority project is the Lower Monongahela Locks
2, 3, and 4, located in my backyard of Pittsburgh. The problem
is that the process to construct the lock and dam projects in 3
to 6 years--as they were built in the 1930s and 1940s--take
decades.
The Lower Mon project is in its 24th year of construction,
a project that should have been completed in 20 years. Not only
are we in the 24th year of a 10-year project, the project will
come in under-delivered with only one reliable lock chamber
being completed. The initial project cost was $750 million with
an estimated completion date of 2004. The current cost is now
$1,230,000,000 with an estimated completion date of 2022.
For Pittsburgh and America to stay competitive in foreign
markets, we must get back to constructing navigation projects
in less than 5 years. The Upper Ohio Navigation Study has been
going on for 17 years at a cost of over $19.5 million thus far.
It is now in its third iteration of the study. Each year the
project delay costs approximately $1.3 billion in economic
loss. A major failure on the Upper Ohio River would shut down
the entire port of Pittsburgh.
New industries are coming to Pittsburgh, such as the Shell
Chemical plant. The plant will support 600 permanent jobs and
will utilize 6,000 construction workers. It will consume
105,000 barrels of ethane per day and produce 1.6 million tons
of polyethylene pellets per year.
The waterways truly deliver for southwestern Pennsylvania,
for the Ohio Valley, and the Nation. But the current rate of
investment means that many priority projects will not begin
construction within the next 20 years, as our foreign
competitors outspend us to modernize their infrastructure to
get ahead.
As this subcommittee continues to consider trade and
commerce in the United States, I urge you to appreciate the
conduit of the inland waterways and the port system to American
competitiveness and growth. Modernizing our ports and rivers is
an investment in our Nation's continued economic prosperity,
because grain, petroleum, steel, chemicals, building materials,
and over a half-million jobs are riding on our waterway
transportation system and through our ports.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
providing me this opportunity to be here today and address this
critically important subject.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bucci appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Nagle?

STATEMENT OF KURT NAGLE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES, ALEXANDRIA, VA

Mr. Nagle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Casey. Thank you for inviting the American Association of Port
Authorities to testify at this hearing on trade and commerce at
U.S. ports of entry. At a time when the Federal Government is
focused on creating American jobs, propelling the economy, and
modernizing infrastructure, the role played by the Nation's
ports and freight transportation system is more critical than
ever.
U.S. ports serve as a critical link in our Nation's
international trade. Throughout our Nation's history, seaports
have served as vital economic engines that connect American
farmers, manufacturers, and consumers to the global
marketplace. They deliver critical goods to consumers, ship
U.S. exports, create jobs, support our military, and promote
local and national economic growth. Cargo activity at American
seaports accounts for over 23 million American jobs, and
accounts for over one-quarter of the U.S. economy.
With 95 percent of the world's population and 80 percent of
global consumption located out of the United States, sustained
investment in modern, well-maintained seaports and connecting
infrastructure is vital to America's prosperity and long-term
global trade competitiveness. AAPA was pleased to hear that
both the administration and Congress called for increased
investment in infrastructure, followed by Congress's budget
agreement to spend $10 billion in fiscal year 2018 and fiscal
year 2019 on new infrastructure investments. AAPA has
determined that the needs of the seaport industry--including
the Great Lakes--is $66 billion over a 10-year period. That
includes roughly $34 billion for waterside projects and roughly
$32 billion in landside projects. There are projects where
ports partner with the Federal Government. Our written
testimony goes into more detail on that $66 billion dollars in
identified need.
The key Federal programs that support seaport
infrastructure are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation
Program and the Department of Transportation's discretionary
grant programs, including the TIGER/BUILD and INFRA programs,
as well as the Formula Freight programs established under the
FAST Act. DOT financing programs can also be of assistance.
Local public seaports and their private-sector partners
plan to invest $155 billion in infrastructure improvements over
a 5-year period. However, these investments are reliant on the
Federal Government doing its part by modernizing and
maintaining the land and water-side connections to seaports to
ensure that that cargo is able to flow efficiently and also to
minimize congestion and impacts on the local communities. With
Congress devoting $10 billion in funds in fiscal year 2019 for
infrastructure improvements, we urge that Federal programs that
support seaport projects be more adequately funded.
Importantly, there is also an opportunity to fix a
longstanding problem with the way we fund harbor maintenance.
As you know, in 1986 this committee established the Harbor
Maintenance Tax, which requires users of the system to fully
fund its maintenance. Unfortunately, over time a sizable amount
of this revenue has not been used for its intended purposes,
resulting in our Federal navigation channels not being properly
maintained as well as an inequitable distribution of those
funds.
Earlier this year, I am pleased to say that AAPA members
were able to reach a historic industry agreement on a long-term
funding solution for port maintenance that represents a
culmination of many years of industry deliberations. I have
attached a more detailed description of this plan to my written
testimony, and I hope that members of this committee will be
supportive of adopting the AAPA HMT funding solution.
Customs and Border Protection programs are also important
to international trade handled through seaports and have an
impact on port efficiency. Each year, roughly 1.2 billion
metric tons of foreign trade cargo, including more than 32
million TEUs in containers arrive at U.S. seaports.
Additionally, many international passengers begin and end their
cruises at U.S. seaports.
Two key programs for seaports are CBP inspection programs
and design standards for Federal inspection stations at those
ports. We urge a close look at how to improve these programs
and also to make them more fair and responsive.
Finally, let me end with a deep appreciation from the port
industry to this committee on the final version of the tax bill
that did allow private activity bonds to remain, with their tax
benefits. These are a very important tool in funding port
infrastructure projects. Similarly, we urge the committee to
identify a fix to restore the authority for advance refunding
of municipal bonds.
Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to share the
port industry's thoughts on these key issues today.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Nagle.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nagle appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Contreras, let me talk to you a little
bit about NAFTA. Mayor Saenz talked a little bit about the
trade controversies we are having, tariffs and the like, and
the uncertainty that that brings to our economy. What was the
figure you mentioned? How many American jobs depend on Mexican
trade?
Mr. Contreras. There are currently 14 million jobs, 9 being
with Canada, 5 being with Mexico.
Senator Cornyn. Okay.
I think that is an important number, because I think most
people think that NAFTA is really more just a border issue,
when in fact, it does affect job creation and the economy of
the entire country.
I know that talking to Secretary Mnuchin following his
visit to Mexico City with Secretary Pompeo and others, he told
me that his hope is that they can quickly consummate a
modernization of NAFTA following the election that recently
took place in Mexico. Now they know who is going to be in
charge and apparently, that provides a better condition to
hopefully consummate that here quickly. But what would be the
impact on Texas nationally if NAFTA were terminated?
Mr. Contreras. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
It would put at risk close to 382,000 jobs in the State of
Texas alone. It would put at risk the trade between the U.S.
and Mexico, which is worth more than $1 million in goods every
minute. In addition to that, it would place at risk the
unemployment rate in our region, the Rio Grande Valley.
Governor Abbott recently pointed out the unemployment rate
was close to 23 percent in our region at the time of the
agreement of NAFTA. Currently it is close to as low as 4.5 in
some of our cities that depend closely on international trade
agreements.
So there would be several factors that would impact our
communities in a negative way.
Senator Cornyn. So it is true that NAFTA is largely
responsible or at least contributes to the continued economic
growth of not only the border region, the Rio Grande Valley,
but also to the southwest border region generally?
Mr. Contreras. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we see
tremendous growth when it comes to legitimate trade across from
California all the way to Texas through the ports of entry that
generate economic impact.
Senator Cornyn. As far as what you see happening in Mexico
these days, politically and economically, what would be your
best projection or estimate of whether we will continue to see
that trade grow or contract or be stagnant? What is your best
guess?
Mr. Contreras. The guess assessment would be continued
growth. There is obviously concern with security that is
occurring in Mexico. However, legitimate trade, we continue to
see that.
Also, primarily in the fresh vegetables and fruits that are
crossing from Mexico into the United States through our ports
of entry, we have seen two international bridges, one being in
Pharr, another one in Arizona, continue to see increase of
trade when it comes to produce. That is part of our dinner
table.
Senator Cornyn. Mayor Saenz, I know Laredo was--is it the
largest inland port in the country?
Mayor Saenz. Laredo is the first inland port in the entire
country, as we call it--we are the number two port overall in
the country, after Long Beach.
Senator Cornyn. And how many trucks cross the U.S.-Mexico
border at Laredo each day?
Mayor Saenz. Well, I am told recently that it is 16,000,
that is 8,000 going north and about 8,000 going south. So there
is a tremendous flow of traffic and commerce that flows through
the Laredo ports.
Senator Cornyn. And how quickly and how efficiently that
flows is dependent on the infrastructure you talked about and
the staffing at the ports of entry, right?
Mayor Saenz. Well, yes--personnel staffing and
infrastructure, obviously, and of course, the close
coordination that we have with our Mexican counterparts as
well.
See, it begins in Mexico, and we need to coordinate or
align that flow into the United States. So this is why it is
important to maintain good relationships with the Mexican
counterparts as well.
Senator Cornyn. And so far as security is concerned--and I
know we are primarily focused on trade here and legitimate
traffic and travel across the ports of entry. But
unfortunately, when we were unsuccessful in achieving some
bipartisan compromise on the DACA issue, the Deferred Action on
Childhood Arrivals, as you probably know, there was roughly $25
billion that would be set aside for border security. But $5
billion of that was going to be directed toward infrastructure,
technology, and staffing at the ports of entry.
And it is unfortunate we were unable to achieve a
resolution of that. But I know you know that I am well-aware of
the challenges that you face in Laredo and the Rio Grande
Valley on a daily basis, and we are determined not only to get
a solution to some of our broken immigration system, but also
to make sure that while we secure the border, we also make sure
that we can facilitate legitimate trade and commerce across the
border. It is the lifeblood of that region, certainly, and of
our country.
Let me close on one last question. How important in your
view, Mayor, is it to improve the ports of entry from the
standpoint of illegal drugs coming across? I think you said 75
to 80 percent of the illegal drugs that come across come in at
the ports of entry?
Mayor Saenz. Data shows that it is between 80 and 85
percent.
Senator Cornyn. Eighty and eighty-five percent.
Mayor Saenz. Obviously, we have two factors. We have the
demand factor from the U.S.
Senator Cornyn. Right.
Mayor Saenz. And of course we have the supply factor coming
from Mexico and other areas. But again, it goes back to the
main points we have been trying to emphasize here--by all of us
here--which are, if we could put more personnel for inspection,
better technology to interdict and detect, and of course the
infrastructure too, the proper lanes for better inspection,
so----
Senator Cornyn. I think that is an important point.
Thank you for your comment about demand. Secretary Kelly,
actually when he was General Kelly, before he became Secretary
of Homeland Security, now of course Chief of Staff to the
President of the United States--when I would talk to him about
his experience with Southern Command--when he was in the Marine
Corps, he was in charge of everything south of Mexico, Central
America, and South America--he would constantly make the point
to me that we were not going to solve the illegal drug problem
until we did something about the demand side, which perhaps is
the hardest part of all.
But we know that the opioid crisis, which manifests itself
in prescription drug abuse, also extends to heroin, which
mainly comes now across the southwestern border from Mexico, as
well as fentanyl synthetic opioids that are imported from China
and come up through Mexico into the United States.
So it is critical not only for commerce and trade and jobs,
but also in terms of our ability to control the flow of illegal
drugs in the United States, particularly the opioid crisis, for
us to upgrade and improve our ports of entry from a technology,
infrastructure, and as you said, from a staffing perspective.
Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much.
I want to thank the panel for being here today and for
testifying. I am going to start with the Pennsylvanian, Mary
Ann Bucci.
Mary Ann, thank you for being here. I have known Mary Ann
for years. I know of her good work at the port of Pittsburgh,
18 years now. And she does it all, and I am grateful that she
is with us.
Mary Ann, I wanted to start with the inland waterways
system, just generally, because I sometimes think we do not
have an appreciation for that system here in Washington. Every
once in a while we get a good reminder both by way of the
impact it has on the country, the impact it has, of course, on
commerce itself, but just the volume of commerce.
Can you give us some perspective? I know in your testimony
you highlighted some of the data, but just by way of an example
or some data, just give us a sense of the impact on commerce
and what you see at the port of Pittsburgh.
Ms. Bucci. Well, from a national standpoint, like I said in
my testimony, it is over 550 million tons of freight on the
inland waterways worth over $300 billion. And when you look at
how it affects individuals or a consumer, when you transport
goods, or when you buy a product, you are paying the
transportation costs. Whether it is a TV or a boat or a car,
you are paying the transportation costs of that product.
Barge costs are about 1 to 2 cents per pound on whatever
commodity you are shipping. Rail would run around 4 to 6 cents,
and trucking is 10 to 15 cents. So it is a huge economic
savings when barges are part of the equation on the end use of
a product to consumers. It is the cheapest and most
environmentally friendly mode of transportation. It has not
changed much in over 100 years. It pretty much moves up and
down the rivers the way it always did, but obviously it needs
good infrastructure. It needs to be reliable, and we need to
get containers on the river, is what we need to do.
Senator Casey. Well, you and others have given me a great
education. I want to go back in time a little bit to just back
in 2014 where we were working on this issue here in the Senate.
I was working with Senator Alexander from Tennessee, who
understands it from the perspective of his State and his work.
At the time we were trying to raise the inland waterways
trust fund user fee by 9 cents per gallon of barge fuel, which
would help pay for infrastructure improvements in the system.
Senator Cornyn knows as well as I do, it is rare when a
group of constituents from any State comes up to you and says,
``Charge us more.'' It does not happen too often. But they were
willing to increase that barge fee, and that gave us the
resources. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this
change alone would raise something on the order of $260
million. And I guess my question for you, Mary Ann, about this
is, can you tell us how this change, which was, of course,
supported by industry, has benefited the inland waterways
system both in Pennsylvania--I would say particularly in
Pennsylvania because of your work, and the harm that comes from
not adequately funding the Army Corps and the trust fund?
Ms. Bucci. Well, that goes back to--you introduced the
RIVER Act in 2012. And the whole industry thanks you and
Senator Alexander for getting that done, because it was a real
turning point in moving these projects forward. So what the
RIVER Act did was the beginning of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014. What that did for inland waterway
infrastructure is, it changed the dynamics of the Olmsted cost
sharing.
So in any of these capital development projects, 50 percent
is from the general fund, 50 percent is from the commercial
barge users. And they are the only users of the river that
actually pay additional money to be there. Once that mechanism
happened, that allowed us to free up money, because Olmsted was
bankrupting the trust fund. So the only project for a year that
was being done was Olmsted. And all the other projects were
just sitting still.
What the barge users and the industry supporters decided
is, really the match needed to be picked up too. And that was a
45-percent increase they took from 20 to 29 cents. I think the
actual figure is about $360 billion. I think every penny
generated $9 million worth of revenue, according to the Corps
of Engineers. And that allowed four projects to get fully and
efficiently funded in the last 5 years since WRRDA 2014.
Olmsted is going away, and if that mechanism, that $400
million, is where we are at right now to keep five projects
ongoing fully and efficiently funded, if that goes away, the
trust fund gets between $115 and $120 million per year. That
construction project will go down to $220 million. You are
going to lose two projects of the five, and you are going to go
back into that rotation of it taking decades. And in order to
get through the 25 projects on the Capital Development Plan, it
will take over 40 years versus trying to get through it in 20.
So full and efficient funding is very important.
Senator Casey. Thanks for laying all of that out.
I wanted to--I know we have to move on. I guess the other
part that is important to highlight with the waterways system
is just the impact it has on the multi-modal part of our
commerce. If you could just give us examples from the Port of
Pittsburgh vantage point about the impact of the system on what
some call inter-modal, and in this case it is really multi-
modal.
Ms. Bucci. Right. And that is how we view barge, as part of
the entire supply chain. Any of the terminals that are along
the river systems in the Port of Pittsburgh Commission are
connected to a rail line, whether it be the CSX, the Norfolk
Southern, the Wheeling and Lake Erie. There is not one that
does not have access to a rail line or a truck, because the
water only goes to where it goes.
And you, obviously, need to be connecting to rail and to
truck. So where some people think we compete against rail, we
do not. We just need to be the more economical sense of the
whole supply chain in order to kind of reduce the costs for the
consumer, and we are just one of three pieces.
So that is very important. And if you look at how the
inland waterways play an important part on a national level--
people in St. Louis are now reverting containers back into
Baton Rouge and Memphis because it is less expensive than
trying to railroad or truck back empty containers for
exporting.
Senator Casey. Mary Ann, thanks very much. I know we are
out of time.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Senator.
One more question for Mr. Contreras and Mayor Saenz. This
has to do with funding, which is always an issue.
In the absence of adequate Federal funding to deal with
ports of entry infrastructure and staffing--I know we have been
able to work on creative pilot projects, and now the Cross
Border Trade Enhancement Act that was signed into law in 2016
allows the Federal Government to partner with local
jurisdictions and stakeholders to help provide enhanced
infrastructure and staffing.
Mr. Contreras, would you mind sharing with us your
experience? Certainly we do not want the Federal Government to
foist off on local stakeholders its responsibility to deal with
international borders. But what is your experience dealing with
the Cross Border Trade Enhancement Act in these private-public
partnerships?
Mr. Contreras. Well, Mr. Chairman--and thank you for your
leadership in those initiatives. They have provided a
tremendous opportunity impact as a tool for our ports of entry
to engage in such agreements which are, at this point,
primarily used through local governments that are supported,
such as the Hidalgo-McAllen Bridge, Laredo, as well as Pharr.
What we encourage--and we look forward to working with the
committee and also Congress--is identifying measuring tools
that provide an opportunity for private business to be able to
get a return on their investment. Currently, it is local
governments that are investing in the program. However, we look
forward to working with your office to be able to identify some
of those.
And an opportunity could be where businesses may be able to
write down any debt that they may incur as a part of their
donation. And this, again, is from private business.
It is a tremendous tool for our ports of entry.
Senator Cornyn. How about Laredo, Mayor?
Mayor Saenz. Yes. We are very excited, as you know,
Senator. We do have a contract--it is ongoing--where the city
of Laredo has entertained and now is constructing a FAST lane
through State monies--and indirectly or directly through
Federal monies as well through the State. And of course,
locally, $10.3 million is now being expended on a FAST lane at
the World Trade Bridge. That, obviously, is going to be donated
to the Federal Government as well. And that is going to
facilitate the fluidity of commerce through the World Trade
Bridge, which is basically the number one land port of the
Nation.
So it has its place. Again, I would echo the same sentiment
here: if we could open it up, incentivize more the private
sector to participate where they can get some return on their
investment, I think that would be helpful. But currently it is
public-public, cities with the Federal Government engaging in
these arrangements.
Senator Cornyn. So it is public-public partnerships, as you
said.
Mayor Saenz. Correct.
Senator Cornyn. And it applies, of course, to air- and
seaports.
Mr. Nagle, does your association, your membership, have
much experience with using this public-public or public-private
partnership under the Cross Border Trade Enhancement Act to
enhance seaports?
Mr. Nagle. Well, in general, most of what our members do is
related--in terms of infrastructure development, et cetera--is
generally related to some level of a public-private
partnership.
The $155 billion that is planned to be invested, much of
that is working with their private-sector partners that provide
those capabilities to help identify financing and funding in
those projects.
Senator Cornyn. Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Just one quick question--I think it will be
very quick.
Mr. Nagle, in your testimony on page 3, I guess it is the
third paragraph, you said--referring to Congress tripling the
TIGER/BUILD program for fiscal year 2018, bringing it to about
$1.5 billion, you said, ``TIGER/BUILD is a vital program for
port infrastructure both inside the gate and to support the
connecting road and rail infrastructure.''
So I guess my question, and I am assuming the answer will
be ``yes,'' is that you did not agree with Director Mulvaney
when he proposed eliminating the TIGER program, which we now
call BUILD in the last two budgets?
Mr. Nagle. That is correct, sir.
We did not, certainly, approve of the President's budget
that included an elimination of the TIGER, now BUILD, program.
We were very pleased that Congress did triple the level of
funding to $1.5 billion for this year. And we are also
supportive of the efforts that are currently underway in terms
of fiscal year 2019 and that program. It has been an incredibly
valuable program not only for ports, but for much in terms of
freight transportation and moving goods into and out of our
Nation.
For our members, it is the only general funding source that
is available for port-related infrastructure that is 100-
percent multi-modal and does not limit the--much of the
projects in and around ports are multi-modal, to your question
earlier. And the INFRA program through the FAST Act has a
multi-modal cap that limits that availability, whereas the
BUILD program is available for many of those projects, again,
both inside the gate as well as the connections outside the
gate. And we just did a study recently that identified $20
billion in multi-modal needs in and around seaports. So the
BUILD program is vitally important toward that effort.
And again, I would just quickly note that, again, these are
generally last dollars to cobble together the funding to enable
these important projects to move forward. And then they
complement the other investments that are being made at the
local and the private-sector level in terms of that overall
supply chain in and out of our ports.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Cornyn. Well, thanks to each of you for your
important contribution to this hearing today. I want to thank
Senator Casey and his staff for working with us on this
hearing. And as a reminder, the deadline for filing any
additional questions or statements for the record will be 2
full weeks from today.
So at this time, the Senate Committee on Finance stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

A P P E N D I X

Additional Material Submitted for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Mary Ann Bucci,
Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh Commission
Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Casey, and members of the
subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on ``Trade and Commerce at U.S. Ports of Entry.'' My testimony
will focus on the importance of ports and the inland waterways
transportation system, and their importance to our national economy,
trade, and competitiveness.

I am Executive Director of the Port of Pittsburgh Commission,
located in Pittsburgh, PA. In order to create jobs and improve the
quality of life in southwestern Pennsylvania, it is the mission of the
Port of Pittsburgh Commission to promote the commercial use and
development of the inland waterway-intermodal transportation system and
to integrate that system into the economic, recreational,
environmental, and intermodal future for the residents and industries
of southwestern Pennsylvania.
founding fathers' vision
From the United States' founding, even before the U.S. Constitution
was adopted, the inland waterways system was recognized as an
invaluable natural asset. President George Washington wrote 225 years
ago: ``Prompted by these observations, I could not help taking a more
contemplative and extensive view of the vast inland navigation of these
United States, from maps and the information of others; and could not
but be struck with the immense diffusion and importance of it, and with
the goodness of that Providence, which has dealt her favors to us so
profuse a hand. Would to God we may have wisdom enough to improve
them.'' Due to the bounty of our Nation's geography, we remain blessed
with the world's preeminent inland waterways transportation and port
system. There are 12,000 miles of navigable inland and intra-coastal
waterways transporting more than 550 million tons of cargo valued at
$300 billion (2016).

The Port of Pittsburgh handled 22.5 million tons of cargo in 2016.
This included 15 million tons of coal and over 1 million tons of
petroleum products. Another 5 million tons was comprised of sand and
gravel and other basic building materials. Because cargo must pass
through several locks as it moves through the port, our locks are quite
busy, locking through an annual average of 100 million tons of cargo or
about 130,000 barges.

To keep the ``building block'' commodities--agricultural and energy
products, building materials, and over-sized cargoes such as NASA
rocket boosters or the pre-fabricated components of a $6-billion
ethylene cracker plant being built in western Pennsylvania--moving on
the waterways, there are 219 locks and 176 sites on the inland system.
These locks and dams allow users of all types--commercial and
recreational--to navigate their transit across the system while being
assured that the depths those users require are available.

Beyond enabling commercial and recreational transportation, the
inland waterways provide flood control, enable stable water supply for
communities and industries, facilitate hydroelectric power, offer
recreation such as fishing and water sports, enhance regional economic
development, and secure our national defense. The ports and inland
waterways also provide one of the best returns on investment,
generating $10 in annual net economic benefits to the Nation for every
$1 expended by Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Mission projects
(source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). According to the International
Trade Administration, Pennsylvania has 176,000 jobs that are supported
by exports, ranking 11th among all States.

America's inland waterways system is number one in the world, but
is not without its challenges, as international competitors continue to
improve their systems and facilities. More than half of the locks and
dams on the U.S. inland waterways are past their 50-year design life,
with most locks and dams built in the 1930s under The New Deal of
President Roosevelt. In fact, Pittsburgh has some of the oldest locks
and dams in the Nation. Some system segments, particularly older
portions located on the Upper Mississippi, Illinois, and Tennessee
Rivers, rely on antiquated 600-foot-long locks that are unable to
accommodate today's standard 15-barge tows, impacting shippers'
efficiency and competitiveness to reach the world stage.

Our locks and dams, and our ports, require attention and financial
recapitalization for operations and maintenance, dredging, and channel
and harbor improvements to maintain reliability and sustain our
Nation's economic well-being and standard of living.
american, pennsylvania competitiveness
Currently, there are 25 high-priority inland projects either
underway or awaiting construction on the inland waterways system. A top
priority project is the Lower Monongahela Locks 2, 3, and 4, located in
my backyard of Pittsburgh. This project will replace three nearly 100-
year old locks and dams. The problem is that the process to construct
lock and dam projects in 3 to 6 years--as they were built in the 1930s-
1940s--today takes decades. The Lower Mon project is going on its 24th
year of construction, a project that should have been completed in 10
years. Not only are we in the 24th year of a 10-year project, the
project will come in under-delivered with only one reliable lock
chamber being completed. The initial project cost was $750,000,000,
with an estimated completion date of 2004, and the current cost is now
$1,230,000,000, with an estimated completion date of 2023. The
estimated cost to complete the entire project, which includes a second
lock chamber and a railroad bridge modification, would come in at a
cost of $2,760,000,000 and a completion date in the year 2061. For
Pittsburgh and America to stay competitive in foreign markets, we must
get back to constructing navigation projects in less than 5 years. The
Upper Ohio Navigation Study has been going on for 17 years at a cost of
over $19.5 million thus far. It is now on its third iteration of the
study. Each year the project is delayed costs the region $1.29 billion
in economic loss. A major failure on the Upper Ohio River would shut
down the entire port of Pittsburgh.

New industries are coming to Pittsburgh, such as the Shell Chemical
Appalachia Cracker plant. This plant will support 600 permanent jobs
and will utilize 6,000 construction workers. It will consume 105,000
barrels of ethane per day, and produce 1.6 million tons of polyethylene
pellets per year.

The waterways truly deliver for southwestern Pennsylvania, for the
Ohio Valley region, and the Nation. But the current rate of investment
means that many of the priority projects will not begin construction
within the next 20 years, as our foreign competitors outspend us to
modernize their infrastructure to get ahead.

As this subcommittee continues to consider trade and commerce in
the United States, I urge you to appreciate the conduit of the inland
waterways and port system to American competitiveness and growth.
Modernizing our ports and rivers is an investment in our Nation's
continued economic prosperity because grain, petroleum, steel,
chemicals, building materials, and over a half-million jobs are riding
on our waterways transportation system and through our ports.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for providing
this opportunity to be here today to address this critically important
subject.

Figure 1--U.S. National Defense is still a critical role of the inland
waterways. Shown here, military equipment transits through Kentucky
Lock, 2018.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.001

Figure 2--The M/V Big Eddie of Crosby Marine is seen at Monaca, PA
(Mile 27.9 of the Ohio River) on May 30 with a deck barge carrying a
large refiner vessel for the Shell Oil Corporation ethylene cracker
plant under construction. Shown here are pumps used to level the barge
for unloading, and the heavy-duty flatbed carrier to transport the
equipment to the construction site. (Photo by Eric M. Johnson,
Waterways Journal )
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.002

Figure 3--Braddock Dam being floated up the Monongahela River on July
26, 2001.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.003

Figure 4--Elizabeth Lock dewatered revealing its deteriorated
condition.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.004

Figure 5--The Port of Pittsburgh is able to support growth industries
such as building of new barges.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.005

Figure 6--The Port of Pittsburgh even supports such industries as
luxury river cruise lines.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.006

______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
a U.S. Senator From Pennslvania
I want to thank Senator Cornyn for his work and our work together
on what has become a series of subcommittee hearings on important
matters for our national security and our economic security. Our
Customs officers protect both our national and economic security. A
secure border must be a priority, and Democrats and Republicans have
worked in a bipartisan way to secure $14 billion in funding for Customs
and Border Protection, including $1.6 billion for border security. As
we work to secure our borders, it's also imperative that our
immigration laws are humane and uphold American values. The
administration's policy of separating children from their families is
an insult to those values and we must insist that families are
reunited. The administration must get this done. There's no reason why
we cannot develop a border policy that is both humane and protects our
national security. It is also imperative that we ensure the safe and
secure flow of commerce and have the appropriate staffing and funding
levels to prevent unscrupulous actors and trade cheaters from profiting
from the sale of dangerous or illicit goods.

It has been 2 years since the enactment of the Trade Facilitation
and Trade Enforcement Act, so called TFTEA, where we worked in a
bipartisan way to provide Customs with new and expanded authority to
combat child and slave labor, to protect intellectual property, and
combat those attempting to evade out trade laws.

Our Customs officers are on the front lines of this fight, working
to prevent pirated goods from harming U.S. businesses, or dangerous
fake goods from harming or even killing consumers. Our Customs officers
are responsible for an enormous area of responsibility, from
interdicting opioids like fentanyl, to illicit goods, adapting to an
ever-evolving threat matrix, to our agricultural specialists who
protect us from imported pests and disease, and ensuring countries like
China that cheat on trade cannot circumvent our trade laws.

But our Customs officers are under strain. Staffing shortages mean
that officers are asked to work double shifts--16-hour days. Some are
asked to serve 90-day tours away from their home and families at
facilities that are short-staffed. It's impossible for this not take a
toll on an officer's family's home life. Commissioner McAleenan, I know
this is something that's important to you as well, and I appreciate
that.

Safeguarding our long-term competitiveness also means making a
sustained and coordinated investment in our infrastructure. Trade is
not simply about exports to the rest of the world; it's about American-
made goods flowing to destinations across our Nation. Our inland
waterways are critical to that competitiveness.

Our inland waterways provide an economical, environmentally
friendly mode of transportation. From Pittsburgh to Louisville to the
Twin Cities to St. Louis, our inland waterways are responsible for
shipping billions in American goods throughout our Nation.

Our inland waterway system served as an economic backbone for our
country as we grew and expanded, connecting pioneers with the rest of
our country, bringing goods from our landlocked States to the coast.
This system remains the linchpin of our intermodal system. One of the
first things you see at the port of Pittsburgh is the rail lines; they
are truly integrated in the American supply chain, connecting
businesses and their products to markets across the country.

Keeping our waterway infrastructure navigable is critical to
competitiveness for the entire Nation. To serve our growing U.S.
markets, we must make the kind of concerted infrastructure investments
that our parents had the good sense to provide for us. And we must
ensure at the same time that agencies tasked with protecting our Nation
have the funding they need to execute their jobs to the fullest.

______

Prepared Statement of Sergio Contreras,
Vice Chairman, Border Trade Alliance
The Border Trade Alliance thanks the committee for the opportunity
to provide this written testimony for the record and to provide oral
testimony at the hearing on July 18, 2018.

The BTA is committed to working with the administration and
Congress to devise policies that ensure our ports of entry are best
equipped to speed the passage of legitimate trade and travel, while
preventing the entrance of contraband or individuals who would seek to
do harm.
the border trade alliance
For over 30 years, the BTA has provided a forum for analysis and
advocacy on issues pertaining to the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico border
regions. A network of public and private sector representatives from
all three NAFTA nations, our organization has been involved in a number
of important border issues, ranging from the implementation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, to the original organization of
the Department of Homeland Security, to the perennial issues of
staffing, infrastructure, and trade processes.
ports of entry: gateways to u.s. commerce, last line of defense
Nearly 9 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Canada. Five
million U.S. jobs can be attributed to trade with Mexico. Our three
nations' supply chains are deeply integrated, which has created a
highly efficient, just-in-time manufacturing environment that has
resulted in an enhanced quality of life throughout the region. Just
moving goods across the continent was responsible for nearly 50,000
jobs in the trucking industry alone in 2016.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Trucking Associations' Economics Department.

Our ports of entry are where we see this incredible enterprise take
place. Component parts moving back and forth before they become part of
a finished product. Fresh fruits and vegetables on their way to U.S.
grocery stores ensuring that produce is never out of season. Workers,
shoppers, and tourists crossing to enjoy attractions on either side of
the border or to visit family and friends. By any measure, well-
functioning ports of entry are essential to our Nation's economic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
health.

But our ports of entry are also highly integral to our country's
security. Without the proper resources--personnel, technology, and
infrastructure--our ports can be exploited by smugglers or others with
motives that run counter to the rule of law.

The BTA has long supported additional resources for Customs and
Border Protection personnel at the ports of entry. The reason is
simple: more resources devoted to inspecting and clearing legitimate
freight and travelers mean more resources for interdiction.
ensuring our ports are adequately staffed
The U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders are challenging
environments for those of us whose daily livelihoods depend on cross-
border trade. Most U.S. citizens also benefit from this trade, which
delivers greater variety and lower prices on store shelves.

Staffing levels by our inspection agencies, specifically Customs
and Border Protection, are not commensurate with today's trade volumes.
Despite funding provided previous budget agreements to hire thousands
of new CBP officers, a large percentage of those allocated positions
remain unfilled.

In an April 2016 hearing of the Border and Maritime Subcommittee of
the House Homeland Security Committee, CBP acknowledged the agency's
18-month hiring process proves challenging to its recruitment
efforts.\2\ Earlier this year, that same House subcommittee heard
testimony from CBP's employee union that the agency has nearly 1,200
open positions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://mcsally.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/us-rep-
mcsally-leads-hearing-border-infrastructure-manning-needs.
\3\ https://federalnewsradio.com/hiring-retention/2018/01/as-trump-
debates-border-security-field-agents-decry-existing-dire-staffing-
shortages/.

I can assure you, if those of us in the private sector took 18
months to recruit new talent, or if we were unable to fill positions
essential to our economic success, we would soon be facing a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
catastrophe.

Encouragingly, the trendlines on hiring appear headed in the right
direction, but it is a process that is still taking too long.

According to a GAO report released last month, thanks to improved
recruiting efforts, applications to CBP (Office of Field Operations,
Border Patrol, and Air and Marine) for FY 13-FY 17 more than tripled,
and a larger percentage of applicants are getting hired. Unfortunately,
however, it still took more than 300 days, on average, for CBP officer
applicants to complete the hiring process.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-487.

Our organization and members of both parties have supported reforms
that would ease CBP's hiring struggles, including legislation that
would streamline the recruitment process by waving the existing
polygraph exam process for current State or local law enforcement
officers in good standing if they have already completed a polygraph
examination as a condition of their employment or, in the case of
Federal law enforcement officials, if they have already completed a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 4 or 5 background investigation.

Approaches to recruitment like these are important as we seek new
ways to attract talented, qualified individuals into CBP careers with
as few redundant, bureaucratic hurdles as possible, while still
strengthening border security and ensuring the highest degree of
confidence in new recruits.

The BTA also appreciates the efforts of the chairman, who has
pursued legislation in previous Congresses that would authorize funding
for CBP staffing increases directed specifically to land border ports
of entry and to infrastructure upgrades.

The BTA recognizes that Federal budget dollars are not unlimited,
and there are plenty of interests competing for funding attention on
Capitol Hill. However, we believe strongly that the American taxpayer
would be well served by Federal spending on CBP port personnel.

The National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism
Events at the University of Southern California found in 2013 that the
addition of just one CBP officer can inject $2 million into the U.S.
economy and create 33 jobs.\5\ Quite simply, trade means jobs. The
private sector cannot wait until the government makes the necessary
budget corrections to meet the market-driven demands of trade and
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/new-report-
links-cbp-officer-staffing-economic-growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
innovative inspection processes
Delays at the border lead to increased costs for consumers, poorer
air quality in and around border communities due to idling trucks, and
diminish the overall competitiveness of the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico
regions.

There have been developments of late, however, that the BTA hopes
are a sign of positive things to come.
Unified Cargo Processing
The BTA is very encouraged by the concept of unified cargo
processing (UCP) that has been deployed at ports of entry along the
Mexico border.

Under UCP, U.S. and Mexican Customs personnel work side by side on
U.S. soil to conduct outbound and inbound inspections. Each country's
officer can make the determination as to whether to send a shipment to
secondary inspection. Even in the case where a more invasive inspection
is required, UCP ensures that a shipment is only unloaded once, if at
all, rather than what exists under the legacy inspection model, whereby
a truck could be unloaded in its country of origin and its country of
destination.

UCP represents an example of making our ports of entry more
efficient through better regulations, while ensuring security and
increasing capacity. Coupled with new technology that increases non-
intrusive cargo searches, the port of the future will deliver real
improvements in security and freight mobility, which will expand job-
creating commerce and trade.

In the case of the international bridge in Rio Grande City, TX, for
example, 100 percent of northbound cargo is eligible for UCP,
essentially doubling the bridge's importing infrastructure capacity.
The port still maintains the ability to electronically scan 100 percent
of cargo and share inspection images with Mexico.

We're seeing the concept in the air environment too. At the Phoenix
Mesa Gateway Airport outside Phoenix, UCP now allows Mexican-bound
cargo flights to depart the airport as Mexican domestic flights because
the cargo has already been inspected by U.S. and Mexican Customs.

UCP represents an approach to inspections that should be the norm
in a 21st-
century economy in the world's most consequential trade pact. It also
reflects the incremental progress achieved in previous pilot programs
conducted between the U.S. and Canada and the U.S. and Mexico to
inspect cargo before it leaves its country of origin.
border infrastructure that leads to fewer delays, less congestion
Aging, outmoded infrastructure is also a major challenge for the
trade community. Land border ports of entry average 40 years in age,
many built before the North American Free Trade Agreement was even a
consideration.\6\ As a result, their configurations are oftentimes not
well suited to the throngs of commercial trucks they must process on a
daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-15/border-
delays-cost-u-s-7-8-billion-as-fence-is-focus.

The trade community's concerns over staffing levels and
infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. Both must be addressed if we
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
are to realize the full benefits of international trade.

For example, Nogales, AZ's Mariposa port of entry is home to one of
the Nation's busiest commercial ports for produce, specifically winter
fruits and vegetables grown in Mexico.

In order to keep pace with the Mariposa port of entry's ever-
growing trade volumes, the General Services Administration in fall 2014
officially completed an 8-year-long $250 million reconfiguration of the
port campus that doubled from four to eight the number of commercial
lanes. The port was originally constructed in 1973 and was not suited
to process the nearly 4,000 trucks that make their way through it each
day.

Unfortunately, the port is not reaching its full potential due to
CBP's struggles to staff the port at full capacity during peak traffic
periods, which leads to lane closures.\7\ As you can imagine, a
remodeled Mariposa port of entry that is not fully operational is a
source of frustration for the produce community and Nogales-area
stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://tucson.com/news/local/border/staffing-shortages-keep-
expanded-port-of-entry-partly-closed/article_6bd41f7e-6304-5d43-b259-
3dfda6daca96.html.

Similarly, the growth in south Texas ports of entries from
manufacturing to produce was predictable 10 years ago when Mexico
started making significant infrastructure improvements like new
transnational highways and the construction of the world's highest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
suspension bridge.

We would encourage congressional committees with relevant
jurisdiction, as they consider future border station construction, to
work closely with committees with oversight over CBP staffing, Federal
and State highway needs, Department of Transportation and State DOT
inspection staffing issues. Better coordination will help ensure that
precious taxpayers dollars pay dividends to our citizens and the
businesses that drive our economy by aligning infrastructure
expenditures with staffing expenditures.
leveraging private-sector resources to improve border crossings:
section 560
Section 560 (and its successor, section 559) is, in many ways, part
of the answer to the trade community's ongoing calls for a creative
response to consistent concerns over border port infrastructure
challenges, while also an acknowledgement that Federal budgets are
tight and that we must fund future construction in new ways.

Thanks to innovative thinking within the Department of Homeland
Security, CBP, and leaders in Congress, the trade community now has a
viable option to work in tandem with State and Federal partners to
supplement staffing levels and improve infrastructure to support secure
international trade.

Under these reimbursable service agreements, local governments and
private sector entities can apply available funds to secure expanded
services at their POE to facilitate trade and travel processing. Under
the agreements, CBP must exhaust its available budgeted resources
before tapping those of its partners.

Beginning in 2014, section 559 expanded its eligible service
offerings to include customs, agricultural processing, border security
services, and immigration inspection-related services at POEs. Section
559 also opened the possibility of infrastructure improvements under a
donation acceptance authority with CBP and the General Services
Administration, which allows for the transfer of real or personal
property intended for the construction of a new POE or the maintenance
of an existing one.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/blog/meeting-challenge-
alternative-funding-helps-cbp-serve-stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
flexibility and roi: making the dap attractive
While we applaud the Donation Acceptance Program, or DAP, between
CBP and GSA, which allows a local government or private sector entity
to donate real or personal property to the Federal Government, the
Federal agencies must recognize that a demonstrable return on
investment will be critical to attract private dollars.

To be blunt, real estate investors and members of the international
trade community are not charities. CBP should be prepared to
demonstrate the financial upside for a private sector participant in
the DAP, including increased trade throughput, whether by value of
commodities or traffic volumes.

The BTA has had conversations with CBP, and will continue to do so,
regarding our belief that new mechanisms to pay off the debt on donated
priorities must be developed in order to encourage greater
participation in the program.
responding to the skeptics
We occasionally hear from some corners that these reimbursable
service agreements have set an unhelpful precedent by shifting to local
governments and the private sector responsibilities that should be
borne solely by the Federal Government as part of its obligation to
manage the Nation's borders.

We are sensitive to critics' arguments and, in a perfect world,
would prefer that Federal budget allocations were able to keep pace
with growing trade volumes. But these Reimbursable Services Agreements
have given the trade community something it did not have before:
choice.

Before the law that made these agreements possible went into
effect, we had no options to help alleviate the long backups at our
ports and had to suffer the consequences and the loss of
competitiveness and tax dollars. Now we have the choice to enter into a
contract with CBP to augment the agency's services to respond to our
most pressing needs and, hopefully, receive a strong return on that
investment. We hope our contributions can be replaced when budgets can
pay for federally delivered services.
making wise investments
A final note about infrastructure: the BTA recommends that
construction of new ports of entry should only be undertaken where
trade flows justify new facilities.

The planned construction of a new international bridge linking
Detroit, MI and Windsor, Ontario, Canada, is an example of a new
facility that we believe should not be a priority and is unnecessary at
this time. Its construction would be an unwise use of budgetary
resources that would create an ongoing financial burden for United
States taxpayers and run counter to Congress's appropriations role.

The BTA believes strongly that our Nation's land border
infrastructure is central to our country's ability to maintain its
physical security, efficiently process trade and travel, and secure its
economic competitiveness.

In light of finite Federal resources, and because of
infrastructure's importance to the U.S., we also believe that
infrastructure improvements and new construction should be made only at
those land ports where traffic volumes make such upgrades absolutely
necessary. New construction where traffic volumes are flat or declining
diverts limited resources--especially budget dollars allocated for
inspection personnel--away from those locations where they are needed
most.

Construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge would prove to
be one such resource diversion. The Ambassador Bridge, a privately
owned bridge in the region, already is meeting the area's traffic
needs. That bridge's owners are the midst of preparing plans for the
construction of a new span at a cost of $400 million that will replace
the current 90-year-old bridge. Traffic volumes in Detroit and across
the U.S.-Canada border indicate that the $2-billion Gordie Howe is
unnecessary at this time.

According to data compiled by the Public Border Operators
Association, which is comprised of representatives of border crossings
linking Ontario with New York and Michigan, commercial truck traffic
across the existing Ambassador Bridge fell nearly 27 percent between
2000 and 2016, and 20 percent across the PBOA ports combined. Total
traffic--private vehicles, commercial trucks, and buses--fell nearly 45
percent in the same 16-year span at the Ambassador Bridge, and over 35
percent total across all of PBOA's Michigan and New York crossings.
This is hardly an environment that would necessitate the construction
of a new bridge to supplement the existing bridge.

Advocates for the construction of the Gordie Howe argue that the
government of Canada will bear 100 percent of the bridge construction
costs. The BTA believes, however, that the Gordie Howe project fails to
account for the ongoing U.S.-funded resources that a new bridge would
require.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that inspection
personnel costs would be $100 million in the first year and
approximately $50 million annually thereafter, which undercuts
Congress's role as appropriator and could run afoul of the Anti-
Deficiency Act and other laws limiting authority to accept donations.
U.S. taxpayers will also be responsible for ongoing maintenance costs
and non-agency support staff.

Committing U.S. taxpayer dollars to an ongoing expenditure should
be the responsibility of the U.S. Congress, not a foreign government.
Further, ongoing expenditures should be used wisely. In the case of
international trade-facilitating infrastructure and inspections,
resources should be aligned with real need. Such a need does not
currently exist in the Detroit-Windsor trade corridor.

We would encourage this committee to investigate the impact the
Gordie Howe International Bridge's construction would have on CBP's
ability to securely process existing cross-border trade and travel
volumes if, as we believe, the new bridge's construction would require
the diversion of significant ongoing investments by the U.S. Federal
Government.

Once again, the BTA thanks the committee for the opportunity to
share our organization's collective insights on issues facing our ports
of entry. Please do not hesitate to count on the BTA as a resource to
you in the future.

______

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Cornyn,
a U.S. Senator From Texas
Good afternoon. Thank you for being here today. The topic of
today's hearing, ``Trade and Commerce at U.S. Ports of Entry,'' is one
that is absolutely vital to my home State of Texas. Texas is home to 29
air, land, and sea ports of entry, more than any other State in the
Nation.

Included in that list are three of the five busiest land ports of
entry, and the number one inland port, in terms of total volume, along
the entire U.S.-Mexico border. To further put this into perspective--
about half of all U.S.-Mexico trade moves through a Texas port of
entry.

I am pleased to have Kevin McAleenan with us today, the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Commissioner
McAleenan and the Office of Field Operations within CBP are charged
with screening goods and travelers at these ports. We owe a great deal
to the men and women who serve at these ports of entry day in and day
out.

Last year, CBP continued to experience remarkable growth in terms
of travel and trade. Over 390 million travelers were screened at land,
air, and sea ports, and nearly $2 trillion worth of imports were
processed. The volume of commerce crossing our borders has tripled in
the last 25 years.

While this continued growth is an overall positive for our economy,
we simply won't be able to maintain it without appropriately addressing
staffing and infrastructure needs. While it is incumbent on the Federal
Government to ensure that CBP has adequate resources to carry out its
core functions, Congress must also conduct effective oversight to make
sure they're meeting mandates, implementing GAO and OIG recommendations
and operating with efficiency.

It is concerning to me that as of 2017, despite congressional
mandates to hire additional personnel, CBP still has a staffing
shortage of 2,500 officers. The GAO continues to reiterate that this
shortage in trade enforcement positions has led to increased wait
times, which in some cases could result in shortened vetting processes
and security risks.

In addition to staffing shortages, CBP officers are forced to work
in outdated infrastructure, creating conditions that may affect their
ability to expedite inspections and process travelers through high-
volume ports.

In 2015, CBP self-reported a study that revealed the need for $5
billion to meet its infrastructure and technology requirements. At the
border, antiquated infrastructure often leads to unnecessary delays,
which result in an overall loss of commerce. In many instances, these
delays are translated into costs for an entity that ultimately are
passed on to the American consumer.

It is critical that we make port of entry infrastructure investment
a top priority--so that we can adequately staff and fund the ports of
entry that make trade possible in the first place. I am proud to have
sponsored legislation, now in law, that directly addressed this issue--
the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act, which codified the Reimbursable
Services Program and the Donations Acceptance Program.

Public-private partnerships are an effective way to give
stakeholders and CBP the ability to make improvements at all types of
ports, while also saving taxpayer dollars. A number of Texas ports of
entry, particularly in the land and air space, have already seen the
benefits that this program can provide.

I also look forward to discussing today other initiatives currently
undertaken by CBP to ease the burden on legitimate trade and travel.
Programs like the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT),
the NEXUS/Preclearance Program, the FAST Program, and Global Entry can
have great benefits for our national security and for the consumer and
traveler. Further, programs like these allow CBP officers to focus on
higher-risk goods and travelers.

Finally, I look forward to hearing from Commissioner McAleenan on
implementation of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act
(TFTEA), which moved through this committee a couple of years ago.
TFTEA, which officially authorized the Office of Field Operations and
streamlined a number of trade enforcement and facilitation issues, has
the potential to further enhance our Nation's trade policy.

______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin K. McAleenan, Commissioner,
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
introduction
Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Casey, and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss trade and commerce at our Nation's Ports of Entry (POEs). As
the lead U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agency for border
security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) works closely with
our domestic, international, and industry partners to protect the
Nation from a variety of dynamic threats, including those posed by
cargo arriving at our POEs, while facilitating lawful trade and
commerce.

The United States experiences an immense volume of international
trade, a critical component of our Nation's economic security and
competitiveness. In fiscal year (FY) 2017, more than 11 million
maritime containers arrived at our seaports, while another 10 million
arrived by truck and three million arrived by rail at our land ports.
In addition, more than half a billion postal and express consignment
packages arrived through air travel. Among these were the 110 million
express consignment carrier (ECC) shipments and 500 million
international mail shipments that arrived in the United States in FY
2017.

CBP's cargo security and trade facilitation missions are mutually
supportive: by utilizing a risk-based strategy and multilayered
security approach, CBP can focus time and resources on those suspect
shipments that are high-risk. With Congress's continued support of
CBP's dedicated men and women, we will continue to keep Americans and
our economy safe, while facilitating the ever-increasing volume of
international trade and travel.
growing our workforce
The people of CBP do the critical, sometimes dangerous, work of
keeping Americans safe. The FY 2018 Omnibus provides $7.7 million to
hire 328 new CBP officers. CBP officers are multi-disciplined and
perform the full range of inspection, intelligence analysis,
examination, and law enforcement activities relating to the arrival and
departure of persons, conveyances, and merchandise at air, land, and
sea POEs, including the interdiction of narcotics at POEs, in the
international mails, and in ECC environments.

CBP has faced challenges in the past in meeting our hiring goals.
However, we have taken decisive action, while recognizing that much
work remains to be done to ensure we have enough officers and agents to
meet our needs well into the future. Over the last 2 years, more than
40 individual improvements to CBP's hiring process have resulted in
significant recruitment and hiring gains, despite record low
unemployment around the United States and intense competition for
highly qualified, mission-inspired people. With Congress's support, we
are making investments in our capability and capacity to hire across
all frontline positions. We are focusing our efforts to attract
qualified candidates and expedite their progress through the CBP hiring
process.

CBP has embraced the use of social media, and is working to more
effectively identify the best return on investment in digital media.
CBP has introduced a mobile app for applicants in our hiring pipeline
to keep them engaged during the process. CBP will also introduce an
``applicant care'' component whereby a dedicated employee is assigned
to an applicant to help them navigate the process. CBP is leveraging
private-sector expertise and experience in recruiting and human
resources to provide additional capacity.

CBP's streamlined front-line hiring process has led to significant
reductions in the average time to hire. In the last 12 months, close to
60 percent of new CBP officers on-boarded in 313 days or less, with
more than 17 percent on-boarding within 192 days. While work remains to
be done to improve the process, the current overall CBP officer average
of 294 days to on-board is a significant improvement from the 469-day
overall baseline established in January 2016. This streamlined process
has helped us to grow our workforce by reducing the number of qualified
candidates who drop out due to either process fatigue or accepting
timelier job offers elsewhere. CBP's background investigation time is
approximately 90 days for a Tier 5 level investigation, which is
required for all of CBP's law enforcement officer applicants, and 90
percent of CBP applicants overall. This is considerably faster than the
government average for the same level of investigation. CBP is also
recognized as having a best practice quality assurance program, which
other agencies regularly drawn upon.

In addition, to improve CBP staffing at certain locations, CBP
utilizes group incentives such as recruitment incentives for several
hard-to-fill locations, including Raymond, Montana; Jackman/Colburn,
Maine; and many locations across Texas, Arizona, North Dakota, and
Southern California.

As a result of these and other improvements, CBP's FY 2017 hiring
totals surpassed FY 2016 totals, including an increase of 21 percent
for CBP officers. The total number of CBP officer applicants increased
by 89 percent between FY 2015 and FY 2017, including a 45 percent
increase from FY 2016 to FY 2017.

CBP recognizes how critical our trade enforcement and facilitation
role is in protecting our Nation's economic security. We know that for
every dollar invested in CBP trade personnel, we return $87 to the U.S.
economy, either through lowering the costs of trade, ensuring a level
playing field for domestic industry, or by protecting innovative
intellectual property. We are working to ensure a fair and competitive
trade environment where the benefits of trade compliance exceed the
costly consequences of violating U.S. trade law. The FY 2019 Budget
request includes $2.1 million to fund 26 positions to support CBP's
implementation of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of
2015 (TFTEA), one of the most impactful pieces of trade legislation for
CBP in more than a generation. TFTEA specifies new trade facilitation
and enforcement operational requirements, organizational changes, and
new authorities and services. TFTEA includes substantial changes to
trade enforcement, particularly in the area of Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties; establishes processes for investigating claims
of evasion of anti-dumping orders; enables the use of donations of
technology from the private sector for enforcing intellectual property
rights; and simplifies drawback processing to spur domestic
manufacturing and exports.
protecting our nation and our economy
CBP uses a multi-layered, risk-based approach to target those
shipments deemed to be of highest risk. Once a high-risk shipment is
identified, CBP utilizes technologies including large-scale x-ray and
gamma-ray imaging systems, as well as a variety of portable and
handheld technologies, canines, and radiation detection technologies at
our land, air, and sea POEs. For CBP, technology is a force-multiplier
that helps us work more efficiently, with less risk to our front-line
personnel.
Centers of Excellence and Expertise
CBP created the ten Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers)
to strategically enforce customs laws while also facilitating the flow
of legitimate trade. The Centers focus on three primary goals:
facilitating legitimate trade through risk segmentation; improving
trade enforcement efforts; and enhancing expertise within CBP. The
Centers centralize and consolidate post-release activities of importers
on an account basis. This means that they manage all entry summaries
for an importer, where previously, these entry summaries would need to
be processed at each POE where the cargo entered. Transforming how CBP
processes trade increases uniformity of practices across POEs,
facilitates the timely resolution of trade compliance issues
nationwide, and further strengthens critical agency knowledge on key
industry practices.

Aligning CBP's trade approach to the industry level sets the
foundation for understanding business decisions and incorporating that
knowledge into the operational execution of effective and focused
enforcement efforts. As the Centers increase their industry level
expertise, they provide a basis for scoping out risk within their
respective industries from a national perspective, with an approach
that balances compliance and enforcement and reaches down to the
commodity and account level. The national authority afforded to the
Centers broadens CBP's capacity for identifying systemic trade
violations and strengthening detection and intervention techniques. The
Centers also regularly engage with the trade community to gain
invaluable information on legitimate business practices, which can be
used to fine-tune detections of illegitimate business practices.

As an example of the Centers' enforcement and compliance efforts
that level the playing field for businesses, the Pharmaceuticals,
Health and Chemicals Center collaborated with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigation (HSI), the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and foreign Customs
counterparts to stop the importation of illicit pharmaceuticals and
medical equipment. In FY 2017, enforcement operations resulted in
seizures of over 500 counterfeit, controlled, or FDA regulated goods,
eliminating a significant amount of illegal pharmaceuticals from the
supply stream. Additionally, the Base Metals Center coordinated special
operations nationwide to target complex transshipment schemes to evade
Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties resulting in over $15 million in
recovered revenue. The Centers continue to strengthen America's
economic competitiveness and security through integrated industry
knowledge and expertise, innovative trade processing procedures and
trend analysis, and strategic and impactful trade enforcement actions.
National Targeting Center (NTC)
At CBP's NTC, advance data and access to law enforcement and
intelligence records converge to facilitate the targeting of travelers
and cargo that pose the highest risk to our security in all modes of
inbound transportation. The NTC takes in large amounts of data and uses
sophisticated targeting tools and subject matter expertise to analyze,
assess, and segment risk at every stage in the cargo/shipment and
travel life cycles. As the focal point of that strategy, the NTC
leverages classified, law enforcement, commercial, and open-source
information in unique, proactive ways to identify high-risk travelers
and shipments at the earliest possible point prior to arrival in the
United States.

The NTC operates 24 hours a day, in collaboration with Federal,
State, local, and international partners, to effectively identify,
target, screen, and interdict inbound and outbound passengers and cargo
across all international modes of transportation that pose a threat to
national security, public safety, agriculture, lawful trade, and safe
travel. The NTC also works to detect anomalies, trends, and violations
in the global supply chain to target high-risk shipments. This high-
level analysis, as well as the development of analytical tools, helps
CBP identify emerging threats, including those posed by transnational
criminal organizations, and take action to counter them. Furthermore,
CBP collaborates with the trade community on illicit trade threats by
utilizing information received from the trade community to enhance
targeting capabilities.

The NTC has established the Integrated Trade Targeting Network
(ITTN) as an integrated operational network between all CBP's trade
targeting assets to improve communications, coordinate actions, and
standardize procedures for more effective trade targeting. In addition
to the ITTN, the NTC also partners with ICE-HSI on the Tactical Trade
Targeting Unit to utilize all available trade data for further research
to bolster trade and targeting operations related to fraud and trade
based money laundering investigations.

To bolster its targeting mission, the NTC collaborates with
critical partners on a daily basis, including ICE-HSI, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and members of the
Intelligence Community (IC). ICE-HSI and USPIS investigative case data
is fused with CBP targeting information to bolster investigations
targeting illicit narcotics smuggling and trafficking organizations.
Moreover, the NTC works in close coordination with several pertinent
task forces, including the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
(OCDETF), the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, the Joint
Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF-W), the DHS Joint Task Force-West
(JTF-W), and DHS Joint Task Force--Investigations (JTF-I). Effective
targeting and interdiction prevents inadmissible high-risk passengers,
cargo, and agriculture and bioterrorism threats from reaching U.S.
POEs, extending our border security initiatives outward and making our
borders not the first line of defense, but one of many.
Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Technology
CBP uses NII equipment and radiation detection technologies to
maintain robust cargo, commercial conveyance, and vehicle inspection
regimes at our POEs. NII technologies deployed to our Nation's land,
sea, and air POEs include large-scale x-ray and gamma-ray imaging
systems, as well as a variety of portable and handheld technologies.
CBP currently has 304 large-scale NII systems and over 4,500 small-
scale systems deployed to, and between, POEs. NII systems enable CBP
officers to examine cargo conveyances such as shipping containers,
commercial trucks, and rail cars, as well as privately owned vehicles,
for the presence of contraband without physically opening or unloading
them. CBP is establishing the Model Port concept as the guiding
framework to streamline the cargo and passenger vehicle inspection
process to increase the volume of vehicles examined. We anticipate
completing testing and evaluation of drive-through x-ray system pilot
programs this year. Additionally, we anticipate completing the
technical architectural framework that will be used within the design
for the Donna, Texas land POE through the Donations Acceptance Program
(DAP). We will continue to adapt our deployment of NII systems so that
we can work smarter and faster in detecting contraband, while
expediting legitimate trade and travel.

Scanning all arriving conveyances and containers with radiation
detection equipment prior to release from the POE is an integral part
of CBP's comprehensive strategy to combat nuclear and radiological
terrorism. In partnership with the Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Office's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DBDO), CBP has
deployed nuclear and radiological detection equipment, including 1,280
Radiation Portal Monitors (RPM), 3,319 Radiation Isotope Identification
Devices, and 35,294 Personal Radiation Detectors to all 328 POEs
nationwide. Utilizing RPMs, CBP is able to scan 100 percent of all mail
and express consignment mail and parcels; 100 percent of all truck
cargo; 100 percent of personally owned vehicles arriving from Canada
and Mexico; and nearly 100 percent of all arriving sea-borne
containerized cargo for the presence of radiological or nuclear
materials. Since the RPM program began in 2002, CBP has scanned more
than 1.41 billion conveyances for radiological contraband.

CBP officers also utilize NII, as well as spectroscopic and
chemical testing equipment and narcotics detection canines, to detect
and presumptively identify illicit drugs, including illicit opioids, at
international mail and express consignment carrier facilities. In 2016,
CBP tested four handheld tools and a new reagent test kit to provide
immediate presumptive testing for fentanyl. Based on the results of the
pilot, the Office of Field Operations (OFO) procured 12 systems for
further testing across San Diego, Tucson, El Paso, and Laredo Field
Offices. Last year CBP purchased over 90 handheld analyzers for
deployment. Handheld analyzers improve officer safety, and provides a
near real-time capability to increase narcotic interdiction.

Between October 1, 2003 and April 30, 2018, CBP conducted more than
87 million NII examinations, resulting in more than 20,000 narcotics
seizures and more than $79.2 million in currency seizures.
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)
We are committed to making sure that international commerce is
secure and streamlined by continuing to invest in the Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE). ACE is the ``Single Window'' through
which all import and export data are reported by industry to more than
47 partner government agencies, automating 269 different forms and
streamlining trade processes. Built on a modernized platform, ACE has
resulted in a 44-percent reduction in wait times for truck processing
at land POEs and a bond processing time that is 68 times faster. With
the strong support of Congress, in February 2018, CBP deployed the last
of the seven major scheduled core ACE deployments, and all phases of
cargo processing are now in ACE. Looking ahead, CBP is focused on
sustaining all deployed ACE capabilities and ensuring ACE operates as a
highly available and reliable system.

In addition to funds for sustaining core ACE, CBP received $30
million in the FY 2018 Omnibus for enabling ACE enhancements, which
have been publicized to CBP, trade, and PGA users. These enhancements
enable further streamlining of aspects for the trade process for both
industry and government and also strengthen trade security. For
example, system enhancements to enable de minimis functionality will
provide CBP access to previously unavailable admissibility data for low
value shipments, resulting in improved cargo processing and use of
enforcement resources.

CBP's strategic goals and priorities are informed, in part, by the
Customs Commercial Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) and through
active dialog with CBP, industry, government agency and congressional
stakeholders. The resulting CBP trade mission agenda includes program
initiatives for advancing trade facilitation, security and enforcement
objectives. There is an ongoing demand for ACE capability enhancements,
and CBP follows a governance process to prioritize funding for
initiative automation based on evaluation criteria that account for the
interests of the trade community, the potential to reduce burden on the
trade community, impact to CBP users, the nexus to existing and
emerging priorities and workload efficiency and operational improvement
opportunities. In addition to this list of funded ACE enhancements, CBP
is continuing to work through additional emerging requirements and
securing funding for their development. CBP will continue to solicit
input from the trade community on these efforts.
Looking to the Future
CBP continues to look for more capable technologies that are more
efficient and effective, and CBP is actively engaging with our Nation's
best minds in and outside of government to find innovative solutions to
the challenges facing our country. For example, a key enabler of RPM
efficiencies in the maritime environment is employing the concept of
remotely operated RPM lanes at select seaports. CBP, together CWMD/
DNDO, worked on a pilot throughout FY 2017 to pilot RPM remote
operations at the seaport in Savannah, Georgia. The goal is to provide
CBP field offices and ports with increased flexibility to reduce RPM
operations staffing demands and redirect staff to other high priority
mission areas where and when feasible.

CBP is also partnering with DHS Science and Technology (S&T) to
access emerging technologies and tools from start-ups and others. From
innovative surveillance approaches that can provide multi-sensor data
direct to our agents, to tools to protect our canines and blockchain
technology to increase transparency in supply chains, CBP will continue
to push for more efficient and effective ways to support our personnel
and carry out our mission. For example, S&T is conducting proof of
concepts deployments in partnership with CBP that are directly focused
on applications of blockchain and distributed ledger technology to
shipping, logistics, and customs by providing visibility into globally
distributed supply chains to help facilitate the movement of legitimate
goods while combating the distribution of counterfeit goods.
facilitating trade through partnerships
CBP is committed to fulfilling our complex missions, and to do
that, we are working with our partners across the country and around
the world. I am actively seeking to deepen our partnerships across all
levels of government and with our international counterparts to ensure
that information is shared quickly, resources are spent where they are
most needed, and that the American people and economy are kept safe.
Unified Cargo Processing
CBP and the Mexican tax service recently signed a memorandum of
understanding on Unified Cargo Processing (UCP). UCP currently operates
at eight POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, with the memorandum merging
two former cargo pre-inspection sites into UCP. UCP eliminates
duplicative inspection efforts while reducing border wait times and
costs for the private sector. The new arrangement looks to expand the
process to possibly more than a dozen locations. CBP and the National
Service for Agro-Alimentary Public Health, Safety and Quality--Mexico's
agency responsible for inspecting incoming goods for pests and
diseases--also signed a memorandum to enable collaboration between the
two agencies on agriculture safeguarding, agriculture quarantine
inspections at ports of entry, and information sharing. The memorandum
promotes cooperation and information sharing to enable the United
States to handle legitimate and safe shipments quickly while addressing
those that pose a risk.
Partnerships in the International Mail and ECC Environment
E-commerce and international mail and ECCs play an increasingly
important role in the U.S. economy. Evolving business models, with
increasing volumes of imports of small, just-in-time packages, have
significantly altered the dynamic of the international trade
environment and CBP's enforcement of trade laws, including those
related to intellectual property rights and import safety.

This shift in international commerce has created significant
benefits for U.S. businesses and consumers. It has also created
operational challenges for CBP.
E-commerce shipments pose the same health, safety, and economic
security risks as containerized shipments, but the volume is higher and
growing. Over the past 5 years, CBP has seen a nearly 50-percent
increase in express consignment shipments, and an astonishing 200-
percent increase in international mail shipments.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In FY 2013, CBP processed more than 76 million express bills;
in FY 2017, CBP processed approximately 110 million bills. In FY 2013,
CBP and the USPS processed approximately 150 million international mail
shipments; in FY 2017, the number of international mail shipments
swelled to over 500 million shipments.

Rapidly increasing shipment volumes strain already limited CBP
resources, particularly at express consignment hubs and International
Mail Facilities (IMFs). In addition to sheer volume challenges, e-
commerce shipments often involve other risks, such as undervaluation,
and are a higher risk for import safety or intellectual property rights
(IPR) violations, and illegal drugs. For example, of the more than
34,000 seizures of counterfeit and pirated goods in FY 2017,
approximately 90 percent were in the express carrier and international
mail environments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FY 2017 IPR statistics are reported online: https://
www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Apr/ipr-seizure-
stats-fy2017.pdf.

To address the numerous complexities that have emerged from the
growth of e-commerce, in 2016, CBP established a dedicated E-Commerce
and Small Business Branch. CBP has been actively engaging with
Congress, the trade community, and other domestic and international
government agencies to find solutions to personnel and other
operational challenges posed by the shift to e-commerce. As a result of
the Branch's efforts, CBP finalized an e-commerce strategy that focuses
on adapting CBP's workforce staffing models and operations to implement
a more agile and effective enforcement of e-commerce shipments,
creating better compliance through new incentives and measures, and
educating and engaging all our stakeholders to facilitate lawful e-
commerce opportunities and address threats. The strategy will
strengthen CBP's ability to protect U.S. consumers, improve targeting
and management of threats in the e-commerce environment, maximize trade
revenue collection, increase international mail enforcement, and create
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stronger partnerships here and abroad.

With the support of Congress, CBP has made significant investments
in and improvements to our drug detection and interdiction technology
and targeting capabilities in the international mail and ECC
environments. CBP receives advance electronic data (AED) on over 40
percent of all international mail shipments with goods. An increasing
number of foreign postal operators provide AED to the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS), which is then passed on to CBP to target high-risk
shipments.

CBP, in close coordination with USPS and U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, provided technical assistance on the ``Synthetics
Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (STOP) Act'', which were largely
incorporated into H.R. 5788, the ``Securing the International Mail
Against Opioids Act of 2018,'' which the House passed on June 14th.

This legislation seeks to address these challenges in a multi-phase
process which emphasizes risk-assessment, technology, and collaboration
across the Federal government and with our international partners. We
support efforts to expand the ability of USPS to greatly increase the
availability of AED (which is the foundation of a sound targeting
mechanism) for international mail, to develop new scanning technology,
and to collect fees to help cover the cost of customs processing of
certain inbound mail items.

CBP and USPS now have an operational AED targeting program at five
of our main International Mail Facilities (IMF) with plans for further
expansion. USPS is responsible for locating the shipments and
delivering them to CBP for examination. Thus far in FY 2018, CBP has
interdicted 186 shipments of fentanyl at the John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK) IMF, a participant in the AED program. One
hundred and twenty-five of those interdictions can be attributed to AED
targeting. CBP and USPS continue to work with foreign postal operators
to highlight the benefits of transmitting AED.
Preclearance
First established in Toronto, Canada in 1952, preclearance has
since expanded to operations in 15 airport locations and one land
border ferry operation in six countries, which include Aruba, the
Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Ireland, and the United Arab Emirates.
Staffing consists of more than 600 CBP Officer and Agriculture
Specialist positions. Preclearance supports DHS's extended border
strategy and CBP's layered border strategy by preventing terrorists,
criminals, and other national security threats from boarding commercial
aircraft bound for the United States, as well as protecting U.S.
agricultural infrastructure from invasion by foreign pests, disease,
and global outbreaks. CBP intends to match the speed at which host
countries and airports are willing to move forward with negotiations
and airport designs, and we look forward to working with our partners
to expand this program.
Private-Sector Partnerships
An essential component of CBP's trade facilitation operations is
our close and effective collaboration with our private industry
partners. For example, CBP works with the trade community through the
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program, which is a
public-private partnership program wherein members of the trade
community volunteer to adopt tighter security measures throughout their
international supply chains in exchange for enhanced trade
facilitation, such as expedited processing. CTPAT membership has
rigorous security criteria and requires extensive vetting and on-site
visits of domestic and foreign facilities. This program has enabled CBP
to leverage private sector resources to enhance supply chain security
and integrity while facilitating legitimate trade.

CTPAT membership has grown from just seven companies in 2001 to
more than 11,000 certified partners today, accounting for more than 54
percent by value of goods imported into the United States. The CTPAT
program continues to expand and evolve as CBP works with foreign
partners to establish bilateral mutual recognition of respective CTPAT-
like programs. Mutual recognition as a concept is reflected in the
World Customs Organization's Framework of Standards to Secure and
Facilitate Global Trade, a strategy designed with the support of the
United States, which enables customs administrations to work together
to improve their capabilities to detect high-risk consignments and
expedite the movement of legitimate cargo. These arrangements create a
unified and sustainable security posture that can assist in securing
and facilitating global cargo trade while promoting end-to-end supply
chain security. CBP currently has signed Mutual Recognition
Arrangements with New Zealand, the European Union, South Korea, Japan,
Jordan, Canada, Taiwan, Israel, Mexico, Singapore, and the Dominican
Republic and is continuing to work towards similar recognition with
China, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and India.

CTPAT is also transitioning the Importer Self-Assessment program
into CTPAT Trade Compliance, thus aligning with the World Customs
Organization Authorized Economic Operator model. This effort includes
the extensive development of new benefits. New benefits include AQUA
lane, an expedited clearance system for CTPAT sea carriers. AQUA lane
allows CTPAT terminal port operators that qualify under a set of
predetermined mandates to immediately unlade their cargo upon arrival
in the United States. CBP is currently piloting advanced unlading at 20
seaports; in FY 2018, the trade community requested advanced unlading
nearly 10,000 times. CBP granted permission at a rate of almost 80
percent. Other benefits under development include Importer of Record
identity theft monitoring, known as CTPAT Defender. CTPAT Defender will
provide a level of protection for our trusted partners.

CBP has also been re-engineering our operations in collaboration
with the Port of Los Angeles's Trans Pacific Container Service
Corporation (TraPac). The TraPac terminal in the Port of Los Angeles
has invested in technology and infrastructure to upgrade the terminal
to an automated terminal environment that supports both the targeted
NII x-ray/gamma-ray imaging of targeted commerce, and the 100 percent
mandated radiation scanning of all incoming commodities at the TraPac
terminal. In a joint effort, TraPac, DNDO, and CBP developed a new and
innovative method for automated radiation scanning of inbound
containers in the terminal's intermodal rail yard. Since December 2016,
the terminal's automated conveyor systems transport inbound containers
through CBP RPMs before the containers are loaded onto railcars.

Similar to TraPac, through a public-private partnership agreement,
CBP and DNDO continue to work with the Northwest Seaport Alliance to
employ a straddle carrier portal at the Pierce County Terminal in
Tacoma, WA. The straddle carrier portal will provide a fixed portal
radiation scanning capability that will require fewer CBP personnel to
conduct radiation scanning of cargo containers and will allow the port
to regain some of its operational footprint and more quickly process
cargo destined for rail transportation.
infrastructure
CBP supports a vast and diverse real property portfolio, consisting
of more than 4,300 owned and leased buildings, over 28 million square
feet of facility space, and approximately 4,600 acres of land
throughout the United States. Effective and efficient POE
infrastructure is critical to CBP's mission to secure and facilitate
lawful trade and travel.
Land Border Ports of Entry Modernization
Of the Nation's 328 official POEs, 110 are land POEs responsible
for operating 167 separate crossings along our borders with Mexico and
Canada. Most of the land POE inspection facilities were not designed to
meet the post-9/11 security and operational missions of CBP. Rather,
they were built to support the distinct operations of legacy DHS
components, such as the U.S. Customs Service, the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Today, CBP's operations entail sophisticated targeting and
communication systems, state-of-the-art detection technology, and a
cadre of professional law enforcement personnel to identify, screen,
and inspect high-risk persons and cargo and maintain an efficient
stream of cross-border travel and trade. However, the success of our
operational strategy depends heavily on the condition and operational
utility of the inspection facilities and the availability of CBP
personnel. Several land POEs were built more than 70 years ago and
require renovation or replacement to meet present-day operational and
security standards. Many constructed as recently as 15 to 20 years ago
also require significant modernization to address growing demands for
additional processing capacity, new security requirements and
enforcement technologies, and the need to maximize the efficiency of
existing personnel and resources. To construct and sustain these land
POE inspection facilities, CBP works in close partnership with the
General Services Administration (GSA), which manages the majority of
the land POE facilities.

GSA, in coordination with CBP, continues to construct and modernize
land POEs along the northern and southern borders, and to complete
additional enhancement and expansion projects. Thanks to the funding
provided in the FY 2018 Omnibus, CBP is working with GSA to ensure that
our priority requirements in locations including Otay Mesa, CA and
Alexandria Bay, NY receive much-needed updates.\3\ In Texas, the two
large-scale modernization projects are Laredo I and II. Laredo Bridge I
was completed in April, and pedestrian, bicycle, and POV traffic
resumed at this crossing on April 20, 2018. Laredo Bridge II is on
track for completion in December 2018. We look forward to working with
GSA and Congress to ensure that our physical infrastructure meets CBP's
needs now and in the future, such as the planned Phase II construction
of the Calexico West land port of entry in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Alexandria Bay, NY; Lewiston Bridge, NY; San Luis I, AZ; Otay
Mesa, CA; Blaine, WA have been identified as priority requirements to
be funded from the proposed $14.8 million.

A key aspect of CBP's three-pronged Resource Optimization Strategy
is the exploration of partnering with public-private sector through
such activities as reimbursement and potential acceptance of donations.
Thanks to the support of Congress, CBP received authority to enter into
agreements under section 560 of division D of the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6 (section
560); section 559 of title V division F of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76 (section 559); and section
550 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-53,
and more recently under sections 481 and 482 of the Homeland Security
Act, 2002, as amended by the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act, 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(codified at 6 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 301 et seq.).

Under section 560, CBP received authority allowing the Commissioner
to enter into no more than five agreements, under certain conditions,
to provide new or enhanced services on a reimbursable basis at U.S.
POEs. CBP implemented this authority, entering into agreement with the
participating locations \4\ before the December 31, 2013 statutory
deadline. In January 2014, CBP received additional authority under
section 559, which authorized CBP to enter into partnerships with
private sector and government entities at POEs to reimburse the costs
of certain CBP services and to accept donations of real and personal
property (including monetary donations) and non-personal services.
Sections 481 and 482 supplanted section 559 while making permanent
CBP's donation acceptance and reimbursable services authorities in
addition to removing the annual statutory limit on the number of air
reimbursable services agreements. This allows for small air POEs with
fewer than 100,000 international passenger arrivals annually to
compensate CBP for the salaries and expenses of up to five CBP officers
and authorizing the Commissioner to determine if advanced payment is
warranted to enter into an agreement in place of cost reimbursement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The section 560 participating partners are the Dallas/Fort
Worth International Airport Board, the city of El Paso, Miami-Dade
County, the city of Houston/Houston Airport System, and the South Texas
Assets Consortium.

Each provision responds to CBP's efforts to find innovative
approaches to meet the growing demand for new and expanded facilities
and, in particular, the ongoing modernization needs of CBP's land POE
portfolio.
Reimbursable Services Agreements
Section 481 expands CBP's authority to enter into Reimbursable
Services Agreements (RSAs) similar to the FY 2013 ``section 560''
authority and FY 2014 ``section 559'' authority. This authority allows
CBP to support requests for expanded services, including customs,
agricultural processing, border security services, and immigration
inspection-related services at U.S. POEs or any facility in which CBP
provides or will provide services; salaries for additional staff; and
CBP's payment of overtime expenses at airports. There is no limit on
the number of agreements CBP can enter into at POEs or facilities.
However, at airports with fewer than 100,000 arriving international
passengers annually, section 481 only expanded the authority to permit
CBP to be reimbursed for the salaries and benefits of no more than five
full-time equivalent CBP officers beyond the number of such officers
currently assigned. These provisions will allow CBP to increase the
impact of this program to additional stakeholders and the traveling
public. Additionally, the law stipulates that agreements may not unduly
and permanently impact existing services funded by other sources.

CBP evaluates each RSA proposal based on a single set of objective
and carefully vetted criteria to ensure that final recommendations will
be most beneficial to CBP, to the requesting parties, and to the
surrounding communities. The main factors of consideration include the
impact on CBP operations; funding reliability; community and industry
concerns; health and safety issues; local/regional economic benefits;
and feasibility of program use.

RSAs enable stakeholders to identify enhanced services needed to
facilitate growing volumes of trade and travel at specific POEs, and
enable CBP to receive reimbursement so that we can fulfill those
requirements. The section 481 authority provides stakeholders and CBP
the flexibility to meet situational or future demand for extended or
enhanced services to secure and facilitate the flow of trade and travel
at participating ports. At land POEs, this authority enables CBP to
open and staff additional lanes or provide services for extended hours
to reduce wait times and expedite commercial and personal traffic. At
airports, RSAs enable CBP to staff additional booths on an overtime
basis during peak hours. At seaports, RSAs enable CBP to provide
additional processing of cruise passengers and commercial cargo,
furthering the facilitation of travel and trade.

In the first 5 years of the program, CBP will have entered into
agreements with 149 stakeholders, providing more than 483,000
additional processing hours at the request of our partners--accounting
for the processing of more than 10.2 million travelers and nearly 1.43
million personal and commercial vehicles. The program continues to
expand as new agreements are signed every year, as authorized by the
section 481 legislation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A full list of current participants is available at http://
www.cbp.gov/RSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donation Acceptance Authority
Section 482, the Donation Acceptance Authority, authorizes CBP and
GSA to accept donations of real property, personal property, including
monetary donations, and non-personal services from public and private
sector entities for OFO activities at certain ports of entry. Accepted
donations may be used in support of POE construction, alterations,
operations, or maintenance-related activities, including but not
limited to: land acquisition, design, and the deployment of equipment
and technologies. These donations are expected to reduce border wait
times, support increased traffic flow and volume, create jobs, and
address critical operational and regional border master plan
infrastructure and technology priorities across the United States.

Since standing up in FY 2015, the CBP Donation Acceptance Program
(DAP), which oversees implementation of section 482, has approved 22
donation proposals, totaling approximately $206 million in planned and
realized improvements in U.S. POE and important CBP initiatives. Of the
22 donation proposals approved to date, 13 entail small to large-scale
improvements to the land POE infrastructure, primarily along the U.S.
southern border. These infrastructure improvements, some of which
entail state of the art inspection technologies and joint binational
processing enhancements, have and will continue to lend themselves to a
more secure, reliable, and efficient cross-border transportation
network.

The DAP continues to grow and mature, as has its ability to
explore, foster, and facilitate partnerships in support of non-
infrastructure initiatives, including luggage for canine training
purposes and the provision of passenger biometrics services and data at
major air POEs.

In sum, CBP is implementing business improvements, thoroughly and
systematically analyzing POE infrastructure needs and exploring
alternative sources of funding to bridge current and anticipated
mission resource gaps. Both the Reimbursable Services Authority and the
Donation Acceptance Authority enable CBP to build effective
partnerships with stakeholders to address the port requirements
necessary to support growing volumes of travel and trade.
conclusion
International commerce is dynamic and requires continual adaptation
to respond to emerging threats and rapidly changing conditions. I am
proud of CBP's dedicated workforce, which continues to meet these
challenges with integrity and commitment. With the ongoing support of
Congress, CBP will continue to protect the people and economy of the
United States while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. Chairman
Cornyn, Ranking Member Casey, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

______

Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Kevin K. McAleenan
Questions Submitted by Hon. John Cornyn
donations acceptance and reimbursable services program
Question. While the Donations Acceptance Program and the
Reimbursable Services Program are valuable tools for CBP/DHS to address
staffing and infrastructure needs, I am concerned, based on feedback
from my constituents, that the programs could be overused as a way for
CBP to avoid contributing its share to needed projects, especially ones
it can afford and where there is a Federal appropriation.

Do you share this concern, and if so, how can we ensure we are
striking a strong balance?

Answer. The Donations Acceptance Program (DAP), while a viable and
effective alternative to Federal appropriations, has not replaced or
negated the agency's process for prioritizing and budgeting for
critical infrastructure needs. Rather, the DAP is a mechanism through
which to invest in and expedite port of entry improvements that may
otherwise remain unfunded or underfunded. The DAP has not yet approved
a proposed partnership project that was to be imminently funded using
Federal appropriations or for which Federal funding was on the horizon.

The Reimbursable Services Program (RSP) provides an alternative
source of funding for services beyond CBP's appropriated budget and
allows our partners to target where they desire CBP to provide
additional services. Entering into an agreement under the RSP is at the
discretion of the interested party. Requests for services under the RSP
are voluntary, and there is no minimum number of requests required to
maintain a stakeholder agreement. Under section 481 of the Homeland
Security Act, 2002, CBP is statutorily prohibited from shifting the
cost of services funded in any appropriations Act to RSP stakeholders
and from entering into a fee agreement if such agreement would unduly
and permanently impact services funded in any appropriations act.
facilitating trade and commerce
Question. At the end of 2016, my bill, the Cross-Border Trade
Enhancement Act, was signed into law. This legislation was the product
of multiple years of work to expand a very successful pilot program
that allows for public-private partnerships at land, air and sea ports
of entry. I have been very pleased to see the widespread interest on
both sides in expanding its application.

What more can Congress and other Federal agencies, such as the
Department of Transportation and the General Services Administration,
do to assist CBP in the Donations Acceptance Program and Reimbursable
Services Programs specifically and to facilitate trade and commerce at
U.S. ports more generally?

Answer. CBP appreciates the expansion of its pilot program DAP
authorities, which have and continue to be used successfully to partner
on infrastructure improvements, the provision of canine enforcement
training aids, product authentication tools in support of CBP's
intellectual property rights enforcement efforts, and more.

The Reimbursable Services Program (RSP) is currently subject to
overlapping congressional reporting requirements. Responding to these
reporting requirements draws CBP resources that could be allocated to
interfacing with interested parties and expanding and enhancing the
program. The RSP is subject to submitting or contributing to three
similar annual reports to Congress.

Section 907 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act,
2015 requires CBP to report to Congress within 1 year after entering
into fee agreements for the provision of certain CBP services, and
annually thereafter. This report requires specifics on the development
of the program, the entities with which CBP has entered into
agreements, the amounts reimbursed, the economic and security benefits
of the program, the services provided by CBP, the amount of fees
collected under the agreement, the program's operating expenses, a
detailed accounting of fee usage and spending, a summary of complaints
and criticisms of the program, the compliance of the stakeholders,
recommendations for more effective use of the program, a summary of the
benefits and challenges faced by CBP and the stakeholder, and, in the
case of airports, a detailed account of revenue collected by CBP
compared to CBP operating costs at airports.

Section 481 (k)(1) of the Homeland Security Act 2002, requires CBP
to submit an annual report identifying program activities undertaken
and agreements entered into pursuant to the reimbursable services
authority provided to CBP in section 481.

Section 482 (d) of the Homeland Security Act, 2002, requires the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit an annual report to
Congress on the fee agreements entered into pursuant to section 481.
CBP works closely with the U.S. Government Accountability Office in the
development of this report.

CBP understands the importance of these reports. However, we would
ask that consideration be given to streamlining overlapping and
redundant requests for information, so that CBP can maximize program
resources.

Congressional support for the RSP has been key to program growth.
Continued program backing by Congress will allow CBP to ensure access
to program benefits is available to interested parties at ports of
entry and facilities alike moving forward.
facilitating trade and commerce through dap
Question. I would like to commend CBP for their willingness to
partner with
private-sector entities and State and local jurisdictions to address
infrastructure and staffing needs. I understand that in Texas, the
Anzalduas Bridge Board has submitted a proposal to partner on its
expansion plan for the Anzalduas Bridge so that it has the necessary
facilities to screen commercial traffic. This plan will help ensure
that the Anzalduas Bridge remains a direct, safe, and efficient route
between the Rio Grande Valley and Mexican cities such as Monterrey and
Mexico City. As you know, this partnership is made possible through the
Donations Acceptance Program.

In your experience, how important is this program to facilitating
trade and commerce at U.S. ports of entry?

Answer. CBP has identified a capital-funding shortfall in order to
fully modernize the Federal land port of entry portfolio. The Donations
Acceptance Program remains a viable and effective tool through which to
invest in and expedite port of entry improvements that would otherwise
remain unfunded, potentially for years. CBP and GSA are in receipt of
the Anzalduas Bridge Board's latest proposal and has been working with
the Bridge Board to support and advance expansion of commercial
screening at the McAllen Anzalduas land port of entry as expansion of
commercial activities increases.
decision-making process
Question. Projects that have been approved by CBP to participate in
the Donations Acceptance Program (DAP) currently must seek approval
from GSA, in addition to CBP. While this is understandable, it also
serves as a delay to the process and in some cases has become a
critical hindrance in lining up private-sector partners.

Is there a way to centralize the decision-making process of
projects under the Donations Acceptance Program for the agencies
involved, giving full decision-making authority to CBP directly? Would
legislation in this area be helpful to streamline the process?

Answer. To date, CBP, with the help of GSA, has made considerable
strides towards streamlining and making more agile its processes and
timeframes for receiving, evaluating, and determining proposal
viability. GSA's continued role in DAP-related decisions is an
important one given that most, if not all, infrastructure-
related proposals submitted for consideration impact facilities and/or
real estate that are under the custody and control of GSA and occupied
by CBP.
missing drugs
Question. Since the beginning of FY 2018, OFO has seized 41,445
pounds of cocaine, 3,782 pounds of heroin, 228,782 pounds of marijuana,
and 52,613 pounds of meth. Most concerning, OFO also seized over 1,165
pounds of the synthetic opioid fentanyl. We all know that only a few
milligrams of fentanyl is deadly, so the fact that the cartels and
transnational criminal organizations are trying to smuggle in such
large quantities should be alarming to all.

Am I correct in saying that we are probably missing far massive
quantities of drugs coming into the United States because you don't
have the number of officers necessary to conduct all inspections
necessary to detect the drugs?

Answer. CBP uses its Workload Staffing Model (WSM) to analyze and
provide recommendations for changes to CBP officer (CBPO) staffing
requirements. The WSM is a decision support tool that calculates
recommended staffing levels for each port of entry based on current and
projected enforcement and facilitation workload, including recognizing
emerging threats. CBP assesses threats through a risk-based strategy
and multilayered security approach, and aligns resources to meet its
mission and ensure that threats are mitigated. As CBP continues to fill
current funded staffing vacancies, it will be able to dedicate
additional officers to drug enforcement activities. CBP also continues
to aggressively pursue new Business Transformation Initiatives to
reduce administrative burden and allow CBP officers to focus on
enforcement activities. By automating forms collection, streamlining
current processes and deployment of new technology, CBP expects to save
an additional 500,000 inspection hours through FY 2019, which equates
to 400 full time CBP officer equivalents.

CBP's Office of Field Operations, which has primary responsibility
at the ports of entry, has never wavered in the priorities of its
mission: (1) counterterrorism; (2) counter-narcotics, including
fentanyl and opioids; (3) safeguarding our Nation's economic future;
(4) facilitating lawful trade and travel, and (5) migrant processing.
CBP's Office of Field Operations remains focused on our national
security while protecting our country, our communities and neighbors.
CBP works continuously to improve processes and transform the way it
does business. In addition, CBP works to balance competing priorities
maintaining frontline and trade and revenue personnel versus sustaining
programs and investments that act as force multipliers. CBP is also
self-critical and develops business transformation initiatives that
streamline processes and identify efficiencies that save man-hours and
return CBP Officers to front-line duties. This allows CBP to fulfill
its mandatory and non-discretionary missions in the most effective and
efficient manner possible. CBP remains committed to working with
Congress to manage resources as efficiently as possible to best enable
mission success at and between the ports of entry.
demand reduction
Question. Over half of the 64,000 overdose deaths caused by opioids
in 2016 were the result of heroin and illicitly manufactured synthetic
opioids, not prescription drugs. These drugs are coming into the United
States through the southern border and transnational criminal
organizations will stop at nothing to exploit those struggling with
substance use disorders.

Can you outline what demand reduction strategies CBP is engaged in
with regards to heroin and synthetic opioids?

Answer. As America's front-line border security agency, CBP is
uniquely responsible--and uniquely positioned--for disrupting the
influx of narcotics. CBP leverages targeting and intelligence-driven
strategies, and works in close coordination with our partners as part
of our multi-layered, risk-based approach to enhancing the security of
our borders and our country. We are fully committed to disrupting the
illicit opioid supply chain and utilizing a broad strategy to combat
opioids with four primary goals: (1) enhance collaboration and
information sharing; (2) produce actionable intelligence; (3) target
the opioid supply chain; and (4) protect CBP personnel from exposure to
opioids.

Question. What additional resources would strengthen CBP's ability
to halt the flow of these drugs?

Answer. With continued support from Congress, CBP, in coordination
with our partners, will continue to refine and further enhance the
effectiveness of our detection and interdiction capabilities to combat
transnational threats and the entry of illegal drugs into the United
States. Your continued support of CBP's current efforts to identify new
and innovative technology to aid in the layered enforcement strategy
efforts, including safety measures for frontline personnel and
procurement of additional chemical screening, detection, and
identification instruments, will be instrumental in the fight against
this threat.

In addition, to enhance our ability to interdict this threat across
the southern land border, CBP is establishing the Model Port concept as
a guiding framework to streamline the cargo and passenger vehicle
inspection process to increase the volume of vehicles examined. CBP is
actively working with DHS S&T and technology vendors to assess
capabilities of drive-through Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems in
these environments. The goal of these technology assessments/pilots is
to determine the feasibility of reducing scanning time to increase
throughput.
oig report
Question. A recent 2017 DHS Inspector General report found that
CBP's IT systems and infrastructure were not supporting its objective
of preventing unauthorized persons from entering the country. The
report stated: ``The slow performance of critical pre-screening systems
greatly reduced OFO's ability to identify passengers who may represent
concerns and/or national security threats.''

What steps are being taken by CBP to alleviate and address the
concerns outlined by the OIG?

Answer. CBP has resolved the specific issue raised by the OIG
through multiple technological updates, including application,
infrastructure, network and monitoring changes. CBP has developed a
technical refresh strategy for end-user devices, network equipment and
infrastructure that has informed budget requests, as well as assisted
with prioritizing current year requirements.

There were seven recommendations resulting from the OIG report
focusing on system performance issues affecting several CBP pre-
screening functions. CBP used the recommendations to develop action
plans addressing each of the findings, and we are well on our way to
accomplishing all corresponding actions resulting from this report.
These actions include:

Conducting a survey of TECS users, the results of which are
being analyzed to inform future enhancements.
Executing a technology refresh strategy for end-user
devices, network equipment, and infrastructure that has
informed budget requests as well as assisted with prioritizing
current year requirements.
Increasing system and network resiliency through improved
disaster recovery capabilities, system outage mitigation modes,
and network redundancy for critical sites and services.
Improving system monitoring efforts through new tools and
procedures in order to more quickly resolve outages.
prioritizing expenditures
Question. Texas ports of entry are some of the busiest in the
United States. Three of the five busiest land ports of entry are in
Texas, and amazingly, one-half of all U.S.-Mexico trade moves through
Texas ports of entry. In addition, Texas is home to four of the top ten
busiest pedestrian ports of entry, as well. These numbers are showing
no sign of slowing down.

How does CBP and DHS determine the priority rank of needs on the
northern versus southern border?

Answer. CBP is responsible for managing the flow of lawful trade
and travel through its 328 air, land, and maritime ports of entry. CBP
also manages more than 6,000 miles of land border, more than 12,000
miles of coastline border, and works to prevent the illegal movement of
people and contraband crossing U.S. airspace. When examining port of
entry requirements across the northern and southern borders, CBP must
always consider the complex set of threats, risks, and challenges that
are unique to each regional area. Prioritization of requirements across
the southern and northern border regions is determined by certain
criteria such as staffing numbers, operational needs/risks, traffic
volumes, and facility conditions and functionality. This regional
prioritization is built on data that reflects the threats, risks and
operational needs dictated by the ever-changing environment along the
U.S. borders. CBP budgets are designed to account for addressing
priority areas at and between the ports of entry without regard to
whether they are northern or southern borders, or whether it is an air,
land, or sea environment.

CBP uses its Workload Staffing Model (WSM) to analyze and provide
recommendations for changes to CBP officer (CBPO) staffing
requirements. The WSM is a decision support tool that calculates
recommended staffing levels for each port of entry based on current and
projected enforcement and facilitation workload, including recognizing
emerging threats. CBP assesses threats through a risk-based strategy
and multilayered security approach, and aligns resources to meet its
mission and ensure that threats are mitigated.

With regard to CBP facilities, CBP and the GSA utilize a
comprehensive nation-wide scoring methodology to prioritize operational
needs across the entire Land Port of Entry (LPOE) portfolio. This
multi-step process starts with gathering data using the Strategic
Resource Assessment methodology, in which CBP uses 60 distinct criteria
in four categories that CBP weighs to calculate each facility's
criticality of need for modernization:

Mission and Operations;
Security and Life Safety;
Space and Site Deficiencies; and
Personnel and Workload Growth.

CBP then applies two additional analyses to the initial needs
assessment to develop a prioritized investment plan for LPOE
modernization projects:

CBP applies a sensitivity analysis of the initial ranking
that considers factors such as binational border agreements,
Federal, State, and local interests, and unique regional
conditions.
CBP evaluates the feasibility and risk associated with
project implementation, including environmental, cultural, and
historic preservation requirements.

Finally, CBP arrives at a final prioritization of proposed projects.
This prioritization does not distinguish between northern and southern
border LPOEs, but represents the prioritized investment need across the
entire LPOE portfolio.

Question. More specifically, how does CBP determine the needs and
prioritize expenditures for upgrades at each Port of Entry?

Answer. CBP and the GSA use the same comprehensive nation-wide
scoring methodology outlined in the response to the prior question to
prioritize the operational needs across the Land Port of Entry (LPOE)
portfolio.

Capital improvements to the LPOE inventory are made in priority
order, guided by a defined CBP LPOE prioritization methodology, and to
the extent available under Federal appropriations. The design and
construction of these projects are funded predominantly through GSA's
Federal Buildings Fund while CBP is responsible for paying for the one-
time turnkey furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and recurring rent and
staffing costs at these facilities.

CBP prioritizes expenditures for upgrades at the ports of entry
(POEs) based on several factors:

Department and agency priorities--with current focus on
southwest border;
Volume of traffic processed at a given POE--high-volume POEs
over low-
volume POEs (return on investment for facilitation and
security);
Operational reliability of the deployed technology--
unreliable/failing technology refreshed first;
Age of the deployed technology--oldest first; and
Affordability.

In 2008, under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
program, CBP began the deployment of Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) and License Plate Reader (LPR) technology as well as improved
vehicle processing software at the land border ports of entry.

In 2010, the WHTI program became the Land Border Integration (LBI)
program and began implementing the Triangle Strategy, which entailed
the deployment of LPR technology for Pedestrian, Outbound, and USBP
Checkpoint processing and the sharing of information between these
areas and Inbound processing.

CBP continues to improve land border integration by procuring and
implementing the latest, most effective facilitative technology
available to monitor and intercept vehicles crossing its borders. LPR
technology is an integral part of CBP's border security plans. The FY
2018 funding bill included $23 million for facility and infrastructure
upgrades at the land border POEs. The LBI program received a portion of
this funding to begin a technology refresh and will prioritize those
upgrades using the above-referenced factors.

CBP recognizes the critical role Texas plays supporting legitimate
trade and travel. Eleven (11) of the first 39 POEs, encompassing 22
border crossing locations, that received facilitative technology under
the initial WHTI deployment are in Texas and will be prioritized for
refresh based on the criteria outlined above.

Other technology upgrades funded by the $23 million enacted by
Congress in the FY 2018 budget included upgrades and updates to primary
booths, installation of circuits, Wi-Fi, and updated phone systems at
ports of entry, as well as procuring additional radios for frontline
personnel.

The Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Systems Program is actively
sustaining operations through a comprehensive logistics and maintenance
support strategy and replacing technology as systems reach their
service life. With CBP's current stand-alone large-scale NII
technology, CBP is capable of examining approximately 10-20 vehicles
per hour in secondary inspection operations; these scans are largely
conducted on high-risk conveyances. On the southwest land border, that
translates to scanning approximately one percent of privately owned
vehicles and approximately 17 percent of commercial trucks. These scans
result in over 95 percent of all NII seizures and over 98 percent of
the total weight of narcotics seized (with NII) nationwide.

CBP is actively assessing commercially available NII technology
that offers automation capabilities to streamline the NII examination
process. Automating and streamlining the process will allow CBP to
increase throughput and/or redirect personnel to other high-priority
missions at POE's, where feasible. Overall, this approach will increase
security and facilitation of trade and travel across the Nation's
borders.

An instrumental effort to achieve this approach is to determine the
feasibility of utilizing drive-through NII systems in pre-primary or
primary lanes. Currently CBP is conducting an operational assessment
with new, commercially available, Multi-Energy Portal (MEP) x-ray
systems in our Laredo Field Office. The assessment objective is to
determine the technological and operational feasibility of utilizing
NII in pre-primary or primary operations, thereby allowing CBP to
examine a greater portion of commercial trucks in pre-primary or
primary lanes. The multi-energy capability of the MEP allows the driver
to remain in the vehicle, as the cab is scanned at a lower dosage, and
the trailer is scanned at a higher dosage. To further automate and
streamline the process, the assessment will look at integrating the new
NII technology and imaging data with other automated processing
technology utilized at our land borders, such as license plate readers,
Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID), Automated Commercial
Environment, eManifest and Optical Character Recognition on box
trailers to support command center operational concepts. The assessment
is being conducted at three ports of entry, including the World Trade
Bridge in Laredo, TX, Veterans Bridge in Brownsville, TX, and the
Savannah, GA seaport of entry. The results of the operational
assessments conducted at these locations will be utilized to refine
operational requirements for future expansion to other port of entry
locations as resources permit.

To prioritize NII needs between Northern and Southern land border
locations, CBP looks at a variety of factors, including operational
utility of existing technology, field needs, emerging trends,
infrastructure requirements and plans, and resources.
recruiting and retention
Question. One impediment to hiring and retention within OFO has
been the fact that CBP must compete for the same pool of talent as
other law enforcement agencies (LEA). Often times, we are told that CBP
loses out on these candidates because such LEAs can offer higher
salaries and recruitment bonuses, in addition to less dangerous locales
that are not as remote.

What steps is CBP taking to address pay parity and retention?

Answer. CBP continues to review the compensation of law
enforcement, including the classification/career ladders of the
position; utilizes recruitment, relocation and retention incentives to
address critical hiring and retention issues; and has participated in
the Department of Homeland Security Office of Chief Human Capital
Officer Pay Parity Workgroup.

Question. What can Congress do legislative to help CBP recruit and
retain new talent?

Answer. CBP has provided technical assistance to the drafting of
several pieces of legislation that have suggested numerous initiatives
that would support existing recruitment and retention programs. These
initiatives include:

Authorization to issue recruitment/retention incentives in
hard-to-fill/remote locations. Many of CBP's duty station are
in remote communities that lack many of the conveniences
associated with urban locations. Such incentives would assist
with the placement and retention of agents and officers in
these locations.
Authorization to waive CBP's mandatory polygraph examination
to expedite the hiring of candidates who meet stringent
criteria, including current Federal law enforcement officers
who have passed a polygraph administered by another Federal
agency, and separating service members/recent veterans with
certain military clearances.

CBP appreciates Congress's support of amendments to the Anti-Border
Corruption Act of 2010. The House has supported CBP's efforts to
develop a risk-based approach to extend polygraph waiver eligibility to
certain categories of applicants, and we will continue to work with the
Senate to do the same. The flexibility to waive the polygraph for
individuals in these limited populations, such as current Federal law
enforcement officers or transitioning military service members, would
potentially expedite their onboarding and allow CBP to direct more
resources toward the processing of other groups of applicants,
preventing potential bottlenecks in the hiring pipeline.
polygraph testing
Question. Another impediment to CBP hiring is the rigorous
polygraph testing. My understanding is that CBP has recently
streamlined the polygraph testing to address the failure rate.

Have you seen an increase in the number of new hires who are now
able to clear the polygraph exam?

Answer. To better streamline the polygraph testing process, CBP
implemented numerous program efficiencies including a more efficient
polygraph testing format (the NCCA-approved Test for Espionage,
Sabotage, and Corruption), a staffing model based on applicant flows
and the removal of unsuitable applicants earlier in the hiring process.
These efficiencies resulted in a 54 percent increase of applicants
processed through polygraph in FY 2018 (14,263 applicants compared to
9261 applicants in FY 2017). They also resulted in an 89 percent
increase in applicants who successfully completed the polygraph during
the year (4,457 passes compared to 2,360 passes in FY 2017).
k-9 units
Question. CBP uses K-9 units on the primary inspection lanes at
several ports of entry. These units have proven to be very effective at
identifying drugs and other illegal contraband and have helped reduce
the time required for manual inspections.

How many additional units would CBP need to cover the ports of
entry on the southern border?

Answer. We appreciate congressional support of CBP's canine
program. The FY 2019 President's budget request sustains current canine
staffing levels across the CBP frontline.
new preclearance facilities
Question. Expansion of CBP's preclearance program has been a
priority of CBP in recent years and of yours, both as Deputy
Commissioner and now as Commissioner. In 2015 CBP identified 10
airports as top candidates for preclearance and, in 2016, Congress
granted CBP additional reimbursement authority to more efficiently
reach preclearance agreements with foreign countries.

Can you please update the committee on your efforts to establish
new preclearance facilities? Specifically, which foreign countries are
you currently in negotiations with, which have signed, or may soon
sign, a preclearance agreement, and does the list of 10 airports from
2015 still represent the most viable candidates for a CBP preclearance
site?

Answer. CBP conducted two rounds of open period solicitations for
preclearance expansion, which resulted in identifying 21 potential
preclearance locations as of 2017. The most recent countries to sign an
agreement with CBP were Sweden and the Dominican Republic, which signed
in November and December 2016, respectively.

CBP is actively negotiating with several countries prioritized
during the open periods of expansion. Negotiations on a bilateral
agreement are at an advanced stage with a number of the priority
locations.
laredo project
Question. I understand that the city of Laredo is currently in
discussions with both CBP and the General Services Administration to
develop a regional conference center near the Rio Grande riverfront on
property which is owned by the Federal Government. I also understand
that the proposed project improvements adjacent to the port of entries,
in exchange for the land, are in progress.

Will you please keep my staff updated on any developments related
to this project and commit to giving the city full and fair
consideration in these proceedings?

Answer. The city of Laredo is interested in acquiring land at the
Laredo Land Port of Entry (LPOE) for a convention center. GSA, who owns
the land, expressed willingness to work with the city to exchange a
portion of this footprint in return for improvements needed at the
port. CBP has worked to identify requirements for these improvements,
which served as the basis for a preliminary cost estimate. A meeting
with the city took place in August 2018 to discuss the conditions of
the land transfer, requirements for the facility, and initial costs.
The city's budget for the project is much less than the government's
estimated costs. GSA and CBP are currently engaged with the city to
identify alternative design and exchange scenarios.

In a parallel yet connected project, the city is offering land/
improvements to collocate other CBP/DHS components, and possibly some
port functions, such as general use CBP training facilities, on a
centralized campus close to the airport. CBP is working with the city
of Laredo to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will allow
the city to collect requirements from CBP so that it can develop a
high-level proposal to address some or all of CBP's needs.

GSA will continue to work closely with CBP and the city of Laredo
to determine next steps regarding the city's proposals.

______

Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune
low-value shipments
Question. In 2015, I worked with Senator Wyden to increase the de
minimis threshold for low-value imports to the current $800 level. I
understand that CBP is using a portion of its increased FY 2018
appropriations to enhance the inspections of these types of low-value
shipments through risked-based analytics.

Can you describe these efforts in more detail and how they will
help facilitate the process for our importers and exporters of low-
value products?

Answer. Current Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) manifest
procedures will be expanded to all modes of transportation to allow
carriers to request section 321 clearance for low-value shipments as an
optional business decision. ACE Electronic Data Interchange manifest-
level processing will not be available for goods requiring complex
admissibility processes (e.g., goods subject to Partner Government
Agency (PGA) requirements addressing health and safety concerns).
Rather, CBP will provide an additional pathway for clearance via the
development of an Automated Broker Interface (ABI) submission, known as
a ``Type 86'' entry. This filing option will be available to all ABI
filers, and will be required for goods subject to complex admissibility
processes. These new automated solutions will allow us to manage risk
in this space while maintaining the velocity of e-commerce. In
addition, CBP is exploring several advanced data analytics projects
using new data techniques/algorithms to identify and segment specific
areas of trade risks, including e-commerce and low value shipments.
These project trials are very promising and CBP's Office of Trade is
making enhancements in this area for FY 2019 to integrate these
concepts and processes into our ACE systems.
e-commerce
Question. In your written testimony you discuss the dramatic
increase in the volume of shipments coming into the United States as a
result of e-commerce. The growth of this sector of the economy and its
intersection with international trade obviously create new challenges
for CBP to carry out its national-security and trade-enforcement
responsibilities.

In addition to the steps that CBP has already taken to address the
growth in e-commerce, like the E-Commerce and Small Business Branch,
are there additional actions that CBP is considering that you believe
would require new statutory authority or changes to existing law, which
this committee should consider?

Answer. On March 6, 2018, CBP issued its E-Commerce Strategy that
focuses on creating a more agile CBP that can adapt to challenges in
the e-commerce environment. As we continue to advance implementation of
the E-Commerce Strategy, we are considering what regulatory, statutory,
and policy amendments would further enhance CBP's ability to carry out
its national security and trade enforcement responsibilities. CBP will
continue to work with interagency partners and the Commercial Customs
Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) E-Commerce Working Group
throughout implementation of the strategy, and will keep this committee
apprised of our developments and findings.
joint-processing initiative
Question. You note in your testimony recent efforts by the CBP and
the Mexican government to further the existing uniform cargo processing
by both agencies along the U.S.-Mexican border. Witnesses on our second
panel have also noted the benefits of this joint-processing initiative
in their testimony.

Can you expand on CBP's plans for expanding the initiative along
our southern border and whether CBP is giving any consideration to
initiating a similar effort with Canada for trade along our northern
border?

Answer. Unified Cargo Processing (UCP) is an innovative concept in
which CBP and the Servicio de Administracion Tributaria (SAT) perform
joint cargo clearance and examinations, in the United States, at nine
major commercial ports of entry. By conducting joint cargo processing,
CBP and SAT have reduced duplicate cargo inspections and wait times at
the border. This in turn has significantly lowered the cost of doing
business in the region as well as enhanced the national security for
both countries.

CBP used this model and signed a UCP agreement with Canadian Border
Services Agency (CBSA) in November 2017. The CBSA then began a 6-month
pilot utilizing CBP's x-ray technology to inspect trains destined to
Canada. The pilot has been extended an additional six months, at which
time CBSA and CBP will evaluate the pilot.

CBP, SAT, and CBSA are working on tri-lateral criteria for future
expansion of UCP in the air cargo environment. Once the tri-lateral
criteria is complete, CBP will post a notice in CBP.gov for interested
parties to respond via a letter of interest.

______

Questions Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill
non-parental family members
Question. Please provide the number of children that were
accompanied by a family member other than a parent that arrived at a
port of entry or were apprehended by the Border Patrol each month
between fiscal year (FY) 2016 and FY 2018 (i.e., grandparent, aunt,
uncle, cousin).

Were any of these children separated from that family member and
processed as unaccompanied?

If so, under what circumstances?

Answer. Consistent with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) and the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (at 6 U.S.C. 279(g)), an alien child who has no
lawful immigration status in the United States and for whom there is no
parent or legal guardian in the United States, or for whom there is no
parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to
provide care and physical custody, is processed as an unaccompanied
alien child, regardless whether the child is accompanied by a family
member who is not a parent or legal guardian. CBP does not maintain
statistics on the number of alien children who are accompanied by a
family member other than a parent or legal guardian.

All alien minors that meet the definition of unaccompanied alien
children are processed consistently with the requirements of the TVPRA,
and in most cases are transferred to the custody of the Department of
Health and Human Services.
adult siblings
Question. Please provide the number of children that were
accompanied by an adult sibling that arrived at a port of entry or were
apprehended by the Border Patrol each month between FY 2016 and FY
2018.

Answer. An alien child who meets the definition of an Unaccompanied
Alien Child is processed pursuant to the TVPRA, regardless whether the
child is accompanied by a family member who is not a parent or legal
guardian. CBP does not maintain statistics on the number of alien
children who are accompanied by a family member other than a parent or
legal guardian.

Question. What is the policy of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
for processing a child who arrives with an adult sibling?

Answer. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines an unaccompanied
alien child (UAC) as a child who has no lawful immigration status in
the United States, has not attained the age of 18, with respect to whom
there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States, or for whom
no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to
provide care and physical custody. As such, children who arrive with
non-custodial adult sibling(s) are UACs, not family unit aliens. In
most cases, UACs must be transferred to the custody of the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) as outlined in the TVPRA.

Question. Are they separated and processed separately or are they
processed as a family unit?

Answer. As outlined in the TVPRA, all UAC from non-contiguous
countries are placed in removal proceedings pursuant to section 240 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act and transferred to the custody of
HHS within 72 hours of being determined to be a UAC.

Question. Under the Zero Tolerance policy, are the adult siblings
that arrive with a child sibling referred for prosecution?

Answer. The Zero Tolerance policy, which took effect April 6, 2018,
applies to all offenses referred for prosecution under 8 U.S.C. section
1325(a), ``Improper entry by alien,'' and supersedes any existing
policies. So accompanying adult siblings, who entered the United States
illegally, are referred for prosecution.
guidance provided
Question. Please provide any guidance provided by the Department of
Homeland Security to CBP on the implementation of the zero-tolerance
policy or family separations.

Answer. On May 4, 2018, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
Kirstjen Nielsen, directed CBP officers and agents to ensure that all
adults deemed prosecutable for improper entry in violation of 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1325(a) are referred to the Department of Justice for criminal
prosecution.

Question. Please provide any operational guidance that was provided
by each Border Patrol sector to subordinates and front-line personnel
on the separation of children from their families.

Answer. USBP did not issue any operational guidance to the field
that fits the description above.
asylum seekers processed
Question. How many asylum seekers does CBP process each day at
ports of entry?

Answer. For the southwest border, CBP referred for processing on
average 90 asylum seekers per day at the ports of entry (POEs) from May
1, 2018, through August 13, 2018.

Question. How long does this process take?

Answer. CBP policy is to process applicants for admission in an
expeditious manner. POEs have to balance an array of critical mission
priorities; including counterterrorism, counter-narcotics, safeguarding
the Nation's economic future, facilitation of lawful trade and travel,
and processing travelers to determine whether they are permitted to
enter the United States. With that in mind, the number of potentially
inadmissible individuals CBP is able to process varies based upon case
complexity, available resources, medical needs, interpretation
requirements, holding/detention space, overall port volume, and ongoing
enforcement actions.
access to a credible fear interview
Question. Do CBP Officers have the authority to deny an individual
access to a credible fear interview?

If so, what are the circumstances under which that authority is
used and what training do CBP Officers receive on their authority to
deny individuals access to a credible fear interview?

Answer. No. Any alien who arrives in the United States and is
subject to expedited removal who asserts fear of persecution or
torture, or indicates an intention to apply for asylum is referred to
USCIS for a credible fear determination. Aliens who arrive in the
United States, but are not subject to expedited removal, may seek other
forms of protection or relief, depending on the manner of their
arrival, with either U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
or an immigration judge.
daily reports
Question. In response to questions at the hearing, you described a
daily report that you receive that details the number of migrants
waiting to be admitted at ports of entry. Please provide copies of this
report for each day between Jan 1, 2017 and August 1, 2018.

Answer. The documents requested are subject to ``deliberative
process privilege,'' and respectfully, are not appropriate for release
to Congress.
asylum claims on the southern border
Question. Please provide a breakdown of the number of asylum claims
made at each port of entry along the southern border in FY2016--FY2018.

Answer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW Land Border Total Inadmissible
Aliens and Credible Fear Claims FY 2016 FY 2017 FYTD 2018
(Through August 2, 2018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Inadmissible Aliens 153,931 111,248 105,661
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Credible Fear Claims of 21.99% 24.13% 35.77%
the Total Inadmissible Aliens
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asylum Claims
Port of Entry -------------------------------------------
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 SUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrade, CA (2502) 4 60 18 82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brownsville, TX (2301) 1,494 1,273 l,192 3,959
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calexico, CA (2503) 604 1,236 1,487 3,327
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calexico-East (2507) 5 148 243 396
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus, NM (2406) 26 12 25 63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Rio, TX (2302) 44 132 87 263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas, AZ (2601) 343 180 l42 665
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Pass, TX (2303) 503 655 1,148 2,306
------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso, TX (2402) 9,268 7,118 8,328 24,714
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hidalgo, TX (2305) 5,016 3,084 4,027 12,127
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laredo, TX (2304) 1,802 2,345 4,611 8,038
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukeville, AZ (2602) 1 20 12 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naco, AZ (2603) 2 5 3 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nogales, AZ (2604) 836 2,156 2,688 5,680
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otay Mesa (2506) 1,658 133 642 2,433
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidio, TX (2403) 230 185 149 564
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progreso, TX (2309) 72 123 89 284
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Grande City, TX (2307) 45 17 166 228
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roma, TX (2310) 298 680 1,351 2,329
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Luis, AZ (2608) 911 2,089 1,774 4,774
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Teresa (2408) 255 408 542 1,205
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Ysidro (2504) 10,527 4,421 9,564 24,512
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sasabe, AZ (2606) 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tecate, CA (2505) 3 2 16 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tornillo, TX (2404) 628 359 58 1,045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum: 33,855 26,841 38,363 99,059
------------------------------------------------------------------------

increasing processing capacity
Question. Given the increasing asylum claims at San Ysidro, what
steps if any have you taken to add additional processing capacity in
the San Diego area.

Answer. CBP is committed to our complex and multifaceted mission
set, which includes the safe, secure, and orderly processing of all
travelers as expeditiously as possible without compromising safety or
national security. The number of inadmissible individuals CBP is able
to process varies depending on case complexity, available resources,
medical needs, interpretation requirements, holding/detention space,
overall port volume, and ongoing enforcement actions. San Ysidro
management conducts daily assessments of their operational capacities
to ensure all of CBP's core mission sets are achieved. Currently, all
available resources are being deployed to process asylum cases without
detrimentally impacting critical operational elements.
trade act penalty provision
Question. Phase three of the TRADE Act implementation was supposed
to include penalties for deficient descriptions of package contents.
CBP has assured me that ``The Trade Act of 2002 has been implemented
and does include a penalty provision for bad description of package
contents for all modes of transportation.''

For the past 3 years, please provide a list of the penalties that
have been levied, including the companies that they have been levied
against, the amount of the fine that was proposed, and the amount that
was collected.

Answer. Please see table below. There are several reasons the
assessed amounts differ from the amount collected on all penalty data.
First, the collection of monies assessed on these penalties do not
routinely occur within the same fiscal year as assessed because
violators are afforded the ability to file a petition/supplemental
petition on stating that a violation did not occur or there were
mitigating factors that caused the violation. Second, when considering
petitions/supplemental petitions, CBP reviews both mitigating and
aggravating factors, which may result in a reduction of the penalty
amount based on our Mitigation Guidelines. Finally, upon exhausting all
avenues available to collect these penalties, CBP begin will close the
case out as a write-off.

Most penalties assessed against violators are not covered by a
bond, as are our liquidated damages claims. This has been identified as
an obstacle to collection.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Violations Sum of Sum of
Carrier per Fiscal Fiscal Year Assessed Collected
Year Amount Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A & M TRANSPORT 1 2017 $1,066 $1,066
ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. 3 2017 $12,600 $2,000
ACTION AIRPORT EXPRESS INC. 1 2017 $199 $199
AIRTIME EXPRESS INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
AIRWAY AUTO BROKER, LLC 1 2017 $1,810 $181
ALBERTS LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
ALVARADOS TRUCKING LLC 1 2017 $10,000 -
ALWEST TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
AMAN LOGISTICS LTD 1 2017 $909 -
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES LTD 2 2017 $2,000 -
ANL SINGAPORE PTE LTD 1 2017 $10,000 $2,000
ARV TRANSPORTE 1 2017 $1,000 $500
ATLAS DIVISION TRANSPORTE 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
AVIV TRANSPORT 1 2017 $1,000 $200
BARTEL BULK FREIGHT INC. 1 2017 $2,919 -
BERTS TRUCK EQUIPMENT 1 2017 $10,000 $200
BIG SKY AUTO TRANSPORT, INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
BISON TRANSPORT INC. 3 2017 $3,000 $2,500
BNSF RAILWAY 7 2017 $70,000 $6,000
BOREAS LOGISTICS 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
BULLS TRANSPORT 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY 6 2017 $51,000 $5,200
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY 17 2017 $161,000 $16,200
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 11 2017 $73,630 $5,900
CARGO NORTHWEST 1 2017 $10,000 -
CASTOR TRANSPORT LLC 1 2017 $8,231 $500
CHINA SHIPPING CONTAINER LINES 3 2017 $3,000 $600
CMA CGM LOGISTICS USA LLC 2 2017 $11,000 $1,200
CON-WAY FREIGHT INC. 2 2017 $2,000 $1,000
COOPER BROTHERS TRUCKING LLC 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
COSCO SHIPPING LINES, CO 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
CP RAIL 1 2017 $1,000 $200
CROSSBORDER EXPRESS 1 2017 $225 -
CROWLEY CARIBBEAN LOGISTICS LLC 4 2017 $4,000 $1,200
CROWN EXPRESS TRANSPORT, INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
D'ALLIANCE MOTORS 1 2017 $234 $234
DAS LOGISTICS 1 2017 $1,000 $200
DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC. 9 2017 $9,000 -
DJ KNOLL TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $200
DLH TRUCKING INC. 1 2017 $2,109 $211
DOUBLE V TRUCKING LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $200
DOWNTON'S TRANSPORT LTD 2 2017 $13,048 $1,304
DURAN FREIGHT CORPORATION 3 2017 $10,640 $1,090
EASTLAND TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $200
EKUAM TRANSPORT INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
EL CHICURAL SPR DE RL 1 2017 $1,00 $1,000
ELT TRANSPORT LTD 2 2017 $2,000 $200
EMMANUEL TRANSPORT 1 2017 $1,000 $500
EVERGREEN LINE 1 2017 $1,000 $225
EXPRESS SERVICE TRANSPORT, INC. 1 2017 $925 $925
FAVEL TRANSPORTATION 1 2017 $1,000 $500
FED EX FREIGHT CANADA CORP 1 2017 $1,000 $200
FERROL TRUCKING SERVICES, INC. 62 2017 $62,000 $18,600
FERROL TRUCKING SERVICES, INC. 68 2017 $68,000 $20,400
FLAGSTAFF EXPRESS INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $500
FREEWAY TRUCKING INC. 1 2017 $599 -
FROCO S DE RL DE CV 1 2017 $5,538 $500
G P S GALAXY PACIFIC SERVICES LTD. 1 2017 $1,000 $500
GATEWAY CARRIERS LTD 3 2017 $3,893 $684
GILL WORLD LOGISTICS 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
GPS GALAXY PACIFIC 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
GRACE ROAD LINES LTD 2 2017 $1,448 $700
GREAT WHITE FLEET LTD 1 2017 $5,000 $500
GUERREROS TRUCKING 1 2017 $1,000 -
H & R TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $500
HAMBURG SUD NORTH AMERICA 2 2017 $2,000 $2,000
HAMBURG SUDAMERIKANISCHE DAMPFSC 7 2017 $7,000 $7,000
HEYS TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
HIGHLIGHT MOTOR FREIGHT INC. 2 2017 $2,000 $400
HJM INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT 1 2017 $2,302 $2,302
HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE (AMERICA) 2 2017 $2,000 $1,700
INTERNATIONAL STEAMSHIP AGENCY 1 2017 $2,211,429 $150,000
JADE EXPRESS INC. 1 2017 $1,000 -
JFG INTERNATIONAL INC. 1 2017 $3,164 $1,000
JOHAL'S TRUCKING INC. 1 2017 $6,293 -
K LINE AMERICA INC. 3 2017 $12,000 $1,150
K LINE AMERICA INC. 9 2017 $18,000 $2,750
K LINE AMERICA, INC. 5 2017 $5,000 $1,200
KC EXPRESS LTD 1 2017 $858 $200
KCATT TRUCKING 1 2017 $9,697 -
K-DAC ENTERPRISES, INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
K-LINE AMERICA 10 2017 $25,520 $3,100
KOOTENAY WOOD TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $4,194 $200
LAND ROUTE TRUCKLINES, INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
LANDSTAR INWAY INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
LAPARKAN TRADING LTD 1 2017 $10,000 -
LAX FREIGHT SERVICES INC. 1 2017 $912 $912
LEAVITTS FREIGHT SERVICE INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
LEN DUBOIS TRUCKING 1 2017 $1,000 $200
LIGHT SPEED LOGISTICS INC. 2 2017 $2,000 $1,500
LINEA AEREA CARGUERA DE COLOMBIA LANCO 1 2017 $1,000 $500
LIVING WATERS 1 2017 $198 $198
LOGISTIC INTL MT INC. 1 2017 $10,000 -
LORAS TRUCKING 1 2017 $10,000 $500
LTC INTERNATIONAL INC. 1 2017 $399 $399
MAERSK AGENCY USA INC. 14 2017 $33,081 $7,581
MARINE EXPRESS INC. 7 2017 $7,000 $2,400
MARTHA RUTH DELGADO VALDEZ 1 2017 $1,000 $500
MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $500
MAYER, YVONNE M. 1 2017 $1,000 $500
MCD TRANSPORTATION INC. 1 2017 $132 $132
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO. 3 2017 $3,000 $200
MERCER TRANSPORTATION CO. 1 2017 $609 $609
MESTON LIVESTOCK TRANSPORT 1 2017 $1,000 $200
MITSUI O.S.K. LINES LTD. 41 2017 $59,000 $34,000
MORGAN HOLDINGS 1 2017 $1,000 $500
MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO 2 2017 $2,000 $300
MULLEN TRUCKING INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $200
NORFOLK TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
NYK LINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC. 2 2017 $7,009 $3,403
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE INC. 1 2017 $2,227 $223
ONTINE TRANSFREIGHT 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
OPTIMISTIC ENTERPRISES LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $200
ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE 4 2017 $4,000 $1,000
PACIFIC BROKERAGE CO 1 2017 $1,000 $500
PASKAL VAN RAAY FARMS LTD 1 2017 $1,000 -
POLARIS TRANSPORT 7 2017 $9,912 $5,982
PUDONG PRIME INTL LOGISTICS INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
R.S.GILL EXPRESS, LTD 1 2017 $3,027 $303
RDK TRANSPORTATION CO INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
ROCK TRUCKING LTD 1 2017 $704 -
ROCKPORT CARRIER CO INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
SBJS TRANSPORT INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $200
SCOTLYNN COMMODITIES INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $500
SEVEN HORSE TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $500
SHANNON BROKERAGE CO. 1 2017 $1,000 $500
SILVER STALLION ENTERPRISE 2 2017 $1,040 $200
SMOOT BROS TRANSPORTATION 1 2017 $1,000 $200
SNOWY OWL TRANSPORTATION INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $500
SOCIETE AIR FRANCE 1 2017 $1,000 $500
STEELHORSE FREIGHT SERVICES INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
STEVENSON FORMEL FREIGHT SERVICE 25 2017 $25,000 $10,600
SUNRISE TRANSPORT LTD 2 2017 $2,000 $2,000
SUPERDAVE'S SUPERSTORE 1 2017 $503 $503
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC. 2 2017 $2,050 $200
SYSTEM TRANSPORT INC. 2 2017 $2,000 $2,000
T.E.A.M.S. TRUCKING 1 2017 $1,000 $200
TDX LOGISTICS INC. 1 2017 $1,740 $200
THE WAGGONERS TRUCKING 1 2017 $1,000 -
TMV 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
TNT SKYPAK 1 2017 $1,000 -
TRANSPORTES JTH 1 2017 $1,000 $500
TRANSPORTES LEGASPY E HIJOS 2 2017 $20,000 $2,000
TRANSPORTES LOGSOON 1 2017 $1,000 -
TRANSX LIMITED 2 2017 $10,262 $1,262
TRIPLE EIGHT TRANSPORT INC. 3 2017 $11,884 $2,084
TST OVERLAND EXPRESS 2 2017 $3,561 $456
TURK ENTERPRISES LTD 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
UNITED AIRLINES 1 2017 $120,955 $12,096
UNITED ARAB SHIPPING CO 11 2017 $11,000 $1,700
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 1 2017 $382 $200
VERSA COLD NORTH AMERICA TRANS 1 2017 $1,000 $200
VM GLOBAL TRANSPORT LLC 1 2017 $10,000 -
VM TRANSPORT LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $200
WAGGONERS TRUCKING 1 2017 $200 $200
WAN HAI LINES (AMERICA) LTD 2 2017 $2,000 $850
WERNER ENTERPRISES INC. 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
WESTERN TRADE WINDS LTD 1 2017 $1,000 $200
WILDWOOD TRANSPORT INC. 1 2017 $10,000 $1,000
XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT CANADA 1 2017 $1,340 $200
YRC DBA ROADWAY EXPRESS 4 2017 $4,000 $1,700
ZIM AMERICAN INTEGRATED SHIPPING 1 2017 $1,000 $1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties 506
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessed Amount $3,546,605.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collected Amount $405,012.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------

tariff act penalties
Question. Please provide the penalties and collections under 19
U.S.C. 1436 for FY 2015-FY 2018. Please include a breakdown of the
penalties by carrier and by violation.

Most penalties assessed against violators are not covered by a
bond, as are our liquidated damages claims. This has been identified as
an obstacle to collection.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Violations Sum of Sum of
Carrier Fiscal Year Per Fiscal Assessed Collected
Year Amount ($) Amount ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``K'' LINE AMERICA INC. 2017 5 25,000.00 7,000.00
5289514 MANITOBA LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
7784813 CANADA CORPORATION 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
ABX AIR 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
ACE Quantum 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
AER LINGUS 2017 2 10,000.00 1,500.00
AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
AEROTRANSPORTE DE CARGA 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
AGAM HOLDINGS LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
AIKAM TRANSPORT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
AIR BERLIN 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
AIR CANADA 2017 3 15,000.00 500.00
AIR FRANCE 2017 17 105,000.00 10,750.00
AIR SERV CORPORATION 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
AIR TAHITI 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
AIRBRIDGE CARGO AIR 2017 5 25,000.00 2,500.00
ALITALIA AIR 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
ALKAN AIR LIMITED 2017 1 5,000.00 5000.00
ALL NIPPON 2017 7 35,000.00 7,000.00
AMAZON.COM 2017 4 4,000.00 0.00
AMERICAN AIRLINES 2017 15 72,000.00 14,500.00
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINE 2017 28 140,000.00 6,9850.00
AMSA USA INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
ANDY TRANSPORT INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
ANKER INTERNATIONAL LLC 2017 1 5,000.00 1,500.00
ANL CONTAINER LINE PTY LIMITED 2017 25 125,000.00 61,250.00
ANL SINGAPORE PTE LTD. 2017 8 40,000.00 19,650.00
ARACOR, INC. 2017 3 15,000.00 2,250.00
ARANSAS PILOTS 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
ARI-SON TRUCKING 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
ARNOLD BROS TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 4 20,000.00 2,000.00
ATLANTIC CONTAINER LINE AB 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
ATLAS AIR 2017 5 25,000.00 3,500.00
AUSTRIAN AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 1,400.00
AUTOTRANSPORTE DE CARGA HCC 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
AVJET CORPORATION 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
BARTEL BULK FREIGHT INC. 2017 3 15,000.00 1,000.00
BENIPAL BROTHERS LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
BIEHL & CO. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
BIRKETT FREIGHT SOLUTIONS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
BISON TRANSPORT 2017 3 15,000.00 1,500.00
BLUE ANCHOR AMERICA LINE 2017 8 40,000.00 21,650.00
BLUE CARGO GROUP 2017 1 5,000.00 1,500.00
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
BOA OFFSHORE A S 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
BONANZA GROUP 2017 1 5,000.00 270.00
BP SHIPPING LTD 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC 2017 7 35,000.00 11,250.00
BRUSSELS AIRLINES NV 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
BTC-EXPRESS 2017 1 500.00 500.00
BTI CARTAGE 2017 1 500.00 500.00
BULKSHIP MARITIME 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
BURLINGTON NORTHERN 2017 4 30,000.00 9,400.00
C2C, INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 150.00
CANADIAN FREIGHTWAYS LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY 2017 9 56,000.00 16,000.00
CANAMEX TRUCKING SYSTEM, INC. 2017 1 1,353.13 1,353.13
CANEDA FOREST PRODUCTS SALES 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
CARGO CONTAINER LINE LIMITED 2017 4 20,000.00 6,500.00
CARGOLUX AIRLINES 2017 4 25,000.00 12,000.00
CARNIVAL CORPORATION 2017 6 32,100.00 5,700.00
CATHAY PACIFIC 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
CAYMAN AIRWAYS, LTD.. 2017 1 5,000.00 250.00
CCNI 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
CELEBRITY CRUISES INC. 2017 2 1,500.00 1,500.00
CHALLENGER MANUFACTURING 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
CHALLENGER MOTOR FREIGHT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
CHARTRIGHT AIR 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
CHEVAL TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
CHINA AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
CHINA BUFFET 2017 2 2,000.00 100.00
CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES 2017 18 90,000.00 18,000.00
CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY 2017 12 60,000.00 10,300.00
CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CO. 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
CINCO AIR CHARTER 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
CLEARFREIGHT 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
CMA CGM (AMERICA) INC. 2017 33 165,000.00 72,587.00
COLUMBIA SHIP MGT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
COMPANIA PANAMENA DE AVIACION 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
CONDOR FLUGDIENST 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
COPA AIRLINE 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
COSCO SHIPPING LINES CO. 2017 35 175,000.00 15,000.00
COTTONWOOD LOGISTICS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
CRANE WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LLC 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
CRAWLEY LATIN AMERICA SERVICES 2017 1 5,000.00 550.00
CROWLEY CARIBBEAN SERVICES 2017 30 15,000.00 14,950.00
CROWN EXPRESS TRANSPORT, INC. 2017 1 305.00 0.00
CRUCES INTERNACIONALES 2017 1 5,000.00 1,400.00
CRYSTAL CRUISES LLC 2017 1 1,200.00 1,200.00
CSX TRANSPORTATION 2017 6 55,000.00 10,500.00
CUSTOM TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 2 10,000.00 500.00
DARCOL INTERNATIONAL INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 500.00
DECKX TRANSPORT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
DEEPLAND EXPRESS 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
DELTA AIRLINES 2017 16 80,000.00 5,000.00
DEVA JATT TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
DJ KNOLL TRANSPORT, LTD. 2017 1 10,000.00 500.00
DM TRANSPORT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
DOMINGO LAN NAC. 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
DYNAMIC AIRWAYS 2017 2 10,000.00 5,500.00
EASTERN MARITIME 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
EBD ENTERPRISES INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
EIFFEL TRANSPORT 2017 1 7,862.73 500.00
EMIRATES AIRLINES 2017 10 50,000.00 8,500.00
EMPRESAS 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
ESSEN TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
ETIHAD AIRWAYS, P.J.S.C. 2017 2 10,000.00 1,500.00
EVERGREEN LINE 2017 5 25,000.00 0.00
EW WYLIE CORPORATION 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
EXECAIRE 2017 1 10,000.00 0.00
EXPRESS LOGISTICS LA HUERTA 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
EXPRESSJET 2017 1 5,000.00 1,500.00
FAVEL TRANSPORTATION INC. 2017 1 5,620.00 500.00
FEDEX 2017 16 115,671.00 7,000.00
FLAGSTAFF EXPRESS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
FLORIDA BARGE CORP 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
FOUR HANDY LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 750.00
FRONTIER AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
G D T ENTERPRISES LTD. 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
GAC SHIPPING (USA) INC. 2017 3 15,000.00 2,000.00
GANNET SHIPPING LLC 2017 1 5,000.00 750.00
GENERAL MARITIME 2017 1 5,000.00 1,500.00
GENERAL STEAMSHIP 2017 5 40,000.00 7,250.00
GOJET AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
GREAT WHITE FLEET LTD. 2017 49 245,000.00 24,800.00
GRIMALDI DEEP SEA S.P.A. 2017 1 100,000.00 0.00
GS TRANSPORT 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
GULF HARBOR SHIPPING 2017 1 5,000.00 1,760.00
GURU GLOBE MOVING SYSTEMS 2017 1 5,393.88 0.00
HAMBURG SUD 2017 21 105,000.00 73,687.00
HANJIN SHIPPING 2017 2 10,000.00 10,000.00
HAPAG-LLOYD (AMERICA) INC. 2017 10 50,000.00 16,250.00
HAPPY CHINA 2017 1 1,000.00 100.00
HEYL TRUCK LINES INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
HIGHLIGHT MOTOR FREIGHT INC. 2017 2 20,000.00 1,000.00
HILLSIDE TRUCKING LTD. 2017 1 10,000.00 500.00
HISAMOTO KISEN CO. LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 750.00
HONOUR LANE SHIPPING LTD. 2017 2 10,000.00 6,000.00
HOST AGENCY 2017 2 10,000.00 2,500.00
HYNDMAN TRANSPORT LIMITED 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE (AMERICA) 2017 7 35,000.00 10,500.00
ICELAND AIR 2017 1 10,000.00 1,000.00
IDEAL TRANSPORT & DRIVING 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
INCHCAPE SHIPPING SERVICES 2017 7 35,000.00 3,200.00
INTERNATIONAL TRADE SOLUTIONS 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
JAGJOT EXPRESS INC. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
JAPAN AIRLINES CO. LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
JET AVIATION 2017 1 5,000.00 650.00
JET METHODS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 600.00
JETLEASE 2017 1 5,000.00 600.00
K LINE AMERICA INC. 2017 7 35,000.00 16,000.00
K3 MARITIME AGENCY INC. 2017 2 5,500.00 5,500.00
KALITTA CHARTERS, LLC 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
KARRIERS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
KENYA AIRWAYS LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE 2017 2 8,292.00 2,000.00
KEYSTONE AVIATION LLC 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
KING OCEAN SERVICES 2017 2 5,500.00 2,250.00
KING OF THE ROADS 2017 6 46,378.00 0.00
KIRBY OFFSHORE 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES 2017 6 30,000.00 4,500.00
KOREAN AIRLINES 2017 5 25,000.00 800.00
LAN CARGO 2017 2 10,000.00 3,500.00
LANDSTAR INWAY 2017 2 10,500.00 1,000.00
LANDSTAR RANGER INC. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
LATAM AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
LAWRENCE GIESBRECHT TRANS INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 500.00
LCS LOGISTICS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 1,500.00
LIGHTHOUSE SHIPPING AGENCY 2017 1 500.00 500.00
LIGHTWAY TRANSPORT INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
LOFTY INC. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
LOGISTICA DE CARGA DEL NOROESTE 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
LOGISTICA ROCHA SA DE CV 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
LONGVIEW LOGISTICS LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
LOTT SHIP AGENCY 2017 2 10,000.00 1,250.00
LUFTHANSA CARGO 2017 3 15,000.00 3,500.00
LYON AVIATION 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
MAERSK 2017 73 365,000.00 312,075.00
MANN, R TRUCKING LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
MARIANA EXPRESS LINES 2017 1 5,000.00 3,500.00
MATSON NAVIGATION 2017 2 10,000.00 2,500.00
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO. 2017 21 200,000.00 35,150.00
MESA AIRLINES INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
MITSUI O S K LINES 2017 56 280,000.00 181,400.00
MNG AIRLINES CARGO 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
MORAN SHIPPING AGENCIES 2017 1 5,000.00 750.00
NANAK TRUCK TRANSPORT 2017 1 500.00 500.00
NATIONAL SHIPPING CO. OF SAUDI ARABIA 2017 6 30,000.00 10,500.00
NAVIOS TANKERS MGT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
NAVKIN TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
NEOCON INT. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
NIPPON CARGO AIRLINE 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
NORD SUD SHIPPING, INC. 2017 1 10,000.00 1,500.00
NORFOLK TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 3 15,000.00 1,500.00
NORTON LILLY 2017 12 40,000.00 4,000.00
NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE 2017 2 10,000.00 6,000.00
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE 2017 9 8,400.00 4,500.00
NSC SHIPPING 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
NSN TRANSPORT 2017 2 93,888.00 0.00
NYK LINE 2017 9 45,000.00 29,800.00
OCEAN BLUE XPRESS, LTD. 2017 1 7,104.00 0.00
OCEANIA CRUISE LINES 2017 2 1,500.00 1,500.00
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT 2017 7 138,000.00 4,500.00
ONE CALL LOGISTICS INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE 2017 13 65,000.00 8,000.00
OS TVM LOGISITICS 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
P & D LOGISTICS LTD. 2017 1 10,000.00 500.00
PACIFIC BUFFET 2017 1 1,000.00 100.00
PACIFIC COAST JET CHARTER INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL LINES (PTE) LTD. 2017 6 30,000.00 16,200.00
PARACLETE TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
PAUL BRANDT TRUCKING 2017 2 10,000.00 500.00
PEARL TRANSPORT INC. 2017 1 10,000.00 500.00
PEEL CARTAGE SYSTEM 2017 1 7,104.00 0.00
PENNER INTERNATIONAL 2017 2 10,000.00 500.00
PETES GENERAL FREIGHT 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
PJSC AIRLINE UKRAINE AIR ALLIANCE 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
POLYNESIA LINE LTD. 2017 3 15,000.00 8,000.00
PRAIRIE GOLD TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
PROMAR AGENCY LTD. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
QANTAS AIRLINES 2017 9 45,000.00 6,000.00
QATAR AIRWAYS 2017 13 65,000.00 39,500.00
R M LOGISTICS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
R&T LOGISTICS INC. 2017 2 23,628.00 2,000.00
REIMER EXPRESS LINES 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
RITTERMAN TRUCKING LLC 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
ROSEDALE TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
ROYAL AIR MAROC 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
ROYAL CARIBBEAN 2017 12 16,900.00 4,700.00
ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
RPM TRANSIT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
RSB LOGISTICS 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
RUBY TRUCK LINE INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS 2017 1 10,000.00 500.00
S AND S TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
S B TRUCKING LTD. 2017 1 10,000.00 304.00
SAFMARINE CONTAINER LINES 2017 6 30,000.00 13,200.00
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES 2017 6 30,000.00 8,500.00
SCOTLYNN COMMODITIES, INC. 2017 1 1,371.60 500.00
SEA MARK MANAGEMENT INC. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
SEALAND 2017 8 40,000.00 16,287.00
SEAMAX NORWALK 2017 1 5,000.00 3,000.00
SEARCY TRUCKING LTD. 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
SEATRADE GROUP NV 2017 1 5,000.00 1,500.00
SERVICIOS AEREOS ACROSS S.A. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
SETA TRANSPORTATION 2017 2 10,000.00 0.00
SHIPCO TRANSPORT INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
SILK WAY WEST AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
SILVER AIRWAYS 2017 2 10,000.00 10,000.00
SILVERSEAS CRUISES LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
SKELTON TRUCK LINES, LTD. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
SKY REGIONAL AIR 2017 2 10,000.00 1,000.00
SM LINE CORPORATION 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
SOCIETE AIR FRANCE 2017 3 15,000.00 10,500.00
SOUTHPORT AGENCIES INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 2,000.00
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 2017 4 20,000.00 0.00
SOUTHWEST CARRIERS, INC. 2017 1 500.00 500.00
STARTECK TRANSPORT 2017 1 10,000.00 500.00
SUNQUEST EXEC AIR CHARTER 2017 12 60,000.00 6,000.00
SUNSET EXPRESS INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 500.00
SWAG TRANSPORT LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIR 2017 3 15,000.00 1,500.00
SYSTEMS TRANSPORT, INC. 2017 2 5,771.00 1,000.00
T. PARKER HOST, INC. 2017 1 10,000.00 2,500.00
TACA AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
TAMPA CARGO S.A. 2017 1 5,000.00 2,500.00
TANDET LOGISTICS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
TANGO LIMA LLC 2017 1 10,000.00 1,100.00
TDX LOGISTICS INC. 2017 1 10,000.00 500.00
TEAMS 3163601 MANITOBA LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
TERMINAL SHIPPING CO., INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 2,000.00
TEUTONIC TRANSPORT INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
THE CHINA NAVIGATION CO. PTE LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 1,500.00
TOP WAY LOGISTICS 2017 2 20,000.00 1,000.00
TRACTORES Y CAMIONES DE NOGALE 2017 2 15,000.00 1,500.00
TRAILER BRIDGE INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
TRANS STATES AIR 2017 2 10,000.00 5,500.00
TRANS-EXEC AIR SERVICE, INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
TRANSFRUT EXPRESS LIMITED 2017 6 30,000.00 1,000.00
TRANSMARINE NAVIGATION 2017 2 10,000.00 1,500.00
TRANSPORTES 2017 11 65,000.00 5,500.00
TRANSX LTD. 2017 2 15,000.00 1,500.00
TRAVEL SERVICE A.S. 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
TRIDAN TRANSPORT LLC 2017 1 10,000.00 0.00
TRIPLE O TRANSPORT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
TURK ENTERPRISES 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
TURKISH AIRLINES INC. 2017 27 140,000.00 30,500.00
UNIDOS TRANSPORT 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
UNION COMMERICAL 2017 1 5,000.00 750.00
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 2017 6 58,254.00 0.00
UNIPAC SHIPPING INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
UNITED AIRLINES 2017 51 304,000.00 49,500.00
UNITED ARAB SHIPPING CO. 2017 5 25,000.00 14,500.00
UPS 2017 13 151,389.00 9,500.00
V SHIPS LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 1.000.00
VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT 2017 1 500.00 0.00
VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS 2017 5 25,000.00 7,500.00
VITESSE TRUCKING SERVICE 2017 2 56,526.00 2,000.00
VOLARIS 2017 1 5,000.00 5,000.00
VOLGA DNEPR CARGO AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
VULICA SHIPPING CO. LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 2,000.00
WAN HAI LINES (AMERICA) LTD. 2017 3 15,000.00 6,000.00
WAYNE TRANSPORTS INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
WESTERN GLOBAL AIRLINES LLC 2017 2 10,000.00 500.00
WESTERN OVERSEAS CORP 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
WESTERN SHIPPING AMERICA INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 8,700.00
WESTJET 2017 1 5,000.00 1,000.00
WHITERIVER LOGISTICS 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
WILHELMSEN SHIPS SERVICE INC. 2017 2 10,000.00 5,000.00
WORLD TANKERS MANGEMENT 2017 1 5,000.00 1,250.00
WORLDWIDE CARRIERS LTD. 2017 1 5,000.00 500.00
YANG MING MARINE TRANSPORT 2017 2 10,000.00 5,000.00
YANGTZE RIVER AIRLINES 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC. 2017 1 5,000.00 2,450.00
ZETTA JET USA 2017 1 5,000.00 0.00
ZIM INTEGRATED SHIPPING SERVICES 2017 8 40,000.00 30,000.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties 1,216.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessed Amount $6,568,511.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collected Amount $1,780,923.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

detailed employees
Question. Please provide an updated list of all employees that have
been temporarily detailed to another assignment in FY 2018. Please
include the area of responsibility that they were detailed from, the
location that they were detailed to, the dates of the detail, and the
justification for that detail.

Answer. The level of detail requested is not available. However,
CBP has a flexible workforce, and personnel may be given temporary duty
assignments as events warrant.
tactical checkpoints
Question. Please provide the number of tactical checkpoints that
have been implemented between FY 2016 and FY 2018 broken down by area
of responsibility. Please include a brief description of the
operational necessity for each checkpoint.

Answer. From fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2018, the U.S. Border
Patrol implemented tactical immigration checkpoints at 93 locations
throughout the United States. These checkpoints, part of USBP's
defense-in-depth strategy, support overall enforcement efforts and are
based on intelligence, operational tempo, and available resources. All
checkpoint operations occurred at preapproved locations in the
following sectors: San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, El Paso, Tucson, Big
Bend, Del Rio, Laredo, Rio Grande Valley, Swanton, and Houlton.

______

Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
tariff impact
Question. I am concerned that the administration's trade war will
jeopardize the jobs and economic impacts supported by our ports.
Roughly $13.5 billion of goods moving through the ports of Seattle and
Tacoma are now subject to increased tariffs. In retaliation, China has
also imposed tariffs on U.S. wheat; roughly 10 percent of America's
wheat destined for international markets moves through the port of
Vancouver.

Has the Trump administration considered the negative economic
impact retaliatory tariffs will have on American ports across our
country?

What steps is the administration taking to mitigate the negative
impacts that tariffs will have on port jobs and impacts?

Answer. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
is responsible for developing and coordinating U.S. trade policy on
behalf of the President of the United States. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) ensures these policies--inclusive of trade remedies--
are reflected, where appropriate, in the enforcement of U.S. Customs
laws. As such, USTR is better positioned to provide a fulsome response
to your question about the economic impacts of retaliatory tariffs.
port staffing
Question. Last time you were before this committee, for your
confirmation hearing, I asked you about staffing at our ports. You
pointed out the impacts of increased innovation and programs like the
AQUA Lane program, which allows sea carriers who are in good standing
with the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program to
expedite their clearance process and unload their goods immediately
upon arrival. While these programs are important, they do not replace
the need for adequate staffing at our ports. More Customs officers are
needed to ensure the smooth shipment of goods and to help our airports
access additional international routes. The fiscal year 2017 staffing
model indicated there was a need for over 2,500 additional Customs
officers in FY 2018.

How many of those positions have been filled at this time?

Answer. The most recent congressional appropriation added funding
for 328 additional CBPOs, increasing the authorized CBPO staffing level
to 24,475. As of September 1, 2018 CBP employs 23,279 CBPOs, a net
increase of 200 officers since the beginning of the fiscal year (FY).

CBP has made significant progress toward filling vacant positions
in FY 2018, and our budget requests continue to include additional
recruitment and hiring initiatives to meet full staffing requirements
not just to secure the border, but also to address critical emergent
needs at the ports. CBP has focused its hiring efforts not just on
CBPOs who perform law enforcement functions, but also on personnel who
enhance CBP's travel and trade facilitation functions. These include
customs auditors, international trade specialists, import specialists,
Regulations and Rulings attorneys and Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act (TFTEA) implementation positions, as well as textile
specialists, chemists and other personnel with specific skillsets that
are essential to trade facilitation.
shortened hiring timeline
Question. In your testimony you pointed to steps you have taken to
improve the timeline of new hires from 469 days to 294 days. Has this
shortened hiring timeline resulted in a meaningful increase in staffing
or are additional steps needed to boost hiring?

Answer. The referenced 469-day time to hire baseline dates back to
January 2016, and the reduction to 291 days coincided with significant
improvement in applicant-to-hire ratios, which in combination has
resulted in meaningful increases in hiring. This was the result of
multiple concurrent efforts, including process improvements, increased
levels of engagement with applicants, enhanced data analytics, and
continued investments in marketing, advertising, and recruitment.
Because of these efforts and investments, CBP is on track to nearly
double the number of Border Patrol Agent (BPA) hires and increase CBPO
hires by more than 40 percent from FY16 to FY18. CBP is committed to
continuing the refinement and improvement of our recruiting and hiring
practices in order to further increase staffing levels.
customs officers on the southern border
Question. Earlier this year, there were reports that Customs
officers were being taken from ports across the country and sent to the
southern border. Which ports were these officers taken from?

Answer. CBP Officers (CBPOs) are deployed to the southern border
from across all field offices, with the exception of Preclearance. Each
quarter approximately 100 CBPOs are detailed from across the country,
minimizing the impact for any one port of entry. The rotational CBPOs
are used for processing immigration cases and augmenting passenger
processing in an attempt to minimize the impacts on the facilitation of
legitimate trade and travel.

Question. What metrics were used to make those decision?

Answer. CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO) analyzes the ratio
of onboard personnel compared to the number of total authorized, the
historical seasonal workload, and the number of current personnel in a
training status for each field office. Using the analysis, OFO
determines which field offices are best positioned to temporarily
deploy staff as necessary.
vulnerable populations
Question. U.S. and international law gives people fleeing violence
and persecution the right to pursue asylum in the United States. In
your testimony before the committee you state that over 1,000 asylum
seekers have been turned away at the border and are waiting between 7-
14 days before their claims can be processed. In your testimony you
stated that these wait times depend ``on ICE's capacity to pick people
up who are in our custody.''

What about the problem of families waiting to claim asylum and
waiting in makeshift shelters at the border, which is especially
difficult for vulnerable populations?

Answer. CBP carries out its mission of border security while
adhering to U.S. law and international legal obligations for the
protection of vulnerable and persecuted persons. The laws of the United
States, as well as international treaties to which we are a party,
allow people to seek asylum and related forms of relief and protection
on the grounds that they fear being persecuted in their country of
nationality or last habitual residence because of their race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion, or where it is more likely than not that they would be
tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. CBP understands
the importance of complying with these laws, and takes its legal
obligations seriously. Accordingly, CBP has designed policies and
procedures based on these legal standards, in order to protect
vulnerable and persecuted persons in accordance with these legal
obligations. CBP strives to process cases in an expeditious manner and
there are several factors which affect how long case processing takes.
These factors include, for instance, availability of translation
services, traffic volume, and enforcement activity occurring at the
port of entry (POE).

Question. What is the current guidance for how CBP officers and
border agents treat vulnerable populations like the disabled, elderly,
children, and pregnant women both crossing the border and at ports of
entry?

Answer. CBP strives to process the traveling public in an
expeditious manner and there are several factors that affect how long
it may take. These factors include, for instance, availability of
translation services, traffic volume, and enforcement activity
occurring at the POE.
identifying asylum seekers
Question. CBP officers and Border Patrol agents are often the first
U.S. officials an asylum seeker meets when they enter the United
States. They serve an important role in the processing of asylum
seekers in the United States.

How do CBP officers and Border Patrol agents determine whether or
not an individual is an asylum seeker?

Answer. Individuals who seek asylum or other forms of relief or
protection may present themselves at any port of entry (POE). If an
individual arriving in the United States at a POE or apprehended within
14 days of entry and 100 miles of the border is inadmissible to the
United States due to a lack of proper documents or engaging in fraud or
misrepresentation, the individual may be placed in expedited removal
proceedings. However, if the individual expresses an intention to apply
for asylum, a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to
his or her country of origin, his or her case is referred to U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a credible fear
determination. Certain individuals who are ineligible for asylum
because they are subject to the reinstatement of a prior removal order
or to streamlined administrative removal proceedings as aggravated
felons, may nevertheless be entitled to protection from removal to a
country where they face a likelihood of persecution or torture. Such
individuals are referred to USCIS for a reasonable fear screening if
they express a fear of return to their country of origin. Such
individuals are referred to USCIS for a reasonable fear screening if
they express a fear of return to the country of removal.

Question. What guidance have they been given regarding identifying
and processing asylum seekers?

Answer. Agents have been instructed to refer all individuals to
USCIS who express an intention to apply for asylum, a fear of
persecution or torture of return to his or her country of origin.
Agents do not make credible fear determinations nor weigh the validity
of the claim.
data recording
Question. How is data recorded regarding the questions CBP officers
and Border Patrol agents ask and the responses they receive from
apprehended individuals?

Answer. CBP maintains systems of records, which have publicly
available Systems of Records Notices and Privacy Impact Assessments. In
general, information obtained from aliens during processing will become
part of the alien's Alien file, known as an ``A file.''

Question. How do CBP officers and Border Patrol agents ensure that
individuals apprehended at the border understand the questions being
asked of them?

Answer. All charging documents are translated to a language the
alien can understand. In addition, U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents
receive Spanish language training at the academy and are required to be
proficient as a condition of employment.

Question. What kind of translation services are provided?

Answer. CBP maintains a contract for telephone interpretation
services for instances where an alien who does not speak English or
Spanish is apprehended as well as the language translation from agents
at the border and CBP Officers and other personnel.

Question. What information is recorded about the apprehended
individual's ability to understand the questions they are being asked?

Question. Do CBP officers and Border Patrol agents give apprehended
individuals a chance to review any data record for accuracy?

Answer. Yes, before any Sworn Statement or Notice to Appear (NTA)
is signed, data integrity questions are asked by the processing agent.
Once verbally approved, the alien is asked to sign agreeing to the
accuracy and service.

CBP maintains systems of records, which have publicly available
Systems of Records notices and Privacy Impact Assessments. In general,
information obtained from aliens during processing will become part of
the alien's A file.

Question. If so, are they provided translation services to ensure
they understand the recorded data?

Answer. Yes, if translation or interpretation services are needed,
they are provided.

Question. If the individual is illiterate, does someone read the
data recorded aloud to them?

Answer. Yes, both the data and all charging documents and official
correspondence is read to the alien in a language that he or she can
understand. In cases where a sworn statement is provided, aliens are
required to review their statement for accuracy and sign as
verification.

Question. Is the data recorded verified by another officer or by a
supervisor?

Answer. There are multiple checks and balances built into the
system to ensure accuracy, legal sufficiency, and completeness of all
data collected. This includes reviews by first and second line
supervisors.

Question. How many CBP officers or Border Patrol agents are
required to be present when questioning an apprehended individual?

Answer. Each apprehension is unique and agents assess the alien's
criminal history, demeanor, age, gender, mental capacity, and other
factors to determine the number of personnel required to interview an
alien. There is no set policy on agent-to-alien ratio, and each
individual is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Generally, the case Officer/Agent is the only one required to be
present, but due to the facility constraints, there may be multiple
Officers/Agents within the vicinity of the individual being processed.
tracking separated families
Question. Due to the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy,
over 2,300 children were separated from their families. This was not a
surprise to Trump administration officials. Statements from various
administration officials have indicated that they were well aware that
the policy would result in the separation of families.

Before the implementation of the zero-tolerance policy, did you put
into place a process to keep track of families after they were
separated? Were you given any instructions by administration officials
about putting a process of reunification in place?

Answer. The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) has records of all subjects
that are apprehended together. Family Unit records are stored in the
Enforcement Integrated Database (EID). Additionally, the family unit
information is captured within the Alien Registration file that is
provided to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations at the time that the
alien is transferred to their custody. Additionally, the department of
Health and Human Services were provided with parent or legal guardian
information at the time of placement requests through ORR's UAC Portal.
records of families
Question. Does the Border Patrol have records of who entered the
United States together? As DHS and HHS work to reunify families, how
have these records been used and have these records been accurate?

Answer. The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) has records of all subjects
that are apprehended together. Alien apprehension, intake, and
processing data records are stored in the Enforcement Integrated
Database (EID).
reuniting children
Question. What are you doing to help reunite children with their
parents who have already been deported?

Answer. The U.S. Government is currently taking steps to facilitate
reunification in cases where the parents have asked to be reunified and
when such reunifications are appropriate. On August 16, 2018, the
government filed a reunification plan for children with parents who
were previously removed with the district court in the case of Ms. L.
v. I.C.E., No. 18-cv-0428 (S.D. Cal. filed Feb. 26, 2018).

Question. How is CBP working with other agencies to assist in this
effort?

Answer. CBP has provided all relevant information on apprehended
aliens (both parents and minors) to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).
tftea section 303 regulation
Question. In the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of
2015 (TFTEA), section 303 called for a new regulation regarding the
disclosure of information upon seizure of circumvention devices to be
promulgated within a year of the enactment of the legislation. This
February marked 2 years since the passage of TFTEA and the regulation
has yet to be promulgated. Circumvention devices are used to break the
security of hardware in order to access illegal copyrighted content
typically downloaded from the Internet. It is important for CBP to
share information with businesses that are harmed by circumvention
devices when they seize those devices.

Please provide me with an update on the promulgation of the
regulation required by TFTEA section 303. When will the promulgation of
this regulation be completed?

Answer. CBP has drafted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
implement TFTEA section 303. The NPRM has been reviewed by the
Department of the Treasury. The Office of Management and Budget is
currently reviewing the draft, along with interagency partners, under
Executive Order 12866.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
asylum-seekers turned back
Question. The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly
encouraged migrants seeking asylum to cross at ports of entry and not
in between ports of entry. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
claims that no one at a port of entry is being denied an opportunity to
make a claim of asylum. However, due to capacity issues, asylum seekers
are being turned away at ports of entry and told to come back later.

How many potential asylum-seekers have presented themselves
formally at a port of entry but have been turned back by CBP officers
due to capacity issues?

Answer. An alien who arrives in the United States and is subject to
expedited removal who asserts a fear of persecution or torture, or
indicates an intention to apply for asylum is referred for a credible
fear screening determination. Aliens who arrive in the United States,
but are not subject to expedited removal, may seek other forms of
protection or relief, depending on the manner of their arrival. CBP
policy is to process all travelers, including applicants for admission,
in an expeditious manner. All ports of entry (POEs) must balance
resources to focus on the agency's core missions of safeguarding the
border while promoting legitimate travel and trade.

Question. What is the capacity at ports of entry to process people?

Answer. CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO) processes all aliens
who apply for admission at U.S. POEs, and does not turn away anyone who
is seeking asylum. At times, due to operational capacity or as
necessary to facilitate orderly processing and maintain the security
and safety of the traveling public, individuals may need to wait in
Mexico before being permitted to enter the POE. Upon reaching the U.S.
side of the border, all individuals are processed.

Question. Please break down the data for each specific port of
entry into the United States on the southern border, as well as a
totality for all ports of entry on the southern border. Additionally,
please include all data from January 1, 2018 to present day.

Answer. OFO would need additional information to determine what
specific data is being requested.
wait times
Question. How long are the wait times at the ports of entry on the
southern border to receive families who are claiming asylum?

How do you monitor this wait? Please break down the data for each
specific port of entry into the United States at the southern border,
as well as a totality for all ports of entry on the southern border.

Answer. Border wait times for commercial vehicles, passenger
vehicles, and pedestrians are provided to the traveling public at
https://bwt.cbp.gov. OFO strives to process cases in an expeditious
manner and there are several factors which may affect how long case
processing takes. These factors include, for instance, availability of
interpretation services, traffic volume, and enforcement activity
occurring at the port of entry (POE). At times, due to operational
capacity or as necessary to facilitate orderly processing and maintain
the security and safety of the traveling public, individuals may need
to wait in Mexico before being permitted to enter the POE. Upon
reaching the U.S. side of the border, all individuals are processed.
Upon completion of inspection when the individual expressed a desire to
apply for asylum, the individual is referred to USCIS for eligibility
determination.
daily processing
Question. How many asylum seekers are you processing daily at ports
of entry? Please break down the data for each specific port of entry
into the United States on the southern border, as well as a totality
for all ports of entry on the southern border. Additionally, please
include all data from January 1, 2018 to present day.

Answer. For the southwest border, CBP referred on average 90 asylum
seekers per day at the POEs from May 1, 2018 through August 13, 2018.
Data prior to May is unavailable, and CBP is unable to provide port
specific data.
family processing
Question. Do you currently have a protocol to process families that
arrive at a port of entry, including prioritizing on a humanitarian
basis for groups like pregnant women? If not, are you developing one?

Answer. CBP policy is to process both applicants for admission and
the traveling public in an expeditious manner, and there are several
factors that affect how long case processing takes. These factors
include, for instance, availability of translation services, traffic
volume, and enforcement activity occurring at the port of entry. CBP
prioritizes the inspection of those inadmissible applicants for
admission who are high-risk (e.g., unaccompanied alien children,
pregnant women).
designated ports
Question. Advocates have reported that in some ports people are
being told to go to designated ports.

Do you have ``designated'' ports where asylum seekers are
processed?

If CBP is designating ports for asylum processing, please provide a
complete list of these designated ports, along with the legal
justification for such a process.

Answer. No, any alien who arrives in the United States at any POE
may seek asylum pursuant to U.S. law.
families separated
Question. Please provide a monthly breakdown of the number of
family units separated by U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. Office of Field
Operations since January 2017. Include when and where all family
separations occurred.

Answer. The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) did not start tracking family
separations in the official system of record until April 19, 2018. CBP
is currently working closely with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) to compile a complete and accurate list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity-Person-Juvenile Created
Date Activity-Person-Juvenile Count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Apprehensions Separated From a Family Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border Sector Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBT 126 5 1 132
---------------------------------------------------------------
DRT 7 147 60 2 2 218
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELC 2 4 14 4 2 14 40
---------------------------------------------------------------
EPT 6 998 437 7 12 15 1,475
---------------------------------------------------------------
SBO LRT 4 10 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
RGV 85 1,189 1,415 67 85 73 2,914
---------------------------------------------------------------
SDC 9 12 9 2 9 8 49
---------------------------------------------------------------
TCA 4 154 61 4 4 19 246
---------------------------------------------------------------
YUM 73 1,113 211 14 19 34 1,464
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBO 186 3,747 2,222 100 133 164 6,552
Tot
al
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. Please provide a breakdown of total family separations
since January 2017 reflecting the reasons for the separation, whether
the separation occurred at or between a port of entry, and whether the
parent was referred for prosecution and if so for what offense.

Answer. USBP did not start tracking family separations in the
official system of record until April 19, 2018. CBP is currently
working closely with ICE to reconcile a complete and accurate list.
referred for prosecution
Question. Please provide data on the number of asylum seekers who
arrived at ports of entry who were referred for prosecution in FY 2018.
Please provide data on the number of asylum seekers who arrived in
between ports of entry who were referred for prosecution in FY 2018.

Answer. CBP does not maintain statistics of all individuals who
seek relief or protection, particularly given that these claims may be
made before an immigration judge or affirmatively to U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, for inland cases, we can
provide information about those individuals who were subject to
expedited removal at the time of processing and claimed a fear of
return. As of August 9, 2018, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) apprehended
43,260 aliens who were subject to expedited removal and who claimed a
fear of return. Of those 43,260 apprehensions, 7,545 were referred for
prosecution. CBP does not maintain records with respect to such
referrals at ports of entry, where such referrals would be rare and
limited to cases where someone either attempts to drive or run through
a POE without inspection.
allegations
Question. There have been reports of inhumane conditions and
treatment of children and families in short-term CBP detention.

What steps is DHS/CBP taking to investigate the numerous
allegations of unsafe conditions and coercive or abusive treatment of
children and their families in short-term CBP custody?

Answer. DHS/CBP takes all allegations of employee misconduct
seriously. Under a uniform system, misconduct allegations involving CBP
agents, officers, and other employees are recorded and immediately
referred to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) for independent
review and assessment. Cases are either retained by the DHS OIG for
investigation or referred back to CBP for assessment/investigation.
Upon completion of an investigation, the findings are referred to
management for review and any appropriate action.

Question. There have been reports of inhumane conditions and
treatment of children and families in short-term CBP detention.

Have any CBP personnel been disciplined in any way relating to
their interactions with children or parents since the beginning of the
Trump administration?

Answer. As noted above, DHS/CBP takes all allegations of employee
misconduct seriously. However, the Privacy Act generally precludes CBP
from releasing information on disciplinary or other corrective action
taken against employees.

Question. Will the results of any investigation into these
allegations be made public?

Answer. CBP does not release results of any individual
investigations. In addition, the Privacy Act generally precludes CBP
from releasing information on disciplinary or other corrective actions
taken against employees.
exclusion requests
Question. In mid-April, a New Jersey manufacturer applied for
exclusions from the steel 232 tariffs because they were unable to find
a U.S. supplier that could meet their need for imported steel. It is my
understanding that Commerce and other agencies first reviewed their
applications to ensure they were accurate and complete. After that
review, their applications underwent public comment, during which no
U.S. company objected to their exclusion requests. Then the
applications went through another month of interagency review. The
company finally learned on July 10th that Commerce denied their
applications because the company did not provide sufficient information
to verify the product description and tariff code. Commerce recommended
my constituent work with CBP to identify the correct product
classification for their imports and reapply. So now my constituent
will have to go through this entire process again, and in the mean time
they will continue paying the tariffs and may have to lay off workers
or import the fully finished product, which is not subject to the steel
tariffs.

Did CBP conduct a preliminary review of any exclusion requests
prior to the initial public posting by Commerce?

Answer. CBP does not receive the section 232 exclusion requests
prior to public posting by the Department of Commerce, and hence did
not conduct a preliminary review.

Question. If so, why didn't CBP flag applications like these
earlier so that our constituents could get Commerce the appropriate
information before going through this time-consuming process?

Answer. CBP does not receive exclusion requests prior to public
posting by Commerce.

Question. If my constituent now works with CBP to identify the
correct product description and tariff code for their exclusion
request, refiles their application, and as before, doesn't receive any
objection from any domestic steel suppliers, will the administration
grant their exclusion request?

Answer. If the constituent works with CBP and corrects its product
description and refiles its request, a final determination will then be
issued by Commerce.
product classification rulings
Question. How many requests for product classification rulings has
CBP received related to the 232 exclusion process? On average, how long
has it taken CBP to issue a ruling for these cases?

Answer. CBP has received approximately 115 requests for rulings
related to the 232 exclusion process. On average, it has taken
approximately 30 days to respond to a request.
gift package screening
Question. Commissioner McAleenan, as you noted in your testimony,
approximately 90 percent of CBP's seizures of counterfeit goods in FY
2017 were shipped through express carriers or international mail. The
Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that Congress passed in
2016 contained report language that I authored with Chairman Hatch to
raise the enforcement priority for fake products, specifically those
shipped as ``gifts'' to evade Customs duties and detection.

Does a package marked as a ``gift'' that originates from a business
address in a country like China, which is documented by CBP and other
sources as being a major source of counterfeits, trigger any red flags
for our agents?

How has CBP changed its screening of packages marked as ``gifts''
since the passage of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act?

Answer. CBP targeting practices take many pieces of information
into consideration, including the description of the package and the
originating address. CBP officers are trained to recognize the patterns
illicit actors use to evade detection, and are continuously
incorporating those trends into targeting algorithms that aid in
identifying shipments that are potentially in violation of the law.
However, CBP reserves the right to examine any goods that raise
suspicion based on available information or the disposition of the
package itself.
case review
Question. Commissioner McAleenan, one of my constituents wrote to
you in October of last year asking you to reevaluate determinations
that my constituent believes CBP made in violation of a court ruling.
While I appreciate your effort in reviewing this case, it has been
nearly 9 months since my constituent began this process with CBP and
they have yet to receive a substantive response.

When do you expect to complete your review of this case?

Answer. This constituent provided a list of 465 entries for which
it claimed duty refunds and interest in specified amounts. None of
these entries was the subject of the court decision; therefore, whether
refunds may be owed depends on whether the entries were properly
protested. CBP's Regulations and Rulings directorate within the Office
of Trade has coordinated extensively with CBP's Office of Field
Operations on this matter, and it was determined that a response to the
constituent would not be provided until a response could be provided as
to all of the entries at once. CBP anticipates responding to the
constituent as soon as this information is available.

Given the age of the entries, many documents have been purged from
the Automated Commercial System (ACS), and reviewing many of the
entries has required looking into ACS systems procedures in place for
purging of records. For example, if the importer filed a protest, the
protest was denied, and the importer did not file a timely summons at
the Court of International Trade, the protest and entry records would
have been purged. Similarly, if no protest was filed, after a certain
period of time the entry records are purged. If protests were denied
and no court summons was timely filed by the importer, or if no protest
was timely filed by the importer with respect to the liquidation of a
specific entry, that entry is finally liquidated with no further
administrative remedy.
court obligations
Question. Do you believe that CBP, during case-specific Court of
International Trade (CIT) or Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC) litigation, is obligated to suspend entries, pending the outcome
of the litigation, especially if an importer and/or its customs broker
has notified the ports to do so?

Answer. CBP follows all orders issued by the CIT and CAFC to
suspend liquidation of entries. CBP has no legal obligation to suspend
liquidation of entries pending the outcome of litigation as a general
matter, absent a court order or instructions from the Department of
Commerce in cases involving the administration of antidumping or
countervailing duty orders. Importers may request extensions of
liquidation under 19 U.S.C. 1504(b), but CBP is not legally obligated
to grant such a request, absent a court order.
instructions from the court
Question. If a port improperly liquidated entries, do you agree
that Customs is still obliged to review and refund collected duties as
instructed by court orders?

Answer. Generally, although CBP may reliquidate an entry within 90
days from the date on which notice of the original liquidation is
transmitted to the importer, see 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1501, liquidated
entries are otherwise final and conclusive upon all persons (including
the United States and any officers) unless a protest is filed within
180 days from the date of liquidation, or a civil action contesting the
denial of a protest is commenced at the Court of International Trade.
See 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514. Any court orders that result from a civil
action contesting the denial of a protest apply only to the liquidated
entries covered by that protest and the summons challenging the denial
of that protest. Therefore, if instructed by court order, CBP must
reliquidate and refund collected duties for the specific liquidated
entries that are identified in the court decision. See 19 CFR
Sec. 176.31.

Conversely, if a liquidated entry is not identified as the subject
of a court decision, then CBP is neither obligated to review nor
authorized to refund collected duties even if the principles of a court
decision apply to the finally liquidated entry. For example, in the
classification context, if a court decision changes the classification
of merchandise in a manner that is adverse to the government, then the
principles of that court decision are applied only to the specific
unliquidated entries and protested entries, where the protest has not
been denied in whole or in part and involves the same issue. See 19 CFR
Sec. 152.16. In this context, CBP is not obligated to review or
authorized to refund collected duties for liquidated entries that are
not covered by undecided protests.

______

Prepared Statement of Kurt Nagle, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Association of Port Authorities
Thank you for inviting the American Association of Port Authorities
to testify at this hearing on Trade and Commerce at U.S. Ports of
Entry. As requested, my focus today will be on infrastructure needs of
seaports and ports' ability to support U.S. trade. At a time when the
United States government is focused on creating American jobs,
propelling the economy and modernizing infrastructure, the role played
by the Nation's freight transportation system is more critical than
ever. The importance of our Nation's infrastructure is evident in the
President's call for $1.5 trillion to rebuild our Nation's
infrastructure and Congress's budget agreement last year to devote an
additional $10 billion on infrastructure in both FY 2018 and FY 2019.
That is a good beginning and seaport infrastructure should be a high
priority for these additional funds.

AAPA is the unified and collective voice of the seaport industry in
America and our U.S. member ports serve as a critical link in our
Nation's international trade.

Seaports are critical for the prosperity of American communities,
regional economies and our overall standard of living. Throughout our
Nation's history, seaports have served as vital economic engines that
connect American farmers, manufacturers and consumers to the world
marketplace. They deliver critical goods and services to consumers,
ship U.S. exports, create jobs, support our military, and promote local
and national economic growth. Cargo activity at America's seaports
accounts for over 23 million jobs, over a quarter of the U.S. economy,
$1.1 trillion in total annual personal income and local consumption,
and over $320 billion in Federal, State, and local tax revenues. Now
more than ever, seaports deliver prosperity for all Americans.

With 95 percent of the world's population and 80 percent of global
consumption located outside of the U.S., sustained investment in
modern, well-maintained seaports and connecting infrastructure is vital
to America's prosperity and global trade competitiveness. Building
America's 21st-century seaport infrastructure requires considerable
Federal investments. Both landside and waterside investments are
critical to our Nation's competitiveness including our ability to
export U.S. goods. Securing America's ports and borders and investing
in the environment are also important to the health and safety of port
communities and efficiency of U.S. seaports.

To be competitive in the 21st-century global economy, our Nation
needs a national multimodal freight network that incorporates and
leverages every mode of freight transportation, whether on the
waterside or the landside of seaport facilities. AAPA has projected
that the 10-year needs of the seaport industry, including the Great
Lakes, is $66 billion over the next 10 years. That includes $33.8
billion for waterside projects and $32.03 billion in landside projects.
The graphic below outlines the need and what is at risk without
adequate investment in U.S seaport infrastructure.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.007

The key Federal programs that support seaport infrastructure are
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Navigation Program and the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) discretionary grant programs,
especially the TIGER/BUILD program and the freight programs established
under the FAST Act. In regard to the Corps, it is charged with
modernizing and maintaining the Nation's Federal navigation system,
including those connecting to U.S. ports. Seaports and their private-
sector partners plan to spend $155 billion on infrastructure
investments between 2016 and 2020, but seaports depend on the Corps to
complete their projects on a timely basis. That has not always been the
case.

As you can see from the chart above, to fully maintain the deep-
draft navigation channels, AAPA calls for $27.6 billion over the next
decade. This includes full use of the $9 billion in unused Harbor
Maintenance Tax (HMT) revenues that are credited to the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund as well as full use of future annual HMT
collections. While Congress did provide some additional funds for the
Corps in FY 2018, far more is needed. Additionally, the United States
must establish a sustainable system for funding channel maintenance
over the long term.

The best way to provide needed maintenance funds for ports is to
provide guaranteed use of HMT revenues. There also is a need to fix
other problems with the HMT. Earlier this year, AAPA adopted a long-
term funding solution for port maintenance that represents the
culmination of years of industry discussion to fix this broken system.

The port industry's plan devotes 100 percent of the tax paid by
shippers to America's ports, while providing no additional tax burden
on the industry or taxpayers. It assures a fair, equitable, and
reliable way to ensure the health of this critical part of America's
transportation infrastructure. We urge Congress to enact this
agreement, either as part of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
or any infrastructure bill that Congress considers. Adoption of this
plan would bring much needed assurance that deep-draft navigation
maintenance needs would have a fair, balanced and sustainable system to
address maintenance needs both now and in the future. As one of the
committees who created the Harbor Maintenance Tax in 1986, we hope you
have an interest in fixing the current system's shortcomings. I have
attached a more detailed description of this plan to my testimony and
hope this committee and its members will be supportive of guaranteeing
full use of the HMT and adopt the AAPA solution.

Landside infrastructure is also important to ports. Investments in
these connections can drive improvements in productivity, safety, and
reduce the impact of freight transportation on local communities. The
movement of goods through a port depends on the seamless integration of
multiple modes of transportation. Ports must have efficient connections
to national rail and highway networks. AAPA has identified $32.03
billion in landside needs over the next decade. Additionally, in May
2018, AAPA released a new report, ``State of Freight III,'' on the
multimodal needs of U.S. seaports, which concluded that there is $20
billion in projected needs solely for multimodal port and rail access
needs over the next decade. Sixty-seven percent of AAPA member U.S.
ports said that funding and financing options are the biggest obstacles
in getting essential rail projects started to access their facilities.

AAPA was happy to see that Congress tripled the TIGER/BUILD program
in FY 2018, bringing it to $1.5 billion, and we urge a similar level of
funding this year, although both the House and Senate current bills are
lower, despite additional funding being made available for
infrastructure this year. TIGER/BUILD is a vital program for port
infrastructure both inside the gate and to support the connecting road
and rail infrastructure. Since its inception in 2009, maritime projects
have received more than $578 million in Federal TIGER funding, while
leveraging more than $782 million in additional non-Federal funding,
with $61.8 million in port-related grants in 2017. More is needed. AAPA
has sought a portion of the program be set aside for ports. We commend
the House Appropriations Committee for adopting AAPA's recommendation
that part of this program be devoted solely to ports. Its FY 2019 bill
mandated that one-third of the grants be allocated to ports. We hope
the Senate will follow suit and adopt the House provision in the final
bill.

The FAST Act freight programs are fairly new but have the potential
to help support port infrastructure improvements as well, and several
ports have received funding. The INFRA grants, established under the
FAST Act, are important but have a cap for multimodal projects broader
than traditional highway projects, which results in limitations for
port projects. AAPA strongly supports raising the multimodal caps on
FAST Act programs, so that multimodal port projects have resources to
build connecting projects. DOT financing programs are also a tool for
ports to finance infrastructure. Both the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program are working on being more port
friendly, and we encourage further improvements to make these more
useful programs to ports.

While modern and well-maintained maritime infrastructure is
critical to our ability to trade internationally, AAPA is concerned
about the impact of U.S. tariffs and retaliatory response from our
trading partners and the uncertainty they bring. To date, the announced
Sections 232 and 301 tariffs and the responses from trading partners
impact almost nine percent of total U.S. trade value and about 14
percent of containerized trade.

As noted in a recent AAPA letter to the United States Trade
Representative, ports are concerned about potential trade sanctions
that could result in significant losses of good paying U.S. trade-
related jobs, including those in the seaport industry. Seaports are at
the front lines of the current uncertainties surrounding U.S. trade
policy. It is important to recognize that international trade, both
exports and imports, is good for American workers and our national
economy. Recently, AAPA joined the U.S. Global Value Chain Coalition
(USGVC). According to the USGVC, one in five American jobs are linked
to exports and imports of goods and services, and millions of those
jobs are tied to the global value chain. AAPA believes U.S. trade
policy must take a comprehensive view of the millions of U.S. jobs
related to trade and ensure that seaport and other trade-related
employment are not negatively impacted by trade actions. In addition,
the $155 million in planned investment by ports and their private-
sector partners is at risk, as an uncertain trade environment creates
concerns about making these sizable port-related investments.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs are also important to
international trade handled through seaports and have an impact on port
efficiency to move cargo and infrastructure needs of ports. Safe and
secure seaports are fundamental to protecting our borders and moving
goods. Each year, roughly 1.2 billion metric tons of foreign trade
cargo, including more than 32 million 20-foot equivalent maritime
containers, arrive at U.S. seaports. Additionally, over 11.5
international passengers begin their cruises via U.S. seaports. CBP is
on the front line when cargo and passengers enter our country. CBP
officers meet the ships at all ports of entry to check the manifests,
screen incoming cargo, operate non-intrusive inspection equipment
including radiation portal monitors, provide specialists to examine
imported fruits, vegetables, and flowers for potentially harmful
diseases, and other missions at our busy gateways. CBP is also
responsible for screening all foreign visitors and returning American
citizens and passenger ships that enter U.S. seaports.

Two key programs for seaports are CBP inspections programs and
design standards for Federal inspection stations at seaports. In 2002,
Congress gave CBP authority to establish the Reimbursable Services
Program to address the staffing shortages and record increases in
passenger and cargo volumes. It allowed organizations, such as
seaports, to enter into agreements to allow CBP to provide additional
inspection services upon the request of stakeholders provided they pay
for the additional CBP personnel costs. While a number of seaports have
entered into these agreements to address immediate, short-term CBP
resource shortages, AAPA believes that hiring additional officers is
critically needed. While CBP has made some improvements in hiring,
there still is a significant shortage of officers, including a shortage
of about 500 officers in the maritime environment.

Additionally, the Reimbursable Service Agreement is quite costly
and sets up an uneven playing field for ports. The ability of ports to
charge shippers security fees to help recover costs is limited. The
industry already pays user fees to support CBP inspection activity in
the form of the Merchandise Processing Fee. Furthermore, charging an
additional cost exacerbates the competitive disadvantage some AAPA
members face compared to ports in Canada and Mexico. The result is
funding that could be going to infrastructure enhancements at a port is
being diverted to pay for additional CBP services. Ports often are
asked how the Federal Government can improve port performance.
Fulfilling what has traditionally been a Federal obligation to ensure
sufficient CBP inspection activity is a key place to start. It would
help ports as we seek to expand or offer additional services to address
peak cargo flows such as extended terminal hours or weekend gates.
While the reimbursable services program is a good tool in the short
term, it is not a long-term cost our ports can afford. The need for a
permanent solution remains.

CBP inspection stations at cruise ports are also a concern. For
years, AAPA has voiced concern that CBP design standards require
overbuilding that diverts funds from other infrastructure programs. We
urge CBP to provide more oversight into the types and timing of
requests for changes to a port terminal upgrade, and try to be more
cost-minded.

We have a chance as a Nation to make significant investments in
infrastructure by both fixing systemic problems like the harbor
maintenance tax and understaffing at CBP, as well as devoting more
funding to Federal programs that support our seaport industry.

Finally, let me end with a big ``thank you'' from the port industry
on the tax bill and the final language that allowed private activity
bonds to remain tax-free. These are important tools in funding port
infrastructure projects. Similarly, we urge the committee to identify a
fix to allow advance refunding of municipal bonds to become tax free
again, as some ports use municipal bonds.

______

Attachment

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA)

1010 Duke Street

Alexandria, VA 22314-3589

703-684-5700

aapa-ports.org

A Long-Term Funding Solution for Port Maintenance
Good for Ports, Good for the Nation

FOR U.S. PORTS, MAINTENANCE IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY

Responsible for over a quarter of United States GDP and more than 23
million American jobs, a well-maintained port system is vital to the
manufacturers, exporters, and farmers who count on U.S. ports to move
their products to market. Eliminating the diversion of HMT funds away
from their intended purpose is important to ensure a steady flow of
U.S. goods to international markets.

A PORT INDUSTRY SOLUTION TO FIX A BROKEN SYSTEM

After years of underutilizing the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT),
guaranteeing funds collected are dedicated to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) will result in the long-term sustainability of our
Nation's harbor maintenance needs.

The port industry has agreed on a fair and equitable framework that
guarantees full use of the HMT by the Corps, ensures year-to-year
funding sustainability, and provides the most efficient use of
collected harbor maintenance funds.

ENSURING TAX FAIRNESS

The port industry has agreed on a plan that devotes 100 percent of the
tax paid by shippers to our ports, while providing no additional tax
burden on the industry or taxpayers. It assures a fair, equitable, and
reliable way to ensure the health of this critical part of America's
transportation infrastructure.

Under this plan, HMT yearly revenues would be guaranteed to the Corps.
The plan includes several funding phases to prioritize maintenance,
while providing more equity for all ports.

AAPA'S HARBOR MAINTENANCE FRAMEWORK

A permanent solution that ensures 100 percent of taxes collected
from shippers goes to maintain our Nation's seaport infrastructure and
international competitiveness.
A long-term solution that fixes an unfair system and addresses
the health and well-being of our seaport water highways that are
critical for delivering goods to Americans.
Applies all HMT collections to restore and maintain U.S. water
highways that will complement the $155 billion in port-related capital
investments planned to assure safe and efficient freight movement.
A fair and equitable approach that enables water transportation
cost savings to be fully realized by American consumers and U.S.
exporters competing in the global marketplace.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.008

Six U.S. port regions receive a minimum of 10 percent of HMT
collections for maintenance of high, moderate, and emerging harbors--
protecting historic shares.
Emerging harbors nationwide would receive a minimum of 10
percent of HMT collections.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emerging harbors are defined as those harbors that handle less
than 1 million tons of cargo annually.

Support the AAPA plan to restore and fully maintain the Nation's water
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
highways--with no new taxes!

______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete Saenz, Mayor, City of Laredo, and
Chairman, Texas Border Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members, I am Pete Saenz, Mayor of Laredo, TX and
chairman of the Texas Border Coalition (TBC). I am speaking on behalf
of more than 2 million Texans in 17 border counties of the 1,250-mile
Texas-Mexico border. TBC is comprised of Mayors and city council
members, county judges and other county executives, and business
leaders. Its mission is to provide vision and leadership to develop,
encourage, promote, and protect the business, tourism, industry, and
community interests of the Texas-Mexico border region.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today regarding
border ports of entry, the important role they play in our Nation's
economy, and the improvements needed to increase efficiencies in terms
of commerce and border security.

Automobiles, cell phones, computers, electronics, and refrigerators
are part of our everyday life. These are just some of the consumer
goods that come through Laredo and all of our Texas ports of entry.
Americans depend on being able to purchase these goods and consumables.
Americans depend on those retail, logistics, government, and
international trade-related jobs that all connect to ports of entry. I
ask that you keep this in mind as we talk about all the numbers and
data today.

Without a strong and growing economy on the border, we cannot have
a growing national economy or achieve our security goals. Trade
directly generates 30 percent of the U.S. economy, including 41 million
American jobs--3.1 million of them in Texas.\1\ Interdependence is the
way business gets done in the 21st-century economy, on the border and
across the globe. Facilitating legitimate trade of manufactured goods,
agriculture products, and other goods links the productivity and
competitiveness of communities on both sides of the border and beyond.
This creates jobs and prosperity that improve the lives of our people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The Impact of Trade on U.S. and State-Level Employment: 2016
Update,'' Business Roundtable, 2017.

As the U.S. economy enters the tenth year of expansion, the most
important threat to sustained economic growth is the widening U.S.
trade war with Mexico, Canada, Europe, China, and India. The U.S. has
imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, solar panels, washing
machines, and newsprint. We have threatened new levies on automobiles,
chemicals, equipment, and other products. Our trading partners have
reciprocated with tariffs on U.S. exports of bourbon, blue jeans,
steel, pork, apples, and other items. Continued economic and job growth
depends on Congress and the White House acting to end the uncertainty
about tariffs and improving the North American Free Trade Agreement and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the World Trade Organization.

Living on the border, we have witnessed firsthand the local
positive economic impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Yet, the impact of NAFTA is far-reaching in that it fuels vast trade
economic opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers, consumers, and
businesses. The protection of NAFTA is imperative. We agree that
modernization of the agreement is needed to address changes in economic
climates and technology, but propose that it is done in a manner that
does no harm.

Since the agreement's inception, U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico
has grown to $1.3 trillion, impacting all 50 states. Nationwide,
approximately 14 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Canada and
Mexico and 43 of 50 U.S. States list Canada or Mexico as their first or
second largest export market.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``The Facts on NAFTA: Assessing Two
Decades of Gains in Trade, Growth, and Jobs.''

Texas's 20 ports of entry account for $650 billion in international
trade and the creation of $1.6 million Texas jobs. As reported by the
Texas State Comptroller's Office, trade through the port of Laredo
alone contributed to the creation of 363,000 jobs and the infusion of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$52 billion to the Texas gross domestic product.

The port of Laredo is recognized as the largest U.S. inland port
and the second ``overall port'' after Long Beach. The number of
southbound truck commercial crossings in FY 2017 continued on an upward
trend, increasing by 4.3 percent, totaling over 2.1 million.\3\ Also,
shipments through rail and air remained strong: reported were 239,138
northbound rail car crossings and air cargo weight landed of over 539
million pounds in 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ WorldCity, Trade Numbers, 2017.
\4\ Laredo Economic Development Corporation, 2005-2018 data.

Moreover, the Laredo Customs District, which encompasses the Texas
border ports inclusive of Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, McAllen, Pharr,
and Brownsville, is recognized as the third largest U.S. Customs
District, with a reported trade value of over $303 billion in 2017.
Notably, trade through Laredo's Customs District accounted for over 50
percent of the $557.5 billion in all U.S.-Mexico trade in 2017.\5\ As
such, the impact of trade by air, land, and rail through the Laredo
District on the U.S. economy is far-reaching and linked to industrial
markets in the Midwest, Northeast, central states, and even the western
seaboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Census. Economic Indicator Database, ``Foreign Trade: 2017
U.S. Trade in Goods With Mexico.''

An analysis was conducted for the Texas Department of
Transportation in 2017 by the American Transportation Research
Institute which tracked the movement of trucks from Laredo's port of
entry as they continued their journey northward and back again. The
study clearly showed that the trucks that crossed through Laredo impact
commerce in communities throughout the contiguous United States (charts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
attached).

On the southwest border, we need to assure that our economic
climate provides opportunity to the people in the region, State, and
Nation. The three key elements of ports of entry operations revolve
around staffing, infrastructure, and technology. To achieve our
economic security, we need well-built, equipped, and staffed ports of
entry that can facilitate legitimate trade and travel and interdict
lawbreakers.

A series of studies in the last decade estimate that border delays
are potentially costing the American economy billions of dollars \6\--
costs that are ultimately passed on to working families and businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. ``U.S.-Mexico Border:
CBP Action Needed to Improve Wait Time Data and Measure Outcomes of
Trade Facilitation Efforts.'' 2013; see also, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. ``FY 2014 Report on Business Transformation Initiatives.''
2014; see also, report commissioned by Department of Commerce
International Trade Administration. Conducted by Accenture in
association with HDR Decision Economics and Crossborder Group Inc.,
2008.

The combination of higher volumes of goods crossing our ports of
entry and enhanced post-September 11, 2001 security procedures have led
to longer wait times. Long wait times lead to delays and travel time
uncertainty, which can increase supply chain and transportation
costs.\7\ A report sponsored by the Department of Commerce detailed the
economic impacts of border delays, finding, ``border delays result in
losses to output, wages, jobs, and tax revenue due to decreases in
spending by companies, suppliers, and consumers.'' The study detailed
the causes, such as increased transportation costs for businesses and
higher inventory costs for businesses to buffer against wait time
uncertainty.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ``FY 2015 Report on
Business Transformation Initiatives.'' May 13, 2015.
\8\ Report commissioned by Department of Commerce International
Trade Administration. Conducted by Accenture in association with HDR
Decision Economics and Crossborder Group Inc., 2008.

These delays create substantial costs to the American economy. The
Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress finds that border delays
cost the U.S. economy as much as $5.8 billion each year.\9\ Customs and
Border Protection's Office of Field Operations, which staffs the ports
of entry, needs to hire 2,516 additional CBP Officers and 721
Agriculture Specialists to achieve the staffing target detailed by its
own fiscal 2018 Workload Staff Model and Agriculture Resource
Allocation Model. As of February, the Office of Field Operations had
23,002 CBP Officers onboard at the ports of entry--1,145 short of its
fiscal 2018 target of 24,147. While we are behind on hiring and falling
further backwards, the President's fiscal 2019 budget provides no new
funding to address the current CBP Officer staffing shortage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Economic Impact of Understaffing U.S. Ports of Entry,'' Joint
Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, 2017.

As reported by the Government Accountability Office, in fiscal year
2015, CBP processed more than $2.4 trillion in imports in over 300
ports of entry and collected an estimated $46 billion in revenue, thus
making CBP the second highest revenue generating government agency in
the United States.\10\ Yet, we share in the concern expressed by the
National Treasury Employees Union that these revenues are utilized in
funding other priority Federal programs, creating a lack of resources
devoted to CBP's trade functions and ultimately an economic loss for
American companies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Customs and Border
Protection: Improved Planning Needed to Strengthen Trade Enforcement,''
GAO-17-618, June 12, 2017.
\11\ The National Treasury Employees Union. ``Oversight of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Agency,'' testimony presented to the
Senate Finance Committee, May 11, 2016.

One initiative that has proven to be effective in reducing cross-
border wait time is the operation of dual U.S./Mexico Federal
inspection stations along the U.S.-
Mexico border. In Laredo, dual inspections stations currently exist at
our airport, international commercial bridge crossings, and at the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
international railway crossing.

Similarly, we suggest that more economic activity and trade
efficiency would result from increased usage of certified trusted
carrier programs (C-TPAT), which could also include pre-cleared,
certified-mechanical truck/trailer inspections, and utilizing dedicated
fast lanes. Furthermore, wait times could also be reduced at Border
Patrol highway check points by increasing the number of inspection
lanes and staff, installing state-of-the-art technology, and sharing of
interagency data that Customs sends ``up the road'' to Border Patrol to
reduce duplication of inspection.

In addition to personnel, technology presents a vast opportunity to
improve productivity by moving people and goods across the border more
efficiently. I understand that just this past month, CBP replaced the
operating system of the computers running the x-ray machines used to
inspect trucks at a south Texas land port--an upgrade from MS-DOS to
Windows. Congress needs to invest in land port technology that will at
least bring us into this century.

Road and highway improvements leading to and from border points of
entry are equally important to the free flow of goods and services. I
would also respectfully suggest that key components of continued trade
success hinge on financing infrastructure projects. I ask the Senate
Finance Committee to consider and support innovative financing
mechanisms that propose public-private partnerships that offer
opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed using private
funding. The infrastructure would then become an asset of the
government. While the Donation Asset Program 559, known as DAP, has
successfully offered and acquired donated assets at our border
crossings, the $50-million limit set for new Federal
Government-owned land ports of entry is a barrier that does not allow
for that return on investment needed when considering higher-cost
projects.

The city of Laredo actively continues to seek funding to implement
necessary infrastructure to meet the current and future demands of
commerce. One such project in Laredo is the I-35/I-69W corridor leading
to and from the World Trade Bridge port of entry. The total project
cost is estimated to be $130 million. Of this amount, the city of
Laredo seeks $78 million be federally funded. The city is working
further to expand operations at the World Trade Bridge and to construct
a fifth bridge. These projects are critical to maintaining and
expanding Laredo's role as a predominant international border crossing,
but also in fortifying our local economy as well as that of the State
of Texas and our Nation (see attached graphic).

In regard to border security, the Texas Border Coalition proposes
that a one-size-fits-all barrier approach to border security is not the
solution. CBP data suggests between 80 and 85 percent of smuggled
cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl enters the U.S. through
the ports of entry. To combat the drug supply, increased personnel,
technology, and infrastructure are needed at the ports of entry. In
addition to utilizing state-of-the-art technology, it is vital to work
with the border terrain, which would include a virtual barrier instead
of a physical barrier. As proposed in the USA Act, TBC supports that a
mile-by-mile test be conducted to provide whether a wall or other
tactic or tactics would be the most effective security solution.

Additionally, TBC is concerned about proposals to implement
mandatory biometric exit systems at the international bridges and other
land ports of entry. Currently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is
severely understaffed to handle incoming traffic and has been unable to
hire sufficient officers to replace retirees, much less meet current
workload requirements. At the international bridges in Texas, the
infrastructure was not designed for departure inspections. Port
infrastructure is not capable of tracking an outgoing flow of vehicle
and pedestrian traffic with biometric systems without causing backups
on local and State roadways. Also, none of which has been proposed
addresses the need for land acquisition at the many ports, which have
little space to expand. We propose that a mandatory biometric exit
system not be pursued until Congress is able to provide the necessary
personnel, infrastructure, and technology to handle CBP's current
workload.

With regard to improving the lives of our people, it is important
to add that we support the work of ICE, which provides a much-needed
and valuable service in helping ensure homeland security and public
safety. It stands to reason that border communities are the most
vulnerable by the nature of our geography. Yet, zero tolerance must be
redefined to ensure that the humane treatment of persons and families
be protected. In a letter submitted to congressional leaders by the
Libre Initiative and signed onto by the Texas Border Coalition together
with other faith, business, civic, and immigration advocacy groups,
Congress is urged to act immediately and pass a permanent legislative
solution protecting against the separation of families at the border
and the indefinite detention of families. To do otherwise is contrary
to the decency of the American people and the principles on which our
country is founded.

On behalf of TBC, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to
these important matters.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1818.011

______

Communications

----------

Center for Fiscal Equity

14448 Parkvale Road, Suite 6

Rockville, MD 20853

[email protected]

Statement of Michael G. Bindner

Chairman Cornyn and Ranking Member Casey, thank you for the opportunity
to submit these comments for the record to the Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global
Competitiveness. This combines elements from our comments from March to
the full committee and to the House Committee on Ways and Means from
last year, with substantial new material regarding current
Administration trade policy.

We suspect that port city witnesses will testify that most commerce
passes through with minimal processing. Manufacturing for the American
market may occur on the other side of the border or near the Chinese
point of departure, but when goods arrive here they either keep driving
to the point of sale or are loaded onto intramural transportation to
it. As long as fuel prices remain relatively low, this will continue.
The only danger is President Trump's proposed deregulation of the Dodd-
Frank reforms of the New York Mercantile Exchange Oil Futures market,
which will cause oil prices to soar. Higher fuel prices and a trade war
would bring manufacturing closer to consumers, but will do nothing for
border cities. Creating more manufacturing opportunities at border
cities going out requires tax reform.

Speaker Ryan's proposed Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax is a compromise
between those who hate the idea of a value-added tax and those who seek
a better deal for workers in trade. It is not a very good idea because
it does not meet World Trade Organization standards, though a VAT
would. It ultimately failed, although much of its failure likely is due
to opposition by Chairman Hatch. In the end, Congress simply lowered
rates, which did little for exports or workers.

It would be simpler to adopt a VAT on the international level and it
would allow an expansion of family support through an expanded child
tax credit. Many in the majority party oppose a VAT for just that
reason, yet call themselves pro-life, which is true hypocrisy. Indeed,
a VAT with enhanced family support is the best solution anyone has
found to grow the economy and increase jobs. Even then, a DBCFT is
preferable to the current corporate income tax system, so what is said
below about VAT is at least partially applicable to the DCBFT (with any
increased subsidies for children added to the personal income tax).

The main trade impact in our plan is the value-added tax (VAT). This is
because (exported) products would shed the tax, i.e., the tax would be
zero rated, at export. Whatever VAT Congress sets is an export subsidy.
Seen another way, to not put as much taxation into VAT as possible is
to enact an unconstitutional export tax.

Value-added taxes act as instant economic growth, as they are spur to
domestic industry and its workers, who will have more money to spend.
The Net Business Receipts Tax as we propose it includes a child tax
credit to be paid with income of between $500 and $1,000 per month.
Such money will undoubtedly be spent by the families who receive it on
everything from food to housing to consumer electronics.

Some oppose VATs because they see it as a money machine, however this
depends on whether they are visible or not. A receipt visible VAT is as
susceptible to public pressure to reduce spending as the FairTax is
designed to be, however unlike the FairTax, it is harder to game.
Avoiding lawful taxes by gaming the system should not be considered a
conservative principle, unless conservatism is in defense of entrenched
corporate interests who have the money to game the tax code.

Our 10%-13% VAT rate estimates are designed to fully fund non-
entitlement domestic spending not otherwise offset with dedicated
revenues. This makes the burden of funding government very explicit to
all taxpayers. Nothing else will reduce the demand for such spending,
save perceived demands from bondholders to do so--a demand that does
not seem evident given their continued purchase of U.S. Treasury Notes.

Value-added taxes can be seen as regressive because wealthier people
consume less; however, when used in concert with a high-income personal
income tax and with some form of tax benefit to families, as we suggest
as part of the NBRT, this is not the case.

The shift from an income tax based system to a primarily consumption
based system will dramatically decrease participation in the personal
income tax system to only the top 20% of households in terms of income.
Currently, only roughly half of households pay income taxes, which is
by design, as the decision has been made to favor tax policy to
redistribute income over the use of direct subsidies, which have the
stink of welfare. This is entirely appropriate as a way to make work
pay for families, as living wage requirements without such a tax
subsidy could not be sustained by small employers.

Shifting the balance to more exports will require more labor,
considering the fact that economists call this a full employment
economy. Any boost in either manufacturing or technology will require
more immigration. Some business owners want employees to stay in the
shadows and be abused, others want legal employees (though non-union--
repealing right to work laws would end illegal immigration because no
one would hire an undocumented worker with union representation), and
still others in the conservative camp simply hate the illegality or the
ethnicity of the immigrants (speaking of the White House).

How would these developments impact border cities? The trend will be to
shift international manufacturing to the border, especially if imported
components are used.

Increased manufacturing should mean stronger unions and real
enforcement of union rights to organize. Attacking unions for the past
30 years has taken its toll on the American worker in both immigration
and trade. That has been facilitated by decreasing the top marginal
income tax rates so that when savings are made to labor costs, the CEOs
and stockholders actually benefit. When tax rates are high, the
government gets the cash so wages are not kept low nor unions busted.
It is a bit late in the day for the Majority to show real concern for
the American worker rather than the American capitalist or consumer.

Reversing the plight of the American worker will involve more than
trade, but I doubt that the Majority has the will to break from the
last 30 years of tax policy to make worker wages safe again from their
bosses. Sorry for being such a scold, but the times require it.

The best protection for American workers and American consumer are
higher marginal tax rates for the wealthy. This will also end the
possibility of a future crisis where the U.S. Treasury cannot continue
to roll over its debt into new borrowing. Japan sells its debt to its
rich and under-taxes them. They have a huge Debt to GDP ratio; however
they are a smaller nation.

We cannot expect the same treatment from our world-wide network of
creditors, an issue which is also very important for trade. Currently,
we trade the security of our debt for consumer products. Theoretically,
some of these funds should make workers who lose their jobs whole--so
far it has not. This is another way that higher tax rates and
collection (and we are nowhere near the top of the semi-fictitious
Laffer Curve) hurt the American workforce. Raising taxes solves both
problems, even though it is the last thing I would expect of the
Majority.

We make these comments because majorities change--either by deciding to
do the right thing or losing to those who will, so we will keep
providing comments, at least until invited to testify.

Our proposed NBRT/Subtraction VAT could be made either border
adjustable, like the VAT, or be included in the price. This tax is
designed to benefit the families of workers, either through government
services or services provided by employers in lieu of tax. As such, it
is really part of compensation. While we could run all compensation
through the public sector and make it all border adjustable, that would
be a mockery of the concept. The tax is designed to pay for needed
services. Not including the tax at the border means that services
provided to employees, such as a much-needed expanded child tax
credit--would be forgone. To this we respond, absolutely not--Heaven
forbid--over our dead bodies. Just no.

The NBRT could have a huge impact on trade policy, probably much more
than trade treaties, if one of the deductions from the tax is purchase
of employer voting stock (in equal dollar amounts for each worker).
Over a fairly short period of time, much of American industry, if not
employee-owned outright (and there are other policies to accelerate
this, like ESOP conversion) will give workers enough of a share to
greatly impact wages, management hiring and compensation and dealing
with overseas subsidiaries and the supply chain--as well as impacting
certain legal provisions that limit the fiduciary impact of management
decision to improving short-term profitability (at least that is the
excuse managers give for not privileging job retention).

Employee-owners will find it in their own interest to give their
overseas subsidiaries and their supply chain's employees the same deal
that they get as far as employee-ownership plus an equivalent standard
of living. The same pay is not necessary, currency markets will adjust
once worker standards of living rise.

Over time, this will change the economies of the nation's we trade
with, as working in employee owned companies will become the market
preference and force other firms to adopt similar policies (in much the
same way that, even without a tax benefit for purchasing stock,
employee owned companies that become more democratic or even more
socialistic, will force all other employers to adopt similar measures
to compete for the best workers and professionals.)

In the long run, trade will no longer be an issue. Internal company
dynamics will replace the need for trade agreements as capitalists lose
the ability to pit the interest of one nation's workers against the
others. This approach is also the most effective way to deal with the
advance of robotics. If the workers own the robots, wages are swapped
for profits with the profits going where they will enhance consumption
without such devices as a guaranteed income.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. We are, of
course, available for direct testimony or to answer questions by
members and staff.

______

National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)

Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President

Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Casey, distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony
on ``Trade and Commerce at U.S. Ports of Entry.'' As President of the
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a
union that represents over 25,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Officers, Agriculture Specialists (CBPAS) and trade compliance and
enforcement personnel stationed at 328 land, sea and air ports of entry
across the United States (U.S.) and 16 Preclearance stations currently
in Ireland, the Caribbean, Canada and United Arab Emirates airports.

CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO) is the largest component of
CBP responsible for border security--including anti-terrorism,
immigration, anti-smuggling, trade compliance, and agriculture
protection--while simultaneously facilitating lawful trade and travel
at U.S. ports of entry that are critical to our Nation's economy.

In addition to CBP's trade and travel security, processing and
facilitation mission, CBP OFO employees at the ports of entry are the
second largest source of revenue collection for the U.S. government. In
2016, CBP processed more than $2.2 trillion in imports and collected
more than $44 billion in duties, taxes, and other fees. Customs and
Border Protection Entry Specialists, Import Specialists, Paralegal
Specialists who determine fines, penalties and forfeitures, Customs
Auditors and Attorneys and other trade compliance personnel are the
frontline in the defense against illegal imports and contraband. These
employees enforce over 400 U.S. trade and tariff laws and regulations
in order to ensure a fair and competitive trade environment pursuant to
existing international agreements and treaties, as well as stemming the
flow of illegal imports, such as pirated intellectual property and
counterfeit goods, and contraband such as child pornography, illegal
arms, weapons of mass destruction and laundered money. CBP is also a
revenue collection agency. According to CBP's most recent data, CBP OFO
employees processed more than $2.4 trillion in trade goods and
collected more than $46 billion in revenue.

Along with facilitating legitimate trade and enforcing trade and
security laws, CBP trade personnel are responsible for stopping illegal
transshipments; goods with falsified country of origin; goods that are
misclassified; and collecting antidumping and countervailing duties.

Today, the greatest challenge hindering trade and commerce at U.S.
port of entry is that CBP OFO is chronically understaffed and the
economic cost of the CBP OFO staffing shortage is staggering. According
to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), every day 1.1 million people and
$5.9 billion in goods legally enter and exit through the ports of
entry. The volume of commerce crossing our borders has more than
tripled in the past 25 years. Long wait times lead to delays and travel
time uncertainty, which can increase supply chain and transportation
costs. According to the Department of Commerce, border delays result in
losses to output, wages, jobs and tax revenue due to decreases in
spending by companies, suppliers and consumers. JEC research finds
border delays cost the U.S. economy between $90 million and $5.8
billion each year.

CBP OFO has a current need to hire 2,516 additional CBP Officers
and 721 Agriculture Specialists to achieve the staffing target as
stipulated in CBP's attached FY 2018 Workload Staff Model (WSM) and
Agriculture Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM). According to CBP's
Congressional Affairs Office, as of May 4, 2018, CBP OFO has 23,147 CBP
Officers onboard at the ports of entry--1,328 short of the authorized
staffing level of 24,475.

Understaffed ports lead to long delays in travel and cargo lanes
and also create significant hardship and safety issues for frontline
employees. Involuntary overtime and involuntary work assignments far
from home disrupt CBP Officers' family life and destroy morale.

Trade and travel volume continue to increase every year, but CBP
OFO staffing is not keeping pace with this increase. New and expanded
federal inspection facilities are being built at the air, sea and land
ports, yet CBP OFO staffing is not expanding.

The state of Texas has 29 ports of entry including some of the
nation's largest airports, seaports and land ports in the country, as
well as two CBP trade operations Centers of Excellence and Expertise
(CEE)--the Machinery CEE in Laredo and the Petroleum, Natural Gas and
Minerals CEE in Houston. NTEU represents approximately 4,900 frontline
CBP employees in Texas.

All Texas ports are experiencing CBP staffing shortages with Laredo
leading the pack. According to CBP, as of April Laredo land port has a
staffing shortage of over 90 CBP Officers. At Eagle Pass port of entry,
the shortage is around 35 and at Del Rio about 15.

Pennsylvania also have major air and sea ports of entry in
Philadelphia. According to NTEU members there, the Philadelphia
International Airport is short approximately 8 to 10 CBP Officer
positions.

We commend Senator Cornyn for sponsoring legislation that includes
a provision to authorize the funding and hiring of additional CBP
employees at the ports of entry. NTEU strongly supports legislation
recently introduced by Finance Committee member Senator McCaskill (D-
MO), S. 2314, the Border and Port Security Act. S. 2314 is stand-alone
legislation that would authorize the hiring of 500 additional CBP
Officers and additional OFO trade operations staff annually until the
staffing gaps in CBP's various Workload Staffing Models are met.

CBP employees also perform critically important agriculture
inspections to prevent the entry of animal and plant pests or diseases
at ports of entry. For years, NTEU has championed the CBP Agriculture
Specialists' Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) mission within the
agency and has fought for increased staffing to fulfill that mission.
The U.S. agriculture sector is a crucial component of the American
economy generating over $1 trillion in annual economic activity.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, foreign pests and
diseases cost the American economy tens of billions of dollars
annually.

At many ports, including the port of Brownsville, there are not
enough Agriculture Specialists to staff all shifts and CBP Officers are
backfilling for Agriculture Specialists despite a December 10, 2007
directive that states ``Directors, Field Operations must ensure that
CBPAS are assigned to agricultural inspectional activities at the
individual ports of entry. It is imperative that assignments for these
employees are dedicated to the mission of protecting the nation's food
supply and agricultural industry from pests and diseases absent exigent
operational circumstances.''

CBP's AgRAM shows a need for an additional 721 frontline CBP
Agriculture Specialists and supervisors to address current workloads
through FY 2018; however, even with the 2016 increase in AQI user fees,
CBP proposed to fund 2,418 CBP Agriculture Specialist positions in FY
2018, not the 3,149 called for by the AgRAM.

Despite CBP's release of its risk-based AgRAM that documents an
ongoing shortage of CBP Agriculture Specialists--by 721--at the ports
of entry, the budget request includes no direct appropriation to hire
these critical positions needed to fulfill CBP's AQI mission of pest
exclusion and safeguarding U.S. agriculture and natural resources from
the risks associated with the entry, establishment or spread of animal,
plant pests and pathogens. NTEU urges the Committee to support a direct
appropriation to begin to hire the 721 Agriculture Specialists as
stipulated in their FY 2018 AgRAM.

Customs User Fees

CBP collects Customs User Fees (CUFs) which include CUFs authorized
by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA)
to recover certain costs incurred for processing, among other things,
air and sea passengers, and various private and commercial land, sea,
air, and rail carriers and shipments. The source of these user fees are
commercial vessels, commercial vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft,
private vessels, air passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel
passengers, dutiable mail, customs brokers and barge/bulk carriers.

COBRA fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account and are
designated by statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as
100% of inspectional overtime for passenger and commercial vehicle
inspection during overtime shift hours. Of the 24,147 CBP Officers
currently funded, COBRA user fees and COBRA FTA fund 3,825 full-time
equivalent (FTEs) CBP Officers. Further, Immigration Inspection User
Fees (IUF) fund 4,179 CBPO FTEs. User fees under the Senate Finance
Committee jurisdiction fund 8,004 CBPO FTEs or one third of the entire
CBP workforce at the ports of entry.

For every $10 million in CUFs collected, CBP funds 92 CBP Officer
FTEs. The Administration has proposed, starting with FY 2015 and
through its FY 2019 budget request, an increase of at least $2 in CUFs
and $2 in IUFs. If enacted, a $2 increase in both the CUFs and IUFs
would support the hiring and support of 1,800 new CBP Officers per
fiscal year.

Diversion of Customs User Fees

NTEU strongly opposes the diversion of Customs User fees. Any
increases to the CUF Account should be properly used for much-needed
CBP staffing and not diverted to unrelated projects.

Unfortunately, under Section 52202 of the FAST ACT, Congress
indexed CUFs to inflation, but diverted this funding from the Customs
User Fees Account to the General Fund to pay for unrelated
infrastructure projects. Indexing COBRA user fees to inflation would
have raised $1.4 billion over ten years--a potential $140 million per
year funding stream to help pay for the hiring of additional CBP
Officers to perform CBP's border security, law enforcement and trade
and travel facilitation missions.

Hijacking the indexed portion of the CUFs to inflation and using
these fees as a FAST ACT pay-for has cost CBP Customs user fee funding
to hire over 900 new CBP Officers since the FAST Act went into effect.
These new hires would have significantly alleviated the current CBP
Officer staffing shortage.

FY 2019 CBP Budget Request

The President's FY 2019 budget request does support the hiring of
new CBP Officers to meet the current staffing need of 2,516, but seeks
to fund these new positions by increasing user fees. The President's
budget proposal only provides appropriated funding to hire 60 new CBP
Officer positions at the National Targeting Center. The President's
request seeks no appropriated funding to address the current CBP
Officer staffing shortage of 2,516 additional CBP Officers as
stipulated by CBP's own FY 2018 WSM or to fund the additional 721 CBP
Agriculture Specialists as stipulated by CBP's own FY 2108 AgRAM.

As in the past, the Administration's budget proposes significant
realignment of user fees collected by CBP. Currently, 33 percent of a
CBP Officer's compensation is funded with a combination of user fees,
reimbursable service agreements, and trust funds. The FY 2019 budget
proposes to reduce OFO appropriated funding by realigning and
redirecting user fees, including redirecting the Electronic System for
Travel Authorization (ESTA) fee that would require a statutory change.
The FY 2019 budget proposal would redirect approximately $160 million
in ESTA fees from Brand USA to CBP. Rather than redirecting the ESTA
fees to fund the additional 2,516 CBP Officer new hires needed to fully
staff CBP Officer positions in FY 2019 and beyond, as stipulated by
CBP's WSM, the budget would in fact reduce CBP's appropriated funding
by $160 million. Therefore, while the budget proposes to increase the
number of CBP Officer positions funded by ESTA user fees by 1,093, it
decreases appropriated funding by $160 million, and reduces the number
of CBP Officer positions funded by appropriations by 1,093 positions.

Once again, the President's FY 2019 budget includes CBP Officer
staffing numbers that are dependent on Congress first enacting changes
to statutes that determine the amounts and disbursement of these user
fee collections. To accomplish the ESTA fee change in the President's
budget, Congress must amend the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (Pub. L.
111-145). The President's request also proposes fee increases to the
Immigration and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(COBRA) user fees, not a direct up-front appropriation, to fund CBP
Officer new hires as stipulated by the WSM. However, Immigration and
COBRA user fees cannot be increased without Congress first enacting
legislation. A proposal to increase user fees has been part of the
Administration's annual budget submission since FY 2014 to fund the
hiring of new CBP Officers. These user fee increase proposals are again
in the FY 2019 budget request, but it is NTEU's understanding that the
Senate Finance Committee is not currently planning to act on this long-
standing CBP legislative proposal.

Therefore, to address CBP OFO staffing shortages and to address the
ever-
increasing volume of trade through the ports of entry in the future,
NTEU strongly supports S. 2314, the standalone CBP Officer staffing
authorization bill and urges Senators to cosponsor and advance this
bill.

NTEU is seeking up to $100 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 direct
appropriations for the hiring of 500 CBP Officers, 100 CBP Agriculture
Specialists, and additional needed non-uniformed Trade Operations and
support staff. NTEU commends the Senate Appropriations Committee for
approving a bill for floor action that provides an additional $49
million above the FY 2019 Budget request to add 375 CBP Officers.

CBP Officer Overtime

Also due to the ongoing current staffing shortage at the ports, CBP
Officers nationwide are working excessive overtime to maintain basic
port staffing. Currently, CBP Officer overtime pay is funded 100%
through the COBRA user fee and is statutorily capped at $45,000 per
year. All CBP Officers are aware that overtime assignments are an
aspect of their jobs. However, long periods of overtime hours can
severely disrupt an officer's family life, morale and ultimately their
job performance protecting our nation.

Because of the ongoing staffing shortages, CBP Officers can be
required to regularly work overtime which results in individual
Officers hitting the overtime cap very early in the fiscal year. This
leaves no overtime funding available for peak season travel, holidays
and other times when CBP Officers are expected to work overtime
resulting in critical staffing shortages in the third and fourth
quarter of the fiscal year that usually coincide with peak travel at
the ports.

At many ports, CBP has granted overtime exemptions to over one half
of the workforce to allow managers to assign overtime to Officers that
have already reached the statutory overtime cap, but cap waivers only
force CBP Officers already working long daily shifts to continue
working these shifts for more days. Officers are required to come in
hours before their regular shifts, to stay an indeterminate number of
hours after their shifts (on the same day) and are compelled to come in
for more overtime hours on their regular days off as well. Both
involuntary overtime--resulting in 12 to 16 hour shifts, day after day,
for months on end--and involuntary work assignments far from home
significantly disrupt CBP Officers' family life, erode morale and are
not a solution for staffing shortages at the ports.

Temporary Duty Assignments at Southwest Land Ports of Entry

Due to CBP's ongoing staffing shortage, since 2015, CBP has been
diverting CBP Officers from other air, sea and land ports to severely
short-staffed Southwest land ports for 90day temporary duty assignments
(TDYs). Since November 1, 2015 between 80 and 200 CBP Officers per
quarter have been TDYed to the San Diego and Tucson land ports. Owing
to the failure to fill CBP Officer positions, neither the San Ysidro
nor Nogales land ports can safely function without these TDYs.

The continuing lack of CBP Officer staffing at these ports of entry
results in forced overtime shifts, multiple deployments away from home,
and low morale. Phase 4 of TDYs began June 24, 2018 with 100 CBP
Officers being sent from other short-staffed ports to the critically
short-staffed ports of Nogales and San Ysidro for 90-day temporary duty
assignments.

Reimbursable Service Agreements

In recent years, in order to find alternative sources of funding to
address serious CBP Officer and Agriculture Specialist staffing
shortages, CBP received authorization for and has entered into
Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSAs) with the private sector as well
as with state and local governmental entities. These stakeholders
reimburse CBP for additional inspection services including overtime pay
and the hiring of new CBP Officer and Agriculture Specialist personnel
that in the past have been paid for entirely by user fees or
appropriated funding. According to CBP, since the program began in
2013, CBP has entered into agreements with 36 stakeholders, providing
more than 106,000 additional processing hours for incoming commercial
and cargo traffic.

NTEU believes that the RSA program would be entirely unnecessary if
Congress, when it authorized CBP user fees collected to be indexed to
inflation, had provided that the $140 million a year funding stream be
used to increase CBP overtime, staffing and other resources, rather
than fund highway and other infrastructure projects authorized by the
2016 highway bill. NTEU also believes that the RSA program is a band
aid approach and cannot replace the need for Congress to either
appropriate new funding or authorize an increase in customs and
immigration user fees to adequately address CBP staffing needs at the
ports.

RSAs simply cannot replace CBP appropriated or user fee funding--
making CBP a ``pay to play'' agency. NTEU also remains concerned with
CBP's new Preclearance expansion program that also relies heavily on
``pay to play.'' Further, NTEU believes that the use of RSAs to fund
CBP staffing shortages raises significant equity issues between larger
and/or wealthier ports and smaller ports, which calls for an engaged
Congress conducting active oversight.

Opioid Interdiction

CBP OFO is the premier DHS component tasked with stemming the
nation's opioid epidemic--a crisis that is getting worse. In a report
released on May 10, 2019, by the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee Minority titled ``Combatting the Opioid
Epidemic: Intercepting Illicit Opioids at Ports of Entry,'' CBP
Officers at the ports of entry were found to ``play a key role in
stopping opioids and that CBP has significant shortages of Port
Officers that may be compromising efforts to seize additional opioids
before they can reach U.S. communities.''

The smuggling of fentanyl and other opioids has increased markedly.
According to the report, ``between 2013 and 2017, approximately 25,405
pounds, or 88% of all opioids seized by CBP, were seized at ports of
entry. The amount of fentanyl seized at the ports of entry increased by
159% from 459 pounds in 2016 to 1,189 pounds in 2017.''

The scourge of synthetic opioid addiction is felt in every state
and is a threat to the nation's economic security and well-being. The
majority of fentanyl is manufactured in other countries such as China,
and is smuggled primarily through the ports of entry along the
southwest border and through international mail and express consignment
carrier facilities (e.g., FedEx and UPS). CBP Officers are, ``in the
majority of cases, the last line of defense in preventing illicit
opioids from entering the United States. . . . CBP's current shortage
of over 4,000 Port Officers is directly influencing operations and
staffing these positions could increase CBP's ability to interdict
opioids.''

According to CBP, over the last three years, there were 181 CBP
employees assigned to the five Postal Service International Service
Centers and 208 CBP employees assigned to the Private Express Carrier
Facilities.

On average, CBP Officers only inspect 100 of the 1.3 million
inbound international packages that arrive daily by international mail.
In 2016, 65 million packages arrive via express carriers, which are
required by law to provide advanced electronic data. However, this data
can be incomplete. The Committee report found, ``for example, from 2014
and 2016, CBP issued over five thousand penalties for incomplete
manifest information and assessed over $26 million in fines. However,
express shippers successfully negotiated penalties down to just over $4
million.''

In the past year, the FedEx hub in Memphis processed 38 million
imports and 48 million exports--equaling 86 million in total package
volume. There are approximately 24 CBP Officers in total screening all
86 million shipments, and on average, about 15 CBP Officers are working
the main overnight FedEx ``sort'' shift. Considering the volume at the
FedEx hub, NTEU has been told that the port requires a minimum of 60
CBP Officers to facilitate the flow of legitimate freight and ensure
successful interdiction of these synthetic chemicals. NTEU's CBP OFO
appropriation request supports both the critical need at the air, sea
and land ports of entry, but also at international postal and express
consignment hubs.

Also, under the Trade Act of 2002 as amended, Congress required all
cargo, including express cargo, but not including inbound international
mail, subject to requirements for electronic advance data (EAD). For
cargo arriving by aircraft, express consignment operators are required
to provide EAD to CBP prior to the scheduled arrival of express cargo
in the U.S. Express consignment operators accept items for delivery to
the U.S. at points of sale in foreign countries and maintain control of
items until they are delivered to the addressees.

GAO reports that express consignment operators say that ``they are
able to individually scan each item upon arrival, providing an
opportunity to identify and set aside express cargo targeted for CBP
inspection based on EAD'' (GAO-17-606, page 29). However, CBP Officers
tell NTEU that this is not the case for ``overages'' that arrive
unmanifested or for mislabeled packages. They also tell us that too
many people rely on electronic manifests to be accurate when they
frequently are not.

According to GAO, ``although CBP has been using EAD to target
express cargo for inspection since approximately 2004, it has not
evaluated whether this method results in benefits relative to other
methods of choosing express cargo . . . for inspection'' (GAO-17-606,
page 28).

For these reasons, NTEU commends Senator Portman (R-OH) for
including language in section 8 of S. 3057, the STOP Act, requiring CBP
to provide a report on an annual basis on the individuals and companies
that violate the Trade Act to the Senate Committee on Finance, among
others. Congress, by requiring CBP to annually report this useful
information on violators and violator penalty assessments, would
enhance CBP's interdiction of prohibited items from entering the U.S.
through express consignment operators.

Lastly, the nation's busiest land port of entry San Diego, along
with the Tucson area land ports, account for ``57% of all opioids
seized by ports of entry, including 75% of all fentanyl and 61% of all
heroin seized.'' These two land ports are also the most critically
understaffed. According to CBP, ``these long-term staffing shortfalls
continue to stretch the limits of operational, enforcement and training
capabilities at the San Diego and Tucson ports of entry.''

Non-uniformed Trade Enforcement and Compliance Staffing

When CBP was created in 2003, it was given a dual mission of not
only safeguarding our nation's borders and ports from terrorist
attacks, but also the mission of regulating and facilitating
international trade. CBP is responsible for collecting import duties
and ensuring importers fully comply with all applicable laws,
regulations, quotas, Free Trade Agreement (FTA) requirements, and
intellectual property provisions.

Customs revenues are the second largest source of federal revenues
collected by the U.S. Government after tax revenues, and this revenue
funds other federal priority programs. NTEU is deeply concerned with
the lack of resources, both in terms of dollars and manpower, being
devoted to CBP's trade functions. Lack of sufficient focus and
resources not only cost the U.S. Treasury in terms of customs duties
and revenue loss, but also cost American companies in terms of lost
business to unlawful imports.

As of February 2018, there are 2,496 CBP revenue occupation
personnel onboard, 272 positions short of the CBP revenue staff
authorized by Congress. These occupations include Import (883), Entry
(389), Drawback (34), Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture (271), National
Import (84) and International Trade Specialists (155), Customs Auditors
(308), and Attorneys (112).

The Senate Finance Committee has primary jurisdiction over CBP's
trade and commercial operations mission. Since CBP was established in
March 2003, however, there has been no increase in non-uniformed CBP
trade enforcement and compliance personnel even though inbound trade
volume grew by more than 24 percent between FY 2010 and FY 2014.
Additionally, CBP trade operations staffing has fallen below the
statutory floor set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and
stipulated in the FY 2017 CBP Resource Optimization Model for Trade
Positions.

Also, continuing staffing shortages, inequitable compensation, and
lack of mission focus, are the main reasons why experienced CBP
commercial operations professionals at all levels, who long have made
the system work, are leaving or have left the agency. Further, twenty-
five percent of CBP Import Specialists will retire or be eligible to
retire within the next few years. For these reasons, NTEU strongly
supported CBP's FY 2018 direct appropriations request to hire 140
additional positions at the CBP Office of Trade to support
implementation of Trade Enhancement and Facilitation Act (Pub. L. 114-
125) requirements.

Conclusion

Increasing CBP OFO staffing at the ports of entry is an economic
driver for the U.S. economy. According to JEC, ``every day 1.1 million
people and $5.9 billion in goods legally enter and exit through the
ports of entry,'' but border delays cost the U.S. economy upwards of $5
billion each year. CBP estimates that the annual hiring of an
additional 500 CBP Officers at the ports of entry would increase yearly
economic activity by $1 billion and result in an additional 16,600 jobs
per year to the U.S. economy.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on the CBP
OFO resources needed to secure and protect trade and commerce at U.S.
ports of entry on behalf of the men and women represented by NTEU at
the nation's ports of entry.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Workload Staffing Model (WSM) Results

OFO's staffing requirement approach identifies the WSM baseline
results, requirements for facility enhancements, and technology
deployments through FY 2018 and requirements for conservatively
projected growth through FY 2018 (3 percent).

OFO CBPO and CBPAS Staffing Requirments Through FY 2018

Current CBPO Staffing Requirment--2,516

Staffing Gap Indentified by the WSM +727

Facility/Technology Requirements +621

Volume Growth +1,593

BTI savings -(425)

Net CBPO Staffing Requirements Calculation:

(727 + 621 + 1,593) - 425 = 2,516

Current CBPAS Staffing Requirement 721

______

U.S. Travel Association

1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 450

Washington, DC 20005

The U.S. Travel Association is the national, non-profit organization
representing all facets of the travel industry which generates $2.4
trillion in economic output and supports 15.6 million American jobs.

The U.S. Travel Association believes without security, there can be no
travel. Security, which includes the infrastructure, personnel, and
processes at America's ports of entry (POEs), is vital not only to
protect the American homeland, but also to facilitate the efficient
movement of people to and from our country.

The U.S. Travel Association supports investing in America's ports of
entry for both facilities and with regard to manpower. Doing so would
have extraordinarily positive results for the security of our border
regions, as well as economic benefits that result from efficient travel
facilitation. Congress should prioritize the investment of significant
resources to hire new Customs and Border Protection agents to fill its
vacancies and hire new personnel the agency badly needs. Further,
Congress should invest in port of entry facilities to enhance security
and facilitate the increasing volume of visitors. Additionally, the
advent of new technologies could be used to make ports of entry both
more secure and easier for known and low risk travelers to navigate
without sacrificing or risking exploitation by bad actors.

In 2017, the U.S. welcomed 17.8 million visitors from Mexico and 20.2
million from Canada, all of which were screened through one of our
ports of entry. This generated nearly $40 billion in travel spending
within the U.S. ($20.3 billion from Mexican and $19B from Canadian
travelers). It is imperative to both our national security and economic
growth that America's ports of entry efficiently facilitate business
and leisure travelers. The U.S. Travel Association welcomes the
opportunity to help Congress develop policies that promote America.

U.S. Travel commends Chairman Cornyn and Ranking Member Casey for
convening this hearing and looks forward to working with the
subcommittee to improve ports of entry infrastructure.

[all]