[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PORT OF ENTRY INFRASTRUCTURE: HOW DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PRIORITIZE INVESTMENTS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER
AND MARITIME SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-930 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Filemon Vela, Texas
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Eric Swalwell, California
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Vacancy
Steve Daines, Montana Vacancy
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Curtis Clawson, Florida
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan O'Hara, Acting Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Chairwoman
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Loretta Sanchez, California
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Vacancy
Curtis Clawson, Florida Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Paul L. Anstine, II, Subcommittee Staff Director
Deborah Jordan, Subcommittee Clerk
Alison Northrop, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Candice S. Miller, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Michigan, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Border and Maritime Security................................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Border and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Witnesses
Mr. John Wagner, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Accompanied by Mr. Eugene H. Schied,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Administration, Customs and
Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Mr. Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Mr. Oscar Leeser, Mayor, City of El Paso, Texas:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Appendix
Questions From Honorable Tom Marino for John Wagner.............. 41
Questions From Honorable Tom Marino for Michael Gelber........... 44
PORT OF ENTRY INFRASTRUCTURE: HOW DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PRIORITIZE INVESTMENTS?
----------
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Duncan, Marino, Barletta,
Clawson, Jackson Lee, and O'Rourke.
Also present: Representative Keating.
Mrs. Miller. Appreciate the witnesses taking their seats
there. Both Mr. Marino and I actually have mark-ups in other
committees this morning, so we are going to try to start right
here on time.
The Committee on Homeland Security, the Subcommittee on
Border and Maritime Security will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to examine ports of entry
infrastructure investment priorities, and we are certainly
pleased today to be joined by Mr. John Wagner, of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, who is accompanied by Mr. Eugene
Schied--also CBP; and Mr. Michael Gelber, of the General
Services Administration; and Mr. Oscar Leeser, who is the mayor
of El Paso.
Mr. Mayor, thank you very, very much for attending today.
We certainly appreciate you traveling to Washington to join
with us today.
Our Nation relies on the efficient flow of commerce across
our border, and it is the job of the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to not only facilitate commerce, but to also secure
the homeland. To accomplish this mission, sufficient port of
entry infrastructure is needed along with robust Customs and
Border Protection staffing.
CBP's important mission not only keeps America safe, but
also ensures tens of thousands of American jobs and billions of
dollars in commerce that come into our country through trade
with Canada and with Mexico.
A significant portion of the trade with Canada, our No. 1
trading partner--actually our Nation's No. 1 trading partner--
and Mexico, who is our Nation's No. 2 trading partner, cross
nearly 170 land ports of entry every day. It goes without
saying that delays and backups caused by old and inadequate
infrastructure cost businesses millions of dollars in lost
opportunities.
This is especially true with just-in-time manufacturing,
critical to the auto industry, actually, in my home State of
Michigan, so I am very familiar with that. With this being the
case, quick cross-border movement is essential. Simply put, if
auto parts don't make it across the border in a timely fashion,
production lines can actually shut down.
As our economy and security requirements grow, our ports of
entry must be able to accommodate more trucks, more passengers
and cargo, while at the same time allowing people who cross the
border each day convenient and secure travel, as well.
How CBP and the Federal Government as a whole prioritize
the need to expand and to update existing ports while also
planning for new ports is neither clear nor transparent, and I
hope today's hearing will help us all understand this process
clearly. While several land ports of entry projects were
included in the President's most recent budget request, this
committee had not been provided significant information on
CBP's strategic plan for port of entry modernization and
construction for future projects.
This committee has asked repeatedly for a list of CBP's
port of entry priorities, but thus far CBP had been unwilling
to share that list with the committee, although I will note
that just about 10 minutes ago we received a 4-year-old list,
which I have over here, I am going to try to digest a bit.
Many Members of this committee, myself included, have ports
of entries in their districts, many of which need improvements.
We would like to know where on the list these projects fall,
and more importantly, how CBP determines how these projects
rank, what the criteria is that they used. Surely that is
something that CBP should and can defend to the membership of
this committee.
In my own district we have the Blue Water Bridge Plaza
expansion, a project that has been in the planning stages
actually for more than a decade. The city of Port Huron and the
State of Michigan have worked tirelessly to meet the design and
the planning demands of CBP through the process, which CBP has
changed several times.
Actually, about 150 homes and businesses in the proposed
expansion site have already been condemned; they have been
demolished to allow for a plaza to meet the needs of CBP. This
destruction was based on a promise to build this needed plaza
that has not been fulfilled as of yet. Actually, there are
almost 60 acres of tax base that has been removed from the city
and the county's tax rolls, putting great stress on a community
that has been under further stress, of course, of a difficult
economy.
Our Canadian partners have actually done their thing. They
have expanded their customs plaza on their side of the Blue
Water Bridge, actually years ago, with the understanding that
the American side of the bridge would also have a plaza
upgrade.
So we are shovel-ready, I suppose you could say, in Port
Huron, but the funding never seems to come through. City and
State leaders have worked with CBP and the Michigan Department
of Transportation to revise the plan in an effort to reduce the
cost.
I mentioned the Blue Water Bridge. In full transparency,
obviously I represent that area. But it is the second-busiest
border crossing on the northern tier of our Nation, so it is
not just some small crossing. It is an enormous twinned bridge
there. Certainly, I think, you know, we should be certainly one
of the projects that should be at the head of the line in the
Northern Border for ports of entry.
It is not an artist rendering; it is not a proposed
crossing. Some that are being considered are, you know, in the
design phases, or their--wherever they are in the engineer's
drawings, but this is a project that actually exists--a bridge
that actually exists, looking for a plaza.
Certainly there are other ports of entry also waiting. But
again, there has been no guidance from CBP on how to move
forward with the project in my district or in so many other
districts across the Nation.
I am certainly mindful, as we all are, of the very tough
budget times that we are in. As a Nation we need to make tough
choices when it comes to the limited dollars available for
ports of entry construction. But the crossing of goods and
services across the border helps to grow our economy and our
tax base across our Nation--on the Northern Border, on the
Southern Border.
It is not frivolous spending. It helps investment in our
future economic growth and prosperity, which also would help to
add money to the treasury and help ease our budget problems.
That is why I fully support, as well, concepts like P3s, or
public-private partnerships, as they are called, and other
innovative ways to fund infrastructure improvements.
We actually have made a proposal to my Governor in Michigan
to consider the Blue Water Bridge Plaza as a P3, and I want
to--I will be asking some questions about that. I hope that is
something that CBP and GSA can discuss today. Again, I use that
as an example. There are plenty of other ports of entry that
may be also under consideration for a P3 or some creative
financing.
The goal of this hearing today is to really understand
CBP's criteria. What is the criteria on their list? How do they
prioritize land ports of entry for infrastructure improvements?
And to determine how they decide to fund projects and, of
course, again, explore the role that public-private
partnerships and other unique approaches to financing might
play in moving that process along.
So I certainly look forward to hearing from the witnesses
today on how we can work together, again, which POEs are on the
list, what criteria is used to prioritize who gets funded and
when. Because the ports of entry across the Nation are in dire
need of modernization and expansion, and I believe we need to
tap into the expertise of the private sector, as well, and to
partner with them to come up with a better, more cost-effective
approach to new ports of entry construction.
At this time I would--Chairwoman recognizes the Ranking
Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee, for any statement that she may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Let
me first of all thank you for this continuing oversight that
has been so very effective dealing with concerns of border
security, but also the importance of the need for the
infrastructure, personnel, and other aspects that will improve
our Nation's ports and inquire of the experts--local municipal
leaders along with leaders in DHS and other experts--on this
question. It is enormously important.
So I thank you for holding today's hearing examining how
the Federal Government prioritizes investments in port of entry
infrastructure.
As a Member from a border State, I understand how important
appropriate infrastructure and staffing at our ports of entry
are to not just border communities, but our Nation as a whole.
On an average day about $2 billion in trade crosses our land
borders, creating jobs and bolstering the economy in cities and
towns across America.
I have had the privilege of serving on this committee for a
number of years, and so I have seen the bustling trade on the
Canadian border; I have seen it occur on the California border;
certainly the Texas border in cities like El Paso and Laredo.
This is a vibrant part of our efforts here in North America. In
fact, trade just with Mexico supports 6 million jobs in the
United States--a lot of those jobs in Houston, Texas.
Meanwhile, our ports of entry are aging and their
infrastructure can no longer accommodate the volume of trucks,
vehicles, and pedestrians that cross every day, resulting in
increasing wait times. These decades-old facilities were not
built to accommodate post-
9/11 security technology, either.
CBP previously estimated it would need $6 billion over 10
years to modernize existing ports of entry to meet its current
security and facilitation missions. Congress failed to provide
funding in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 for port of entry
infrastructure, exacerbating the backlog of infrastructure
projects.
Meanwhile, staffing shortages continue to be a problem as
CBP remains several thousand officers shy of what its staffing
model indicated is necessary to properly staff our Nation's
ports of entry. As a result, wait times at many ports of entry
continue to grow, costing the U.S. economy and American
consumers billions.
I asked the mayor of El Paso, Texas, Oscar Leeser, to join
us today to speak about what his community is doing in
partnership with CBP to reduce wait times and make improvements
at three ports of entry in his city. Let me thank the mayor for
his presence here and for being a model for what we should be
doing but what cities have been doing.
We thank all of the witnesses for their presence.
I would like to take note of your Member of Congress in
particular, my colleague from Texas, Representative Beto
O'Rourke, who has been a strong advocate on this committee on
border issues. We are pleased to have him representing the
community.
As well, I will tell you, I am even pleased to have him
mention El Paso more times than I mention Houston. So I am
going to congratulate him for that and thank him for his great
leadership and his commitment to properly sourcing and staffing
our ports of entry.
I hope to hear from the mayor about his thoughts on the
ways we can work cooperatively to provide the infrastructure
and staffing communities like his, as well as how that can
translate across America. I also look forward to hearing from
our Federal witnesses about how ports of entry infrastructure
needs are prioritized and what we can do to maximize our
limited border security dollars in this area.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today.
I would add, as the Chairwoman knows, we spent a lot of
days down at the border just a few weeks ago--maybe 10 days
ago--addressing questions of ports of entry that also included
the question of the surge of unaccompanied children. I could
not be in a hearing dealing with border security infrastructure
without commenting on that surge and first of all saying to the
administration that your response, and your steady response,
which most people did not glean from the surge, but the
administration had been dealing with this even before 2014 in
October 2013. I think it is important that in the hearing that
Chairman McCaul and I co-chaired, we both affirm the need for
the introduction on the floor of the House and the passage out
of the House of H.R. 1417, a bill that Chairwoman and I have
worked extensively on.
Lastly, let me say that this country is a country of laws
and people. I think in this particular hearing it is important,
as well, to emphasize that the laws we have to deal with
unaccompanied children are laws that work--some of the laws
generated from a lawsuit that the Government lost--and that we
can do the good things of this committee, looking for the
rebuild of our infrastructure, what many of you will be talking
about, at the same time address the humanitarian crisis with
the laws that we have, adding to that the reauthorization of
the Customs and Border Patrol Agents and H.R. 1417.
But no laws need to be changed to deny children due
process, as has been suggested by the HUMANE Act. We can
actually work with the Wilberforce bill, as we have done over
the decades.
So I thank the Chairwoman for this hearing.
My last point, Madam Chairwoman, is I am in a mark-up in
Judiciary that I have to be at, and so I may depart for a
moment, hope to be able to return and hope that we will yield
to the gentleman from El Paso if I have to leave at some point,
if Ms. Sanchez is not here.
Thank you so very much. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Jackson Lee follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee
July 16, 2014
I thank Chairwoman Miller for holding today's hearing examining how
the Federal Government prioritizes investments in port of entry
infrastructure.
As a Member from a border State, I understand how important
appropriate infrastructure and staffing at our ports of entry are to
not just border communities, but our Nation as a whole.
On an average day, about $2 billion in trade crosses our land
borders, creating jobs and bolstering the economy in cities and towns
across America.
In fact, trade just with Mexico supports 6 million jobs in the
United States.
Meanwhile, our ports of entry are aging and their infrastructure
can no longer accommodate the volume of trucks, vehicles, and
pedestrians that cross every day, resulting in increasing wait times.
These decades-old facilities were not built to accommodate post-9/
11 security technology either.
CBP previously estimated it would need $6 billion over 10 years to
modernize existing ports of entry to meet its current security and
facilitation missions.
Congress failed to provide funding in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and
2013 for port of entry infrastructure, exacerbating the backlog of
infrastructure projects.
Meanwhile, staffing shortages continue to be a problem, as CBP
remains several thousand officers shy of what its staffing model
indicated is necessary to properly staff our Nation's ports of entry.
As a result, wait times at many ports of entry continue to grow,
costing the U.S. economy--and American consumers--billions.
I asked the mayor of El Paso, Texas, Oscar Leeser, to join us today
to speak about what his community is doing, in partnership with CBP, to
reduce wait times and make improvements at the three ports of entry in
his city.
His Member of Congress, my colleague from Texas, Rep. Beto
O'Rourke, is a leader on this committee on border issues, and we are
pleased to have a representative from his community share first-hand
experience about what we must do to properly resource and staff ports
of entry.
I hope to hear from Mayor Leeser about his thoughts on ways we can
work cooperatively to provide the infrastructure and staffing
communities like his need.
I also look forward to hearing from our Federal witnesses about how
port of entry infrastructure needs are prioritized and what we can do
to maximize our limited border security dollars in this area.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentlelady. I think you and Mr.
Marino are both in that mark-up, I believe; and I am in another
mark-up, as well, so we will try to move along here today.
But before I formally introduce our witnesses, I certainly
wanted to recognize and welcome our newest Member of our Border
and Maritime Security Subcommittee here, Mr. Clawson, from
Florida.
I think you will find that this is a very, a very busy and
active committee. The work is very interesting and certainly
impacts, I know, your district and all of our districts and our
Nation. So we certainly welcome you and look forward to your
participation and involvement with our committee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We welcome you. I will just do a little
applause. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Miller. Other Members of the committee are reminded
that opening statements might--may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
July 16, 2014
On this committee, we are fortunate to have Members who represent
districts on our Northern and Southern Borders and know first-hand the
importance of having sufficient infrastructure and staffing at our
ports of entry.
Today, there are about 21,775 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Officers staffing 329 air, land, and sea ports, including 167 at the
land borders. On an average day, about $2 billion in trade crosses the
land borders, along with 350,000 passenger vehicles, 135,000
pedestrians, and 30,000 trucks. Of all goods moved in U.S.
international trade, about a third is with Canada and Mexico, and
almost 90 percent of that moves by land.
Unfortunately, port of entry infrastructure and staffing has not
kept pace with the demands of this robust travel and commerce. While
the 2009 stimulus provided sufficient funding to modernize CBP-owned
ports of entry, General Services Administration (GSA) ports remain in
dire need of modernization and expansion.
Indeed, unmet needs at just our existing land ports total an
estimated $6 billion. In recent years, Congress has failed to provide
adequate funding to make progress toward addressing these needs.
Indeed, in 3 recent years, until last year, Congress did not provide
any funding for land ports at all.
As a result, some ports suffer from insufficient or outdated
infrastructure that makes it difficult to deploy necessary, modern
security technology or to deploy sufficient personnel to move people
and goods in a timely manner.
Similarly, while Congress recently appropriated funding to hire an
additional 2,000 CBP Officers, the agency remains several thousand
officers short of what it needs to properly staff ports of entry and
fulfill its security and trade facilitation missions. This staffing
shortage often results in increased wait times and long lines at our
land borders for the commuters, visitors, and businesses that rely on
cross-border travel.
These wait times have a detrimental effect on the American economy.
Delays at U.S.-Mexico border crossings alone cost the U.S. economy an
estimated $7.8 billion in 2011. Ultimately, these costs are borne by
American consumers. Some communities, like El Paso, which owns three
ports of entry, have decided to fill this gap by participating in
public-private partnership initiatives authorized by Congress.
Under these arrangements, local entities pick up the tab for CBP
Officer staffing to close the gap between the staffing the Government
provides and what is necessary to keep wait times reasonable.
While this may be a good stop-gap solution, the Federal Government
has a responsibility to provide sufficient funding to ensure CBP has
the staffing to carry out its border security and trade facilitation
missions.
Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how port
of entry infrastructure needs are identified, prioritized, and
ultimately funded. Along with support from Congress, ensuring this
process works efficiently is essential to ensuring our ports of entry
are ready to meet current demands at our borders.
Mrs. Miller. Again, we have our distinguished witnesses
today.
Mr. John Wagner, who is a frequent visitor here to our
committee, the assistant commissioner for U.S. Customs and
Border Protection Office of Field Operations. He formerly
served as executive director of admissibility and passenger
programs with responsibility for all traveler admissibility-
related policies and programs, including the Trusted Traveler
Program and the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, and
the Immigration Advisory Program in the Fraudulent Document
Analysis Unit.
He is accompanied this morning by Mr. Schied, who is the
assistant commissioner for CBP's Office of Administration. Mr.
Schied will not be offering testimony but will be available to
answer any of our questions, as I understand it.
So we welcome you, as well.
Mr. Michael Gelber is the deputy commissioner for Public
Building Service at the U.S. General Services Administration.
The Public Building Service is one of the largest public real
estate organizations in the world, operating more than 9,000
owned and leased properties across the United States. He began
his career there in 1988 and has held positions--several
leadership positions, actually, including service in the
Northwest and the Great Lakes regions.
Mr. Oscar Leeser is the mayor of El Paso, and is a position
that he has held since June 2014. Before becoming mayor, Mr.
Leeser held several leadership positions in the automotive
business community in El Paso, and he remains active with the
El Paso Children's Hospital foundations.
The witnesses' full written statements will appear in the
record.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Wagner for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WAGNER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
FIELD OPERATIONS, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ACCOMPANIED BY EUGENE H.
SCHIED, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION,
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. Good morning.
Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
today to discuss U.S. Customs and Border Protection's efforts
to modernize land port of entry facilities and operations in
support of our mission to secure and facilitate travel and
trade to the United States.
Later this month we celebrate the 225th anniversary of the
establishment of the Customs Service, its importance to the
history of our Nation, and its continued importance today as
part of CBP's complex mission.
The Office of Field Operations is CBP's front-line entity
responsible for securing and facilitating international trade
and travel at our Nation's 329 ports of entry. During 2013 we
processed more than 25 million cargo containers and more than
362 million passengers in the land, sea, and air environments,
and trade and travel volumes continue to rise. More than half
of the Nation's official ports of entry are located along the
U.S. land borders with Mexico and Canada, and most were built
to support the distinct and independent operations of pre-DHS
components, such as the Customs Service; the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service; and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Today CBP's consolidated operations entail state-of-the-art
technology and professional law enforcement personnel to
process persons and cargo and maintain an efficient stream of
cross-border travel and trade. The success of these operations
depends heavily on the condition and operational utility of our
inspection facilities and the availability of CBP personnel.
Today I would like to discuss CBP's efforts to satisfy
infrastructure and personnel demands and meet the challenge of
growing volumes of trade and travel. Several land ports of
entry were built more than 70 years ago. Even those constructed
as recently as 15 years ago require renovation or replacement
to meet present-day security standards, enforcement and
facilitation technologies, and growing demands for additional
processing capacity.
CBP and the General Services Administration use a multi-
step process to plan for all land port of entry modernization
investments. In close coordination with key Federal, State, and
local stakeholders, we conduct a strategic resource assessment
to identify individual needs at each facility and a sensitivity
analysis to ascertain the relative urgency of the facility
needs Nation-wide. We evaluate the impact of environmental,
cultural, historic preservation, and land acquisition
requirements and consider the likelihood of obtaining funds.
After a thorough assessment, we arrive at a prioritized
capital investment plan that is updated annually to ensure that
available Federal funding is directed to the areas of the
greatest need.
Modern inspection facilities accommodate cross-border
traffic more efficiently and integrate advanced technology
equipment more effectively, enhancing CBP's security and
facilitation operations. Expediting tourism and commerce is
vital to our Nation's economic prosperity, and detecting
potentially dangerous people and cargo is essential to National
security.
CBP supports the modernization of inspection facilities at
our land ports. We actively participate in border master
planning and work with State and local stakeholders to
determine where and what kind of inspection services and
facilities are needed.
CBP is committed to supporting our stakeholders' needs.
However, it is not efficient to have every port of entry
facility provide the same services and equipment. CBP looks
closely at each port's activity and we work with State and
local government to appropriately match services and equipment
to port activities. We do not want facilities, lanes,
equipment, or personnel to sit idle.
CBP's coordination with regional transportation groups is
vital to the development of alternative innovative ways to
maximize resources and efficiency, especially in constrained
budget environments. Segregating or rerouting certain traffic
to alternative ports optimizes resources and facilities and is
an effective way to meet the needs and volume of specific
commercial, vehicle, or pedestrian traffic.
Stacking booths increases traffic throughput, and high-low
booths can accommodate the processing of either commercial
trucks or personal vehicles. These methods provide CBP with
valuable flexibility to quickly adapt to changing port
conditions or cross-border volume and reduce the overall
footprint of facilities.
Due to the budget environment over the past several years,
funding for facilities and personnel--both essential
operational elements of ports of entry--has been limited. To
keep pace with the growth in international trade and travel, we
developed a three-part resource optimization strategy that
identifies staffing requirements, ensures the efficient use of
resources by optimizing business processes, and explores
funding strategies to support these increases.
Thanks to the support of Congress, CBP was recently granted
additional authorities to enter into public-private
partnerships and pursue alternative methods of funding CBP
services and financing ports of entry infrastructure projects.
Under Section 560 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2013, CBP received authority allowing the
commissioner to enter into no more than five reimbursable
service agreements to provide new or enhanced customs and
immigration-related inspection services.
We entered into these agreements with the participating
locations last December. In the first 6 months of the program
CBP was able to provide an additional 7,000 CBP Officer
assignments and open primary lanes and booths for an additional
18,000 hours at the request of our partners, increasing border
processing throughput at the participating ports of entry.
In 2014 CBP received additional authority under Section 559
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, which
authorizes us to enter into partnerships with private-sector
and Government entities at ports of entry to reimburse certain
costs of services and accept donations of real and personal
property.
Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today, and I am happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wagner follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Wagner
July 16, 2014
Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) efforts to sustain and
modernize our Nation's land ports of entry (LPOEs) to secure and
facilitate growing volumes of travel and trade.
CBP is responsible for securing the Nation's borders at and between
ports of entry (POEs), while facilitating the efficient movement of
legitimate travel and trade. Later this month, we celebrate the 225th
anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Customs Service and the
important role it played in the history of our Nation. Since its merger
into CBP in 2003, Customs has remained a part of CBP's heritage and a
significant presence in the continuation of our mission. Today, CBP
serves as the front line in defending the American public against
terrorists and instruments of terror and protects our economic security
while facilitating lawful international travel and trade. CBP takes a
comprehensive approach to border management and control, combining
National security, customs, immigration, and agricultural protection
into a coordinated whole.
The Office of Field Operations (OFO) is the law enforcement entity
within CBP responsible for carrying out CBP's complex and demanding
mission at all POEs. OFO manages the lawful access to our Nation and
economy by securing and facilitating international trade and travel.
Staffing challenges at the POEs continue to increase as CBP takes on
additional mission requirements and as trade and travel volumes
continue to grow. To address this on-going challenge, we have developed
a three-part Resource Optimization Strategy that: (1) Identifies
staffing requirements using a Workload Staffing Model; (2) ensures the
efficient use of resources by optimizing current business processes;
and (3) explores funding strategies to support staffing increases.
The Workload Staffing Model employs a rigorous, data-driven
methodology to identify staffing requirements by considering all the
activities performed by CBP Officers at our POEs, the volume of those
activities, and the levels of effort required to carry them out. The
most recent results of this model show a need for 4,373 additional CBP
Officers through fiscal year 2015.
Thanks to the support of Congress, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014, Pub. L. 113-76, included funding for 2,000 new CBP Officers.
These additional officers will be allocated utilizing the Workload
Staffing Model and directed to those ports with the greatest need.
While the 2,000 additional officers will bring significant support to
our mission, it is important to note that this is a good down-payment,
but unfortunately, no POE will be ``made whole'' by this allocation of
officers. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request calls for
user fee increases that would fund an additional 2,000 CBP Officers.
Additionally, CBP will continue to pursue transformation efforts, new
reimbursement authorities, and partnerships with our stakeholders.
There are more people and goods coming through our ports of entry
than ever before. Since 2009, we have seen growth in both trade and
travel and we expect these trends to continue. Every year, OFO
facilitates the travel of tens of millions of international tourists
visiting our Nation. In fiscal year 2013, CBP inspected more than 360
million travelers at our air, land, and sea POEs. The facilitation and
security of lawful travel and trade is a priority for CBP and we are
taking steps, working closely with our stakeholders, Congress, and the
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), to improve our POEs and our
security and facilitation efforts. At CBP, we view effective and
efficient security as a contributor to facilitation, and not a barrier.
Security measures are vital to protecting travel and trade from the
damaging effects of terrorist or other security incidents. Our goals of
National security and economic prosperity are fundamentally
intertwined.
CBP's role in securing and facilitating international trade and
travel is critical to the growth of our economy and the creation of
more jobs. The extent to which wait times affect the local and National
economy was most recently studied by the National Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), a Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Center of Excellence. CREATE issued ``The
Impact on the U.S. Economy of Changes in Wait Times at Ports of
Entry''\1\ in March 2013. Their analysis of 17 major passenger land
crossing POEs, 12 major freight crossing POEs, and four major passenger
airport POEs, found that an increase or decrease in staffing at the
POEs has an impact on wait times and, therefore, on the U.S. economy.
More specifically, adding a single CBP Officer at each of the 33
studied border crossings equates to annual benefits of a $2 million
increase in Gross Domestic Product, $640,000 saved in opportunity
costs, and 33 jobs added to the economy per officer added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Changes in Wait Times at
Ports of Entry,'' National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of
Terrorism Events (CREATE), University of Southern California, released
April 4, 2013 (dated March 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than half of the Nation's 329 official POEs are located along
the U.S. land borders with Mexico and Canada. Most of the inspection
facilities at our 167 LPOEs \2\ 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 pre-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 United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ LPOEs include all at-grade and bridge land port inspection
facilities. These land port inspection facilities fall within the POE
definition under 8 CFR 100.4(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 LPOEs 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 CBP's LPOE inspection facilities, CBP
works in close partnership with the GSA Public Buildings Service, which
manages many of the LPOE facilities.
lpoe modernization planning process
CBP employs a multi-step process to plan for all LPOE modernization
investments, whether planned for a CBP-owned or a GSA facility. This
process includes gathering data using the Strategic Resource Assessment
(SRA) process, evaluating identified needs at each POE location,
conducting a sensitivity analysis on the initial ranking of needs, and
assessing project feasibility and risk. The culmination of this process
is a final prioritization of proposed modernization projects and the
development of a capital investment plan in coordination with GSA. This
capital investment plan divides the project list into feasible annual
work plans that reflect the analytical conclusions and incorporate
project phasing and funding requirements. CBP and GSA update the
capital investment plan annually, taking into account any changes in
DHS's mission and strategy, changing conditions at the LPOEs, and any
other factors discovered in the course of projects already under way.
CBP and GSA work in close partnership with key Federal, State, and
local stakeholders to construct and sustain CBP's LPOE inspection
facilities. As a matter of coordination, CBP consults affected
stakeholder agencies at the onset of project planning and continues
this relationship throughout project development and execution.
As the facility operator at all LPOEs, including those owned or
leased by GSA, CBP works in close coordination with GSA to identify
long-term future investments for funding through the GSA Federal
Buildings Fund (FBF). Through this collaborative project team approach,
both agencies work to ensure that the available Federal funding is
directed to the areas of greatest need within the GSA portfolio in
accordance with the capital investment plan.
Although stimulus funding appropriated under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Pub. L. 111-5, enabled CBP and GSA to fund
many large-scale LPOE capital construction and facility improvement
projects, significant additional investment is necessary to modernize
the entire LPOE portfolio.
Infrastructure enhancements are critical to the improvement of
trade and travel facilitation; these changes are necessary to support
current traffic volumes and modern technology. Due to the budget
environment over the past 4 years, there have been very limited
investments towards modernizing POEs. However, thanks to the support of
Congress, CBP received authority to accept reimbursement for activities
and donations.
partnerships with the private sector and government entities
CBP is frequently asked by our stakeholders to provide new or
additional services at POEs across the country. We recognize the
potential economic impact for new or expanded service, and we very much
want to support these endeavors. However, due to budget restraints and
limited resources, we are not always able to accommodate these
requests.
A key aspect of CBP's three-pronged Resource Optimization Strategy
is the exploration of partnering with the private sector through such
activities as reimbursement and potential acceptance of donations. As
part of CBP's Strategy, CBP received authority to enter into agreements
under Section 560 of Division D of the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. 113-6 (Section 560); and
Section 559 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014,
Pub. L. 113-76 (Section 559).
Under Section 560, CBP received authority allowing the commissioner
of CBP to enter into no more than five agreements under certain
conditions to provide new or enhanced services on a reimbursable basis
in any of CBP's non-foreign operational environments. CBP implemented
this authority, entering into agreement with the participating
locations \3\ before the late December 2013 statutory deadline. In the
first 6 months of the program, CBP was able to provide an additional
7,000 CBP Officer assignments and opened primary lanes and booths for
an additional 18,000 hours at the request of our partners, increasing
border processing throughput at U.S. air and land POEs under this
program. In January 2014, CBP received additional authority under
Section 559, which authorizes CBP to enter into partnerships with
private sector and Government entities at ports of entry to reimburse
the costs of certain CBP services and to accept donations of real and
personal property (including monetary donations) and non-personal
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both provisions respond to CBP's efforts to find innovative
approaches to meet the growing demand for new and expanded facilities
and, in particular, the on-going modernization needs of CBP's LPOE
portfolio.
Reimbursable Services Agreements
Section 559(e) expands CBP's authority, under a 5-year pilot
program, to enter into reimbursable agreements similar to the fiscal
year 2013 ``Section 560'' authority. This new authority allows CBP to
support requests for expanded services including customs, agricultural
processing, border security services, and immigration inspection-
related services at POEs; salaries for additional staff; and CBP's
payment of overtime expenses at airports. While there is no limit on
the number of agreements CBP can enter into at CBP-serviced seaports or
land border ports, only five agreements per year are currently allowed
at new or existing CBP-serviced airports for each of the 5 years the
pilot program is authorized. Additionally, the law stipulates that
agreements may not unduly and permanently impact existing services
funded by other sources.
CBP evaluates each Reimbursable Services Agreement (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
enables CBP to receive reimbursement so that we can fulfill those
requirements. The 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 or travel
at participating ports. At LPOEs 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 and accommodate additional
flights, or flight arrivals outside of standard operational hours, on
an overtime basis. Accommodating additional flights means increased
travel and tourism revenue for an airport or a region.
Donation Acceptance Authority
Section 559(f), the Donation Acceptance Authority, authorizes CBP
and GSA to accept donations of real or personal property (including
monetary donations) or non-personal services from private-sector or
Government entities. Any donation accepted may be used only for
necessary activities related to the construction, alteration,
operation, or maintenance of a new or existing POE, including but not
limited to: Land acquisition, design, equipment, and technology.
The Donation Acceptance Authority legislation requires that CBP and
GSA: (1) Establish criteria that identify and document their respective
roles and responsibilities; (2) identify, allocate, and manage
potential risk; (3) define clear, measurable objectives; and (4)
publish criteria for evaluating partnership projects.
CBP has been coordinating closely with GSA to meet the
Congressional deadline for making donation proposal evaluation criteria
available to the public.
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
The effective security of our Nation and facilitation of
international trade and travel rely heavily on the health and
operational utility of our inspection facilities. The CBP LPOE
modernization strategy, in conjunction with GSA program and project
management resources, ensures a reliable method for identifying future
infrastructure needs and prioritizing projects at LPOEs. Innovative
funding sources, such as the Reimbursable Services Authority and the
Donation Acceptance Authority, are critical components of CBP's
Resource Optimization Strategy. CBP views these authorities as an
opportunity to proactively work with stakeholders and communities to
identify business solutions for a variety of border management needs,
and generate mutual benefits of the secure and efficient flow of travel
and commerce.
The combination of highly-trained personnel, technology, and
modernized facilities form the essential foundation for CBP's
operational strategy, which every POE, large or small, must be able to
support. CBP continues to evaluate and optimize its primary business
processes and will further develop transformation initiatives to
accomplish its mission more effectively and efficiently, through
practices such as employing technology to streamline processes,
expanding Trusted Traveler/Trader Program enrollment, increasing risk
segmentation through enhanced targeting/pre-departure initiatives, and
leveraging operational best practices.
Legitimate travel and trade play a critical role in the Nation's
economic growth, and CBP recognizes its role in sustaining such growth.
The number of international visitors and overall cross-border traffic
is increasing, and CBP is aggressively working on modernizing our
infrastructure and transforming the way we do business to more
effectively and efficiently secure our Nation and improve our economy.
Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Wagner.
Before we proceed with our witnesses' testimony, the
Chairwoman would recognize Mr. Marino to ask his questions for
the record, since apparently he has to leave. We appreciate his
participation this morning.
Mr. Marino. Thank you very much, Chairwoman.
Gentleman, I don't expect an answer from you right now, but
if each of you would send me a--send the committee a written
statement, you will be given the specific verbiage that I am
going to read, so you don't have to worry about writing it
down, okay? I thank you for being here.
Mr. Gelber, it is good to see you again.
It is a three-point question, so I will just read it for
the record and then I will be on my way. To each of you, what
is the purpose--excuse me--what is the process and how long
does it take for GSA to begin work on a new port of entry,
compared to the time frame to enhance, expand, or improve an
existing established border operation once funding has been
authorized?
Question No. 2: When existing ports of entry have tangible
needs and even phased renovation or enhancement under way, why
wouldn't those be completed before initiating new ports of
entry, especially within the same traffic corridor?
Question No. 3: Does GSA/CBP have any obligation to
complete projects that have been authorized and initiated at
existing ports of entry before contemplating new ports of
entry?
Madam Chairwoman, I thank you very much.
Thank you, gentlemen. Please get me that in writing.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentleman.
Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Gelber for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GELBER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gelber. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Jackson Lee, and Members of the committee. My name is Michael
Gelber and I am the deputy commissioner of the GSA's Public
Building Service.
GSA's mission is to deliver the best value in real estate,
acquisition, and technology services to Government and the
American people. As part of this mission, GSA works with a
range of Federal inspection agencies along our land borders.
CBP is our primary partner in addressing border infrastructure,
and GSA maintains a close partnership with CBP to meet its
essential mission needs.
I look forward to outlining the importance of land ports of
entry, our partnership with CBP, how the Government jointly
prioritizes and executes port projects, and the challenges
facing these investments.
GSA works closely with CBP to design, construct, maintain,
and operate land ports of entry along our Northern and Southern
Borders. These ports are integral to the Nation's trade and
security.
GSA owns 102 land ports of entry along the Northern and
Southern Borders and leases an additional 22 ports. CBP owns
and operates 40 primarily smaller ports, mostly in rural,
remote areas.
Given the crucial importance of these ports, GSA, in
collaboration with CBP, has prioritized investment to modernize
and upgrade these facilities. To ensure these investments
address CBP's most pressing needs, GSA relies on the priorities
established in CBP's 5-year plan for portfolio upgrades. This
list of priorities can be--include expansion and modernization
of existing land ports along with new port construction.
As CBP outlined, its process includes gathering data
through a strategic resource assessment, ranking identified
needs at each port, conducting a sensitivity analysis on the
initial listing of these needs, assessing project feasibility
and risk, and establishing an executable capital investment
plan. In the current 5-year land port of entry construction
plan, CBP identified six construction projects at land ports of
entry, totaling more than $830 million in facility construction
along the Northern and Southern Borders.
During the past 15 years, GSA has invested more than $1.5
billion to deliver more than 20 new land ports along our
borders. In the past 4 fiscal years, the administration has
requested more than $740 million in support of modernization of
land ports to address CBP's most pressing needs.
Of these identified needs, Congress has provided
approximately $295 million of these requests, all of which came
in fiscal year 2014. The lack of full funding stalled critical
modernizations and delayed land port upgrades that would secure
our borders and improve the efficient flow of commerce with our
neighbors in Canada and Mexico.
Given the consistent cuts to the port program, GSA has seen
intense interest in finding alternatives to Federal
appropriations to deliver high-priority port projects. When
assessing any option, GSA and CBP must take a comprehensive
look at the full life-cycle cost of a port.
These costs include the land where construction takes
place, the infrastructure that supports the mission, the funds
to staff the facility, and the sophisticated technology and
equipment the Federal Government uses to ensure the Nation's
security. If an alternative resource exists for one or more of
these items, GSA and CBP likely still must find funding to
address the full range of costs.
GSA has had some success in using alterative delivery
methods to support land port projects in the past. For
instance, GSA has a long-standing authority to accept
unconditional gifts of real and personal property. GSA has used
this authority multiple times when State or local governments,
and in a few cases private-sector entities, have elected to
donate property to GSA in order to realize economic benefits
that comes with a new or expanded land port of entry.
For instance, at the San Luis II port in Arizona, GSA
received a donation of land and utilities in support of the
site to help make progress on a modernization project. In
Donna, Texas, the local municipality donated money for design,
land for the site of the port, and 180,000 cubic yards of fill
dirt for construction. In Columbus, New Mexico, a private
landowner donated approximately 10 acres of land to GSA near
the port site for construction and a bypass road for commercial
trucks.
Additionally, Congress has supported these efforts by
providing for additional donation authorities, such as Section
559 of the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
These authorities present valuable opportunities to support
port development. However, these resources have generally been
utilized to make modest improvements to existing ports or
defray the cost of a major modernization, not to deliver a
full-scale upgrade of the type the administration has requested
consistently in the President's budget.
GSA looks forward to working with Congress to further
explore these and other flexible authorities and to continue to
highlight the importance of these investments.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about
our on-going partnership with the Federal inspection agencies,
particularly CBP, as we address the Nation's security and
economic needs along our borders. I welcome any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gelber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Gelber
July 16, 2014
introduction
Good morning Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and
Members of the committee. My name is Michael Gelber, and I am the
deputy commissioner of GSA's Public Buildings Service.
GSA's mission is to deliver the best value in real estate,
acquisition, and technology services to Government and the American
people. As part of this mission, GSA maintains a close partnership with
the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs & Border Protection
(CBP) to meet that agency's space needs along our Nation's borders. CBP
is our primary partner of the Federal inspection agencies stationed
along our land borders.
I look forward to outlining the importance of Land Ports of Entry,
our partnership with CBP, how the Federal Government jointly
prioritizes and executes port projects, and the challenges facing these
investments.
the criticality of land ports
GSA works closely with CBP to design, construct, maintain, and
operate land ports of entry along more than 1,900 miles of border
between the southern United States and Mexico and more than 5,500 miles
of border between the northern United States and Canada. These ports
are integral to the Nation's trade and security.
On a daily basis, about $2 billion in goods, 350,000 vehicles,
135,000 pedestrians, and 30,000 trucks cross the border at one of these
167 ports. Since 1990, the combined value of freight shipments between
the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico has
increased 170 percent, growing an average of 8 percent annually.
Additionally, approximately 23 million U.S. citizens cross the land
borders into Mexico and Canada a total of nearly 130 million times each
year. These statistics highlight the vital role of safe, secure, and
modern land ports along our borders.
GSA owns 102 land ports of entry along the Northern and Southern
Borders, leases or partially owns an additional 22. GSA's land port of
entry inventory amounts to more than 5.5 million square feet of space.
Additionally, CBP owns and operates 40 primarily smaller locations,
mostly in remote, rural areas. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and
U.S. Forest Service mutually own one land port of entry, and the
National Park Service owns two ports.
gsa's on-going partnership with cbp in support of land port
modernization
Given the crucial importance of these ports, GSA, in collaboration
with CBP, has prioritized investment to modernize and upgrade these
ports.
To ensure these investments address CBP's highest-priority needs,
GSA relies on the priorities established in CBP's 5-year plan for
portfolio upgrades. CBP employs a multi-step process to develop its 5-
year plan. This list of priorities can include expansion and
modernization of existing land ports along with new port construction.
As CBP has outlined, its process includes gathering data through
Strategic Resource Assessment, scoring identified needs at each port,
conducting a sensitivity analysis on the initial ranking of needs,
assessing project feasibility and risk, and establishing an executable
capital investment plan.
In the current 5-Year LPOE Construction Plan, CBP has identified
six construction projects at land ports of entry totaling more than
$830 million in facility construction along the Northern and Southern
Borders.
During the past 15 years, GSA has invested more than $1.5 billion
to deliver more than 20 new land ports along our Northern and Southern
Borders. In the past 4 fiscal years, the administration has requested
more than $740 million in support of modernization of land ports to
address CBP's most pressing needs. Unfortunately, Congress has provided
approximately $295 million of these requests, all of which came in
fiscal year 2014. This has stalled critical modernizations and delayed
land port upgrades that would secure our borders and improve the
efficient flow of commerce with our partners in Canada and Mexico.
When a critical modernization project receives needed funding and,
if required, the State Department issues a Presidential Permit, GSA and
CBP work in close partnership with key Federal, State, and local
stakeholders to construct and operate GSA-owned land port inspection
facilities.
GSA and CBP consult with stakeholder agencies at the onset of
project planning and continue this relationship throughout project
development and execution. If a project involves a new border crossing
and or a substantial modification of an existing crossing, GSA works
closely with the State Department, which must determine whether the
project is in the National interest justifying issuance of a
Presidential Permit. GSA also works closely with the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
transportation departments from the 15 Border States when planning
border infrastructure projects. GSA and CBP are partners in the Border
Master Planning process on the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition to
coordination with State and local agencies, the border master planning
process also includes Mexican (federal, state, and local) governments
as well as other Federal agencies including State Department, DOT
(FHWA, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, etc.) and sometimes
private partners as well (railroads for example). The connectivity of
highways with the land ports of entry is critical to the safe and
efficient flow of traffic and trade across our borders. In addition to
working closely with domestic stakeholders, GSA also works closely with
the Department of State to coordinate with Federal and local
governments in Mexico and Canada.
alternative resources in support of land port projects
Especially given the consistent cuts to the port program that I
have previously mentioned, we have seen intense interest in finding
alternatives to Federal appropriations to deliver high-priority port
projects. Importantly, when assessing any options, GSA and CBP must
look comprehensively at the full life-cycle cost of a port. This
includes the land where construction takes place, the infrastructure
that supports the mission, the funds to staff the facility, and the
sophisticated technology and equipment CBP uses to ensure the Nation's
security. If an alternative resource exists for one or more of these
items, GSA and CBP likely still must find funding to address the full
range of costs.
GSA has had some success in using alternative delivery methods to
support land port projects in the past. For instance, GSA has long-
standing authority to accept unconditional gifts of real and personal
property from other public or private entities. GSA has used this
authority multiple times when State or local governments, and in a few
cases private-sector entities, have elected to donate land or other
real property to GSA in order to realize the economic benefit that
comes with a new or expanded land port of entry.
For instance, at the San Luis II port in Arizona, GSA received a
donation of land and utilities in support of the site to help make
progress on the modernization. In Donna, Texas, the city donated money
for design, land for the site of the port, and 180,000 cubic yards of
fill dirt for construction. In Columbus, New Mexico, a private
landowner donated approximately 10.2 acres of land to GSA near the port
site for construction and a bypass road for commercial trucks.
Additionally, Congress has sought to support these efforts by
providing for additional donation and reimbursable service authorities.
In fiscal year 2013, CBP received limited authority to enter into
reimbursable service agreements with private-sector entities for the
provision of certain inspectional services.\1\ Congress expanded CBP's
ability to execute these reimbursable service agreements in addition to
broadening GSA's and CBP's donation acceptance authority in fiscal year
2014.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013,
Pub. L. 113-6, Division D, Title V. Section 560.
\2\ Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-76,
Division F, Title V. Section 559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These authorities present valuable opportunities to support port
development. However, these resources have generally been utilized to
make modest improvements to existing ports or defray the cost of a
major modernization, not to deliver a full-scale upgrade of the type
the administration has requested consistently in the President's
budget.
We look forward to working with Congress to further explore these
and other flexible authorities and to continue to highlight the
importance of these investments.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about our on-
going partnership with CBP and other Federal agencies to address the
Nation's security and economic needs along our borders. I welcome the
opportunity to discuss GSA's commitment to strategic investment in the
Nation's land ports. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman very much.
The Chairman now recognizes Mayor Leeser for his testimony.
Again, sir, we certainly appreciate you traveling to
Washington to testify before our committee today.
STATEMENT OF OSCAR LEESER, MAYOR, CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS
Mayor Leeser. Oh, you have got to push the talk button,
huh? Now you tell me.
Thank you, Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee,
and all the committee Members, and of course, our Congressman
in El Paso, who I have the highest respect for. Thank you very
much for inviting me to testify today.
You know, our ports of entry are so important to our
community, but it is not only our community in El Paso, and
that is the important thing that we are here to discuss. One in
every 24 jobs in the United States basically depend on U.S.-
Mexico trade for their employment.
I will give you an example in Michigan, Chairwoman Miller.
Your State alone represents 175,000 jobs, and it is the third-
largest exporter of goods to Mexico, based on the 2012
information that I was able to receive, which is really
important.
If we look at all the States that are represented here,
which is Texas, California, South Carolina, Mississippi,
Pennsylvania, we employ more than 1.5 million people and close
to $120 billion in exports to Mexico. The lack of investment
not only in the infrastructure but the manpower will create--
will impact not only businesses, but also our ability, and that
is so important.
When we talk about the investment in not only
infrastructure but also the investment in the workforce,
without the ability to invest in our ports, we would have--we
would have delay in times, and that is what we are here to talk
about. We are talking about the P3 program, the 560, which was
the program that allowed El Paso to invest in itself, and that
was one of the important things that we are talking about.
The way we were able to invest in ourselves was we were
able to fund CBP Officers. Once we were picked as one of the
five cities in the country to be able to go to this pilot
program, we then met with the CBP Officers and we kind of
looked at and said, ``Where do we need to basically move
forward? Where do we need to invest?''
We basically looked at the peak times and what peak times
would make it more acceptable for us. So we basically now we
meet on a timely basis; we meet every week and we talk about
how we are improving times.
I will give you some examples. In pedestrians we have been
able to decrease the wait time--I mean, we have been able to
increase the people coming across our bridge by 18 percent, in
vehicles by 30 percent, and commercial by 3 percent. But when
you talk about we have increased those, we have also decreased
wait time, you know, in those lanes.
So when we are able to fund these lanes and we were able to
expedite the times where we are basically most needed, you
could see that our investment in our community and the
investment in the bridges increased because now people felt
more comfortable. People felt comfortable being able to come
across and not have to wait for 2 hours, or an hour, an hour-
and-a-half, to be able to come across and be able to transport
their goods.
We all know and we all understand that, you know, time is
money in business, and if you are sitting on a bridge then you
are going to find an alternate solution to a problem, which is
we can't do business together because the wait time is too
long. We can't sit there and wait for a couple hours.
So it has become very important for us to be able to
identify, and identify the times we need. So our community
invested in itself, and again, our pilot program just started
on January 26, and El Paso along--between El Paso, Juaarez, and
Las Cruces we have 2.5 million people. It is a big region.
El Paso ranks among the top 30 largest exporters in the
world. U.S. trade is more than $507 billion in 2013. When we
are talking about 30 percent increase in vehicle traffic, one
bridge alone had 54,000 more vehicles on that bridge, and the
trade just in El Paso alone was over--almost $100 billion a
year.
Again, I am not just talking about El Paso; I am talking
about the whole country. It is so important when we talk
about--again, we talk about Michigan. Michigan, 175,000 jobs
rely on just El--you know, crossing into our borders.
Again, I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
Your commitment not only helps El Paso, but the whole country.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Leeser follows:]
Prepared Statement of Oscar Leeser
July 16, 2014
Honorable Chairwoman Miller and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, allow
me to start by thanking you for the opportunity to appear before you
this morning. I would also like to thank my hometown Congressman,
Representative Beto O'Rourke, for inviting me to be here and for his
steadfast dedication to the constituents of the 16th District of Texas.
I appreciate the committee's interest in our Nation's international
ports of entry and for your commitment to examine how the Federal
Government can prioritize infrastructure investments. I am here today
to help shed light on the need for investments at our international
ports of entry for the economic security of not only El Paso, but the
Nation as a whole.
One in every 24 workers in the United States depends on U.S.-Mexico
trade for their employment. Chairwoman Miller, more than 175,000 jobs
in Michigan alone rely on trade with Mexico, and your State was the
third-largest exporter of goods to Mexico in 2012.
Taking a quick look at the other States represented here today,
Texas, California, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania employ
more than 1.5 million people whose jobs rely on trade with Mexico and
close to $120 billion in exports to Mexico.
Lack of investment both in infrastructure and manpower at our ports
of entry in El Paso can and will significantly impact business and
trade in your State. A lack of investment at our international ports of
entry is a lack of investment in your workforce.
One investment that has shown positive results in my community is
one that your committee recently examined. Your committee looked
outside of the box at how investments could be made at the ports of
entry by allowing local communities to apply local funds to assist our
Federal partners. Unfortunately, for years, there has been a lack of
investment at our ports of entry, and local communities want to help by
investing in themselves.
Through Section 560 of the 2013 Consolidated Appropriations bill, a
pilot program was launched to allow communities like El Paso to help
pay for additional overtime for Customs and Border Protection Officers
at our international bridges. The city of El Paso was one of five pilot
projects chosen for a 5-year test.
Once the city of El Paso was chosen to partner with CBP, city
officials worked closely with our community partners to ensure their
buy-in. I personally met with the maquiladora industry to ensure their
satisfaction with the project. They understood the return on investment
that they would see as a result of decreased wait times at our bridges.
Furthermore, a 5-year pilot project reassured them there was enough
time to work through any potential issues with new implementation of
the program.
Outreach was also conducted to the overall community to ensure
those who cross via foot or vehicle knew of the city's investment in
helping open additional lanes during peak hours of operations at our
bridges. Maquiladora employees, local university students, and
shoppers, just to name a few, cross back and forth regularly, and it is
important that we make their trips quick and easy.
El Paso City Council formally approved the partnership between the
city of El Paso and CBP as well as approved a $0.50 increase to tolls
at our bridges to create a dedicated funding source for the pilot. The
city of El Paso's economic security depends on the flow of goods and
people across our international ports of entry so it is important not
only to ensure trade continues to flow freely but that people and
vehicles can move quickly across the border.
The pilot started on January 26 of this year, and since the launch,
we have seen very positive results. The city of El Paso has already
invested more than $400,000 for close to 3,500 hours of overtime for
the officers. Traffic volumes have increased substantially over the
same period last year with an average increase for pedestrians at more
than 18 percent, close to 30 percent for vehicles, and more than 3
percent with cargo. Even with volume increases across the board, we are
seeing a decrease in wait times. We believe that as the program
continues, we will see larger decreases in the bridge times.
Aside from the investment for additional officers at the bridges,
in El Paso, there is a need for additional investment in the actual
infrastructure. The El Paso-Juaarez region is one of the largest bi-
cultural border communities in the world that includes more than 2.5
million people. El Paso is ranked among the top 30 largest exporters in
the world. With U.S.-Mexico trade totaling more than $507 billion in
2013, El Paso is a major player in this market with close to $100
billion of that trade crossing our international ports of entry.
A 30 percent increase in vehicular traffic means that CBP processed
54,000 more vehicles at one bridge for the same 1 month period over the
prior year. Add to this the $100 billion of that trade annually crosses
the El Paso international ports of entry and the strain on our bridges
is immense.
In addition, our infrastructure is landlocked and we do not have
the ability to add additional lanes to help with additional traffic. We
can work together to ensure the lanes are fully staffed at peak times,
but there are also a number of infrastructure improvement projects that
have been identified to assist. My community, however, is again ready
and willing to step to the plate to resolve these issues.
The Section 559 authorization would allow the city of El Paso to
make the necessary upgrades to the infrastructure while allowing CBP
and GSA to accept the improvements as a donation. The city of El Paso
recently submitted a letter of intent to participate in this program,
but I do not believe we should have to reapply. CBP should honor the
current agreements with communities who have already showed their
commitment to be a partner and allow the opportunity to work under the
additional authority as well.
Aside from the Public-Private Partnership agreement in place, it
should be noted that the El Paso community continues to show their
commitment and desire to invest. Recently, City Council approved the
inclusion of several projects in the overall capital investment plan
for the city. The city is willing to invest the match dollars to
execute large-scale projects to decrease wait times and increase trade
across the United States. Congress must help our partnering Federal
agencies by providing the funding for programs such as the Coordinated
Border Infrastructure Program.
It is my belief that communities will help make the investment in
areas such as this because of the impact lack of resources can
ultimately have on a community. I urge you to continue thinking outside
of the box for a way to help expedite trade across our country while at
the same time investing in additional officers and infrastructure
resources that will not only help the El Paso community but the greater
U.S. population.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you this morning.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I thank all the witnesses.
I will recognize myself for my questions here.
Actually, as I mentioned at the outset, the whole impetus
of this hearing was to try to get the list--the elusive list
that has not been forthcoming from CBP to this committee,
despite numerous, numerous requests. As I say, we want to know
who is on the list, how you construct the list, how you
prioritize the various projects that are on the list. Obviously
it is for Congress to determine appropriations to do all of
these.
As we have mentioned, there are so many that need them but,
like anything, you have to do a--I think Mr. Wagner called it a
strategic assessment. Obviously you need to do a strategic
assessment, but what is the criteria for making that kind of
call for the construct of any of these infrastructure
improvements that are necessary at our land ports of entry?
The mayor pointed out excellent points. We are talking
about the jobs that are generated because of the commerce that
is trading, and you mentioned about Mexico, and I am up on the
Northern Border.
As I mentioned at the outset, Canada is actually our
largest trading partner not only in my State, but in the
Nation; Mexico, our second-largest trading partners. So it is
critical that these ports of entry and the infrastructure be
funded and appropriated and we move forward in a strategic
fashion.
So I just got this list literally when you walked into the
committee room today, so I am trying to on the fly here digest
this list and understand exactly what to--how it was
constructed. As I understand, this is a 4-year-old list.
So I guess my first question is: Is there an updated list?
That would be my first question. Is there a current list? How
can you be operating at 4 years later?
One thing in--that would certainly fly out at me is since
in that time our President and prime minister of Canada have
entered into the Beyond the Border agreement, which
specifically talked about infrastructure improvements,
including the Blue Water Bridge in my district, as a priority
for the Nation--for both nations.
I guess that is my first question: Is there an updated
list? Is there a current list or are you operating under a 4-
year-old list?
Mr. Scheid. So there are actually a couple of different
lists. There is the larger list that was provided that is, as
you would note, 4 years old. That was actually provided to
Congress back in 2010. I apologize for any confusion about us
not sending it back up again to you in advance of this hearing,
but when I came across it this morning I brought up the entire
assessments.
It was about 450 pages that explained all the ports and
their needs; it explains the process by which we used to create
that list. Given the work that goes into that, it is basically
like a 5-year plan, although I don't think it is technically
labeled as such.
What that does is it is, I mean, essentially a catalogue of
the existing facilities, and it prioritizes based on about 60
different weighting factors where we have needs. Actually, I
mean, it really takes the entire portfolio and identifies where
there might be wait time issues, where there might be
electrical code issues. I mean, it is kind of the gambit.
It takes into, as one of the members mentioned in the
question, it takes into consideration where there has been
planning investment already made by GSA or, you know, through
Congress. So, for example, some of the projects that are on
that list which are in our more recent list, which I will
explain, are things like the Columbus, New Mexico port of
entry, Alexandria Bay, where planning dollars have already been
appropriated and we are looking for the construction dollars to
complete those projects.
So that is the guiding kind-of 5-year plan.
In addition, the appropriators ask for and we provide what
was referred to in Mr. Gelber's testimony as an executable 5-
year plan. So as Ms. Jackson Lee pointed out, the report that
came up in 2010 identified $6 billion worth of investment need.
Recognizing that $6 billion isn't likely to get appropriated in
probably my lifetime, we culled down a list that is executable.
That executable list is about $800 million. The projects on
that list are San Ysidro phase 2; Calexico West phase 1;
Alexandria Bay phase 1; Alexandria Bay phase 2; Columbus, New
Mexico; and Calexico West phase 2; $838 million of investment.
The first three of those--San Ysidro, Calexico, Alexandria
Bay phases--are in the 2015 President's budget. Alexandria Bay
phase 2, Columbus, Calexico----
Mrs. Miller. Okay. If I could--not to interrupt, but----
Mr. Scheid. Sure.
Mrs. Miller [continuing]. In the limited time here, first
of all, in regards to all the documentation for the 5-year
strategic plan, as you called it, if it is 450 pages we would
certainly appreciate all of that documentation so that we are
really on the same track here----
Mr. Scheid. Yes.
Mrs. Miller [continuing]. Understanding exactly what your
criteria is and how you are moving. I have this list that you
just went through, three of the first three you mentioned that
were in the President's proposed budget agreement after several
years of not having any proposals for ports of entry.
But if I look at--I mean, I am sure you have the whole raft
of criteria, and I am just going to go back to the Blue Water
Bridge because I am most familiar with that, but for the number
of commercial vehicles of all of the ports of entry in the
country, the first one is the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit; the
second is Laredo; the third is Port Huron, Michigan, the Blue
Water Bridge.
That is No. 3 in the Nation, and yet these that are on this
list are--well one of them is not even on my list that goes--
and I don't mean to be pitting one against the other. They
don't even appear on the list of traffic that is going across,
if we are considering--if we are worried about jobs, which I
think certainly all of us on this side are very, very worried
about jobs. That is part of our job is to make sure we do
everything we can to improve the economy in the United States.
So thinking about trade and vehicles going across and
commerce transiting these different things, again, I don't--I
am just trying to understand what your criteria is. To me it
would be hard to think that that is not one of at least the top
three criteria you would take into consideration as you look at
these various ports of entry.
How do you consider jobs and the economy?
Mr. Scheid. So the various criteria basically fall out into
four categories: Mission and operations, which would take into
account some of the existing impact, so impact on the economy,
wait times; that is 35 percent of the score. Another 15 percent
of the weighting goes into personnel and projected workload
growth, so trying to look out into the future about what might
be coming at those ports; that is 15 percent.
So 50 percent of the criteria is along the lines of, I
think, what you are describing.
In addition, there are security and life safety
considerations. Ports that have anything from ground water
issues, electrical issues, 25 percent. Another space and site
deficiency is 25 percent.
So certainly the impact on the economy, the wait times----
Mrs. Miller. Well I would just--again, not to interrupt,
but in the interest of time--I would just point this out then,
for the record: The Blue Water Bridge, as I say, is the second-
busiest border crossing on the northern tier. It is No. 3 for
all the commercial vehicles, et cetera, that are going across.
We have already done demolition. There is almost 60 acres of
vacant property sitting in the middle of a busy city that has
been done over the last decade.
The Congress has spent millions of dollars to help with our
Michigan Department of Transportation through earmarks, back in
the day of earmarks, actually, to get this site shovel-ready.
It is totally ready--designed, et cetera. Ready.
Yet, on this list 14 years ago it is No. 22 on your list.
So I--really, I take issue with how you are--obviously, with
your criteria and I would like to discuss that a bit more with
you, as well.
One other thing I would like to question before--I am going
to keep taking all the time here, but I will also throw this
out: We are very interested--and I appreciate some of the
discussion about creative financing, as well, and taking
advantage of some of the other private partner--public-private
partnerships. Actually, on the Transportation Infrastructure
Committee we intend to put into our 5-year National
transportation reauthorization some language about P3s, whether
it be at--to be utilized at ports of entries or roads or
bridges or railroads or what have you.
But currently, under the Budget Act, to do something like
that in many cases you have to upfront all of the money, and
that is the way the--because of the scoring of the CBO.
Obviously that negates the possibility of all kinds of P3s all
over the country, and I guess I am just looking for some sort
of response to that.
What is the best way for the Congress to go about trying to
accommodate, in a changing world and a restricted environment,
P3s? Would it require promulgating a new rule through GSA?
Would it require a legislative change?
Mr. Gelber, perhaps you could discuss that or, if you don't
know the answer immediately, it is certainly something we want
to work with you on, because the Congress is very interested in
doing these P3s.
Mr. Gelber. Sure. As you referenced, scoring rules or the
Federal accounting rules that govern many of our projects do
create some challenges for GSA. That would be something we
would be happy to discuss with Congress about how to modify
those. It is not simply a GSA matter, though; it is a larger
Executive branch and a Legislative branch discussion.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. Very well.
At this time the Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman
from El Paso, Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you for bringing us all together on this very, very
important issue. As you pointed out, we have issues in the
districts that we represent that affect the economy, and issues
of trade and mobility throughout the country. So I appreciate
your leadership on this.
I would like to thank, even though she is not here, the
Ranking Member for ensuring that we get our mayor, Oscar
Leeser, here to share his experience and expertise on these
issues of cross-border trade and mobility for legitimate trade
and travel across our borders, and for his testimony and
linking something that is important to us in El Paso--one out
of every four jobs in the El Paso economy is connected to trade
and travel across our bridge that link the United States and
Mexico, but as he pointed out, that is connected to 6 million
jobs in the interior of the United States--in Florida, and
Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, and Michigan, and every other
State in the union.
So this is important for us, but it is really important for
this country to get it right.
So my first question for you, Mayor Leeser, is we are
focused on capital projects and trying to understand how they
are prioritized, how funding is allocated, what the time line
is to complete them.
We have some wonderful ports of entry in El Paso, but our
challenge, Madam Chairwoman, has been staffing these ports of
entry. You can have the greatest capital projects plan and
implementation in the world, but if you can't staff them you
have really got a problem.
Thanks to the mayor and the city council with which he
serves, El Paso was selected as one of five ports, competing
against all land, air, and sea ports in this country, to pilot
a program that allows our community, with scarce resources, to
supplement what the Federal Government is obligated to do and
increase and expand the staffing at those ports.
So, Mayor, I would like to give you a minute or 2 to
discuss the need to complement what we are talking about here
with capital projects with actually ensuring that these are
staffed once they are finished. Talk about how important that
is.
Mayor Leeser. Well, thank you very much for the question.
It is really important for us. So far, the program we--like
I said earlier, it started January 26. Since January 26 the
city of El Paso has invested a little over $400,000 and about
3,500 additional hours, which we fund to the CBP.
Like we talked about, it is very important to the city of
El Paso for the success of this program, but the beauty of it
is, you know, when you look at it, it is one of five pilot
programs and it is very important for the success--for CBP for
it to be successful for us so they can roll it out and
hopefully move forward and make it a Nation-wide program.
So based on that, we have been able to really work hard
together. Like I said, we meet weekly and we talk about, you
know, where we are going to gauge the wait time and how we are
going to staff the bridges properly and where, you know, which
officers we will be able to fund. We are funding--basically
what we are funding is overtime right now, and like I said, we
have spent a little bit--in 4, in 5 months we have spent a
little bit over $400,000, 3,500 hours, and it is during the
peak times in the afternoons right now is what we are basically
focusing on.
When we talked about a little bit--when we talked about the
18 percent increase in pedestrian traffic, 30 percent increase
in vehicle traffic, and 3 percent increase in commercial
traffic, that increase, in my opinion, is based on funding of
these officers and being able to open these lanes and make it
easier to do business in the United States--not only El Paso. I
think that is the important part that we need to understand
today: We are not talking about El Paso; we are talking about
the United States and where it just comes in.
Being able to have that type of increase and still decrease
wait time is incredible, and we will continue every week to
meet and kind-of gauge where that peak times are and where we
need to continue to fund those officers.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mayor.
For Commissioner Wagner, in fiscal year 2015 I believe El
Paso and Buffalo have been selected for another pilot program,
which would give CBP ownership-like control of ports in those
districts. Can you talk a little bit about how that is going to
affect these bridges, the processes and procedures on them, and
what it will do to address the issue that the mayor raised,
which is that if we can, in a lawful, secure manner, expedite
legitimate trade and travel, that increases jobs throughout
this country.
So what will this pilot program offer for us, given those
considerations?
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. That pilot project entails the
delegation of authority for the maintenance of the facilities,
and I will defer to the gentleman on my left for the more
specifics of it, but it allows CBP, then, to do the routine
maintenance up to a specific threshold of funding levels, and
then we will have direct control and direct access of
maintaining the facility itself.
But as far as just facilitating and growing the trade and
travel, which we agree 100 percent with you, is so vital to our
Nation, it is the expansion of the public-private partnerships
and the technology and, you know, the processes that we impose
and making sure they are as efficient and secure as possible.
Just to echo some of the mayor's sentiments about the great
productive relationship we have had with the five locations
participating in the reimbursable services and the transparency
that we are trying to show in delivering the right data, the
right information, the right metrics and measurements in
coordination and agreement with the entities requesting these
services, so everyone understands exactly what they are paying
for and what were the benefits that were seen out of that.
We are off to a great start with all the locations in doing
this. So, like the mayor mentioned, we are hopeful to continue
the expansion of this.
But I will defer to Mr. Schied for a second.
Mr. Scheid. Briefly, the pilot delegation that we have been
negotiating with GSA would--what we are looking for is the
ability to make adjustments--minor--to the operations of the
port as needed when situations arise, so it is to accommodate
the mission of the port more readily as well as the basic
operations upkeep, maintenance of the facility.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
As I yield back, I would just ask that you give us an
opportunity to meet with you to see what we can do, given this
change, to capitalize on some of the opportunities to enhance
the flow of legitimate trade and travel. So thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Thank you all for participating today.
Just this morning in the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee we approved 27 GSA resolutions authorizing projects
in GSA's capital improvement program for fiscal years 2014 and
2015. This includes three port of entry projects in New Mexico,
New York, and California.
At Calexico, California over 11,000 privately-owned
vehicles and nearly 13,000 pedestrians enter the United States
every day. Today we approved updating this 1974 facility to
accommodate modern inspection technology for private vehicles
and improve the pedestrian crossing.
This is in addition to border projects we approved in
February for Laredo, Texas and San Ysidro, California, which is
the biggest land border crossing in the country. So I know the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Homeland
Security Committee stand ready to work with you to get these
critical projects not only approved but also moving forward.
I am going to follow up on a question Chairwoman Miller
brought up, Mr. Gelber. I recognize that the fiscal year 2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act gave CBP new authority to use
public-private partnerships, frequently called P3s, for ports
of entry.
Now, our ports of entry are centers of major economic
growth, as goods are transported back and forth across the
border. Last year I visited San Ysidro and saw traffic jams
created by insufficient infrastructure. Excessive lines of
commercial vehicles at the ports of entry are wasted economic
opportunities.
The communities and industries around these ports of entry
are ready to invest in the much-needed infrastructure.
I sit on a special P3 panel with Chairwoman Miller, and we
have been working to better understand the role public-private
partnerships can play in leveraging private capital as well as
private sector efficiency and innovation. In a Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee's special public-private
partnership panel we have repeatedly run into a brick wall
regarding the budgetary scoring of public-private partnerships.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is not the
only committee to face such scoring roadblocks for P3s. I have
also heard that the scoring is a problem for some veterans and
defense projects as well.
Could you discuss with how these budgetary scoring problems
impact P3 infrastructures for border crossing projects? If you
could explain how----
Mr. Gelber. The challenge regarding scoring or Federal
accounting rules is that whenever the Federal Government is
engaged in investment in a particular project, the costs of
that investment are assembled, if you will, in the first year
of that project. So if the Federal Government is going to be
building a facility for $250 million, the entire cost of that
project has to be accounted for in the initial year even if the
expenditure occurs over multiple years. If the Federal
Government is going to be leasing a project from a private
entity, and let's say hypothetically that lease over the course
of 20 years is $300 million, the entire cost of that $300
million lease has to be accounted for in the first year even
though the rent payments occur on a monthly basis over the 10
or 20 years of that lease.
So the challenge that we have with the budgetary impact,
the scoring rules that you reference, in effect take money away
from our budget authority in order to implement many of these
projects. I hope I have given some justice to these rules. It
is a rather complex area in terms of how Federal accounting and
Federal budgeting is tallied, if you will.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Mr. Wagner, I know your agency is working to build new port
of entry facilities. When I was at the border earlier this
month a Border Patrol Agent expressed to me that the Border
Patrol has a difficult time patrolling some areas between ports
of entry due to a lack of roads and infrastructure.
How is your agency working to prioritize building roads and
infrastructure between new and existing port of entry
facilities to better help agents do their job? What can
Congress do to help?
Mr. Scheid. So that would fall into a class of assets that
CBP owns, and absolutely the roads, I think, are some of the
most vital tools that Border Patrol Agents get out of the
overall infrastructure improvements, which includes lighting,
fencing, but certainly access and maintaining roads is critical
to their ability to do their job.
The prioritization of that largely comes from the Border
Patrol. They are identifying a mission need--areas where they
prioritize the greatest need for access. My office then works
with them to deal with land issues, the funding issues that
come with that. But there is a process we use to prioritize new
investment and maintenance, as well, into infrastructure,
roads, and fence.
Mr. Barletta. Mrs. Miller, could I just ask one quick
question?
Mr. Wagner, as Customs and Border Protection modernizes and
builds new port of entry facilities how does it plan to
prioritize and implement a biometric entry-exit system, as
required under the current law?
Mr. Wagner. So we have recently opened our test facility in
Landover, Maryland, in partnership with the DHS Office of
Science and Technology. We will be spending the rest of this
calendar year looking at different types of biometrics and
different types of operational uses where we can implement
them.
Principally going to be focused on the air environment
right now for commercial air travelers, but with an eye towards
how would this also work at the land border without creating
gridlock and congestion even more so than there is now? Then,
you know, looking at the additional challenges that the land
border is having--not really having any facilities that would
support stopping cars, collecting a biometric, and figuring out
exactly that concept of operations, how to do it.
So we have started this essential work in evaluating the
different technologies that are out there and then working
through some of the different concepts of operation on how we
would implement that. But, like we have spoken before, I mean,
we see it as critically important. We want to collect the
information. We just want to make sure we are collecting it in
a way that doesn't create gridlock and shut down travel and
trade in a way that it jeopardizes our authority to even
collect it.
But we do realize the importance of it, and we are going to
figure out a way.
Mr. Barletta. I hope we do. You know, John F. Kennedy--I
like to use the example, John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, before
we even had a space program, promised that we would put a man
on the moon and bring him back before the end of the decade. Lo
and behold, the great United States of America was able to do
that.
We have been trying to figure this out for 25 years and we
haven't done so yet, so I hope we get lucky and try to get it
done, because I believe it is critical to our National security
that we are able to do this if we are going to have true border
security.
Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Wagner and Mr. Schied, I just want to say that the week
of the 4th I was in Montana on a family vacation and took the
initiative to set up a tour at the Port of Roosville--Highway
93, north of Kalispell, north of Eureka, border crossing with
Canada--that I had been through on numerous times in the past.
I had seen the infrastructure changes there from an old port of
entry of two lanes and an old National Park Service-type booth
that was there, if you have been to Glacier or other places,
very similar historically, but now we have a 21st Century
modernized facility there at the Port of Roosville.
The area port director for that region, Daniel Escobedo,
APD Escobedo, did a great job--and the men and women that are
serving up there are serving very well. So I give a shout out
to them, and I appreciate them taking the time to visit.
I shared with them, Madam Chairwoman, that a lot of the
focus in our country right now is on our Southern Border, but
those on our Northern Border haven't been forgotten. I shared
the fact that you, being in a Northern Border State, shared
that interest, as well, and that we have talked about, ``Don't
forget about the Northern Border.'' So I shared that, that
those folks have not been forgotten, and I asked APD Escobedo
to share that with all the folks--267, I think, people under
his charge.
But one thing I noticed while I was up there is they are
focused on ag issues, what items could be brought across from
Canada, to the point of inspecting picnic baskets from
Canadians coming into Montana to maybe go to Glacier or one of
the natural resources there in Montana.
They can't bring citrus into the country. They can stop at
a grocery store and buy American citrus, but that is a concern
of theirs. They are concerned about the aquatic invasive
species, working with the Montana Fish and Wildlife Service who
had representatives there in the facility to inspect boats, not
bring aquatic--all that is important, and I applaud them for
that.
But I think about our Southern Border about--we have no
idea what is coming into this country at this point. We have a
porous Southern Border and folks are coming across, human
smuggling, not just the children but others that are exploiting
this situation that we have when we have no idea what is coming
into our country, but yet we have got brave men and women at
our Northern Border and they are looking in picnic baskets.
The juxtaposition of those two things struck me as a wow
moment, going, you know, we are looking at boats and making
sure all the water is drained out of the live well and there is
not a bit of aquatic grass or anything on a boat that is coming
into Montana, or making sure there is not an apple in a picnic
basket or a citrus fruit of any sort. But yet we don't know
what is coming across our Southern Border.
One thing I was amazed at, talking about infrastructure,
because I hadn't thought about this, Madam Chairwoman, and
maybe you have, but the buses of tourists that come back and
forth across the border. There was, in the Port of Roosville,
an area for buses to pull in because it is cold up in Montana
in the winter time, where every passenger has to get off that
bus; every passenger has to have a verifiable passport; every
bag has to be connected with a passenger, and if there is a bag
that isn't connected it is quarantined and it is searched.
Just the monumental effort of doing that in inclement
weather is quite a challenge, because our Border Patrol
Agents--not just the guys out on the horses and on the ATVs and
in the trucks patrolling the border, but the guys in the Border
Protection services, you have got to get it right 100 percent
of the time. The bad guys only have to get it right once to do
great harm to this country. They only have to get it right once
to bring a nefarious item into this country that could be used
to do great harm.
You guys have to get it right 100 percent of the time in
order to protect this country, and that is not lost on me.
Drugs, human smuggling, contraband, and nefarious items are
things I wrote down here that they have got to look out for.
I watched at that border the border agent, what questions
he asked, how he verified the documents, inspection of the
vehicle. I watched him do it over and over and over, and I am
so thankful that those guys are dedicated to keeping me and my
family safe, to keeping my country that I love so much safe.
But I think about all the porous areas in the south that
are being exploited every day and I go: Why can't America get
this? Let's build a fence. Let's secure our Southern Border.
Let's do the simple things to secure this Nation.
Let's support the guys that are wearing the blue standing
at those booths inspecting those cars for the apples and
everything else. Let's support them. I think support means we
secure our Southern Border, as well.
I kind of tie my comments to the gentleman from El Paso and
to the mayor, because--but with caution--because I understand
the trade issues. I understand the need for better
infrastructure for legitimate trade.
But I have got to couple that with the threats to this
Nation and the violation that we see on our Southern Border
every day of our National sovereignty. Laws are on the books
for a reason. You guys are doing your job at the border, at the
ports of entry because there are laws that require you to do
that to keep our country safe and to protect our citizens.
But other laws are being ignored and the Border Patrol is
not being supported with regard to the exploitation of our
Southern Border. So we have got to get this right as America.
We can talk about the humanitarian issue with the children
coming across, and I am very sympathetic to that. I want to try
to help the children.
But I also want to repatriate them back to their families
and their homes and their countries of origin because they came
here illegally. Regardless of their stature, regardless of
their age, or regardless of why they came to our country, they
still came illegally.
So I want to try to support you.
I want to try to support legitimate trade, Mr. Mayor. I
agree that we have got to get that right, as well, because
there are tremendous opportunities for American businesses and
foreign businesses wanting to do business in this country.
There is a legitimate need, Madam Chairwoman, for us to
know what the infrastructure needs are, for us to get actually
a prioritization of what CBP and DHS wants as far as, you know,
where they are going to spend this money, how they are going to
spend this money, how they are prioritizing. Do they build an
infrastructure at the Port of Roosville or Sweetgrass in
Montana, or do they focus that in El Paso or Nogales or
somewhere like that, where there is a lot of trade?
So that is why it is so important for you guys to come and
bring the information that is necessary for our oversight
function and for us to say, ``Hey, when we go to an
appropriations process this is why. Convince us that this is
how you want to spend the money, this is where the need is in
this country, and let us go to bat for you.'' But without that
information in a timely manner it is difficult for Members of
Congress that may be in agreement with you to actually do our
job and to actually go to bat for you.
So in absence of that information, you are not going to
have a whole lot of friends on this dais because we don't have
the information needed to make necessary and correct decisions
for this country.
You have a challenge. The Northern Border is huge. The
Southern Border is huge.
I will leave this information with you: We spend
approximately $3.2 million per mile to build a four-lane
interstate highway in a rural area in this country, on average.
Think about that for a minute. A four-lane interstate highway--
purchasing right of way, grading, paving, fencing, signage--
approximately $3.2 million.
We spend about $4 million to $6 million per mile to build a
fence in this country--let me back up. I got that reversed.
Four million dollars to $6 million to build a highway, four-
lane highway; $3.2 million to build an interstate--I mean, to
build a fence. It is not that big a difference, is what I am
getting at.
So if we spend $4 million to $6 million per mile to build a
four-lane highway and $3.2 million per mile to build a fence,
why not just build a four-lane highway? I am being a little bit
tongue-in-cheek facetious there, but what I want to point out
is there is a 700-mile border.
The Secure Fence Act 2006 said build a fence. If you built
a fence at $3.2 million per mile for 700 miles that comes to
$2.24 billion. Good golly, if you did the--if you really looked
into how much this Government blows every day and every year,
surely we can appropriate $2.24 billion to build a 700-mile
fence.
With that I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chairwoman. This
committee is probably noted for its bipartisanship, but we are
collegian in our disagreement.
Mayor, coming from your great State, as I do, I don't have
the same perspective, and frankly, totally disagree with the
assessment of my good friend.
We have not had a catastrophic terrorist act on our soil
since
9/11. We have had incidences that have been a result of many
issues. In particular, we are reminded of the huge tragedy in
Boston, and that was, in fact, a failure of intelligence and
communication that we know we have to continue to correct.
We have had incidences of the shoe bomber, and that was
thwarted. As I have been privileged to be in Classified
briefings, any number, because of the new Homeland Security
Department, covering all of the gamuts, from Mr. Wagner's team
to Border Patrol Agents to ICE Officer to TSO Officer and
others, our intelligence units have contributed to the safety
of your city.
Those of us who live on the border in Texas don't
particularly have our hair on fire unless provoked by
individuals who want to make an international issue. I am
always reminded of the contiguous countries in Europe and
elsewhere where there is a free flow of individuals and they
don't necessarily count the border issue as the basis for
terrorism.
As we have seen here, there is home-grown terrorism; there
are issues going on in places like Syria and Iraq that generate
jihad and people moving from places; there are Americans who
have become radicalized on the internet; we have had tragic
incidences in our States at Fort Hood.
So I think we have to be very careful to have a mayor from
El Paso and begin to describe circumstances that are really not
realistic.
Mayor, let me ask you a simple question: Do you want your
city to be secure?
Mayor Leeser. Well absolutely, but one thing that I do
want----
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I may ask the questions----
Mayor Leeser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Just yes or no, you want your city to be
secure?
Mayor Leeser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you believe that your city, which is a
local jurisdiction, continues to have a very positive
relationship with those who are responsible for the border? You
have a city that has a port of entry. You have a number of--you
have a team, you have a large conglomerate of Border Patrol
Agents, and you have CBP. Do you feel there is a strong working
relationship there?
Mayor Leeser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you feel that this hearing that is
about infrastructure, that improved infrastructure and
technology and other contributions to that border structure
would be helpful to your city?
Mayor Leeser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you believe that you have a vibrant
exchange of business, both in terms of Americans traveling to
Mexico and beyond and those coming into the United States who
are engaged not in terrorist and/or criminal activities but
engaged in trade, is that a vigorous part of your city's
culture and economy?
Mayor Leeser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So this hearing speaks to the
infrastructure of trying to improve that circumstance. Is that
positive for you?
Mayor Leeser. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So let me then yield to you, because you
wanted to expand. My interpretation that our hair is not on
fire, that we are used to the ingress and egress of
individuals, both Americans and others, is that accurate? Were
you going to comment on that? Is that accurate?
Mayor Leeser. Well, what I was going to comment on, that,
you know, you talk about El Paso, which is population of a
little over 800,000 people, and based on FBI reports, we are
the safest city over 500,000 in the United States. That is very
important to--based on all the questions you just asked me--to
put out there, that we are the safest city in the country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think that is an important point. I join
the Chairwoman in the importance of this hearing, but I take
great pains and great opposition to the characterization of our
border--Southern Border--and the characterization of our State.
Mr. Wagner, let me ask two questions: No. 1, can you--do
you need more resources, as we move into the appropriations
process, to supplement some of your staffing needs?
Specifically in terms of infrastructure, as well, what aspect
of infrastructure would you welcome--technology, rebuild of
ports of entry? What would you welcome?
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. Actually, all of the above----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Very good. We are going to fight for you.
Mr. Wagner. Thank you. Thank you for your support on this.
You know, we have submitted with the 2015 budget proposal a
need for 2,373 additional CBP Officers. You know, we have a
workload staffing model which has taken every action CBP
Officers do at a port of entry and it has quantified that data,
and it translated into work hours that are needed and into
personnel that can actually accomplish that work. That was
submitted as part of the administration's 2015 proposal.
Technology is a tremendous help with that, and we have
deployed a lot of really creative technology packages, starting
at the land border with the RFIED, the radio frequency
identification enabled travel documents, that allow us to
query--perform a name-based computer query of every single
person, almost, crossing the border. You know, before that we
were querying about 5 percent of the people crossing the
border; we are now into about 97 percent, based on that
technology.
You have seen at the airports, like in Houston, the global
entry kiosks, the self-service kiosks. We work closely with the
city and the airlines to put in these automated passport
control kiosks to help travelers do part of the inspection
process rather than just sitting and waiting in line.
So really we have had some really creative approaches to
the technology support, but it can't replace what the officer
then brings--the CBP Officer brings to that process to
determine a person's purpose and intent of travel. That is
something we haven't found a piece of technology that can
determine that for us, you know, and you need the officer's
judgment to question a person and determine, what is the
purpose and the intent of what they plan to do in the United
States, to ferret out those that do intend to do us harm.
Like you mentioned, the threat is still out there and----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Absolutely.
Mr. Wagner [continuing]. There are still those people out
there, they are still plotting against us. You are right, you
know, we have to remain vigilant to do that.
Now, the facilities themselves--better facilities will help
us accomplish that work better and more efficiently. If we can
move the compliant people out of the way and get them to their
destinations and onward and be productive, that helps us focus
in on who are the bad actors amongst the group, what are the
dangerous things coming in.
So having facilities that help support those programs that
allow us to remove the compliance populations away and then
help us be able to better focus in on the areas in a risk
assessment process on how to do that, so----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Wagner [continuing]. It is a combination of personnel,
technology, and facilities that will help us do it. Thank you
for your support.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Chairwoman has been gracious in our
time.
I just want you to, if you would in writing, because I have
a quick question for Mr. Gelber--welcome, sir--from GSA. In
writing, give us how the 559 private partnership--private-
public partnerships are working.
Then can you just answer this: In the course of your work
dealing with the individuals coming across, is the Wilberforce
bill dealing with human trafficking and dealing with
unaccompanied children and their rights, has that interfered
what you do in your work?
Mr. Gelber. It hasn't interfered; it is just the challenge
of the logistics of taking the children, holding onto them
until Health and Human Services can respond----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So we need to give you help on that end--
--
Mr. Gelber. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing.] For the expedited response to
get those children away from you----
Mr. Gelber. It is--right.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Pardon me? I am----
Mr. Gelber. It is the capacity of the system and the
process to handle the influx of----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will just ask him to put it on the
record.
Mr. Gelber, if you could write on the record--the
Chairwoman has said she has a markup and I thank her for her
time. If you could just give us in writing what your assessment
is of GSA's continued operation of some of those areas--ports
of entry.
Sorry for the fact that I can't get on the record, but I
want to thank you for your service.
Mr. Gelber. Thank you very----
Ms. Jackson Lee. We will be in touch directly.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentlelady.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Clawson.
Mr. Clawson. I want to assure Ms. Jackson Lee that I like
your State a lot. I like the border.
Mayor, thank you for coming. You have an incredible
challenge on your hand, but you have a wonderful city and a
wonderful area, and I know a little bit about it, and I am glad
you came today.
Ports of entry are important to Florida in so many ways, so
this is something that is important to my constituents. I
understand a little bit about what you all are talking about
with respect to trade and life on the border.
I have managed factories in the Nuevo Laredo, in Monterrey,
in Chihuahua, Apodaca, Allende. I know a little bit about this
area, and I have lived 100 miles south of the Laredo, Texas
border myself.
It is not only a business and services question, of course,
but it is also a humanitarian question, as so many people
depend on that transporter traffic for their daily life, from
education to what they buy to what they sell. So what you all
are doing, I guess I am saying first of all, is so important to
our country and to our well-being not only in terms of
security, which we hear so much about, but also I am agreeing
with you with respect to commerce.
I learned quite a bit today. I have probably been here less
than you have--many of you. But I am--I feel a little bit in
the dark. In my background I would say that I feel like I have
come to a board meeting without a board book, and so I am
hearing management tell me that they would like to make capital
expenditures and move their strategic plan along, and I do not
have data that shows me how they have earned it.
I am not doubting that you have earned it. Mayor and the
rest of you, when you speak anecdotally about some of the
improvements and how you are getting more throughput through
the border, I am not doubting that at all.
But if you want my support for more money I need to know
how you have earned the money in the past. That is called
fiduciary or constituent responsibility.
So speaking for myself, it is hard to show up at a meeting
with no data about previous projects, about future projects,
and about what you have earned without capital expenditures,
because all management is responsible for improvements that
aren't capital expenditure-related. I am not making the point
that I am saying that you are not doing that.
What I am saying is that I need some professional summary
data here so I can make my own assessment of it beyond
anecdotes that I am not--that I do not doubt, but I need more
fulsome information to make a rational financial as well as
humanitarian choice for these sorts of projects.
So if I had, in my words, a strategic plan that was put in
front of me with what your projects are, what the criteria are,
and how you have earned it from your improvements of the past,
it would help me make a decision. Because without that I am not
sure I have a meaningful opinion, other than to just listen to
what you are saying and say it sounds good.
So if any of you would like to respond to that, that would
be great. But without more data it is hard for me to say yea or
nay or anything you are asking for because I feel like you have
left me in the dark.
Mayor Leeser. I would like to respond to that, sir.
Mr. Clawson. Yes, sir.
Mayor Leeser. Congressman, one thing that the 560 program
does, it gets the community of El Paso and the citizens of El
Paso to invest in the P3, the private partnership. We have
committed $1.5 million to help fund officers and pay overtime
to be able to expedite.
One thing about the 560, we will not--our job is not to
tell them how to do their job; our job is to help them fund
their officers to help us bring trade and open up those lanes
for the city of El Paso and the whole United States, really.
Our investment by our community and our citizens is really an
investment in the United States and an investment in the
workforce not only in El Paso but Nation-wide.
So we have invested $1.5 million to add additional agents
and add--and pay for additional hours. In just a few--almost 5
months we have--from the sense of El Paso paid a little over
$400,000 and 3,500 hours have been funded.
One thing we do ask also is the 559 program, which was
referred to, that we allow us, based on our investment and our
commitment--because we are landlocked in El Paso; we can't add
additional lanes; we can't add any additional capacity. So we
can help fund the officers, but we also would like not to have
to reapply for the 559 program but give us the ability to help
fund some infrastructure, again, to make that--to be able to
make it easier, again, on our community and our country.
Thank you.
Mr. Clawson. Right. I want to be supportive, but I need to
know how your program fits into the overall strategic plan of
the CBP. I think that would make sense for you guys, right?
Mr. Scheid. Absolutely. I think that there is the data that
is there, and we are certainly happy to provide that to you,
both from the facility standpoint but also the workload
staffing model that we use to justify the request for
additional officers. I think there are also independent
assessments that have been done that I think give you a lot of
that sort of business case that you are looking for, and we
would be certainly happy to follow up with that.
Mr. Clawson. I acknowledge much of the information may be
there, and since I have only been here a few days I may not
know where it is. I would always say the way to manage a board
of directors is to make it easy for them and don't make it hard
for them.
If you want to make it easy for me, bring me data that I
can understand that shows you are doing your job, you are
taking care of taxpayer dollars, you are defending taxpayer
dollars, and when we give you a dollar you are making great
productivity out of that dollar. Make that case. Show me how
the mayor's program fits into that and you are much easier to
have allies.
But if I am kind of lost in data up here, I am sorry. We
are doing a lot of other things here and we have got to--you
have got to help us out a little bit. If you do, I am all ears.
I yield.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman very much. Again, we
certainly welcome you to the committee.
Even though you have only been here a short period of time,
you make a very excellent point about information. It is
difficult--I don't care what your business is, but particularly
if you are a Member of Congress trying to make determinations
about spending the taxpayers' dollars and you are trying to do
it in a vacuum without the information.
I will just point out again, we did not have this list that
we are now looking at. For the last several months we have been
asking for the list. So appreciate we did get it 10 minutes
before the hearing started.
Before we close, I just have one follow-on question, as I
have tried to digest this list--the 4-year-old list. I think I
was told that how you weight this to prioritize, et cetera,
about half of it is economics; and then the other half, I
think, is sort of flow. I am looking at your priority here, so
half economics, half flow, essentially. You have got all these
other criteria there.
Yet, by that measure, looking at some of these that have
been--these--two that were funded in the President's budget
this year, and then a couple of others that are one the--your
list that you provided us here today for capital priorities,
one of them is not even on my list of commercial vehicle flows,
and yet they are next up to get funded. I am just telling you
again, here is the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron is No. 3,
and we are 22 on the list.
So when you talk about how you prioritize, what you
testified today does not bear out. I cannot make the numbers at
least gel in my mind here if you are looking at economics and
traffic flow for how you have prioritized this list.
Again, I just go back to the Blue Water Bridge because, in
addition to the actual flow and the economics, it has been
identified by both President Obama and Prime Minister Harper,
the leaders of the two nations that are impacted, as a priority
in the Beyond the Border agreement, unlike these others that
don't appear on many of these other lists.
So I don't understand this. Can you help me out? It doesn't
make sense, of what you have testified to how you have come up
with this list.
Understanding that you do have to have long-term, 5-year
strategizing here, do you plan to update this list? If you do,
can you share that with us as well? Are you changing your
criteria?
Mr. Scheid. So yes, we will plan--do plan to update that
list. It is now, as you point out, several years old. Many of
the projects on that list have been worked. In some cases we
continue to look for public-private partnerships, smaller
improvements that, in the absence of--the several years where
we had no capital investment appreciably coming in, trying to
find smaller incremental improvements--stacked booths, those
kinds of things--to do what we could to alleviate the wait
times. But it is absolutely time to update that list.
I think in terms of the criteria, the--I think a lot of the
criteria do stand: Economics being an important driver,
safety--having the right----
Mrs. Miller. Economics being half, right? I think you
testified to that, approximately--a heavy weight.
Mr. Scheid. A heavy weight.
Also, the overall mission need of that facility. So there
is the enforcement aspect of the mission that has to be
accommodated there. So the mission includes both the--
facilitating the flow of traffic as well as being able to do
the enforcement activities. I think those criteria are good.
I think in addition to it we--something that didn't really
exist a couple of years ago is the public-private partnership.
I think figuring out a way to take those opportunities into
account and to, you know, bring that new 559 into this process,
where communities have investment that they can bring to the
table and how should that impact the scoring of--or the ranking
of the list.
Because a community may want to bring resources to the
table and perhaps donate the capital, the overall lifetime life
cycle of that facility is going to be--well----
Mrs. Miller. Okay. Again, I just--what you are testifying,
as you use this criteria and the way that the construct of this
list looks like to me is a complete disconnect, I believe, at
least in my mind.
Let me just ask you one other question. Again, I am not
trying to pit one area against another----
Mr. Scheid. Sure.
Mrs. Miller [continuing]. But here you have one in
Columbus, New Mexico. It is up next, essentially. What is it
about that particular one, that you weight economics and flow
and security and all of these things, that they are up next?
Mr. Scheid. So one of the additional considerations is
prior investments that Congress has funded for a port. So with
Columbus there have been several different appropriations over
the past couple of years for the planning and design of the
Columbus port of entry.
There are sufficient and significant needs to be addressed
at that port of entry. The commercial volume there is pretty
substantial. It is cyclical, but there is a significant mission
need for that facility.
Congress has, on several different occasions, including----
Mrs. Miller. In regards to the commercial, they are not
even on the top 20, but continue.
Mr. Scheid. But they have--so there are significant wait
times at the Columbus port of entry, with agricultural products
coming in, and there is a need to be addressed there.
In 2014 Congress appropriated $7.4 million for the design
of the Columbus port of entry. It also previously received
appropriations in 2009 for some design work. We believe we want
to--we have got a need to be addressed and we want to continue
with the construction of that project.
So having----
Mrs. Miller. Not disputing the need.
Mr. Scheid. Okay.
Mrs. Miller. I mean, believe me, everybody has got a need.
But if you are actually prioritizing as you have testified,
this is a complete disconnect in my mind.
But at any rate, when will you be updating the list? What
is your plan as far as taking a look at this 4-year-old list
and taking into consideration all these various things that you
have said, some that have been funded, some that have changed--
various factors have changed, some that have interests in P3s,
et cetera? I mean, what is your--how will you proceed on the
list?
Mr. Scheid. Coming up with a complete redo of that list in
2015, so the next fiscal year.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. Very good. Well we certainly, obviously,
are looking forward to that. I don't mean to be adversarial
about this.
I know my questioning sounds that way, but I represent a
community, talking about significant investment--tens of
millions of dollars has been--people have lost their homes,
they have been condemned, they are demolished. Businesses--I
mean like auto dealerships, large businesses--condemned,
demolished.
We have got 60 acres of vacant property sitting in the
middle of a very busy--a city, and at the second-busiest
crossing on the entire northern tier of our Nation, and, you
know, and we were started at I think 87- or 86-acre plaza site,
the footprint; we are now down to 16 acres. So it has
significantly been--I mean, really significantly downsized,
trying to work with CBP. We want to work with CBP. Obviously I
use this because I happen to represent that area so I am
intimately familiar with all the details of it.
But there are others--obviously, others around the country,
as well. So when you look at some of these lists you think,
what? The criteria just--it just doesn't make sense to me. Some
of them, yes, of course; but some of them, what?
At any rate, I certainly appreciate the testimony from all
the witnesses. I would say that Members of the committee may
have some additional questions, as well, and we will forward
those to you and ask that you would respond to those, as well.
Pursuant to the committee rule 7(e), the hearing record
will be open for an additional 10 days.
I thank you very much for your attendance, again, today;
particularly you, Mr. Mayor, who had to travel such a long
distance. I will tell you that your Member of Congress speaks
so highly not only of you but very passionately about the city
that he is so honored to represent. So you have great
representation here with him.
But without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Honorable Tom Marino for John Wagner
Question 1a. What is the process and how long does it take for GSA
to begin work on a new Port of Entry compared to the time frame to
enhance, expand, or improve an existing, established border operation
once funding has been authorized?
Answer. GSA will respond with additional detail on this question.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can only provide a notional
timeline for a new vs. existing land port of entry (LPOE), as the lead
times are port-specific and may vary based on the port's size,
condition, and the amount of improvement needed to modernize the
facility. Factors such as land acquisition, historic preservation, and
environmental compliance can greatly affect a project's duration and
must be taken into account.
Question 1b. When existing ports of entry have tangible needs and
even phased renovation or enhancements under way, why wouldn't those be
completed before initiating new ports of entry, especially within the
same traffic corridor?
Answer. To better achieve the agency's mission, CBP, in
consultation with local, State, Federal, and international partners,
employs a multi-faceted planning process to assess operational needs
and project opportunities. This not only includes utilizing the
agency's strategic resource assessments but also factoring in regional
border master planning and international infrastructure coordination,
such as the U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border Initiative and U.S.-Mexico
Shared Border Management Initiative.
Given a LPOE's role within a larger international transportation
network, we must consider a host of inspectional and facilitation risks
and opportunities when assessing investments. This includes an analysis
of whether to modernize existing ports, introduce new ports, or
optimize the staffing resources and technology to potentially avoid
substantial capital investment altogether. In some cases, given traffic
congestion and the land-locked nature of a site, the only effective
long-term solution is to begin to consider investment in a new site
within the transportation corridor. Furthermore, the multi-year time
frame required to plan, design, and construct a selected facility,
while simultaneously conducting operations, lends itself to creating an
investment portfolio that phases existing LPOE investments alongside
exploring opportunities for new LPOEs. Given fiscal constraints, the
agency also must assess the viability of an existing port or new port
project based on Federal funding availability or potential for
alternative financing, in conjunction with the assessment of whether it
is in the National interest.
Recognizing the dynamic and evolving mission of CBP at the border,
as well as the economic/security interests of the Federal Government,
international stakeholders, and border community, the agency must
maintain a forward-leaning process to assess the factors outlined above
and leverage a number of financial and execution tools to address
existing and new port opportunities.
Question 1c. Does GSA/CBP have any obligation to complete projects
that have been authorized and initiated at existing ports of entry
before contemplating new ports of entry?
Answer. Although CBP does not have a specific policy that precludes
the agency from engaging in new projects while simultaneously providing
phased design and construction funding for existing projects, we
generally do seek to follow through on projects already initiated. To
address the needs of the CBP-operated portfolio of 167 LPOEs across the
Southern and Northern Borders, CBP and GSA, capital construction
funding permitting, typically work on multiple LPOE improvement
projects in any given fiscal year, aiming to complete all such projects
in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.
Question 2a. Given that Congress has authorized your agencies to
begin a pilot program to use public-private partnerships to expand and
improve infrastructure on the border, how can GSA/CBP better utilize
these partnerships to complete and maintain current infrastructure?
Answer. Section 559 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014,
Pub. L. 113-76 (Section 559), became law on January 17, authorizing CBP
and GSA to accept donations of real property, personal property
(including monetary donations) and non-personal services from private
sector and Government entities. CBP and GSA may use donations accepted
under Section 559 for activities associated with the construction,
alteration, operations, or maintenance of new or existing ports of
entry, including land acquisition, design, and the deployment of
equipment and technologies.
To better leverage the partnerships established under this
authority to modernize and maintain its shared port of entry portfolio,
CBP and GSA are developing a criteria and procedures framework (Section
559 Framework) that, once implemented, they will use to systematically
and equitably receive, evaluate, and select viable donation proposals.
Moreover, the Section 559 Framework will describe the procedures that
CBP, GSA, and potential donors will follow to collaboratively plan and
develop selected donation proposals into executable infrastructure
projects. CBP and GSA anticipate receiving a wide range of port
facility improvement proposals, from equipment and technology upgrades
to facility alteration and renovation projects.
Question 2b. What progress are your agencies making towards
implementing policy regarding PPPs and when do your agencies expect to
accept applications?
Answer. CBP and GSA are in the final stages of clearing the Section
559 Framework through an interagency review process, which will result
in the document being made public as required by statute. CBP
anticipates launching its new program under the Section 559 authority,
to include announcing the open period for submitting donation
proposals, before the end of this fiscal year.
Question 3a. How does CBP evaluate and prioritize investments in
technology at ports of entry given the long time line for acquisitions
approval and budget restraints of the Federal Government?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) prioritizes
investments in land port of entry (LPOE) technology as part of the
overall LPOE need evaluation and prioritization process, as they
compete for the same limited appropriations received from Congress
despite their sometimes longer acquisition lead times. The process
begins with CBP conducting Strategic Resource Assessments (SRA) to
evaluate facility needs against 60 distinct criteria in four
categories: Mission and Operations; Security and Life Safety; Space and
Site Deficiency; and Personnel and Workload Growth. CBP employs the SRA
data, which includes an architectural and analytical assessment of
LPOEs along with regional planning data and studies, to determine the
needs across the entire portfolio. CBP then scores facilities by
criticality of need, combining the data points collected in the SRA
with the criteria of the four categories.
As the next step, CBP applies two additional analyses to develop a
prioritized investment, including a sensitivity analysis to determine
if the results should consider factors unaccounted for through the SRA
process, such as regional conditions, bilateral planning and
international partner interests, or interests of other Federal, State,
or local agencies.
CBP is working with DHS's Science and Technology Directorate (S&T)
to implement an effective quality assurance program that measures
programmatic effectiveness, and introduces process improvements to
decrease errors and eliminate waste in field and headquarter
operations. As this program matures, CBP will feed findings regarding
technology shortfalls and how they impact programmatic effectiveness
into the prioritization process.
Lastly, CBP coordinates with key stakeholders to evaluate the
feasibility and risk associated with project implementation including
environmental, cultural, and historic preservation requirements. CBP
then arrives at a final prioritization of proposed projects and
develops the capital investment plan in coordination with U.S. General
Services Administration.
Question 3b. How can CBP better adapt new technologies with
existing infrastructure to expedite border crossings and limit the
interference with legitimate border commerce?
Answer. Leveraging technology within facility and staffing
constraints to securely expedite legitimate trade and travel continues
to be a CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO) priority. CBP successfully
has accomplished this goal by utilizing Trusted Traveler Program
processing at land and air ports of entry (POEs); Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) technology at land POEs originally implemented
for Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and expanded to Ready
Lanes; and pedestrian reengineering to provide kiosks for travelers to
swipe their own travel documents expediting the processing with the CBP
Officer.
Business transformation is a focus of every major OFO program
initiative. OFO, in coordination with the Office of Information and
Technology (OIT), has created a new way of doing business called the
``Project Zone'' to leverage scarce resources for OFO projects and
programs. The collaboration provides opportunities for OFO to continue
to adapt new technologies within the existing infrastructure to
expedite border crossings while facilitating legitimate trade and
travel.
In order to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, CBP actively
collaborates with private stakeholders to transform operations or
provide solutions when required infrastructure is limited or does not
exist to meet an emerging need. For example, CBP recently conducted an
alternatives analysis to determine the viability of accommodating new
rail service by Rocky Mountaineer from Vancouver, British Columbia to
Seattle, Washington. This analysis included an assessment of
appropriate operational alternatives, costs associated with those
alternatives and the identification of potential operational risks. CBP
deployed a mobile device solution to facilitate passenger processing
leveraging wireless access the railway provided. This solution proved
successful and CBP has deployed it to the maritime environment to
process cruise ships where there is limited to no infrastructure in
place.
Automated Passport Control (APC) is another CBP program developed
through a public-private partnership, which expedites the entry process
for U.S. and Canadian citizens and eligible Visa Waiver Program
international travelers by providing an automated process through CBP's
Primary Inspection area at participating airports. Travelers use self-
service kiosks operated by a private vendor to provide responses to
customs declaration questions and biographic information. APC is a free
service to the traveler and does not require pre-registration or
membership. Travelers using APC experience shorter wait times, less
congestion, and faster processing. APC is now available in 20
international arrival airports and two preclearance airports.
CBP is currently working with S&T to evaluate the use of biometrics
for exit, which ultimately we will use to facilitate the entry process.
The evaluation includes how we can integrate the technology with
existing facilities to increase throughput. S&T and CBP are using a
test facility that mimics airport facilities so the testing will be
realistic. The testing includes using test subjects to use the
technology in realistic facility setting measuring the impacts of the
various technologies and placement within the facility on throughput
and user experience as well as the accuracy of the technology.
CBP is also working with S&T to strengthen security and trade
facilitation missions by utilizing risk-based strategies, and applying
a multi-layered approach to containerized cargo security. CBP's efforts
in collaboration with S&T include: Developing standards to enable the
use of shipper/carrier-provided data in CBP cargo targeting, as well as
developing technologies and technology upgrades to improve CBP's cargo
screening and cargo validation capabilities. Ultimately, these efforts
will leverage existing infrastructure where possible to enhance
security and improve throughput at the POEs to expedite legal commerce
and travel.
Additionally, CBP is working with S&T to develop low-cost upgrades
for legacy non-intrusive inspection (NII) systems as an alternative to
acquiring new high performance/high maintenance machines. This effort
will enable CBP to maintain robust inspection regimes while enhancing
security and improving throughput at the POEs to expedite legal
commerce and travel.
In order to facilitate legitimate trade, CBP is planning to expand
mobile technologies for processing at the border. To better adapt new
technologies, OFO and OIT have developed a proof of concept using
mobile technology to provide CBP Agriculture Specialists the ability to
inspect cargo and enter inspection results remotely for immediate
release. The proof of concept demonstrated an immediate benefit to the
trade community.
To simplify documentation for export and import, the International
Trade Data System (ITDS) will establish a single portal system for the
collection and distribution of trade data. Currently, some 47 Federal
agencies and CBP are involved in the largely manual and paper-based
trade process, which is costly and time-consuming for both the
Government and the international trade community. Through the ITDS
initiative, the Federal Government is creating a Single Window to
transform and streamline the trade process, thereby supporting economic
competitiveness. The Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) will become
this Single Window--the primary system through which the international
trade community submits import and export documentation that all
Federal agencies require. Through ACE, Federal agencies will have more
efficient automated visibility to shipment data, facilitating their
import or export assessments at the border and regulating the flow of
legitimate trade while also improving security, health, and safety of
cargo.
Questions From Honorable Tom Marino for Michael Gelber
Question 1. What is the process and how long does it take for GSA
to begin work on a new Port of Entry compared to the time frame to
enhance, expand, or improve an existing, established border operation
once funding has been authorized? When existing ports of entry have
tangible needs and even phased renovation or enhancements under way,
why wouldn't those be completed before initiating new ports of entry,
especially within the same traffic corridor? Does GSA/CBP have any
obligation to complete projects that have been authorized and initiated
at existing ports of entry before contemplating new ports of entry?
Answer. When prioritizing new construction or major expansions at
existing land ports of entry (LPOE), GSA looks to CBP's 5-year capital
plan. CBP develops its 5-year plan, in coordination with GSA, using a
variety of metrics, including traffic information, security issues, and
detailed feasibility studies developed. At times, projects are broken
into phases for a number of reasons including facilitating phased
construction of a complex project that requires the continued operation
of the LPOE. GSA and CBP work together to request construction funding
to advance these priorities.
The construction duration of a given LPOE project depends on a wide
range of factors, including the potential need to acquire a site, the
scale of the project, international cooperation, and permitting issues.
Generally, once a port is included in the President's budget, the time
frame for project delivery is quite similar whether it is construction
of a new LPOE or an expansion or improvement to an existing LPOE.
Question 2. Given that Congress has authorized your agencies to
begin a pilot program to use public-private partnerships to expand and
improve infrastructure on the border, how can GSA/CBP better utilize
these partnerships to complete and maintain current infrastructure?
What progress are your agencies making towards implementing policy
regarding PPPs and when do your agencies expect to accept applications?
Answer. GSA has long-standing authority to accept unconditional
gifts of property and has used this authority when State or local
governments and, in a few cases, private-sector entities have elected
to make donations in aid of a project or function under GSA's
jurisdiction. In the case of a land port of entry (LPOE), these
donations are made to realize the economic benefit that comes with a
new or expanded port.
Subsection 559(f) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014,
Pub. L. 113-76, broadened GSA's and CBP's gift-acceptance authority,
enabling both agencies to accept donations of real or personal property
(including monetary donations) and non-personal services from private
sector and Government entities. Any donation accepted under this
provision may be used only for necessary activities related to the
construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of a new or
existing LPOE, including land acquisition, design, and the deployment
of equipment and technologies.
Subsection 559(f) requires that CBP and GSA: (1) Establish criteria
that identify and document their respective roles and responsibilities;
(2) identify, allocate, and manage potential risk; (3) define clear,
measurable objectives; and (4) publish criteria for evaluating
partnership projects.
Since the enactment of the legislation, CBP and GSA have
coordinated closely to satisfy this statutory requirement and jointly
developed the Section 559 Donation Acceptance Authority Proposal
Evaluation Procedures & Criteria Framework (559 Framework). This
document outlines the procedures and criteria that CBP and GSA will use
systematically and equitably to receive, evaluate, select, plan,
develop, and formally accept proposed donations under subsection
559(f). These proposals may come from private corporations, public
entities, municipalities, port authorities, consortiums, and any other
private-sector or Government entities interested in donating real
property, personal property, or non-personal services.
The 559 Framework has been released and posted on both CBP and GSA
websites to coincide with a program launch announcement that will
include proposal submission procedures. The 559 Framework is available
to all potential donors and will enable CPB and GSA to evaluate the
operational and nonoperational merit of each proposal, based on the
published evaluation criteria.
Question 3a. How does CBP evaluate and prioritize investments in
technology at ports of entry given the long time line for acquisitions
approval and budget restraints of the Federal Government?
Question 3b. How can CBP better adapt new technologies with
existing infrastructure to expedite border crossings and limit the
interference with legitimate border commerce?
Answer. Question No. 3 is for CBP, not GSA.
[all]