[Senate Hearing 110-1024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1024
SECURING THE NORTHERN BORDER: VIEWS FROM THE FRONT LINES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 2, 2008
__________
FIELD HEARING IN HAVRE, MONTANA
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-121 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Sue Ramanathan, Counsel
James Wise, Office of Senator Jon Tester
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Matthew L. Hanna, Minority U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Tester............................................... 1
WITNESSES
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Dan W. McGowan, Administrator, Disaster and Emergency Services,
Montana Department of Military Affairs......................... 3
Robert DesRosier, Director, Disaster and Emergency Services,
Blackfeet Nation............................................... 7
Donna Matoon, Sheriff, Toole County, Montana..................... 9
Michele James, Director, Seattle Field Operations, and Brenna
Neinast, Chief, Border Patrol Sector Havre, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........ 11
Loren L. Timmerman, President, Chapter 231, National Treasury
Employees Union, Great Falls, Montana.......................... 25
J. Alexander Philp, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer,
GCS Holdings, Inc.............................................. 26
Kristian D. Merkel, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer,
S2 Corporation, Bozeman, Montana............................... 30
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
DesRosier, Robert:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 48
James, Michele:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Joint prepared statement..................................... 54
Matoon, Donna:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 52
McGowan, Dan W.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 35
Merkel, Kristian D., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 30
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 86
Neinast, Brenna:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Joint prepared statement..................................... 54
Philp, J. Alexander, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Timmerman, Loren L.:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 68
APPENDIX
Annmarie Robinson, Regional Water Coordinator, North Central
Montana Regional Water Authority, prepared statement........... 94
Post-hearing questions and responses for the Record from:
Ms. James and Ms. Neinast.................................... 96
SECURING THE NORTHERN BORDER: VIEWS FROM THE FRONT LINES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Havre, Montana
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Havre, Montana, Hon. Jon Tester, presiding.
Present: Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. I will call this meeting of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to order. Thank
you, everyone, for being here, especially approaching the 4th
of July. I know we have a few of the panelists that took
vacation time to be here, and I appreciate that a lot.
I want to welcome the witnesses. We have folks from every
level of government--Federal, State, and local--and these are
the folks we want to hear from, what they are doing to help
secure the border every day.
We are going to have two panels this morning. To each of
the witnesses, your complete testimony will be inserted in the
record, but I would ask you to summarize your testimony in
about 5 minutes if you can. We will not hold you strictly to
it, but if you can kind of bounce around that area, we would
appreciate it.
Following those two panels, we will have a brief discussion
with some questions from me after you have all given your
testimony, and then following the two panels, we are going to
open the floor up. This hearing is scheduled to go from 10
through 11:30 a.m. If we finish quicker, then that is fine.
Until the time of noon, we will give the people in the audience
an opportunity to talk about anything you want, quite honestly.
This is dedicated to border security and specifically to border
security, but you can talk about anything you want. The only
thing that I would ask the people who talk after the formal
hearing is over is that you limit the time of your comments to
about 1 or 2 minutes. If you can do that, we can get through a
lot of folks. We can get through 30 people in a half-hour if
you limit it to a minute. So there will be a quick break.
I would encourage the witnesses and the panelists to stay
here, because I am sure there will be some issues brought up on
security.
This hearing is titled ``Securing the Northern Border:
Views from the Front Lines.'' Our goal today is to hear from
the many folks who stand watch on that border, at the Federal,
State, and local level.
Over the past couple days, I and members of my staff have
been traveling a good portion of the Hi-Line, visiting with
folks about what is on their minds when it comes to the border.
I was pleased to be joined in Scobey, Montana, on Monday by
the No. 2 man at the Department of Homeland Security, a fellow
by the name of Paul Schneider, and we visited about the border.
It was interesting. He landed in Helena and then came up to
Scobey. His words exactly to me when I met him were, ``I am
glad I did this. I would not have believed it if I had not seen
it,'' talking about the rural nature, the number of people, and
the vast distances. We all know. We live here. We understand
it.
As we all know, the U.S.-Canada border is a source of
pride. Some 4,000 miles long, it is the longest demilitarized
border in the world. It is a very special place. We have
friends to the north, and, of course, our friends to the north
have friends here in the United States.
But that does not mean that we can be complacent. Drug
trafficking across our border is a problem--whether you are
talking about BC Bud, or something worse.
There are known terrorist groups that are organized in
Canada. And when a potential terrorist travels, say, from
England to Canada, it will attract somewhat less attention than
if they try to fly directly into the United States.
I want to emphasize that our friends on the Canadian side
of the border are steadfast allies. That is one of the major
differences between the northern border challenges and the
southern border challenges. And I truly appreciate the
friendship with them. We all know we have oftentimes more in
common with our folks to the north than we do with our folks to
the east.
So the stakes are high with making sure that our border is
secure. But we also need to make sure that we continue to
encourage the vital economic link between the United States and
Canada. The border is a major commercial artery for Montana and
our entire Nation.
And it is not an easy balance, for sure. I think the folks
on the ground will tell you that.
I want to introduce the panel of witnesses. These folks are
from around Montana who work hard every day to keep the border
safe.
Representing the State of Montana, we have the Director of
Disaster and Emergency Services, Dan McGowan. He is the guy who
is responsible for making sure that Montana is ready and able
to respond in any situation ranging from a natural disaster to
a potential case of foot-and-mouth disease to an attack on a
dam or a refinery or whatever.
Also, we have a gentleman by the name of Robert DesRosier.
Mr. DesRosier is the head of Disaster and Emergency Services on
the Blackfeet Reservation. As such, Mr. DesRosier is
responsible for securing the 60 miles of border between Canada
and the reservation. To do so, he must work with the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), the Park Service--a lot of agencies.
Then we have from Toole County, Donna Matoon. Ms. Matoon is
the sheriff in Toole County, and she will visit with us about
local law enforcement, what its role is in border security and
potentially what we can to help improve that. I also want to
point out that Ms. Matoon took time out of her vacation to be
here today, and I really appreciate you being here. I think it
indicates to me how important you feel this issue is.
At the end of the table we have Brenna Neinast, who runs
the Havre Sector--many of you folks know her--of the Border
Patrol. She has under her direction more than 100 Border Patrol
officers responsible for securing the border from Glacier Park
to the Montana-North Dakota border.
And, finally, we have Michele James. She is the Director of
Field Operations for Customs. She covers the territory between
North Dakota and Seattle. No small feat.
And so when we get done with this, we will go to the next
panel, and I will introduce them. But since we are limited on
time, we will get started.
Mr. McGowan, you can fire away.
TESTIMONY OF DAN W. MCGOWAN,\1\ ADMINISTRATOR, DISASTER AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS
Mr. McGowan. Thank you, Senator Tester and Members of the
Committee, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Governor Brian
Schweitzer, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
hearing and join this panel with our partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. McGowan with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Securing the northern border between Montana and Canada is
a complex, multi-jurisdictional initiative whose success is
founded in unity of vision, partnerships, and collaborative
engagement grounded through a true grass-roots mechanism. The
collaborative efforts require leveraging limited resources to
successfully achieve an overwhelming task. The State of Montana
appreciates the financial resources rendered through the
Department of Homeland Security to advance border protection
efforts. These funds have been leveraged with State financial,
personnel, and resource contributions to maximize its northern
border efforts.
The State has engaged with many partners--Federal, local,
tribal, county, and our partners to the north from Canada:
British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan--to do several very
important initiatives, and I will talk just about a few of
those from a tactical perspective and also from a strategic
perspective.
Tactically, we have achieved many positive advances through
these collaborative efforts. One that is engaged right now in
our second attempt is an all-hazard, multi-jurisdictional,
functional exercise with an international flavor working with
Canada at the Port of Sweetgrass that will take place in
September 2008. It is our second engagement with our Canadian
partners to make sure that all of the connections, resources,
and things that we need to work on are well oiled before
anything could occur at the border.
The Montana National Guard is extensively engaged in
efforts to improve coordination and build partnerships for
positive enhancements. They, too, with almost 10 of their
component elements, will be involved in the Port of Sweetgrass
exercise.
The Montana National Guard's 83rd Civil Support Team is
supporting preparedness, coordinating with all of our partners
since its inception, and is extremely active. They have worked
with the Blackfeet Nation on the suspected white powder
incident. They are working with our critical infrastructure
partners to improve integration efforts, and they also have
provided geospatial imagery products to the U.S. Border Patrol
in the Havre Sector.
Other efforts that the Montana National Guard is involved
in for border security include the Montana All-Threats
Intelligence Center (MATIC); counter-drug missions; they assist
Customs and Border Patrol with qualified intelligence officers;
provide threat assessment information; training for the Joint
Task Force North for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol personnel;
and also provide analyst notebook training as well.
Third, the Montana All-Threats Intelligence Center (MATIC)
was formed focusing on mitigation efforts to provide
protection. The MATIC is a joint effort of the Montana law
enforcement community and the border agencies. It manages the
State's intelligence system. And with international
information-sharing sessions, they have engaged in discussing
trends and threats as they relate to Montana.
The integration of local and tribal law enforcement with
border security initiatives is a critical component to
protecting the northern sector because there is an
understanding of the local issues by our local partners. They
also predominantly are the first ones to respond if there is a
violation at the border as it comes into their community. We
have engaged through Operation Stonegarden not only in Federal
fiscal year 2003 with 11 counties participating in that to
assist our Federal partners in protecting the border but also
have just engaged in Federal fiscal year 2008 with another 12
counties, for a total of about $2 million in requests for local
jurisdictions to assist our Federal partners in protecting the
border.
The expansiveness--and it is over 562 miles--of the border
and the porous nature--there are 42 ports of entry with varied
levels of operation--coupled with the limited resources and the
responsibility for protecting those huge geographic areas with
limited staffing is a recipe for the need to develop creative
solutions in border security. The true reality is that border
security will never be void of gaps in service or protective
elements just because of the size and the geography.
Realistically, though, border security is an initiative whose
complexities prevent solely tactical elements from providing
the ultimate solution.
Montana has engaged in some strategic elements as well to
achieve and help in protecting the border.
The first is Interoperability Montana. It is an exciting
grassroots strategic initiative to develop the most practical
and effective redundant statewide communication system. Its
demand is anytime from anywhere for any of our responders to
talk to each other. The ultimate goal is one seamless
communication system that serves local, tribal, State, Federal,
and international needs while being most cost-effective for all
those involved.
We also have several mutual aid efforts. The State of
Montana is a signatory partner to the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact. We have Intrastate Mutual Aid, and we are
dealing with two initiatives with our Canadian partners: The
Prairie Regional Emergency Management Assistance Compact and
also the Governor's Intergovernmental Accord for Canadian
Mutual Aid.
We also work extensively with our tribal partners and
Native Nations. We have coordinated the Indian Nations Working
Group with our tribal partners to enhance homeland security and
emergency management. And our tribal partners are one of the
first, if not the only, to promulgate a mutual aid agreement
between the nations and Montana.
The State of Montana is truly appreciative of the
Department of Homeland Security funds it receives and willing
to participate with the northern border security initiative.
But from firsthand experience, that participation is not
without its challenges. Because of that, those challenges and
the opportunities that we have experienced and what we have
seen as boots on the ground, we offer the following, Senator,
for your consideration because it is the effectiveness
enhancements that the Federal level will provide to us that
will allow these to continue.
After September 11, 2001, we know the landscape for
protecting our border and our country changed, and the Federal
Government supplied a lot of funds to enhance our ability. The
sustainability of our efforts, though, will not be achievable
without continued Federal funding at the appropriate level
because Montana receives reduced funding each year, but we
still have the same priorities as all the larger States, like
New York.
No. 2, we implore you to fund a solution for mutual aid
along the border. Right now, there are disjointed, distracted
regional efforts between the States and the provincial parts of
Canada. It is one border. We have currently a Western Regional
Compact that has been promulgated and has been approved by the
Senate. New York just did one. And the other compacts work in
between and have to be approved by the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives. So we say why not just have one compact
between the State and Canada that allows States and provinces
to effectively share accurate and coordinated assistance for
mutual aid.
Operation Stonegarden needs a little bit of improvement. It
is a local grant. But understand that local sheriffs and
jurisdictions are tapped. The basic statistics right now: Of
the 32 departments in Montana, 67 percent of the offices have
nine or fewer officers, let alone the expertise to prepare
long, lengthy grants. That is why the State of Montana had to
actually procure a contractor to do this Federal fiscal year
2008 grant, and there was minimal technical assistance. The
real downfall of this grant is the fact that the State
administrative agency has to administer it with no call for
maintenance and administration fees, but we are required to do
all of the coordination, all of the reporting, gather all the
documents. It is almost like one of those unfunded mandates,
and I hate to say that word, but there is no maintenance and
administration for it.
The Homeland Security grant submission requirements are
extremely cumbersome, complex, and time-consuming. The grants
need to be simplified. They are counterproductive in requiring
reports that are unfunded in the grant parameters, reports that
cause State government with our partners to virtually shut down
our stakeholders in order to achieve a deliverable that is not
part of our plan for which we submit money to enhance Montana's
priorities for homeland security.
The grant implementation parameters are also troubling.
There are two initiatives right now: The National Incident
Management System (NIMS) implementation issue and also the
State Preparedness Report. For example, on the State
Preparedness Report, the guidance came out. Not 10 months
later, though, did we receive the guidance for what the report
was supposed to entail. We had to engage Congress--and Senator
Tester was very helpful--in getting an extension for that. So
basically Montana ended up with 4 months to do an 11-month
project----
Senator Tester. Mr. McGowan, I am going to ask you to wrap
it up.
Mr. McGowan. Sure. I will wrap it up. That was continued by
NIMS. Again, we were faced with short timelines. The guidance
came out, and not only in April did we get the final guidance,
but we finally got the tool just last week, and we still have a
September 2008 deadline, and that affects all our
jurisdictions.
So the NIMS requirement and those parameters need to be
looked at in the grants because they give such short timelines.
The other issue is with our Native nation partners. The
State will continue its efforts to advance tribal government-
to-government relations, and with regard to implementation
requirements, we find ourselves being the ombudsman for the
Federal Government, and the nations are asking for the true
nation-to-nation agreement that they expect with the Federal
Government. Anecdotal evidence shows that the nations are
frustrated with not having one voice from the Federal
Government for all the similar issues they deal with that come
from different agencies.
We understand the complexity of this task. In
Interoperability Montana, we asked for more participation there
from our Federal land partners. To date, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is the only partner that is engaged with us.
And the MATIC requests that DHS play an active role in the
fusion center to improve collaborative intelligence.
To wrap up, in summary, the cornerstone for success of
northern border security efforts relies on true collaboration
between and among agencies. Parochial interests must not be
detractors to such significant coordination initiatives.
Collaborative efforts and partnership development must not be
restricted by inflexible grant parameters or directives that
are not reflective of the needs.
The State's challenge is to actively engage leveraging
every available resource and inform our national leaders of
those inherent roadblocks, and to that effect, we hope that we
have done that effectively to give you an idea of what it is
like from the State's perspective State, local, tribal, and
private partnerships.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be included in
this testimonial regarding northern border security. The State
of Montana welcomes the opportunity to coordinate with our
Federal partners to improve program effectiveness, formalize
sustainability, and enhance partnership through true grass-
roots collaborative efforts. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Thanks, Mr. McGowan. Your entire statement
will be put in the record.
Mr. DesRosier, you are up. Hit the highlights. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT DESROSIER,\1\ DIRECTOR, DISASTER AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES, BLACKFEET NATION
Mr. DesRosier. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Robert
DesRosier. I am employed by the Blackfeet Nation. I currently
serve as Director for Blackfeet Homeland Security and Disaster
and Emergency Services. I am very pleased to be here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. DesRosier with an attachment
appears in the Appendix on page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1.5-million-acre Blackfeet Reservation is located in
northwestern Montana, about 150 miles west of Havre. The
international boundary cuts through our reservation for a
distance of approximately 65 miles, which is about one-tenth of
the State of Montana's border. Many times throughout and along
our norther border, there have been crossings of a person or
persons illegally entering into the United States through
Blackfeet Nation lands. Most recently, vehicle tracks were
spotted in an area just west of Del Bonita port of entry, where
three vehicles approached the border from the north and pulled
the fence post out of the fence, laid the wire down, and
continued south onto the reservation. Further investigation
revealed that the three vehicles were SUVs or full-size pick-up
trucks traveling together.
In the Chief Mountain area, foot and vehicle traffic has
increased this past year, as revealed by the evidence left
behind in the form of tracks. Off-road vehicles have crossed
the border repeatedly in the Lee Creek drainage north of Chief
Mountain. There are many places along the northern border on
the Blackfeet Reservation where illegal border crossings have
taken place. In fact, if you go to your local map store and
purchase a topographic map of the Blackfeet Reservation, you
will find there are nine crossings identified as border
crossings; five of those illegal crossings have shown recent
signs of activity. It is foolish for us to think that our
northern border is secure today. We have much to do.
The affected local Indian Nations have the most interest
and knowledge to control the areas of concern as relating to
crime and border-related issues. Ideas from Washington, DC,
usually do not fit the local objectives. Our input, the Native
community, is of the utmost importance when dealing with topics
that have an impact on tribal lands and the entire United
States. We must work to fund and train local tribal law
enforcement for methods of deterrent and investigative
procedures to deter crime--most importantly, border crime. The
local Native American law enforcement officer has the
integrity, courage, and scout and warrior skills necessary for
the protection of his and her homeland and people.
The ancestral values, field crafts, tracking, sign cutting,
survival skills, and mental conditioning provide good qualities
for good field detectives. The Native American can travel
across wild country using many methods and possesses the
natural skills to survive and handle whatever comes their way.
Indian Nations, most importantly, must stand up and
participate in this fight in our Nation's war against
terrorism. The Blackfeet are known as true Americans eager to
stand against our enemies. Local tribal members have an
outstanding record of producing qualified professionals who,
without a doubt, would lay down their lives for the defense of
this great Nation. Currently, there are over 120 men and women
from our local Indian community actively participating with the
armed forces in the war against terrorism.
The Blackfeet Tribal Homeland Security Program consists of
two officers: Keith Lame Bear and myself. We work in the area
of law enforcement with our primary focus on homeland security
and border issues. However, our program is unfunded. Salaries
come from other unrelated sources within tribal government. Our
participation along the border is in the form of a Memorandum
of Agreement with the Army Air National Guard for aircraft
support and surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Flights
are usually three times a month lasting about 2 hours. Our
ground patrols have been scaled back to four times a month.
Contact with the border on the average is six to eight times
per month.
Observation points have been identified at various
locations for ground surveillance in some areas, and local
intelligence reveals that there is a local tribal member
offering guide services for illegal crossers for an individual
fee of $1,500.
Our program also includes patrols of the area's local
infrastructure, such as the three large dams on the headwaters
on the Blackfeet Reservation. Patrol vehicles and necessary
equipment are in the form of donations and transferred surplus
from the BIA or the General Services Administration (GSA).
Adequate two-way radio and cell phone equipment is nonexistent.
Never before in the history of this great Nation has the
topic of homeland security become most important for us and for
our future generation's survival as a free and democratic
society for all to enjoy. Threats to the United States come
from all directions, as well as from within. Terrorists, both
foreign and domestic, continually desire to destroy the fabric
that this country was founded on and the freedoms that we as
Americans stand for and symbolize.
The Blackfeet Nation remains firm as a sovereign Nation and
as front-line security forces committed to the participation in
the defense of the United States here in our homeland. We must
continue to wage the international war on terrorism and work
hard to deter all homeland threats. Complacency must not be
allowed to become our enemy.
We are in need of adequate funding for our proposed nine-
person security forces. The Blackfeet Homeland Security Forces
will become a recognizable, professional, and competent police
force that will address the many complex, potential attacks to
our citizens.
Thank you. It has been my pleasure for this opportunity to
offer this testimony here before you on this great day in the
history of the United States and the Blackfeet Nation.
Senator Tester. Thanks, Mr. DesRosier. Ms. Matoon.
TESTIMONY OF DONNA MATOON,\1\ SHERIFF, TOOLE COUNTY, MONTANA
Ms. Matoon. Good morning. I would like to thank the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for the
opportunity to speak at this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Matoon appears in the Appendix on
page 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toole County is located in central Montana with
approximately 50 miles of Canadian border front. This
encompasses the Port of Sweetgrass, which is located on
Interstate 15, a major transportation departure and entrance
route between the U.S. and Canada. Due to our unique geographic
location, Toole County has a tremendous transit population.
Because of this, our agency has had a longstanding
relationship with the U.S. Border Patrol, Customs, and
Immigration Service, who have been recently combined into the
Department of Homeland Security.
When I began in law enforcement over 25 years ago, the U.S.
Border Patrol had only seven agents stationed in our county.
Many of these old-time Border Patrol agents came to be close
friends, many of which I still have contact with today. We
would stop into each other's office on a daily basis. We
communicated while on patrol. We watched each other's backs
like we were a part of the same agency. Oftentimes, the only
assistance in the area that could arrive to help you in a
timely manner were these Federal officers.
The Port of Sweetgrass was a small operation with fewer
than 20 employees. Many of these people were lifetime Toole
County residents, and local law enforcement had close personal
relationships with many of them.
Since September 11, 2001, and the Federal Government's
mandate to secure the homeland, we have seen unprecedented
growth in the Department of Homeland Security in Toole County.
Dozens of new Border Patrol agents have moved into the area,
and the new U.S./Canadian combined port facility has been
constructed at the Port of Sweetgrass. The number of Federal
employees protecting our border in Toole County has increased
ten-fold. Tremendous amounts of new technology and capabilities
such as gamma ray x-ray machines, ground sensors, and air
patrols have come to our area.
Recently, members of the Border Patrol assisted members of
our local emergency services and deputies in rescuing a hiker
who was having a medical emergency in a remote and rugged area
along the border. In large part, due to the actions of these
Federal employees, this hiker was saved and was transported by
helicopter to a medical facility. On any given week, deputies
from our agency assist Federal authorities in apprehending port
runners, border jumpers, and locating undocumented foreign
nationals. We have participated in the Border Patrol's
``Operation Stonegarden'' where local law enforcement is used
as a force multiplier for Federal authorities along the border.
With all this said, the changes that have occurred are not
without some negative consequences. The introduction of so many
new Federal employees in our area has forever changed the
small-town closeness and camaraderie between the Federal
agencies and local law enforcement. The daily meetings and
informal information sharing that comes with close personal
relationships have been replaced by quarterly intelligence
meetings and Senate committees. As new Federal employees are
constantly rotating in and out of our area, it is sometimes
difficult to even put a face to the name you are dealing with.
Communications have become a problematic issue where
Federal authorities now operate on secure digital radio
frequencies and car-to-car or officer-to-officer communications
are not possible. Any communication between agents in the field
and local law enforcement requires a telephone call relay to
sector headquarters in Havre from our dispatch center in
Shelby. This is slow, inaccurate, and unwieldy.
In years past, when a sheriff's deputy overheard a Border
Patrol officer check out with a suspicious person in the area,
the deputy would make a point to head in that direction to
provide back-up and assistance as needed. Border Patrol
officers did the same for our deputies. Due to the
communication issues, that level of assistance is no longer
possible.
Because of difficulties in filling Federal positions in
this rural and isolated area, our agency finds itself in direct
competition with the Federal Government when the time comes to
recruit qualified staff from the local job pool. Recently, at a
combined charity fund raiser with Federal officers, I found
myself in the unique position of handing out T-shirts with
large advertisements on the back that were recruiting for
Border Patrol officers in our area--this while my own agency
was operating at 75 percent of my patrol capacity.
Please make no mistake, I am not begrudging anyone
obtaining Federal employment with wage and benefit packages
that local governments have no hope of matching, but I do want
this Committee to be aware of the impact on our agency.
Staffing shortfalls in our agency have a direct effect on our
community at large. While the Federal officers are protecting
the border, our deputies are protecting their children and
families throughout the county.
As time goes on, it is my hope that new personal
relationships can be forged, communications will improve, and
recruitment will not be as competitive in our area. For the
last 25 years, I have worked with the exceptional men and women
of the various Federal law enforcement agencies in our area. We
are glad to have these good people and their families move into
our area, enriching our communities and protecting this Nation.
I look forward to many years of cooperation and interaction
with our Federal partners. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Ms. Matoon.
Now, Ms. Neinast and Ms. James, you two have a joint
statement. Whichever one wants to go first, go ahead. Go ahead,
Ms. James.
TESTIMONY OF MICHELE JAMES,\1\ DIRECTOR, SEATTLE FIELD
OPERATIONS, AND BRENNA NEINAST, CHIEF, BORDER PATROL SECTOR
HAVRE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. James. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Tester. My name
is Michele James. I am the Director of Field Operations in
Seattle, Washington. I have oversight over the activities in
the ports of entry in the States of Washington, Idaho, Montana,
North Dakota, and Minnesota. It is an honor to have this
opportunity to testify before you today, and I am going to
focus on CBP's role on securing our borders while efficiently
continuing to facilitate the flow of trade and travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The joint prepared statement of Ms. James and Ms. Neinast
appears in the Appendix on page 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Falls service area covers 600 miles of border.
Within that area, there are 17 land border ports of entry in
Idaho and Montana. There are currently 230 CBP officers and 13
agriculture specialists assigned within this area.
In fiscal year 2007, CBP's front line inspected over
719,000 private vehicles and 1.6 million vehicle passengers.
More than 274,000 commercial trucks and over 1,700 private
aircraft made entry into the United States during that time
frame. There were three large-scale narcotics seizures that
occurred within the cargo environment using sophisticated
smuggling methods and compartments. In fiscal year 2007 alone,
we seized 1,187 pounds of marijuana within this area.
Another example of the enforcement efforts that our
officers provide on our borders on a daily basis is depicted by
an arrest of Rajit Singh. Singh applied for entry at the Port
of Sweetgrass, Montana, and was found to have templates that
had been used to make hundreds of fraudulent British resident
alien and student registration cards. He was arrested and
ultimately found guilty of visa fraud, aggravated identity
theft, and identification fraud/document production. He was
sentenced to 38 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised
release. Full implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI) would greatly reduce the opportunities, as
Mr. Singh attempted to afford, for fraud and misrepresentation
of one's true identity.
CBP has long recognized the need to improve our facilities
and our infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively meet
our mission's requirements. The Port of Sweetgrass was rebuilt
in 2003 as a joint U.S.-Canadian port to include a full-size
garage for non-intrusive scanning of commercial trucks. Since
2004, new port construction has been completed in Willow Creek,
Opheim, and Raymond. Secondary inspection garages have been
funded for Morgan, Wild Horse, Del Bonita, and Willow Creek.
All locations have personal radiation detectors, and radiation
isotope identification devices have been deployed to the
majority of our ports. Radiation portal monitor surveys have
been completed also for the majority of our ports, and our
locations are monitored 24/7 for our Customs Area Security
Center, which is located in Sweetgrass, Montana.
Finally, I would like to touch on our collaborative efforts
between Border Patrol and other law enforcement entities within
the State of Montana and also our counterparts across the
border.
CBP works directly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), and the U.S. Attorney's Office to train new CBP
enforcement officers in all aspects of case development and
prosecution protocols. Since April 2007, we have successfully
prosecuted 16 criminal cases in Federal court, and this has
been a huge success in the State of Montana.
This fiscal year, Field Operations has dramatically
increases our involvement in the Integrated Border Enforcement
Team (IBET). Field Operations chairs the Rocky Mount IBET Joint
Management Team, and we have placed a CBP officer full-time on
permanent staff in Sweetgrass to work the numerous cross-border
narcotics smuggling and high-risk admissibility cases.
Another great success is having the FBI collocated within
Sweetgrass, Montana, as a northern border liaison.
Most recently, CBP Field Operations, Border Patrol, and the
Park Rangers conducted an operation at Goat Haunt. The
operation focused on reporting compliance and any illicit
activities within that area.
These are just a few examples of the collaborative efforts
with our partners out there.
So, in closing, I want to emphasize that CBP will continue
to protect America from allowing those who attempt to come in
and do us harm. In doing so, we fully recognize that we need to
continue to integrate the correct mix of staffing, greater
investment in detection and technology infrastructure, and
enhanced coordination amongst our partners here.
I thank you for this opportunity to present today.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Ms. James. Ms. Neinast.
Ms. Neinast. Well, very quickly, everybody, I think, knows
who I am, so we will cut through that.
I am happy to be here today and have this opportunity and
to carry on with what Ms. James had to say.
I assumed command of the Havre Sector in November 2005. The
Havre Sector is one of eight northern border sectors and is
responsible for the majority of the State of Montana. There are
456 miles from the North Dakota line to the Continental Divide.
I look forward to speaking today about our operational efforts
along the northern border, our partnerships with State and
local governments and our methods of securing the Nation's
borders.
The U.S. Border Patrol is the sole entity responsible for
securing our borders between the official ports of entry, and
we base our operations on the Border Patrol National Strategy.
This strategy calls for the proper mix of personnel,
infrastructure, and technology, and we use a combination of
efforts in achieving our goals.
We depend on a ``defense in depth'' posture utilizing
agents in the field, transportation checks, and coordinated
enforcement operations as well as partnerships with other
Federal and State law enforcement agencies. An example of this
is our sector's joint operations with the Office of Field
Operations and the National Park Service in which we focus on
utilizing the strengths of each agency to further our
capabilities in securing the rugged and difficult areas of the
border.
We have long maintained partnerships with a variety of
other agencies with the goal of increasing effectiveness for
all. For example, we frequently assist State and local agencies
by responding to emergencies on their behalf in remote areas
where we have a presence and can respond more quickly, as Ms.
Matoon spoke to.
We work closely with our Canadian counterparts through the
Integrated Border Enforcement Teams to benefit both countries.
We utilize our relationship to improve intelligence gathering,
preparedness, and response capabilities along the border.
The Border Patrol's objective is nothing less than gaining
and maintaining operational control of the border. We recognize
the challenges of doing so as we have dealt with them for over
80 years. There has been an added focus on our operations in
the past few years, and we certainly appreciate the support
that this Committee has shown to Border Patrol.
Securing our Nation's diverse border terrain is an
important and complex task that cannot be resolved by a single
solution alone. To secure each unique mile of the border
requires a balance of personnel technology and tactical
infrastructure that is tailored to each specific environment.
What works in northern Montana is not necessarily the same
solution that will work in southern Arizona. We recognize that
as an organization and work towards that.
The northern border has unique challenges, one being
manpower. We have increased our agent staffing along the
northern border to nearly 1,200 agents--a vast improvement from
2001 when we had only 340 agents along the entire northern
border. My sector alone has seen an influx of agents, greatly
adding to my ability to address our security concerns.
Challenges continue to lie ahead, and the need for
comprehensive enforcement approaches remain. We face these
challenges every day with vigilance, dedication to service, and
integrity as we work to strengthen national security and
protect America and its citizens. Our national strategy gives
us the means by which to achieve our ambitious goal, and with
this Committee's continued support, I am confident that we
shall succeed.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present
this testimony today and for your support of the U.S. Border
Patrol. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you
may have at this time.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you. Thank you to all of the
panelists for your testimony. Thank you for being brief. I
think I will just start with Mr. McGowan, and we will go down
the line.
I want to talk a little bit about the Operation
Stonegarden. You talked about local grants in your testimony. I
think it was about $2 million that were in local grants. Is
that in conjunction with the Operation Stonegarden?
Mr. McGowan. That is the current Federal fiscal year 2008
submission for all of the northern border jurisdictions that
partnered together and put in an application.
Senator Tester. And then you are basically responsible for
the State in regards to natural disasters or manmade, either
way. What is your interaction with folks like Ms. Matoon and
Mr. DesRosier? What is the communication like with those folks?
Is there information sharing and to what extent?
Mr. McGowan. Basically, the communication with Ms. Matoon
and Mr. DesRosier--we work with their respective emergency
managers; we work with all 56 counties and seven nations. With
some of the Federal partners on the border issues, we would
work through the county coordinators because that is the local
effort that involves that partnership there. We also work
through the MATIC and other State efforts, though, with our
Federal partners.
Senator Tester. I do not see it here in my notes, but it
seems to me you talked about interoperability with being able
to talk to folks.
Mr. McGowan. Right.
Senator Tester. And it was talked about down the line. Ms.
Matoon talked about it a little bit, too. How are we in that
regard? Is it difficult if there is a problem to talk via radio
to other entities? Because you are dealing with them all.
Mr. McGowan. I would answer that question by saying that
the State of Montana has, if not the only, one of the most
proactive interoperability projects in the country. We use
push-to-talk from anywhere in the State anytime to anyone, and
it is an evolving process. They have a whole northern tier
sector, and they work with all of those partners across the
border and the Federal agencies to try and engage in that, and
that is an emerging process. I think the estimate was around
$125 to $150 million to complete that whole project. It is 146
radio towers because it is all line of sight, and so it keeps
emerging and evolving, and they hope to light it up soon on the
northern tier.
Senator Tester. We are going to go back to those grants you
talked about were a bit cumbersome and daunting to fill that
out. Did you help the counties fill those grants out? I know
the Border Patrol did some work on that. Did you?
Mr. McGowan. What we did was the State hired a contractor
to work with those local communities to pull those grants
together, yes.
Senator Tester. Can you give me an idea what that cost?
Mr. McGowan. I do not know what the actual cost of the
contract was because it was done through the Department of
Administration. We, as a State administrative agency, took all
that information to do the submission and everything through
the portal that needs to be done, and then we will make sure
that all the reports are done as well.
Senator Tester. Right. But this was an additional person
that would not have been hired otherwise.
Mr. McGowan. Right.
Senator Tester. How long did they work for?
Mr. McGowan. That was approximately--that took about 2\1/2\
months, I believe, to pull all that together, because it was a
pretty short turn-around time.
Senator Tester. Thanks, Mr. McGowan. Mr. DesRosier, you
talked about five recent signs of border-crossing activity in
your neck of the woods and three SUV-like vehicles or RVs that
had crossed the border, which is more often than we would like
for sure. Can you tell me what happened to those folks? Did you
just find the signs and that was it? Or was Border Patrol and
local government brought in? How is that handled when you see
signs like that?
Mr. DesRosier. The particular case of the three vehicles,
the pick-ups or SUVs, whatever they were, we were unable to
locate them. They disappeared on a county road just west of the
port of Del Bonita, and we were unable to track them to see
what direction they went.
Border Patrol has been very good with us, especially Mr.
Jeffries. He has been appointed our Indian liaison person, and
I communicate with him on a regular basis. We definitely share
our intel and report the evidence and the tracks that we see.
For example, in the Lee Creek drainage, last July and
August we had really high activity of crossers on a particular
ridge line. We work together and share that information and let
each other know. And I believe Border Patrol has put patrols in
that area.
Senator Tester. And then does your group share in training
exercises with the Border Patrol?
Mr. DesRosier. We have one time in the past. We had an
operation where we shared a training exercise, a night
operation, and we were successful. We had an incident during
that operation where we had weapons fired, and it turned out to
be non-border-related, but the pursuit was in the direction of
the border, and we were able to make an arrest in that
situation with the Army helicopter using infrared night vision.
Senator Tester. Can you tell me when that joint training
took place? I do not need to know the exact date, but was it in
the spring of 2005 or----
Mr. DesRosier. That was in October 2004, I believe.
Senator Tester. October 2004. You talked about information
with the liaison. You have the Border Patrol information
shared. Is that information also shared with any other entity
like tribal police? Or is it not necessary? Just to get your
perspective.
Mr. DesRosier. It depends on the situation. We do have a
Federal police force on Blackfeet, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the chief of police is very proactive and
encouraging with the activities that we share along the border.
He will participate in our operations, yes.
Senator Tester. There is a program in Arizona directed
really at drug smuggling whereby one of the tribes down there--
it is called the Shadow Wolves Program. You may be familiar
with it. Have you looked at anything like that on your border
from a drug smuggling standpoint specifically?
Mr. DesRosier. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Tester. And have you progressed with that at all?
Whose ear have you been bending?
Mr. DesRosier. I have been in contact with the resident
agent in charge (RAC) out of Phoenix, I believe, and we hosted
a 2-week session with those officers that came up to Blackfeet
country last summer. We are in the process of communicating
right now to try to have another session on the Blackfeet
border. We would like to do a broad overview to get a real good
inventory on what the issues are.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. DesRosier. And so hopefully they will be back.
Senator Tester. If you were to pick out one thing that
could be done to improve border security, what would it be? I
am just talking basically about the Blackfeet because you are
in a unique situation. There is not a lot of Native American
reservations that border the Canadian border along the northern
tier, at least. There may be some in the south I am not aware
of. But along the north, you are kind of a unique animal. Is
there one or two things that you think could be done that would
help that security?
Mr. DesRosier. We would like to begin a sister agency of
the Shadow Wolves and bring a unit to Blackfeet country.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much, Mr. DesRosier. I
appreciate you being here also.
Ms. Matoon, we will start out with staffing because I know
that is a big issue. Getting good help is hard to find, it
seems like these days. Could you tell me what the impacts have
been--you said your staffing is 75 percent. Have you ever been
at 100 percent? You know what I mean, because a lot of times
these county governments have a hard time finding folks.
Ms. Matoon. Right, and just like every place else, we have
always experienced that problem. Right now, though, it seems to
be more of an issue--I do have employees that are coming to me
saying, ``Border Patrol is opening now,'' or ``Customs and
Border Protection, they have got several openings, and I am
seriously considering this,'' because with our health care
costs, our insurance through our county is taking half of their
paychecks.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Matoon. And they just cannot--they are not living, and
they are having an issue with being able to survive. They like
what they are doing, and I believe that they do like what they
are doing. But they are just not making it.
Senator Tester. I hear you, and we have to figure out some
way to address that problem because, quite honestly, I have
been pushing the Federal entities to hire more folks from
Montana because I think their job--people on the job would stay
here a lot longer if they know. But by the same token, I do not
want to rob Peter to pay Paul. Do you know what I mean?
Ms. Matoon. Yes.
Senator Tester. The issue of the way things used to be with
more camaraderie, I guess you visit with folks more regularly
on an informal basis and build the kind of trust that was
there. Do you anticipate this is something that is probably
going to be in for the long term? Is it because of the new
people, or is it because policies have been enacted that you
see from your perspective that say we need to keep everything
as separate as possible? I am just trying to get your
perspective on that.
Ms. Matoon. I kind of think that what has happened is in
the last few years this has happened quickly, and there has
been an influx of people that they have brought up from the
southern border, and we are from different areas. We have all
been raised--the people from Toole County that have been there
their whole life have no idea what it is like to live in
California, and their attitudes about people and things around
them are different. But I know that a lot of the people who
were moved up here have now returned to the southern border
because of their families--they just could not take it.
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. Matoon. I am hoping that we can get some people up to
our area that are willing to stay, become part of our
community--and that we can work together.
Senator Tester. Can you give me any kind of idea how many
instances you respond to in a month dealing with border issues?
Is that a fair question?
Ms. Matoon. It varies. It seasonally varies. It depends on
what Border Patrol's staffing is at the time, if they have
somebody who runs the port, if they have somebody who is
available. We assist both from the port of entry, and we also
assist Border Patrol.
Senator Tester. So if there is a situation, are you asked
to assist?
Ms. Matoon. I do not believe that we are as much as we used
to be.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Matoon. I do not think that the communication is open
as it used to be because of those issues. It is not like them
calling me up at home as it used to be. And I understand things
change, and it is an adjustment.
Senator Tester. How about potential threats--I mean
Sweetgrass is probably the busiest port in Montana, would be my
guess. Are you made aware of potential threats not coming to
fruition, but the threat is there, so that you guys can act
accordingly?
Ms. Matoon. No, I guess I do not know that.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Matoon. I cannot answer that question whether they are
telling it to me or not. I guess I would not know that. If it
is an issue of something that is classified--now, this is my
interpretation--probably I will not be made aware of it. If it
is unclassified but law enforcement sensitive, then they will
make contact with us.
Senator Tester. That is good question for these next two,
classified versus unclassified, what constitutes that? I will
ask you that in a minute. I want to stay with Ms. Matoon for a
second.
Not to pit you against Mr. McGowan or anybody else on the
panel, but you are aware of the Stonegarden grants. I assume
that your county was part of that--because all of the counties
along the border were. How much time did it take you guys to
apply for those grants? Was it pretty time-consuming? And do
you think that process could be streamlined?
Ms. Matoon. Comparably, I think it was a very easy grant.
We have a grant writer in our county to assist us, and I also
have two employees in my office that are very good at writing
grants. So I do not know if that is fair to say, but we were
able to write our own. We did submit ours to the State for
review, and so they were all submitted as one package. We all
submitted together.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Matoon. But, comparably, I do think that this
particular one was fairly simple.
Senator Tester. Since September 11, 2001, have you seen
more pressure being put on your police--not from staffing,
necessarily, because I get that. But have you seen more
pressure from a police protection standpoint being put on your
local county folks than there was before September 11, 2001, or
less, or is it about the same?
Ms. Matoon. I think it is about the same.
Senator Tester. All right. Well, once again, I want to
thank you for being here.
Ms. James or Ms. Neinast, either one, what makes
information classified versus unclassified? Can you give me any
sort of idea on that? And is there a delineation mark as far as
what information you can transfer to tribal governments, county
governments, Highway Patrol, or whatever?
Ms. James. Well, certainly as far as what is classified or
not, there is certain information that will come to the field
office and to the port that will be classified secret or top
secret. Most of what we would get would just be classified
secret. We do not classify that ourselves. It comes down to us
in that manner.
We could share with the State and locals and, of course,
with Border Patrol if they have the clearance to receive that
information at the secret level or above. There are
methodologies of sharing that information, if it is classified,
at a lower level so that we can get the basic information, the
basic threat to the State and locals.
Senator Tester. Do you work proactively on making that
happen when you can?
Ms. James. Absolutely.
Senator Tester. Do you see any advantage for making sure
that we have at least one person in every county to be at a
classified secret level? Do you think that would be a good
idea? Or would it be not necessary?
Ms. James. I think that it is always a benefit so that if
information does come through, we have a person to readily give
it to. The frequency of getting that type of information is not
at as great of a level in every location. But it would always
be a benefit.
Senator Tester. Ms. James, I have learned a lot over the
last 3 days, starting in Plentywood and heading this direction,
as I told you out in the anteroom. It has been quite
enlightening for me.
How often do you get to Montana?
Ms. James. I became the Director of Field Operations in
November 2007, so I am relatively new to this position. I came
from the Atlanta area. Within the first few months of me being
onboard, I tried to get out to my area of responsibility,
which, as you saw, from Washington all the way over to
Minnesota is a pretty large area. So I hit the Montana area in
the winter time frame and started in--actually flew into
Spokane, did Idaho, and then locations all the way over to
Sweetgrass. I found it very beneficial myself to actually see
it, especially during those winter months, to see the
conditions that our officers live in and the environment that
they have to work in.
Senator Tester. And when you get to the State, I assume you
hit as many border crossings as you can and visit with the
folks that you have directly within your agency. Now, I know
CBP combined some years ago. But do you make it a point to talk
with the Border Patrol? Do you visit with the Border Patrol
folks, too? Is it a part of your----
Ms. James. Daily routine?
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. James. It may not be my daily routine, but it certainly
is very important for me to do. Ms. Neinast and I, when I did
visit Montana, met with the chief and exchanged some of the
issues that we do have, even attended some national training
together. I actually have four sector chiefs that I deal with
within my area of responsibility. So it is important for me to
know who they are and be able to exchange concerns and issues.
Senator Tester. This may be unfair because I did not warn
you ahead of time, but that is OK. Let's just take from Glacier
Park to the North Dakota line. Can you give me an idea what
kind of staffing needs that you see--I am just talking about
your ports--what kind of staffing needs you think we need to
have as far as numbers and what kind of infrastructure needs
are out there?
Ms. James. Well, let's start with staffing. We have enough
staff certainly to open the doors and do what we need to do. We
could always use additional officers out there. I would never
turn down another officer position. And I will readily admit,
with our limited resources, we try to leverage our personnel
the best we can. The exact numbers that I would like to see out
there, I would really have to sit down and put pen to paper,
and I would never say I do not need personnel out there.
Senator Tester. I would like it if at some point in time
you could get that information to me; that would be great.
Ms. James. OK.
Senator Tester. How about from an infrastructure
standpoint?
Ms. James. From an infrastructure standpoint, we certainly
have a lot of those locations that are out there that could use
some upgrades. You went to Scobey. It could necessarily use a
full new facility there. We also have a lot of issues with our
housing. Because some of our locations are so remote, we do
have government housing for the employees. It is particularly
of interest to me because some of those locations have issues
with the roofs leaking, flooding, mold, and these are remote
locations. And I do appreciate the hard work that the officers
do. Some of them will commute a long ways. Some just cannot, so
we have that government housing in place, and it is important
for us to keep on that.
Senator Tester. From a technological standpoint, you talked
about portal monitors and radiation checkers. Are things in the
pipeline to get everything taken care of from a technological
standpoint from your perspective? Or does there need to be more
work done there?
Ms. James. There is a good amount in the pipeline. As I
said, we are about finished with the radiation portal monitor
surveys, so there are plans in the works to put those at the
ports of entry. We could utilize some more radiation isotope
identification devices. That is some of the smaller stuff. And
we have some surveys that are slated specifically for
Sweetgrass, Montana, for radio-frequency identification (RFID)
when we become fully compliant with the WHTI program.
Senator Tester. As we started out in the northeast corner
and we wandered here to Havre, of course, we ran across ports
like Morgan, Turner, and Wild Horse is north of here. There are
75 to 100 people here, I would guess--some Canadians, some
folks from the United States, welcome, you folks from Canada. I
would guess that there is probably a high percentage of folks
here that want to know about Wild Horse.
There has been a push--Representative Musgrove put a
resolution through the Montana legislature a year or so ago on
that port. And like I said, when I went through Turner, they
pushed me. When I went through Malta, they were pushing me for
those ports, too.
Can you tell me what--and I know you could probably talk
all day on this, but what are some of the obstacles of opening
a port like Wild Horse for 24 hours? And how can we overcome
those obstacles?
Ms. James. I fully recognize this is a very----
Senator Tester. Everybody had to check their weapons at the
door, by the way, so you----
Ms. James. Thanks. I do appreciate that. [Laughter.]
I recognize this is a very passionate issue with everyone,
so I do not take this lightly. And let me preface this by
saying that CBP is not averse to increasing hours of operation
or making it a port of entry. We have these requests, probably
on a daily basis, but we have to look at our limited resources
that we do have. We look at the workload. We look at the
projected workload and what the interest for that increase is
within that community, within the trade.
I recently came from a field office where we had a request
to make a user fee airport into a port of entry. It does not
happen every day, but we supported it because the data was
there. We had interest from not only the trade and the
community, but we had the commitment from the trade saying,
yes, we will be utilizing this port.
So I recognize that there is the interest from the
community, but at this point, in looking through the numbers
that we have, the data that is on paper as to the number of
vehicles that go through that port, the number of truck traffic
that we have go through that port, and recognizing it is a
permit port only at this time, the data does not support making
it a 24-hour commercial port.
Some of the obstacles: To make it a 24-hour commercial
port, we would have to revamp the entire facility. It does not
have the proper exam functions within that facility. The road
infrastructure--and, of course, that is beyond our control--
would have to be improved, and staffing would have to increase
also.
Senator Tester. Yes. You talked about a 24-hour commercial
port. What if we cut it down a little bit? What if it was a
port that was open 16 or 18 hours a day that was still a permit
for trucks, what about that? What would that take?
Ms. James. Again, we go back and we look at the data. What
is the crossing data and what are the other locations that are
nearby? Are those other locations overtaxed with traffic going
through those ports, like Sweetgrass? I know this argument has
been out there also. And are there huge back-ups in Sweetgrass
from the commercial standpoint? Would there truly be a big
increase if we would open it a full 16 hours?
Senator Tester. Right. There are a lot of things that will
impact that, though. And I know I am supposed to ask the
questions, but the truth is that any of these ports you are
talking about, if there is a commitment to redo the roads, if
the U.S. dollar happens to drop in strength and the Canadian
dollar happens to go up, or vice versa, that can have some
major impacts on that.
So I guess just to cut to the chase, if Senator Max Baucus
and I were able to get some push for it back in Washington, DC,
you would be not antagonistic toward it, is what I am saying.
You would be, we are going to do this, we are going to make
this work. That is what I am looking for.
Ms. James. The other thing that I would be looking for is
commitment from the trade.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. James. You have a study that is out there, but I think
that it could be--you could bolster your study with a firm
commitment from the trade saying, yes, this is the port we are
going to utilize. That part is a little bit lacking.
Senator Tester. Thank you. And we are running out of time.
I could actually spent another hour talking with you and Ms.
Neinast.
Ms. James. I am sure you could.
Senator Tester. In a good way. And, by the way, I should
preface this. Each one of you folks have different
responsibilities in your duty, and I will tell you that I
appreciate each and every one of you, what you do and the
challenges you face on a daily basis.
Ms. Neinast, I have a few questions for you. You said that
you were not at 340 agents. The entire northern border was at
340 agents----
Ms. Neinast. The entire northern border was at 340 agents.
Senator Tester [continuing]. In 2001, and now it is about
1,200 agents. You are at about 125 agents here in your region
from basically the Rocky Mountain front to the North Dakota
border? What do you anticipate those numbers being, say, 5
years from now?
Ms. Neinast. Everything that we do is based on operational
requirements, what the threats are, what the vulnerabilities
are, what the traffic is. We do that nationwide.
We have a budget plan that we have in place that is multi-
year that addresses all of those issues. In that, we are
looking at 5 years out, around 300 for the Havre Sector portion
of Montana.
Senator Tester. Are those numbers based on--well, maybe I
should just back up a little bit. Ms. James talked about the
criminal cases that they are dealing with on their ports,
mainly. What kind of impacts has Border Patrol seen? In other
words, how many cases have you guys brought up, say, in the
last year?
Ms. Neinast. I could probably look through and find that
number for you. Our staffing is not based on cases or numbers
or statistics, so you need to understand that. Our mission is
operational control of the border. Do we know if something is
crossing and can we respond? We are more of a preparatory
than--we do not staff based on whether we had 5 crossings here
or 20 crossings here or 200 crossings here. Granted, that is
part of it when you looked at vulnerabilities and threats, but
we look at can we effectively respond to the areas of the
border that we need to respond to.
Senator Tester. It does not need to be today, but if you
could get me those crossing threats, that would be great.
From a technological standpoint, what do you see as the
needs on the border? Do you see technology playing a big role?
We talked about the southern border being different from the
northern border, and absolutely it is. But what role do you see
technology playing on the northern border?
Ms. Neinast. Because of the remoteness of the northern
border and the challenges that we are always going to have
because of the infrastructure, the roads to get to the border,
and those types of things, there are definite technological
needs on the northern border. Detection capabilities--they do
not manage the border, but they monitor the border for us. And
if I have technology to monitor activity levels or monitor an
area where there is a crossing, it makes it easier for me to
respond.
Senator Tester. What do you see that technology taking the
form of?
Ms. Neinast. One of the things that we use are the
unattended ground sensors. We use those very heavily. We have
done that for a number of years. And we are getting more of
those into the State all the time.
Senator Tester. How much of the border is covered by ground
sensors in your sector? Is it 30 miles? A hundred miles?
Ms. Neinast. Well, when we are talking about ground
sensors, I can tell you every known crossing point is covered
by that type of technology. With that comes the requirement for
sensor towers and things like that.
Senator Tester. When did those go into place?
Ms. Neinast. We have had them for a number of years.
Senator Tester. Before September 11, 2001?
Ms. Neinast. Yes, and we have increased since then.
Senator Tester. What about radar? What is your perspective
on that?
Ms. Neinast. Are we talking ground surveillance radar or
are we talking aviation radar?
Senator Tester. We are talking avaiation radar below a
mile, 5,000 feet and below.
Ms. Neinast. Anybody who has got any kind of a pilot's
background will know for the majority of the State of Montana,
there is no radar coverage below 5,000 feet. And because of
that--and I have tactical responsibility for the CBP air
portion--that is another threat and vulnerability that we have
to deal with and address.
Senator Tester. When do you see that being addressed?
Ms. Neinast. Currently, there is a working group in
Washington, DC, that is addressing these types of issues, and
they are working with the Canadian authorities for a wide
border technology because if the Canadians have cameras or
radar in an area, we are looking at trying to tie into their
radar instead of us necessarily having to use our own and force
multiply across through agreements, national agreements.
Senator Tester. And this may be unfair because we are
talking about the Canadian Government now. Do you know of any
Canadian radar that exists at this point in time within your
sector on the border?
Ms. Neinast. I know there is Canadian radar along the
border. I do not know the exact locations of that.
Senator Tester. And that is probably best that you do not
say it if you do know. [Laughter.]
The issue of partnerships and working together, I broached
this question with Ms. James, and I am going to ask you the
same thing. Ms. James talked about her meeting with you, of
course. What about the other folks in Customs like--well, we
have them here today--Mr. Brown and Mr. Overcast--those folks.
How often do you meet with those guys?
Ms. Neinast. I meet with them fairly often, but I have
staff that meets with them regularly. So you understand, my
focus--yes, I am responsible for the sector, but I have a dual
focus. I also am responsible to Washington, DC, in resourcing
and getting the agents in the field what they need. So I spend
a lot of time out of the State, much like you do. So it is the
nature of my responsibility. My staff meets with them
regularly.
Senator Tester. I only spend half my time out of the State.
[Laughter.]
Let me make that clear.
Ms. Neinast. Me, too.
Senator Tester. This is going to be my last question
because we have another panel here. We could go on for hours.
There was a GAO report that came out in 2006 that talked about
inadequacies and making the face at the border one. We are
still a ways away from addressing all those things in the GAO
report. Are you somewhat interchangeable when it comes to
helping folks get across the border for whatever reasons?
Ms. Neinast. One of the things that has happened since
September 11, 2001, and the creation of CBP--in many years
past, all the Border Patrol agents knew immigration law.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Neinast. And they could fill in at a port of entry on
overtime to handle immigration inspections.
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. Neinast. That has changed because the nature of the CBP
officer position and what they do is so complex and so
different than what we do that we no longer have that
interchangeability at the ports of entry.
Senator Tester. Is that interchangeability--I mean, could
it be re-established like it was way back when?
Ms. Neinast. I would not know that we would want to, to be
honest with you, simply because of the complexity and the
nature of the job.
Senator Tester. All right. Sounds good. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We have got to get rolling with the
next panel. I would just say one other thing, and this just
comes--and I want to get it on the record--from my talking
across the board. I think that there could be a lot more work
done that would cost us virtually no money by working more with
the people who live on the border that know that border. I am
talking about the farmers and ranchers up there. I think it is
critically important--and I mean this, and I am going to be
pressing these guys back in Washington, DC, on this, too. I
think it is critically important that we build relationships
with the people on the border, whether it is local government,
whether it is the BIA folks, whether it is the Disaster and
Emergency Services (DES) folks, but especially those farmers
and ranchers that know that border like the back of their hand.
It is very important, because as I think Mr. McGowan, Mr.
DesRosier, or Ms. Matoon pointed out, it is never going to be
100 percent. I am not sure that it even needs to be 100 percent
because of obvious reasons--cost being the main one.
Thank you all very much. I appreciate your being here, and
I hope you stick around for the rest of the hearing and hear
the public input afterwards. I want to get the next panel up
here. Thank you very much.
The next panel includes Loren Timmerman, Alex Philp, and
Kris Merkel. It is great to have them here.
I will tell you that Mr. Timmerman is representing the
union that staffs Customs. Like we said, there are about 100
customs inspectors throughout Montana, and he also represents
folks in Idaho, Colorado, and Utah. Customs inspectors stand
guard at airports and at all the ports along the border,
whether we are talking about Sweetgrass or Turner or wherever.
Mr. Timmerman has been a customs officer for well over a
decade. He has seen much.
We also have two gentlemen who are small business owners
here in Montana dealing with technology. The first is Dr. Alex
Philp, who runs GCS Research in Missoula, a technology company
that deals with technology that can be used on the border. Dr.
Philp started his career as a park ranger in Glacier National
Park when he was 20 years old. Now, 20 years later--I guess we
are kind of dating you, Dr. Philp--his work with geographic
information system (GIS) technology has helped not only our
State but several Federal agencies. We will be looking forward
to his information on remote sensing and delivery and the kind
of challenges that a small business in Montana is facing trying
to get into the government contracting.
Second is Kris Merkel. He is the President of S2
Corporation in Bozeman. S2 is heavily involved in radar
imaging. Their technology could be useful in everything from
scanning packages at ports to providing radar across large
stretches of our border. Some of their efforts, like the small
ultra-wideband antennas to pick up illegal communications are
specifically designed for remote areas.
Both of these good Montana companies have a long
relationship with the Department of Defense. Today, they are
here to talk about their efforts to bring Montana technology to
the Department of Homeland Security. We know that technology is
going to be a major part of the effort to secure the border,
That is part of the questions that I asked both Ms. James and
Ms. Neinast. And they both have an interest in telling their
stories about what brought them to that front.
I want to thank everybody for being here on the second
panel. We have 15 minutes. We are going to take a little more
than 15 minutes, unfortunately. I am going to limit you to 5
minutes pretty strictly, so hit the high points, and then we
will get to questions, and you can elaborate a little more
then, if you think it is important.
Mr. Timmerman, go ahead.
TESTIMONY OF LOREN L. TIMMERMAN,\1\ PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 231,
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, GREAT FALLS, MONTANA
Mr. Timmerman. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is
Loren Timmerman. I am the President of Chapter 231 of the
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). I am here to testify
in my capacity as President of NTEU Chapter 231, and not any
official capacity or representative of either the Department of
Homeland Security or Customs and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Timmerman appears in the Appendix
on page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been employed at the land port of Sweetgrass by the
former U.S. Customs Service as a customs inspector since 2002
and as a DHS Customs and Border Protection officer since its
creation in 2003. All CBP employees recognize that change is
difficult, but the changes at the northern border have proved
to be particularly challenging.
CBP employees are dedicated to protecting this Nation. We
serve with pride and singleness of purpose. Stopping terrorism,
smugglers, drugs, counterfeit goods, currency, and human
traffickers is our foremost goal, while at the same time moving
the vibrant flow of legal trade and travelers across our
border.
But we here at the northern border and CBP employees around
the country have become discouraged. Basic staffing needs at
our ports of entry continue to go unmet. For years, NTEU has
been saying that CBP needs several thousand additional officers
and agriculture specialists at its ports of entry, that
insufficient staffing and scheduling abuses are contributing to
morale problems, fatigue, safety issues for both CBP officers
and agriculture specialists, and that CBP is losing these
employees faster than it can hire replacements.
A large number of CBP officer vacancies remain unfilled. In
addition, the ratio of supervisors to staff has increased
dramatically at the northern border, aggravating the vacancy
situation. Prior to September 11, 2001, the goal was one
supervisor to every 15 inspectors. Today at Sweetgrass, there
is one supervisor for every eight CBP officers. This ratio puts
increasing scheduling pressure on the rank-and-file front-line
officers, further demoralizing the workforce.
Another source of concern for the CBP officers and CBP
agriculture specialists nationwide is the institution of the
One Face at the Border Initiative that was designed to
eliminate the pre-September 11, 2001, separation of
immigration, customs, and agriculture functions at U.S. land,
sea, and air ports of entry. In practice, the One Face
Initiative has resulted in diluting customs, immigration, and
agriculture inspection specialization and the quality of
passenger and cargo inspections.
Under One Face, former immigration officers who were
experts in identifying counterfeit foreign visas are now at
seaports reviewing bills of lading from foreign container ships
while expert land port customs inspectors are now reviewing
passports at airports.
The processes, procedures, and skills are very different at
land, sea, and air ports, and the training and skill sets
needed for passenger processing and cargo inspection differ as
well.
As a consequence of the One Face at the Border policy and
CBP staffing shortages, an egregious and dangerous situation
occurs regularly at land ports I represent. Unarmed agriculture
specialists are regularly assigned to partner with armed CBP
officers operating the vehicle and cargo system lanes. In the
past, Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) lanes were
staffed by two armed CBP officers. It is not the mission of CBP
agriculture specialists to staff VACIS lanes, and because they
are unarmed, both CBP officers and agriculture specialists are
unnecessarily put in dangerous situations.
Both on the northern border and nationally, staffing
shortages are exacerbated by challenges in retaining staff,
again, contributing to an increasing number of CBP officer
vacancies. Congress recently approved legislation that should
improve CBP officer recruitment and retention significantly.
This legislation will provide CBP officers with law enforcement
retirement benefits beginning July 6, 2008. I want to thank
Members of this Committee for your leadership on this effort.
Scheduling abuses along with short staffing have produced
overworked officers, safety and overtime violations, and
concerns about favoritism in the assignment of work and
overtime. Not surprisingly, CBP officers are leaving in droves.
Mr. Chairman, the problems at the northern border are not
unique. To address the challenges of the Montana land ports and
all of our ports of entry, NTEU recommends the following:
Fill vacancies and increase CBP officer and agriculture
specialist staffing to those levels in CBP's own staffing
model;
Re-establish specialization of prior inspectional
functions;
Increase CBP officers' and agriculture specialists'
journeyman pay to GS-12;
Repeal the compromised DHS personnel system;
Allow input in the shift assignment system;
And also allow employee input in determining staffing
levels for each shift.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Timmerman. Mr. Philp.
TESTIMONY OF J. ALEXANDER PHILP, PH.D.,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GCS HOLDINGS, INC
Mr. Philp. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify before the Committee at this field
hearing today, ``Securing the Northern Border: Views from the
Front Lines.'' On behalf of the citizens in Montana and the
United States, I consider it an honor and privilege to come
here today before you and the Committee and share my
experiences regarding the challenges in developing a
relationship with the Department of Homeland Security and
drawing attention to technologies that have Homeland Security
applications. That was specifically what I was asked to comment
on and testify on today before the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Philp appears in the Appendix on
page 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Tester. Correct.
Mr. Philp. I hope my testimony assists the Committee in
improving processes. I offer my testimony in good faith and
acknowledge both the very real threats facing our Nation's
security and the complex organizational, technological, and
political challenges facing the Department of Homeland
Security. I do not claim to be an expert on DHS-related policy
or programs, but I have been actively involved as a Montana-
based small business owner in trying to bring practical
technology solutions to the front lines of the northern border
security since and before September 11, 2001.
What I am going to do, Senator, is summarize my full
testimony that I submitted to you and the Committee.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Mr. Philp. And I will make a few brief comments and points.
First of all, my company specializes in geographic
information system technology. There are lots of buzz words
around that. One good one is ``GEOINT,'' geospatial
intelligence. We have made a living from myself, after I spun
out of the University of Montana, to about 20 guys and gals in
Montana, so we are truly a small business, and my comments
today are from that perspective.
There are a lot of things I do not know about what is going
on at CBP and Border Patrol because of the nature of the work,
but we have certainly dabbled in advanced sensor system
technology, integration, and open-source intelligence in a non-
classified capacity.
Four main points about the nature of the northern border as
a geographer, and I think this has already been commented on
extensively. The northern border is not the southern border. It
will not be the southern border, and it is unique in that
sense. You can break the northern border down into a series of
discrete geographies and regions. Montana happens to have many,
even within our section, our 560 miles. So we have geographical
challenges; we have cultural differences; and we certainly have
an entirely different international perspective and, I would
argue, active threat type. From what I have heard so far, there
are a lot of things that were not discussed today by the
officials that I think need to be brought to the table. I
comment a lot about that in my written testimony.
My perspective is from the outside looking in as a small
business owner. Again, I am private sector. But I do read and
pay attention to the GAO reports that come out. I certainly
tracked the America's Shield Initiative before that died and
SBInet started. And I have done my best to keep looking at this
relationship between State and Federal cooperation, local
cooperation, and certainly cooperation with the tribes. Three
of the tribes in Montana happen to be my customers, so we are
privy to their role to some degree and how they are using some
of these technologies to help participate in northern border
security.
My written testimony focused on three areas that have been
very frustrating for me as a private sector person volunteering
ad nauseam on all these committees.
Certainly, at the State level, the Science and Technology
Committee and the GIS Subcommittee at the State level--the
Science and Technology Committee never even had a second
meeting, as far as I know. The GIS Subcommittee did a large
amount of hard work, but I was frustrated in the ability of
that subcommittee to really interface with Federal officials at
the level we needed to be with people that did not have
clearances.
Then I spent years trying to do a program with the
Integrated Border Enforcement Team at the request of members of
IBET, with friends of mine that I used to work with, and U.S.
Forest Service and National Park Service, to have that
basically go away after a year and a half of activity.
And, finally, based on work I do with the U.S. Departments
of Defense, Navy, Army, and the U.S. intelligence community, we
spent 2 years almost putting a program together regarding
advanced sensor technology for covert, clandestine operations
on the northern border at the request of CBP officials, only to
have that program killed, and I am still trying to figure out
how and why. That is Blue Rose.
Again, I do not want to sound like I am whining up here as
a small business owner. We are not asking for any special
privileges. We are not asking for big, huge contracts, but
there is something very wrong with the process that I have
observed, and I have shared that in my testimony.
Finally, some observations. I was to specifically comment
on improving the process. I think we should be looking at even
better and more innovative ideas regarding regionalism and
regional approaches to the challenges of the northern border.
Having worked for multiple Federal agencies myself, I am aware
of jurisdictions, I am aware of uniforms and trying to get
along. But we just drove from Chief Mountain all the way over
to Sweetgrass yesterday, trying to tour it ourselves, get a
sense of it, and almost got stuck in the mud. The bottom line,
we need to be looking at this a little bit differently. One
size does not fit all and will never fit all, certainly
technologically. I think people agree to that.
I think the role of the private sector should be reassessed
here in terms of cost-effectiveness. I think GAO just announced
yesterday that CBP has spent now over $1 billion on SBInet, and
the numbers are even lower than they thought. There is not a
day or a week that goes by that GAO does not have a new report
basically saying, hey, look at this, look at that. So the role
of the private sector as a small business owner has been
difficult because the way DHS at the Washington-level
contracts, they basically say to the big primes, defense
primes, or others that bid, ``Go put your teams together,'' and
that may be a hundred companies, it may be three companies. And
directly contracting small business has been hard, and I
basically stopped trying. I went to other Federal agencies, and
most of my work is with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
Department of Defense (DOD) in national intelligence. If it is
good enough for them, it is good enough for others.
Wrapping up here, sir, I have been able to build
relationships at the local level with the Federal agencies, but
when it gets to mid-level or Washington, DC, it gets very
difficult. We do not have the bandwidth or the resources to
play at the Washington-level. It is very top-down. Bottom-up is
not working, in my opinion. Contracting is difficult even if
you can get interest on the part of the Federal agencies that
you might have something of interest or meets requirements
since they are very requirement driven.
DHS relies on large contractors to figure it out, and they
do not have enough contracting officers to fully vet those,
anyway. And we have some technologies that work now, but,
again, unless you are huge and big, the reality of those
technologies may or may not see the light of day.
Finally, some recommendations, sir. It shocks me that the
DHS Under Secretary can get off a helicopter and say, ``I
should have come out here a long time ago,'' and lay eyes on
the problem. That blows me away.
Senator Tester. He just got confirmed.
Mr. Philp. But that is good. I am glad he got in a
helicopter and flew around out here. We need a liaison office.
I think DHS, like the U.S. Geologicval Survey (USGS), like
other Federal agencies, needs someone out here that can act as
the hub. I do not want to sound too cynical, but we need
someone here above Border Patrol and CBP putting it together,
certainly putting energy into it every day, not just once a
year or twice a year. And I understand the difficulties and the
amount of challenges people are facing.
We need integration offices. We need regional integration
offices that are looking at the technology against the problem,
against the threat. Multi-billion-dollar, top-down magic boxes
slapped together are not going to work, and they are not going
to work on the northern border. And we are never going to have
a 20-foot fence lining this thing either.
I think we need business officers that understand the role
of small business and the difficulty of small business and the
Federal Acquisition Regulations that small businesses do not
necessarily have to comply with because we do not have staffs
of people to do grants.
Senator Tester. Better wrap it up.
Mr. Philp. We need more small business innovative research
grants. We need some small business vendor days. And I would
certainly love to leverage the activity of Federal, State,
local, and tribal governments to try to do jobs. We are here as
a private sector firm doing work on the national security every
day because we choose to. We would like to expand and extend
that, but one of our greatest frustrations is how can we help
play a role as a small business in solving the challenges
facing northern border security.
I do not have the answers, but I have given you some
recommendations at your request. Thank you very much.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much. Dr. Merkel.
TESTIMONY OF KRISTIAN D. MERKEL, PH.D.,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, S2 CORPORATION, BOZEMAN, MONTANA
Mr. Merkel. Senator Tester, Members of the Committee, I
want to thank you for holding this hearing to discuss the
issues in regard to Homeland Security. My name is Kris Merkel,
and I am the President and CEO of S2 Corporation, a small
business in Bozeman, Montana, that employs approximately 15
people--Ph.D, master's, and bachelor's degree levels--primarily
from Montana State University. S2 Corporation was created with
the sole aim to develop and commercialize an exciting new
technology that we abbreviate as S2, which is shorthand for
spatial spectral holography, something I am sure no one here
has heard about, but that was developed primarily at Montana
State University over the past two decades. The applications
for S2 are mainly in ultra-wideband radio frequency signal
processing and surveillance, for the goals of radar imaging,
signal intelligence, and communications. The S2 technology is
what I would call a disruptive technology, representing a new
way of achieving a better result which is of high importance to
national homeland security and defense. To date, the technology
development efforts have been funded primarily from the
Department of Defense Science and Technology accounts. This has
included participation by the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and
the Missile Defense Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Merkel with an attachment appears
in the Appendix on page 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 2 years, due to our engineering efforts at S2
Corporation, the S2 technology has transitioned from being a
laboratory curiosity to a rugged, general-purpose prototype
device, which in January of this year, 2008, was shipped
overseas and tested on operational radars at the direction of
the U.S. Army and is listed as a critical technology within
that branch of the military. In short, the tests were a success
and the technology worked.
The implications of using this technology are immediate
access and full domination of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum
out to microwave frequencies. This capability includes being
able to simultaneously achieve total spectral awareness and to
be able to rapidly reconfigure our use of the RF spectrum for
adaptive radar and communications. One of the greatest
challenges facing our military and defense of our border around
the world is the explosion in signals in the radio frequency
spectrum that now occupy the entire radio frequency spectrum.
Our technology would allow our defense and national security
agencies a whole new mode of operation to continuously identify
all of the operating signals and then find a bandwidth where
they could operate securely. Other technology applications
include the ability to visualize such things as improvised
explosive devices underground and interpret the data in real
time. This is a truly disruptive technology, and at the heart
of it is a crystal, cryogenically cooled, which absorbs light
to achieve signal processing. Interestingly enough, this is a
home-grown technology in that the crystals themselves have been
grown in Bozeman, and the technology has been conceived,
designed, built, and tested in Bozeman by the scientists and
engineers out of Montana State.
The technology is poised to achieve unique performance
improvements and cost savings for a host of critically needed
security applications. Like I have described, the technology
offers many benefits, but two of these I think would be of
immediate interest to the Department of Homeland Security.
These are the need to monitor the vast borders and secure the
safe transmission of information around the border, as well as
monitor the radio communications around the borders. The
second, and just as important, application is quickly being
able to investigate cargo containers as they pass through our
ports. I will, of course, explain further if the Committee or
yourself have any questions about the technology, but I will
leave it now at it is a disruptive technology with significant
potential benefit to our national security.
I will say attempting to do business with the Department of
Homeland Security, as a small business with a new and
innovative technological approach, has been, frankly,
frustrating. I have seen little incentive for the agencies to
move toward small technology programs like ours rather than to
give large contracts to the typical large defense contractors.
The cargo container seems to come up in Congress only to be
opposed as too costly with little or no technology discussion.
I for one would appreciate technology discussions that would
help maintain the appropriate contacts within Washington, DC,
and the large contractors. I have personally found, without
going into details, that positive leads have been pursued only
to be followed by silence. When we have approached new leads,
the discussions have gone around and around, from government to
contractor, to another contractor, and back to government.
Indeed, they go nowhere.
We want to be part of the solution. We have a technology
that has proven successful at each step along its development
path. I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing
and, Senator Tester, you in particular for providing S2 with
the opportunity to present our case.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
all the participants in the second panel. I will tell you that
with your permission I want to take your entire testimony, plus
all the testimony for the record for this Committee hearing,
and send it to the Chairman of the Small Business Committee
because I think he needs to hear that also.
Mr. Merkel. I would greatly appreciate that, Senator.
Mr. Philp. That is fine, Senator.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Mr. Timmerman, could you give me an idea of what is the
turnover on the staff? You touched on it. Is it 10 percent? Are
you getting 10-percent turnover every year? Twenty percent?
Thirty percent? Can you give me an idea of what it is? And if
you do not know, you can get back to me with it.
Mr. Timmerman. In my opinion, I think it would be around
the 15-percent range.
Senator Tester. Fifteen percent turnover? And you talked
about understaffing. What are you understaffed by, the same
amount, 10 or 15 percent, or is it more than that?
Mr. Timmerman. It fluctuates throughout the year. It just
depends how many might leave in a certain given period. So it
is kind of hard to put a number on that.
Senator Tester. Would you say that the reason most people
leave--are they staying in Customs, or are they leaving the
business altogether and going somewhere else.
Mr. Timmerman. They usually leave for other agencies. We
have had a few go to local--not local police departments, but
the Bozeman Police Department. We had one leave and go there.
Senator Tester. What influence do you think geography has
on folks leaving?
Mr. Timmerman. Well, certainly, with the price of gas going
through the roof, driving 50 or 60 miles one way to work has a
lot to do with it now. And the remote location does have quite
a bit to do with it. With our officers that live over towards
Chief Mountain, they have to travel 90 miles one way to go
shopping in Great Falls.
Senator Tester. Is there a morale problem amongst your
employees? I gathered from your statement there is.
Mr. Timmerman. Yes, there is.
Senator Tester. And do you think that is caused by
understaffing?
Mr. Timmerman. I think understaffing is the biggest part of
the problem, not having enough people to deal with the
travelers coming through the ports of entry.
Senator Tester. Could you give me an idea on how your staff
is? We got testimony here that it went from 348 to 1,200 at
this point in time for the Border Patrol. That is almost four
times. What has your increase been since September 11, 2001?
Mr. Timmerman. I would say about three- to four-fold.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much, Mr. Timmerman.
I also want to thank the two small business folks who are
here. Have you both dealt with other agencies other than DHS? I
know you have, Dr. Philp. You have dealt with the Department of
Defense, is what your testimony said. How about you, Dr.
Merkel? Have you dealt with other agencies?
Mr. Merkel. All Defense--Army, Navy----
Senator Tester. So you are both in the same boat.
Mr. Merkel. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. How does DHS compare with Defense? What
could DHS do that the Defense Department does that would make
the process better, if the Defense Department is simpler and
more user-friendly for small businesses? Or maybe they are just
as---- [Laughter.]
Mr. Philp. We do deal with the Defense Department and a lot
with U.S. intelligence agencies, and it is growing
exponentially every day, which is a good thing. Defense and
U.S. intelligence agencies, they both work differently. We
represent, as the word was used, a good word, ``disruptive
technology,'' advanced technology. We are usually in emerging
late-stage R&D, solving requirements for DOD.
Intelligence community problems are there, and we have made
a 6-year business out of that.
At DOD, the budgets are big. It is not that we do not deal
with large contractors there because they have the contract
vehicles. They own the contract vehicles. It is very hard to
have a contract vehicle. But if the Army, in particular, my
biggest customer, wants to move, they move; they move quick.
And if you do your job, you are rewarded. If you do not do your
job, you are done. That is kind of the way it is. At least,
that is my experience.
I made some recommendations. I think DHS has to understand
that small business exists. I think they do. I think they try
with Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), and Broad
Agency Announcement (BAA) solicitations. But there has to be an
appreciation of how to better integrate the capabilities and
offerings of small business more quickly and more rapidly.
My experience with SBInet was every major defense
contractor did come to Missoula. They did find out about us,
and it was usually four or five of those guys--one of their
lawyers, a couple of their chief technology officers (CTOs),
and their group vice president. And it would be me. And they
would vet us hard. And if they could not take what we had and
basically go on and do something with it, then they were
interested in price point. They wanted to slap something
together quick, put us on their team, call it good.
We did get put on one of the major teams--Ericsson's team
for SBInet. Unfortunately, Ericsson lost the bid to Boeing. So
it was DOA at that point.
I think DHS could look at how small business has certain
technologies, organize those around their requirements, and
more readily cycle those capabilities into test beds and/or
test centers. That does not mean you are going to have to spend
$40 billion on something, but let's at least try it before we
reject it.
Senator Tester. Dr. Merkel, what has your experience been?
Mr. Merkel. I would echo some of those same sentiments from
a slightly different perspective. I have done contracting with
the Defense Department. I would quantify that as frustrating,
but when our results are a contract in place, things can happen
very fast. And, by comparison, I have felt the Department of
Homeland Security is somewhat impenetrable from the standpoint
that large contracts are awarded to large primes. And if there
was a recommendation, it would be to encourage or put
requirements in place to include new technology, emerging
technology, as a part of the overall contracting process to
those large primes so that they can be included from the
beginning.
I would echo what Mr. Philp said earlier, that if there is
something that is not ready to go today, as far as the
Department of Homeland Security is concerned, it does not
really fit the bill.
Senator Tester. Typically, when you do not get a contract--
you talked about Blue Rose, Mr. Philp. Mr. Merkel, you have
been dealing with it. You do not get a contract. Do they give
you a reason? Or do they just say, ``You did not get the
contract?''
Mr. Philp. In our experience--and I have to be very careful
here for sensitivities to friends--we never did get an answer
because we were not the ones submitting the request. It was the
government requesting to do the project within government.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Philp. And I had to spend 2 years gathering my own
information on what happened and why and was told to back off
and walk away.
Senator Tester. What about you, Mr. Merkel?
Mr. Merkel. We have just done targeted technical marketing
to the primes or large companies that already have the
contract--Boeing or L-3 Communications, for example--and so
there is no debriefing process. It is really just a lot of
effort going in front of them, gaining attention, and then it
does not, from my experience to date, go anywhere.
Senator Tester. Well, I want to thank you all. Like I said,
I have a ton of more questions, and we will probably connect up
with you down the line and visit with all three of you. In
fact, I know that for a fact as things unfold.
The record will be open for 15 days after this hearing. If
there are folks in the audience that want to submit testimony,
you are certainly welcome to do so. The more viewpoints we
have, the better off we are, and the better we can make policy
that works for the northern border. Like what was said here
many times today, the South is a whole lot different than the
North, and no shoe fits everything.
I want to thank you again. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]