Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Border Security and Nomination of John Snow

Jan. 30, 2003
Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Border Security and Nomination of John Snow for Treasury Secretary

GRASSLEY:
We gather this morning for two reasons. One, to have a markup of the nomination of John Snow for Secretary of Treasury, and the other is for a hearing. Since we don't have a quorum present yet, we would do statements on the Snow nomination. Members can enter into that. Then when we get the 12 members that we need for quorum, then we would immediately go to -- 11 members my staff has reminded me—we will move forward with a vote on the nomination. And for the benefit of my staff, there are two members down the hall in judiciary that would come up here to help us make a quorum. And I'm glad that my colleague, Senator Baucus, is here so we can move forward.

(UNKNOWN)
Chairman, I might add...

GRASSLEY:
Yes.

(UNKNOWN)
I'm a little embarrassed that some wills (ph) have been taken over here and—on to my right, (inaudible). Three of the four new members on your side are here. I'll—we'll see. I'll try to work on my side. Three here, OK. That's our concern.

GRASSLEY:
I had an opportunity to introduce three of our four new members. It gives me an opportunity to call everybody's attention to the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, who is a new member of this committee. I know that he will help us very much with our work of the finance committee. He brings background from the ways and means committee that deals with most of the stuff that we deal with on this committee. We welcome you Senator Bunning.

The matter at hand today is the nomination of John Snow to be Treasury Secretary. The Treasury Secretary is one of the most important positions in the president's cabinet. As I said at the nomination hearing two days ago, this committee has a bipartisan tradition of acting expeditiously on nominations for Secretary of Treasury. The reason is because the importance of this nomination to the nation's economic policy making, and particularly right at this time when there's some anxiety about that economy. The evidence of this tradition can be gleaned from committee records of our concern about the economy and this important position in regard to the economy.

Take a look at recent history. For the period covering the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration and this Bush administration, this committee has kept the position of Treasury Secretary filled and virtually a seamless manner. I'd like to emphasize that point.

For this time in—for this time in recent history, we do now have a vacancy in the position of Secretary of Treasury. There has been, then, gap in service. And we need to close that gap. As long as that vacancy remains, our markets wander, our global trading partners speculate, and the president is denied his principle economic policy advisor. All finance committee members, Democrats and Republicans alike, past and present, should be proud of the record of this committee on this issue in recent history of filling and seeing that there's a seamless transfer of authority. It should be no surprise to anyone that the committee has taken our responsibility in this area seriously. Whether we have divided government or if one party controls the Congress and another party the administration, it just simply has never matter.

Much of this committee's policy is tied to the Treasury Department is a relationship that has a hearing—history of seriousness, productivity and, obviously, gravity. We have all very much an interest in filling this important position, so I appreciate my colleague's cooperation. I ask your assistance in helping us move this nomination quickly.
Senator Baucus?

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

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

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

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

GRASSLEY:
Yes.
In regard to your last comment, Mr. Chairman—or Senator Baucus, I would suggest to you that we would be able to follow through on what you suggest and plan accordingly for that in our weekly meetings that you and I have, and involve other Senators appropriately, both from the standpoint of what you might do with members of your party, separate from Republicans and us, but also what we will do together, both in the informal as well as the formal setting.
OK.

Could I ask that members put their statement in the record, so we can move now. We have a quorum. I would like to turn then to the nomination of John Snow to be Secretary of Treasury.

(UNKNOWN)
Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee report the nominee out favorably.

GRASSLEY:
OK. With that motion before us, I ask for the yeas and nays. I'd like to do it by voice vote. All in favor say aye.

(UNKNOWN)
Aye.

(UNKNOWN)
Aye.

GRASSLEY:
All opposed?
In my opinion, it's a clear favor of the ayes. The ayes have it.
And now we would favorably report the nomination of John Snow to be Secretary of Treasury.
The executive session is adjourned, and we'll now very shortly move to our committee hearings. Thank you all very much. Thank you for your cooperation.
Yes, Senator Frist?

FRIST:
I just want to thank the ranking member for making a statement that we would—I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss this on the floor there today.

GRASSLEY:
We would love to hear the majority leader a little more clearly. I don't know if your microphone is on.

FRIST:
There we go.

GRASSLEY:
Good. Thank you.

GRASSLEY:
I would like to convene the finance committee. I'd like to convene the finance committee now for our hearing.
This hearing is to examine the security of our nation's borders. We should all understand how important this is. And we should have understood this even before the attacks of September 11. Terrorists had exploited loopholes in our immigration system and our laxed security at ports of entry to gain entry into the United States. If we're serious about protecting this country from new attacks, then we have to get serious about border security.

So we're here to do some oversight and find out if our borders are safe or whether our borders are like a sieve (ph). As the chairman and ranking member of the finance committee, both I and Senator Baucus are concerned about illegal transport of currency, especially counterfeit money or money that could be used for terrorism activity as it comes into the United States over our borders. We all know that this currency can cause enormous damage by undermining our markets, and by supporting the drug trade and terrorism.

This will be a candid hearing about the security of our borders. I have a particular concern about INS enforcement. If we don't secure the borders, the consequences affect the whole country. More and more, my state of Iowa is becoming a byway for smugglers and illegal immigrants. The INS enforcement problems have real consequences not just for national security but for immigrants who are often are duped by smugglers.

For example, last year it was nation-wide news that 11 immigrants were trapped for weeks in a railroad box car that ended up near Denison, and these folks has been dead for weeks before their bodies were discovered. And just a few weeks ago, nine people died in a—in a van that was full of immigrants, when that van crashed on Interstate 80 near the little town of Menlo, Iowa. We need better enforcement to prevent these tragedies. And I think that the INS office in the Quad Cities, which I've requested for some time, might help with that.

We may hear some criticism today, but don't let that distract anybody from the purpose of the hearing. We're here to improve security. I think Congressional oversight is one of the best ways to make sure that our Constitutional system of checks and balances work the way it was intended. We have to find out what's not working so we can make it work.
The timing of this hearing is important as well. The new Department of Homeland Security is becoming operational, and that department faces big challenges. I think border security is going to be one of those biggest problems. This hearing attempts to find out what's going on with the agencies responsible for the border, the INS, Customs Service, the Interior Department. The Department of Homeland Security can take lessons from this, and I hope that they are implemented.

GRASSLEY:
I hope this sends a message to any public servants at the Interior Department who stand in the way of law enforcement reform and border security. That message is, quite simply, forget your turf and power, and think about people's lives.
I want to thank all of you who are here today, and thank you for coming to the table as you have now. I especially want to thank General Accounting Office and the Interior Department Inspector General Devaney for the excellent oversight work they've done, and Agent Dan Wirth, with FLEOA for giving us the ground-level view of the border situation. And I thank INS, Customs and the Interior Department for sending representatives to testify.

The first part of our hearing will focus on ports of entry, the responsibility of the INS and Customs. Senator Baucus and I asked the General Accounting Office of Offices of Special Investigations, the OSI, to test our borders to find out how easy it is for people using bogus IDs to carry undeclared money and credit cards across that border. The investigations took place on the Northern border, the Southwest border, and at a major international airport by way of the Caribbean. The border was tested by sea, by air, by car, and on foot. In every instance, our borders were penetrated. Sometimes the investigators didn't even need their fake IDs. And in every instance, undercover agents carried undeclared cash or credit cards across that border. The results should trouble all of us. Today, we will hear from the GAO team that carried out this investigation. I know that we will all find their testimony most captivating, and very disturbing. Shortly after this investigation concluded, the INS and the Customs Service were—both agencies were briefed on the exact details of the investigation. And after the General Account Office agent speaks, we will hear from the INS and Customs officials about how this happened and what steps are being taken to improve border security.

The second focus is the Interior Department's border responsibilities. The Interior Department is in charge of 37 percent of the Southwest border with national parks and other public land. In the spring of last year, I launched an investigation into law enforcement problems at Interior. My investigation was triggered by an Inspector General report issued at the request of Secretary Norton, calling for a massive reform of the Interior law enforcement. My oversight investigators found that the hardening of ports of entry by INS and the Customs Service has pushed drug smugglers and illegal aliens then to desolate and rugged Interior Department land. So the result of the squeeze at the port of entry is a bulge at the more remote borders controlled by Interior. This bulge puts Americans and Interior law enforcement personnel at risk.

Last summer, Ranger Chris Eggle was killed by a fugitive drug smugglers from Mexico while he was patrolling Arizona's Oregon Pipe Cactus Monument Park. I know an investigative report is forthcoming, and I am concerned about whether rangers like Ranger Eggle are getting proper training, proper support to defend our borders, or even to defend themselves. I know that Ranger Eggle's murder, and the border problems in Arizona, is a concern of a very important member of this committee, Senator Kyl, who I think will be here today, and will help us with this hearing.

Earl Devaney, the Inspector General, is here to testify, and I expect that he will describe the nature of the problems in the four thousand plus law enforcement force, the third largest in the federal government. He will also be able to describe problems at the borders, and how reforms would help solve those problems. I hope Inspector General Devaney can also tell us about a new whistleblower protection program in his office, because whistleblowers are so important to our oversight, making sure that law is followed, making sure that money is well spent.

We also have with us Dan Wirth, who is speaking as the representative for Park Service federal agents to the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Agent Wirth is the border coordinator for the Interior Department, Tucson, Arizona. He can give us a view from the front line, and help us understand just what's going on—going wrong there at the Southwest border. I understand that Agent Wirth will be showing us some alarming night-vision footage of unidentified illegal aliens crossing the Southwest border through family campgrounds. I look forward to seeing that footage.

Finally, we will hear from Don Murphy, Deputy Director of the Park Service. Mr. Murphy can bring us up to date on the state of reform at Interior, and, along with Mr. Devaney and Agent Wirth, help us discuss solutions to the border problem within the Department of Interior.

So I look forward to a very constructive hearing, and I again thank all the witnesses for your time and effort. I believe that we will accomplish much by this hearing. I call upon Senator Baucus at this point, and thank him for his cooperation while he was chairman in helping us institute this study that we requested.

GRASSLEY:
I thank you very much.
And now we will go to testimony. And Mr. Cramer is going to testify for the General Accounting Office. And we are going to give him 12 minutes to testify; for Mr. Williams, Mr. Jacksta, Mr. Devaney, five minutes each; Mr. Wirth, because of showing some film, 10 minutes; and Mr. Murphy, five minutes. Usually we have just five minutes rules, but because of the extra time that some members needed, that's the way we divide it up. I hope that's not contrary to what any of you have been told.

Mr. Cramer, I'll let you proceed as you feel prepared to proceed at this point.

CRAMER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

GRASSLEY:
You'll have to pull the microphone pretty close to you, and also make sure it's on.

CRAMER:
Thank you.

(UNKNOWN)
These are automatically on.

GRASSLEY:
OK, just got to pull it closer.

GRASSLEY (?):
Thank you.
Mr. Cramer?

CRAMER:
The second series of border crossings were from Mexico. On one occasion, at a land border crossing, after our agent informed the border inspector that he was a U.S. citizen and was not bringing anything into the United States from Mexico, the inspector allowed him to proceed into the country without asking for any identification.

On a subsequent occasion, at that same land crossing, two agents were asked by the border inspectors for identification. They produced the counterfeit identification, and we permitted thereafter to enter into the United States.

The third set of border crossings were from Jamaica. Two agents traveling on one-way tickets from Jamaica to an airport in the United States, presented to border inspectors, upon arrival in the United States, counterfeit driver's licenses and birth certificates. The inspectors appeared to examine the identification carefully, but they did recognize them as counterfeit and permitted the agents to enter into the United States.

GRASSLEY:
Where was the point of entry?

CRAMER:
That particular was at Miami—Miami Airport.
In sum, we recognize that weaknesses in inspection processes for people entering the United States raise complex issues. GAO is currently performing an evaluation of those processes, which will be reported to the Congress in the coming months.

Although INS inspects millions of people who enter the United States and detects thousands of individuals who attempt to illegally enter the United States each year, the results of our work indicate; one, that people who enter the United States are not always asked to present identification, two, security to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the United States from Canada at the border park we visited is inadequate, and three, border inspectors are not readily capable of detecting counterfeit identification documents. We plan to discuss with INS options for better training of their inspectors in recognizing counterfeit identification.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. We would be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the committee may have.

GRASSLEY:
Yes. We're going to hear all the testimony. I thank Mr. Malfi and Mr. Cooney.
We now go to Mr. Williams with the—he's Executive Associate Commission Field Operators for the INS.
Mr. Williams?

GRASSLEY:
It might be appropriate if I'd ask Mr. Cramer or Mr. Malfi, because you have—if you want to respond to anything that Mr. Williams just now said and then I'll go to Senator Baucus before I ask a second question.

Would any—you have heard what Mr. Williams just now said in response to my question about the—about the GAO report. Would you want to enter anything into the record by voice now in response to what he just told us?

CRAMER:
I would just say that we recognize that this is a complex and difficult problem. But just focusing on the results of our work, it seems that some very simple steps could be taken to address this specific problems that have been exposed here—asking for identification—giving some basic training in recognizing counterfeit identification documents. And, of course, as Mr. Williams stated, addressing the problems at the park.

GRASSLEY:
Well, let me ask Mr. Malfi—the statement about relying upon voice and whether you're nervous and not relying upon documents—from your experience, would you respond to that?

MALFI:
I've been in law enforcement for probably about 27 years now -- 28 years. And Mr. Williams is right—there is—law enforcement agents do develop a sixth sense. But today's day and age with the high technical things that are available to us—they talk about retina scans—biometrics—tons of different things—not saying that this should be implemented—it seems to be a little short-sighted to just rely on somebody's gut instinct—of if this person is an American citizen or not or if this person—if the credentials or the documents that he's using are counterfeit or not.

And I think that's hard to ask somebody that's an immigration inspector or a Customs inspector—with the vast amount of documents that are out there to be proficient in recognizing all of them. And possibly, from what we've seen, that if it was narrowed down to one item that's used by people to cross back and forth the border—for example a passport—that it'd be easy to—easier to train these individuals to recognize a counterfeit passport. We also—the more that they've seen them, the more proficient they would get at it.

I also saw that it—when the passport was used by an American citizen, it actually expedited their movement through immigration.

But these are problems that we saw. These can't be fixed with just a knee-jerk reaction. Some thought has to go into this to try and cover all the parameters and to make sure these types of things don't happen again.

GRASSLEY:
Senator Lincoln, before you ask your series of questions, just let me follow up on the previous—second previous question that Senator Baucus asked.

And Mr. Devaney, isn't it true that we have appropriated some money in past years to do some of these recommendations in law enforcement and has not the Interior Department redirected it away from what Congress intended?

DEVANEY:
Mr. Chairman, we encounter on almost a daily basis stories about superintendents who take monies have—that have been dedicated for law enforcement and use them for other purposes.

The budget formulation process is very exact and the—and everything is accounted for by the penny. But when the budget comes to the Department of the Interior, it almost goes out in a shoebox, though, to the components. And superintendents get one of those boxes and it contains the monies for everything. And if a superintendent decides, for instance, that the money that was dedicated for the purchase of some new law enforcement vehicles is—could be better used to purchase a tractor for the maintenance section of this park—I mean, that's what happens that given year.

So one of the—one of the good news stories here is that the department is moving very quickly to something called "activity-based costing," which is going to now track the money as it come—as it goes out to the superintendents and as it's spent. And law enforcement has been designated as one of the early pilots. So I have some hope that the department is going to get a grip on this.

But in the past, I think it is very fair to say that law enforcement monies have been spent for non-law enforcement purposes.

GRASSLEY:
Thank you very much.
We'll take a second round of questioning now.
I want to go back to something that Senator Baucus touched on a little bit. But I want to be a little more specific to Mr. Murphy.

In July, Secretary Norton ordered that all special agents report to law enforcement boss. My staff have obtained a draft Park Service implementation strategy that I have here that has special agent investigative units reporting to park superintendents and that has regional directors overseeing agents.

To me, this is clearly not following orders—I think ignoring the secretary's clear directive. So, very forthright, why is the Park Service ignoring the secretary's reform orders? And in your position, could you fix this? Would you fix it? And how do you deal with this and other problems with implementation strategy?

MURPHY:
Well, I've already fixed it. I mean, I'm not sure which draft you have there—what it's dated, so if you would—you would let me know—we just submitted our revised implementation strategy to...

GRASSLEY:
January 26, 2003.

MURPHY:
Well, if is shows agents reporting to superintendents, that is not correct. There should be an organizational chart that shows special agents reporting to two special agents and then the special agent in charge reporting on up to Washington, here. There is a dotted line that should go to the regional director, who just coordinates overall park and regional resources.
But we have made it clear and stated, unequivocally, that special agents will report to special agent in charges, who will, in turn, report to the Washington office.

GRASSLEY:
Well, I think it's this simple—would you give us a copy of that as you just described it?

MURPHY:
Absolutely.

GRASSLEY:
And then we would ask Mr. Devaney to get a copy of it. And then maybe privately or through written response, you could give us your response to that.

DEVANEY:
Sure.

GRASSLEY:
To you, Mr. Devaney, I have been told that many career public servants at Interior and specifically the National Leadership Council at the Park Service are resisting these law enforcement reforms. Could you tell me your sense of the bureaucracy's embrace of reform and tell me what you know about the National Leadership's Council role at the Park Service?

DEVANEY:
I would be glad to tell you what I know about it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy sits on that. He might have something to say about this, as well.

National Leadership Council is about 17 or 18 members of the—senior members of the National Park Service, including the director and the two deputy directors—associate directors, regional directors—sort of the cardinals of the Park Service, if you will. And I'm sure years ago when that body was formed, the intention was to provide advice and counsel to the political leadership that came and went through the Park Service.

Today, though, my observation is that any new idea or any reform, for that matter, has a—has an awful tough time getting through that National Leadership Council. They are—they are fiercely defendant of the status quo. And their strategy to defend that status quo is to study things to death. They'll form a work group and it'll go off into that work group for literally months.

And that's essentially what happened to some of these law enforcement reforms that came out from my office over a year ago from the secretary's office in July. And they've been studying it and proffering drafts, which have been, you know, sort of, rejected and they've gone back again and again and again. And I don't know if the new draft is different from the one that I, as well, say on the—dated January 26.

But far from embracing reform, I view them as an impediment to progress on reform. And it's—and it's very tough to get a new idea through this group.

GRASSLEY:
Yes.
Let me commend you on another point, but also to ask a question. I know that you've set up an office or some sort of arrangements for whistleblowers to report to. And this follows on my respect for very good work that you do, and I wish you'd commend your—send my commendations to your staff as—through you, but also for you, because I know it's—we need every IG to be effective in doing work protecting the taxpayers' money.

But in regard to the whistleblower position, could you please describe this office? And also tell me whether any other IGs have similar offices.

DEVANEY:
I would be glad to. The whistleblower protection position I have established is going to be filled by a very senior investigator with over 20 years of law enforcement experience. And the—and the idea here is to follow whistleblowers from cradle to grave—from the first time the come in and talk to us about an issue to ensure that no retaliation takes place against them. Not only during the matter that we might have under investigation, but even six months or a year afterwards, we're going to go back there and find out if something has happened to those folks.

We're going to get involved in training the department on whistleblower protection laws and rules—the No Fear Act and other laws that you, yourself, have been involved in passing. And bring to the attention of Interior managers that retaliation will not be tolerated.

When we find it, I'm going to—I'm going to address it immediately with the assistant secretaries. And if I can't get the results from the assistant secretaries, I'll go directly to the secretary.

I have spoken to the secretary about this. She is very supportive of this and concurs with me that there should be no retaliation at the Department of Interior for someone who brings these matters to our attention.

With respect to your second question, I think I—think we are the only IG that has started this program. I've talked to some of my colleagues about it. They are interested in it and I would hope that if it works well that we could export this to some other IGs.

GRASSLEY:
Yes.
Senator Baucus and then Senator Kyl?

GRASSLEY:
On another point, for Mr. Cramer, Mr. Williams, Mr. Jacksta—and I'd like to start with Mr. Williams and Mr. Jacksta, and then Mr. Cramer, maybe, to respond, or maybe anybody from GAO.

I know that we've increased the manpower all along our borders since 9/11. And obviously that's spending money and people—in a sense, spending money and hiring people to solve our problem. And sometimes that does not always solve our problem. And it seems to me, beyond just more money and more people we have to be smarter about securing our borders. And I think that—I think that's what Mr. Cramer's investigation report showed.

So, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jacksta, could you tell me when people enter the country, what are our inspectors and agents at port of entries doing differently now than they did pre-9/11?

WILLIAMS:
I guess I'll start. And we are—we are, as I mentioned in the opening statement, doing elevated inspections. When our inspectors are at our land border ports, for instance, we not only now inspect each and every individual, we do elevated inspections of the vehicles. We have many more—we have enhanced databases for tools for them to leverage technology in their inspection. When opportunities exist, we do, if you will, the word "blitzes"—we inspect random samples of all the cars in totality. We refer more people into secondary—those kinds of things. So we're doing a lot of different things, along with technology and along with enhanced inspections, that we did not do with—before 9/11.
And, of course, as we just talked about, the NSEERS system is one enhancement and the data-share system that we announced not long ago is yet another one.

I think, another technology that my partner at Customs mentioned is the NEXUS and the SENTRI projects, which helps us, if you will, sequence the lower risk people into a different lane so we can spend more enforcement on those higher risk travelers.

GRASSLEY:
OK. Mr. Cramer, or anybody else in your shop, respond to the testimony that was just given by Mr. Williams and Mr. Jacksta.

CRAMER:
Mr. Chairman, I'm at a disadvantage here because the only work that we've done in this area is this work. We have no basis for comparison prior to September 11...

GRASSLEY:
That's satisfactory.

CRAMER:
... 2001.

GRASSLEY:
Then I would ask this question of anyone who would like to answer—and this will be my last question—it's kind of a question of who's in charge, but more basically from those of you who are challenged with responsibility about who comes into the country. Does it concern particularly INS and Customs from testimony that you've heard today—that we've heard—that the door is wide open on Interior Department land—public land, in other words? Does that affect the success of your mission?

WILLIAMS:
Well, I'll take that first, Senator, I would just say that apart from the testimony by the Park Service, et cetera, I would just remind us that we are very good partners, as well, with BLM and other law enforcement entities on the border—that share the border with us. We are in, like, task forces—we share information. We go about that together. We look for even more enhanced possibilities under homeland security. But I can tell you now that we will work hard with our partners on that border to do a better job.

GRASSLEY:
Mr. Jacksta?

JACKSTA:
Mr. Chairman, I would also agree that what we need to do is to make sure that we provide assistance to each other. It's a very difficult job out there and at times we need to make sure that we're assisting other agencies, when necessary, to ensure that they have the proper equipment. And the Customs Service, working with the other federal agencies at this desk, here, have been working with them to try to provide them with the proper equipment or resources necessary to do their job.

GRASSLEY:
Well, let me be a little more specific. The problem is if it isn't effective under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department, then, in a sense, that makes your job much, much more difficult. And to the extent to which Interior's not doing their job, then, you know, that creates greater problems for you not only at the border—particularly INS—after people get into the country

GRASSLEY:
Well, I have a note down here for the audience, as well as for the people that are on the panel and their respective departments, about the next time we meet. I haven't set a time for that. I would work that out with you. But I think you're admonition is very correct to follow up just to make sure and keep on top of it, particularly involved in securing the homeland and war of terrorism, generally—the ongoing projects they are—it would be wrong for this committee not to pay proper attention to it.

I think we've heard some disturbing news today about the questions that we asked about how safe is our border—how porous are they? Are they sieves or are they really sound? And I—you can't help but get the view that the door—that some change is made, but I think we still have to draw the conclusion that major improvements are very much needed—that we must have better news the next time we meet. And I look forward to that opportunity, hopefully, to hear that better news.
I thank all of your for your kind attention and the three hours you've given us.

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

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

BAUCUS:
Well, just...

GRASSLEY:
... say something.

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

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