[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF U.S. TRADE LAWS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-TR04
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-190 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman
SAM JOHNSON, Texas SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan,
DEVIN NUNES, California CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois XAVIER BECERRA, California
TOM PRICE, Georgia LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida MIKE THOMPSON, California
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
LYNN JENKINS, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota RON KIND, Wisconsin
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
TOM REED, New York DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
TODD YOUNG, Indiana LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
JIM RENACCI, Ohio
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
JASON SMITH, Missouri
ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois
TOM RICE, South Carolina
David Stewart, Staff Director
Nick Gwyn, Minority Chief of Staff
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman
DEVIN NUNES, California CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
LYNN JENKINS, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana RON KIND, Wisconsin
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of September 27, 2016 announcing the hearing............ 2
WITNESS
Honorable R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.............................................. 5
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Express Association of America................................... 39
IWPA, International Wood Products Association.................... 42
National Cattlemen's Beef Association............................ 44
NTEU, The National Treasury Employees Union...................... 47
The Southern Shrimp Alliance..................................... 57
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF
U.S. TRADE LAWS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Trade,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave
Reichert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman REICHERT. Good morning. The subcommittee will come
to order.
Welcome to the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee hearing on
executive--Effective Enforcement of U.S. Trade Laws.
I would like to extend a special welcome, warm welcome, to
the Honorable Gil Kerlikowske. I think most members know that
Gil and I were partners in the city of Seattle a number of
years ago. Gil was the police chief in Seattle and I was the
sheriff in King County, which is--Seattle is the county seat
for King County. So we partnered on lots of things prior to
coming to the jobs back here that we hold in Washington, D.C.
So it's been a pleasure working with Gil and to have him here
this morning. As you know, he is the commissioner of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and brings a lot of experiences
with him that helps him lead that team.
Today, we are going to talk about robust enforcement of our
trade agreements and our trade laws. They are essential to
ensuring that American businesses and workers are treated
fairly by our trading partners. Strong trade enforcement goes
hand in hand with the opening of new markets through trade
agreements.
It is part of our commitment to the American people that we
don't just sign trade agreements and let our manufacturers,
farmers, service providers, and workers fend for themselves. If
foreign competitors don't play by the rules and ignore their
obligations, we will call them out.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP as its known, plays
a key role in ensuring that our trade agreements and our trade
laws are enforced, and that legitimate trade is facilitated.
Customs serves as the nuts and bolts of trade and a strong
customs service is vital to our competitiveness, safety, and
security. Over the years, the volume and complexity of trade
has grown and the challenges that we confront, such as stopping
the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties and
protecting U.S. intellectual property rights, have grown as
well. As we face increasing competition around the world, we
must keep legitimate trade flowing by focusing on our
enforcement efforts of high-risk trade.
The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, or the
customs bill, which became law earlier this year, was the
result of many years of hard work and commitment by the members
of this committee on both sides of the aisle. In it, we
established the necessary balance between trade and
facilitation and trade enforcement that will help American
businesses succeed and keep us competitive. Streamlining
legitimate trade will increase U.S. competitiveness in the
global marketplace and create jobs here at home.
The customs bill reduces paperwork burdens for low value
shipments by increasing the de minimis threshold where
paperwork is not required from $200 to $800, as well as for the
U.S. goods returned, and for residue of bulk cargo contained in
tankers. These improvements save time and money for our small,
medium, and large businesses that drive our economy.
The customs bill also modernizes and simplifies duty
drawback, a popular job-creating export program in place since
1789. To increase accountability, the customs bill also
strengthens and establishes reporting requirements for existing
CBP trade facilitation programs such as the Centers for
Excellence and Expertise, trusted trader programs, and the
Automated Commercial Environment. These programs cut the red
tape in government, reward businesses for good citizenship, and
streamline trade.
The customs bill reporting requirements allow us to do our
job as the committee of oversight of ensuring the CBP stays on
track with these programs. Strengthening enforcement of U.S.
trade laws is the other major pillar of this customs bill.
Enforcing U.S. intellectual property rights and antidumping and
countervailing duty laws prevents our competitors from gaining
an edge by cheating.
The customs bill establishes tools for CBP and holds it
accountable to clamp down on evasion of antidumping and
countervailing duties, enhance targeting of high-risk shipments
by requiring information from brokers, and strengthen internal
controls over new imports. To protect intellectual property,
the customs bill requires CBP to provide right holders with
samples to help them determine if imported products are
counterfeit.
I want to congratulate my fellow subcommittee members and
thank them for their hard work on the customs bill, former
Trade Subcommittee Chairman Pat Tiberi, who led our efforts
together with Chairman Brady; Dr. Boustany for his tireless
efforts on the Enforce and Protect Act and modernization
drawback; Mr. Marchant for his work on reducing paperwork
burdens for residue and instruments on international traffic;
Mr. Young for his good work on his de minimis bill; Mr. Meehan
for his efforts to require country of origin markings on
certain goods, which is common-sense approach to increasing
transparency; Mr. Jason Smith and Ms. Sanchez, who were also
very constructive in working on the Enforce and Protect Act.
We also worked closely with Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Kind, and
others on the enforcement fund, and they joined several of our
members in strengthening tools to combat forced labor. And
Ranking Member Rangel was instrumental with regard to so many
of the trade facilitation provisions.
Today, we will have an important discussion about CBP's
efforts to implement this critical new law, which if carried
out effectively, will enhance our global competitiveness, level
the playing field for our businesses, and prevent our
competitors from gaining unfair advantage.
Just on another note, Mr. Rangel, our witness today has to
catch an airplane, and so we are going to be going to 3-minute
questions. And I now yield to the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing.
Commissioner, we recognize your tremendous
responsibilities, and we are here for you to point out how we
can be more helpful, especially during the crisis that we are
going through. We all are concerned about the forced/child
labor law. We understand that there hasn't been an enforcement
over 60 years. Antidumping and intellectual property, the
chairman has actually covered that. We recognize, in the event
you have to leave, we will keep our questions short and hope
that you might do the same with your responses to facilitate
your departure. And we join with you in support of the hearing
and how we can be legislatively helpful to the chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Rangel.
And as I said, today, we are joined by one witness,
commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Mr. Gil
Kerlikowske. And as I said, we are going to limit questions to
3 minutes. He is going to shorten his opening statement.
And, Mr. Kerlikowske, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF GIL KERLIKOWSKE, COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Chairman Reichert and Ranking Member
Rangel----
Mr. BOUSTANY. Check your microphone.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Am I on? Okay.
Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Rangel, Members of the
Subcommittee, it is an honor to be here with all of you. And it
is an honor to talk about CBP's role in enforcing what is an
incredibly immense and complex area of U.S. trade.
We enforce 500 laws and regulations on behalf of 47 Federal
agencies. After the IRS, we collect more money for the Federal
Treasury than any other organization. And we understand and
recognize the importance of our enforcement efforts, and
enforcement has been my entire background before coming to CBP.
Illegal and fraudulent trade practices threaten our
economic competitiveness, the livelihood of American workers,
and consumer safety. I certainly want to thank the Members of
Congress, and particularly this committee, for the Trade
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act. CBP has been around
since 2003 and has never been authorized. And now having the
authorization and our regulations and rules all located in one
place, along with our increased enforcement authority, is a
huge milestone for us.
The numerous parts of the act are complex. We are very
engaged in fulfilling every measure of the act and the number
of reports that Congress has required. And during the entire
time that this process went out, I think the collaboration and
the cooperation of the subject matter experts that CBP has in
trade would have been very important. We have prioritized the
policy, legal decisions, changing resources within our
organization to meet this law, and that's been very important
to us also.
The chairman mentioned a number of the changes de minimis.
The fact that you have approved a group of individuals that
report to or work with the commissioner regularly that
represent the trade stakeholders, and that has all been very
important.
I certainly acknowledge, despite our best efforts, that we
are delinquent in some areas of the deadlines on the act, but
we are working diligently to put all of that into place and
going from not having authorization in 2003 to having this is a
great step forward. So thank you.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you.
[The prepared testimony of Mr. Kerlikowske follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------
Chairman REICHERT. And we will go to questions quickly.
Just a couple from me.
The customs bill provides CBP with new tools to better
enforce IPR, enhances opportunities for collaboration with
rights holders in the United States, and expands CBP's seizure
forfeiture authority to cover unlawful circumvention devices,
and strengthens international partnership to stop
counterfeiting at the source.
Can you tell us what CBP has been doing to implement these
measures and how they are assisting you in your efforts to
protect intellectual property rights?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Well, I think the most important thing on
the intellectual property rights, Chairman, is the fact that we
co-chair or have the deputy's position in the intellectual
property rights enforcement center that is run by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. Well over 20 Federal agencies sit in
that one location and work very hard to target what may, in
fact, be counterfeit or intellectual property rights violation.
I think the highlight that I saw over the Christmastime
was, in fact, a very dangerous product, hoverboards. Certainly
dangerous, I am sure, if you try to get on at my age and
balance on one. But what I would really see is the fact that
the underwriters' laboratories seal, they were in fact
counterfeit seals. We saw well over 50 fires that have occurred
as a result of these. Working with Consumer Product Safety, we
worked very hard to make sure that kids didn't get those gifts
that perhaps they were expecting. That is just one example.
I know there are a number of other examples where I would
emphasize to you all that collaboration and a close working
partnership with other Federal agencies is absolutely critical
to us doing our job.
Chairman REICHERT. Could you also update us on the status
of regulation on seized circumvention devices called for in
Section 303 of the customs bill?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So I know that that is under review. I
know that we are working hard with members to produce, not just
that information, but also the information that is certainly
necessary for some of the other reports. And I would be happy
to make sure that we provide an update to your staff on that.
Chairman REICHERT. Okay. And, lastly, you did mention
that--you recognized that you are a little bit behind in some
of the reporting requirements. Do you have any sort of plan to
make sure that--because it is one of the ways that this
committee stays sort of in touch with what is happening within
your organization. We are interested in your work, in
particular, you know, seeing these reporting requirements
established and the customs bill--customs bill implemented. How
have you progressed and proceeded forward with the policy that
addresses that?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So our office of trade put together a
spreadsheet that actually shows all of the requirements that we
have to meet, whether it is in reporting or rules that need to
be promulgated, regulations, training, and information that
needs to be--that needs to be communicated to Congress. When we
not only put together that spreadsheet about where we were on
each one of these requirements, we also took a look at what are
the most important, according to staff members and others, and
triage those.
I will tell you that we are well on the way. A number of
things have already been implemented and people have been
shifted to deal with these responsibilities. But I would tell
you that we are well on the way before the end of this calendar
year to be able to have the majority of these reports,
regulations, requirements in place, and we will be more than
happy to keep your staffs aware of this, our progress.
Chairman REICHERT. Knowing you personally, I know that
today we have your commitment that we will have those reports.
Thank you.
Mr. Neal, you are recognized.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, each day 125 Americans are dying from drug-
related overdoses, and it is acute in parts of Massachusetts,
particularly in the old cities. Many of these victims are
succumbing to powerful synthetic drugs like Fentanyl, which
are, as you and I both know, hundreds of times more potent than
heroin. The toll these drugs are taking is alarming and
unprecedented. And I joined Pat Tiberi recently to offer a
bipartisan effort to hopefully stem this growing epidemic.
Stopping these drugs from coming through the borders, as
you know, is a priority. The Synthetics Trafficking and
Overdose Prevention Act is designed to stop dangerous synthetic
drugs like Fentanyl from being shipped through our borders.
Specifically, the bill would require shipments from foreign
countries through our postal system to provide electronic
advance data, such as who and where it is coming from, who it
is going to, where it is going, and what is in it before they
cross our borders. Having this information in advance will
enable CBP to better target potential illegal packages and keep
these dangerous drugs from ending up in the hands of drug
traffickers who do great harm to our communities.
Commissioner, Congress wants to give you the tools to stop
these drugs from crossing our borders. Would you agree that
this bill perhaps could be very helpful and that there are more
tools that you might suggest to us at this moment that can
provide better help to get the job done and help fight now what
has become a national issue?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I really appreciate the
effort that Members of Congress--and I participated in three
field hearings on heroin and Fentanyl issues around the
country, so I know--from Arizona to Massachusetts, so I know
that this is a significant issue.
As you know, from some of our reporting, our seizures of
Fentanyl at the borders, particularly at the ports of entry,
have increased dramatically, but we still have, of course, that
unknown issue about the Fentanyl that is shipped from overseas
and comes in through the air cargo. Having a manifest in
advance to be able to target, rather than just the random
selection that goes on now, and with the explosion in the
increase in air cargo, that information would be very helpful.
And I will be happy to continue to work with you and with
the Members of the Committee and the subcommittee to make sure
that if there are additional tools needed--you know, the
difficulties with Fentanyl in both trying to detect it, also
the dangers to enforcement personnel. I think Fentanyl is a
tremendous threat, not only to the populous, but also to law
enforcement personnel. So thank you very much for the work you
are doing on that.
Mr. NEAL. A colleague recently said--and you could give us
perhaps a quick answer. A colleague recently said that before
Fentanyl is treated, that if a dog or a police officer were to
sniff it in its rawest form, that it could kill them?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Very much so. That is why we don't train
K-9s, because of that. And also the fact that Fentanyl, when
you look at it in the hospice--or the hospital setting, the
Fentanyl patches are absorbed through the skin as very, very
powerful painkillers. So raw Fentanyl that comes into contact
either through nasal passages or through skin absorption can be
very dangerous to personnel. So the more--and, of course, the
other part is the Department of State working closely with the
countries where we know that this is illegally manufactured and
then shipped.
And we had some success, by the way, on synthetic drugs
working with the Government of China a few years ago, when I
had a different job in the administration. But Fentanyl, I
think is--your recognition of the significant danger that you
just mentioned is an important one for us to consider.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman REICHERT. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith, you are recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Commissioner, for being here today, and
certainly thank you for the service of the men and women of
Customs Border Patrol--Border Protection, I am sorry.
Obviously, the tasks in front of your agency are important
from keeping us safe from terrorists to leveling the playing
field commercially for U.S. industry to compete on a level
playing field. So we thank you for your service.
You mentioned in your testimony that CBP enforces U.S.
trade agreement commitments. So I would ask that with China
currently negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership with 16 countries in the Pacific region, what would
you say is at stake, from an enforcement perspective, should
the U.S. fail to act on trade agreements moving forward?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So one of the most important things that
we recognize and do is that, frankly, on the trade enforcement
issues, we are the pointy end of the sphere. When it comes to
the negotiation and the discussion and the work with Members of
Congress on trade agreements, we take the advice, although we
have embedded someone with the USTR and Ambassador Froman's
office. We try to judge all of the information that comes to
us. As these discussions and negotiation occur, we try to make
sure that our point of view, which is how is this going to be
enforced and what are we going to be able to do to enforce it,
is absolutely critical.
I mean, we have recognized that we not only have that
border security responsibility, but we also recognize the
economic security responsibility that we have. And when the
chairman and I were in Seattle and you would see that port, you
knew how important it was to facilitate particularly exports of
produce from Washington State to make sure that it got out.
So we will work closely with Congress. We will work closely
with the USTR, who is the lead on this, along with the
Department of Commerce, to make sure that the enforcement
priorities are recognized and that we have the tools and the
capacity to be able to do our job.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you. But do you see lost opportunity if we
fail to take action on trade agreements moving forward?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Well, it is kind of--it is a bit out of my
portfolio and a bit out of my lane. We tell the people that--
again, with Ambassador Froman in the USTR, we tell them what we
need and what is important for us to be able to do the
enforcement. We also let them know that we have to be able to
be in a position to expedite cargo coming into the country
safely and to expedite our export safely. But when it comes to
that area for me that is more of the political decision, I am
kind of out of the politics and I am in the enforcement
business.
Mr. SMITH. All right. Thank you, Commissioner.
I yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Blumenauer, you are recognized.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I want to follow up a little bit. You have
alluded to the fact that enforcement is complicated. It
involves numerous agencies. You have a piece of the pie, not
all of it. I would note that this committee has been aggressive
in trying to advance a trade enforcement trust fund so that
there would be resources, at least on the House side. There is
$15 million to try and enhance that effort. I assume a portion
of which could be made available to you if it were actually
brought to bear. Is that your understanding?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. It is my understanding. And the working
relationship, since the USTR oversees that part. But the
working relationship with the USTR and their recognition of our
needs is one that I believe they are well aware of, and the
support that we have received from Ambassador Froman on these
issues is very helpful in a variety of ways, and the money
certainly would be helpful to some of our enforcement efforts.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that our
subcommittee might be able to encourage that. The Senate is
AWOL in terms of the additional enforcement resources, which I
think we all agree is necessary to be able to make sure that we
get full benefit of the trade agreements that we have.
One of the areas that is cloudy for me, I have spent a fair
amount of time working on enforcement provisions dealing with
illegal logging. And, again, you don't have full thrust with
the Lacey Act provisions, but you folks are involved with some
illegally harvested timber that is on its way to the United
States, recently shipments that have been intercepted. Could
you speak a little bit to how we are proceeding with that and
what, if anything in addition, would help you with your piece
of that responsibility?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So one of the things that I think we have
done pretty successfully as a result of the support of
Congress, and I know there will be questions about this later,
is ACE, the single window or the single portal when it comes to
trade. But that has actually forced us to be a bit of the
convener and the collaborator with all of those different
Federal agencies. Because, frankly, with 60,000 employees, we
have more boots on the ground than USDA and a number of the
other enforcement provisions. You know, I am very familiar with
the incident from last December involving the Peruvian lumber
and the fact that--how that was brought to our attention. And I
appreciate your recognition that USDA, in fact, is the primary
enforcement authority. But with a number of people that we have
at our ports of entry and the amount of information that we
collect on cargo at our national targeting center, makes a huge
difference.
So, one, we could not have had better cooperation and
collaboration, whether it's on educating us about steel and the
dumping of steel or the alleged dumping of steel and also on
timber also.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I see that
my time expired very quickly. But this is an area that I hope
that we again might explore. We have got several agencies that
are struggling with making sure that a provision in the
existing trade agreement is honored, and I am hopeful that we
can continue to work with our witness and others to see if we
can sort that out to make it work better.
Chairman REICHERT. Great. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
Dr. Boustany, you are recognized.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Commissioner. You know, as we have sought American
leadership in creating a rules based trading system,
enforcement is clearly important, and, which is why I worked
very hard over a number of years to give you the PROTECT Act,
which provided a full array of tools so that you could be much
more effective and aggressive in going after abuses.
But one my priorities was Section 605. I know you are aware
of it. We have spoken about it before. And this was to undo a
great injustice that came about because of inaction at Customs
and Border Protection with respect to crawfish producers and
other small producers across our country, honey, mushrooms,
garlic.
Under the law, we have seen crawfish producers entitled to
antidumping duties collected as a result of dump crawfish from
China from 2000 to 2007, well over $100 million in abuses and
duties owed. But unfortunately, slow enforcement from CBP,
unjustifiable delays from the insurance companies that post
these bonds, these collections are still underway and going
painfully slow.
We finally had a little breakthrough with $6 million
collected from one insurance company. And instead of turning
over that money to these crawfish producers, who are going out
of business, CBP chose instead to deduct 90 percent of that to
pay self--pay itself interest.
Now, Section 605 was designed by myself and Senator Thune
to stop that and to assure that these poor producers who are
going out of business are paid what they are owed under
American law. And yet I understand now CBP is simply ignoring
this Section 605 as written and putting its own wishful
analysis in place to continue to hold onto this interest.
Frankly, I think that is just unacceptable, and I am not going
to let up until this abuse is corrected.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So a couple of things I mentioned on that.
One, it wasn't until--in fact, the crawfish producers and the
others came to Washington, D.C., asked to meet with me and we
sat down that I had the recognition and the information, the
fact that when we collect those interest duties--that the
interest went back under the law, under the existing law then,
that the interest went back to CBP. I said, you know, when I
was the police chief, if you were the victim of a crime and the
perpetrator had to pay a fine, the fine shouldn't go for the
police department. The fine should go back to the victim.
That's been changed. And a lot of progress has been made.
And I was proud and pleased to see the $6 million. I would tell
you there is another substantial amount of money that is in the
work also to go back.
The one thing where I think there is certainly some
disagreement, and I understand that it is in litigation right
now, is how far back the understanding is that interest
payments would be, in fact, returned to a victim. There is also
a bit of a technological problem, because we have to figure
out, in those fines and information collected, what was
interest versus what was the penalty. And not all of our
systems are, frankly, that accurate and that flexible to go
back X number of years.
So if you think about where we were and the money coming to
us instead of going to the victim, if you think about our
interest now and working very hard--and, in fact, we have even
gone to a collection agency to look at, is where a collection
agency that could do a better job of trying to go after the
money that we have been unsuccessfully attempting to get. So I
think we are pretty close, but I understand your frustration,
and I recognize it.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. I am going to stay on this. And we
want as prompt an action as possible. This has to be resolved,
because if America is going to lead in trade, we have to have
enforcement of our laws and they have to be enforced with the
intent that Congress lays out.
Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you.
Mr. Kind, you are recognized.
Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Kerlikowske, first of all, I want to commend
you. I worked hard to get included in the Trade Enforcement
Act, shutting down this loophole on the exploitation of child
or forced or slave labor. And since its enactment in February,
you, under your leadership, the agency has brought four
enforcement actions already against China on that front. And,
you know, for 85 years, there was a prohibition against it, but
because of the loophole, it was seldom enforced. And now you
are taking that tool, you are running with it. I commend you
for doing so.
My question is how pervasive do you think this problem is?
How many more future actions? But before you answer that, can I
also get your opinion, because it is my sense that in those
bilateral, multilateral trade agreements that we have with
other nations, those countries tend to act like better actors
when it comes to playing by the rules, not trying to cheat, you
know, living up to the standards and values that were included
in those agreements, as opposed to nations that we don't have
any trade agreement with. Is that an accurate description of
what you see out there?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I think what I have seen is the leadership
that the United States--and I lead the delegation to the World
Customs Organization, 180 members. And what we have tried to
communicate to customs organizations all over the world is that
they need to have this recognition and understanding about the
importance of facilitating lawful trade, but also the
importance of doing enforcement.
I think in far--in too many countries that I have seen, the
issue is always around how much money can customs collect,
versus what is their enforcement posture. Because it costs--you
know, takes people to do the enforcement and it costs money. So
I would tell you that I think we have made some progress in
that particular area.
It is hard for me to judge exactly on the forced labor and
the child labor issues and prison labor, because one of the
things that we did was to reach out and gather as many of the
nongovernmental organizations who exist within those countries.
They are frankly the eyes and ears on the ground, and we needed
to make it easier and we needed to welcome the information that
they would give us about what is a potential violation.
And as you know, there is only a reasonable suspicion
standard. It wasn't a probable cause standard. We can take
action on a less critical amount of information, and I have
made it clear to everyone in our organization that we do need
to take the action once we reach that threshold of reasonable
suspicion.
Mr. KIND. What about the distinction as far as those
nations that we have a trade agreement with versus those--the
vast majority that we don't as far as compliance and playing by
the rules?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. You know, I don't have an opinion. I have
the list of the number of free trade agreements that we have,
but I have never really given it the analysis about whether or
not they are greater at playing by the rules. I am sure there
are some real experts that can inform you.
Mr. KIND. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you.
Mr. Paulsen.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Commissioner, thanks for being here. You know, a key
component of the customs modernization is the completion of
ACE, the Automated Commercial Environment, and ITDS, the
International Trade Data System or that single window. These
systems are going to help provide Customs Border Patrol,
obviously, and other Federal agencies with the improved real-
time information on imports and manual processes then get
streamlined--they are automated in 200 different paper forms--
end up being eliminated. I know that ACE has been in
development for a long period of time, but I want to commend
CBP, the Customs Border Patrol, for the great strides you have
made in the last couple of years towards implementation.
I know, although your efforts are to be commended, there
are some Minnesota businesses that I have had contact with that
continue to express some concerns about the implementation
process because large companies, of course, are able to be in a
position where they can absorb large losses that may result
from a shipment that gets held up at the border due to a
technical issue with ACE. But the smaller companies that
operate on a relatively thin margin, they don't have that same
luxury.
So can I just have your commitment or can you chat a little
bit about how you are going to continue to work with the trade
community and partner with government agencies as that rollout
goes forward to make sure it is smooth?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Sure. Part of the fact that in our
authorization that you have affirmed that there will be a
standing committee that will report with or to the commissioner
that represents trade stakeholders, freight forwarders,
business people, importers, manufacturers, et cetera. We have
had that in place for a number of years, but frankly, a change
in administration could have done away with that. The fact that
that is in the law now I think is one very helpful.
So four times a year for 2 days each we get direct feedback
from the people that are doing the work, and we have had great
participation in that. So I would commit to you two things. One
is that we are very intent. And after all of the platforms that
have been launched, that ACE will be a running viable
commercial entity for both the private sector and also for
government by the end of this calendar year. And we appreciate
the support from Congress for all of the work.
And if you go back--you know, even when we were working
through some the more difficult platforms, we ended up having
daily phone calls with well over 100 participants, including
the small business people, to make sure that they were getting
their questions answered and to make sure that we were doing
our job of telling them, well, where are we with the
implementation. So thank you.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
American companies that invest in designing in marketing
valid products are losing sales and seeing their brands
tarnished by manufactured products that violate United States
law.
I am pleased that the customs bill we passed earlier this
year included several provisions to strengthen intellectual
property rights enforcement at the border, including raising
the enforcement priority for counterfeit products.
So we don't want open borders to people and we don't want
open borders to products, yet that is exactly what is going on
here in terms of products. Given this enforcement
prioritization for counterfeit products, can you outline the
screening process for packages marked as gifts, and can you
share any new steps the CBP is taking to enhance enforcement in
the area?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I can. I think there are several things. I
can't give you the specific information on the gift issue, and
I think you are mostly talking about that air cargo environment
and the mail environment.
I will be the very first to admit to you that, given the
explosion of e-commerce and air cargo, this is one that we're
working on very closely. Having manifest information in advance
is certainly going to be an issue that is critically important.
Having enough people at the locations at FedEx and UPS and,
frankly, at our international--our five international mail
facilities is also important. And the fact that UPS and FedEx
have been incredibly good partners in putting forward
enforcement funds and, essentially, boots on the ground to
assist us. The international--the intellectual property rights
center for the targeting is very important. And about 2 weeks
ago we cut the ribbon on the new national targeting center for
CBP, which has been mentioned. So we are making progress.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. I am very concerned about the
staffing shortfall at CBP. That is very dangerous. You know, we
have four borders. You would think, listening to the Congress,
we only have one border, the Rio Grande River, that is it. We
have ports in New Jersey that are facing increased wait times
for incoming shipments.
The staffing, how would this impact staffing shortages that
you have? And are these--are there things that you can do to
address the shortfall?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So we are very disappointed that, one, we
haven't been able to hire with the money that Congress gave us
a number of years ago after working closely with Members to
show that when you put people on board at CBP, they actually
help to make money for this country by speeding things through.
We are a law enforcement organization. We are not about to
reduce our stringent hiring standards. And I haven't spoken to
a local police chief or a sheriff or a Federal law enforcement
official that has not expressed the difficulty of hiring. But
we are working very closely. And I think the bright spot is one
with the military, because we are now accepting--and I just was
down at Fort Bliss to recruit people. We are now looking for
people to leave one uniform and come into another uniform
coming out of the military. And also reducing the amount of
processing time, because there are a lot of jobs available for
qualified people. And we have gone from over 400 days of
processing time, way, way too long, down to about 160 days.
So we are making progress, and we are going to do our very
best to use the appropriated funds that Congress has given us
to hire up to the number that are authorized.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would really,
since we have worked very close on public safety issues, I
would really ask you to take a look at the number of personnel
that they have and the more responsibilities that have been
given to them, now that we have discovered also that we have
three other borders. We need to take a very extended look at
this, and I would trust your judgment as to the conclusion.
Thank you.
Chairman REICHERT. Well, Mr. Pascrell and I chair the Law
Enforcement Caucus together, and as the commissioner said,
sheriffs and police chiefs across the country are having the
same problem that his agency is having, and that is finding,
first of all, people who want to come into law enforcement
positions; secondly, not only finding people who have the
desire but who have the qualifications. And I commend the
commissioner for making the statement that there is no way that
he is going to lower his standards. And I think that should
hold true for law enforcement agencies across the country.
So I appreciate your concern. And, yes, I look forward to
working with you on this through the caucus.
Mr. Meehan.
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Commissioner, for your long service to law
enforcement. And I thank you for your efforts in working so
quickly to help draft an interim guidance with respect to the
Enforce and Protect Act. We are already seeing some cases that
are being prosecuted or investigated, and I think that is very,
very helpful. But as you know, we are getting a lot of activity
on the part of those who find ways to circumvent the process.
When I was a United States attorney, we worked--and I am
glad to hear you talk about collaboration with other partners.
One of the most effective things that we had to use the Federal
laws to enforce violations for things like qui tam laws and
others, which invited the participation of interested parties
and, actually, the investigative resources that we were then
allowed and able to work with.
When I have looked at your efforts with respect to the
drafting of the interim final rule, you narrowly defined the
parties to the investigation more narrowly than I would expect
it would be. Can you look at that and determine whether we
ought not have a larger classification of those who can
participate in as a, quote, ``parties to the investigation''? I
think we are going to have an awful lot of resources that could
be available to help us get around this.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I appreciate your
recognition, particularly of qui tam cases. And I meet
regularly with U.S. attorneys, particularly the U.S. attorneys
that are border U.S. attorneys. We are a huge part of their
portfolio. And the qui tam cases are not--as a U.S. attorney,
they are not always one--the one that is going to get any
headlines. And, number two, they can be very labor intensive.
So we have done a couple of things.
One is we have some real subject matter experts in these
cases. And we want to be able to hand to an AUSA, an assistant
U.S. Attorney, on a silver platter a case that is already put
together and to make it easy for them.
The other thing that I have done is to call, whether it is
the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York or the
former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, when they have made those
kinds of trade cases, I have called them up to congratulate
them and to tell them, you know, how much we appreciate their
work. I will be happy to take--to go back and take a look at
the recognition that you have----
Mr. MEEHAN. And I am--my time is limited, so I want to ask
one more question with respect to specific importers.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Sure.
Mr. MEEHAN. Part of the problem we see, particularly in the
steel industry, is the ability for importers to go through
third parties, to dump into another country, and then to get
that steel into the United States. And one of the problems with
steel, but it can be any number of products, is the requirement
that we go back more specifically and identify the country of
origin. And it works against the ability to have more of a
deterrent effect.
Can you see if there is any ability to drop the requirement
for allegations to identify a specific importer to be able to
police this kind of--you know, this kind of circumvention?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Sure. I would be happy to look at that. I
would also tell you that we have made significant improvements
with our laboratory sciences division to be able to test steel,
regardless of whether it comes from Mexico or Canada or another
country, to be able to determine the country of origin. And, in
fact, whether, as the Wall Street Journal just recently
reported, on some allegations and concerns about aluminum and
steel in Mexico, we are--our scientists are better at
determining that country of origin now.
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, as I know
customs is aware, 1 year ago today, 71 containers filled with
Amazon rainforest timber, enough estimated to cover a number of
football fields, almost 4 million pounds of timber, arrived
from Iquitos, Peru, in the Port of Houston, Texas. And based on
specific actual information, customs properly used its legal
authority to exclude that shipment for 30 days. Did it not?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes, we did.
Mr. DOGGETT. And that specific actual information came from
the Peruvian environmental authority. After that, as you know,
a coffin was carried through Iquitos with his name on it, and
he was eventually fired by the Peruvians.
During the year, other than what the Peruvians did, what
has Customs done? Have there been any other shipments of logs
from Peru that have entered the U.S. since that time?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I am not familiar with any
additional shipments of timber from Peru. I was very involved
that weekend, as many of our personnel were, on making sure
that we have the right authorities and the right people.
Because if we don't allow that commodity then to come into the
country and that commodity no longer makes a profit, that sends
a powerful message back----
Mr. DOGGETT. So it is your belief that since that shipment
arrived in Houston, that there have been no other shipments in
the United States of Peruvian timber?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I can't answer that, but I have not been--
--
Mr. DOGGETT. That is a question that I--I didn't want to
surprise you with any questions today.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Right.
Mr. DOGGETT. That was one of the questions that I sent you
last week that your staff said that you could answer today.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am sorry. You know, I think I probably
received about 120 different questions from different members.
I am happy to take a look.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, can you tell me, one of the other
questions I asked was, during the 8 years that the Peru trade
promotion agreement has been in effect, do you know how much
Peruvian timber has been imported into the United States?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I don't.
Mr. DOGGETT. Do you know the answers to any of the
questions that your staff said you would be prepared to answer
today?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I do know, and I think I have been--I have
done my very best to help make an understanding that with
60,000 people and 800 people----
Mr. DOGGETT. My only--I appreciate your testimony, but
since I have 30 seconds, my question is can you answer any of
the questions that I posed to you last week that your staff
told me you would be ready to answer today? There were five of
them.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I think I did.
Mr. DOGGETT. You have not answered any of them yet. And I
would just ask you, do you know when you can answer them, when
you can provide an answer to those questions?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I think I can provide an answer at the
conclusion of the hearing.
Mr. DOGGETT. Great. Well, I would like to have had it
before so we can discuss it. But you are aware of the
percentage of that shipment in Houston that was illegal timber,
are you not?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am aware of that shipment, having worked
it all over the whole weekend with Ambassador Froman, the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture. So it
wasn't like anybody was asleep at the switch on that, and we--
--
Mr. DOGGETT. I think there is a question about
indifference, but you know the specific percentage of that
shipment of 4 million, almost 4 million pounds of timber, you
know the specific percentage that was illegal timber, don't
you?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I don't know. I don't.
Mr. DOGGETT. Your office knows that information?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Well, I think--and I would be happy to
communicate right after----
Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, sir. But I had an opportunity to ask you
about it today, and that is why I sent you the questions in
advance that you have not answered, but thank you.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Okay.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doggett.
Mr. Marchant.
Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, I represent one of the largest airports in
the United States, the DFW airport. Could you share with us,
please, the problems and the major challenges that you are
presented with in enforcing the trade pact of 2015 as it
relates to DFW airport and then specifically the larger
airports in the United States?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I need just a little bit of clarification.
On trade or on the travel issues?
Mr. MARCHANT. On----
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Because we get a lot of air cargo that
comes in.
Mr. MARCHANT. Yes.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. And so the inspections at air cargo,
whether at DFW or Miami, when it comes to produce and other
things, you know, we have our agricultural inspectors, many of
whom will be graduating from a class, in fact, today down in
Florida--in Georgia.
So we do a lot of inspections of those things, whether it
is fresh produce or others, or people coming in that, in fact,
have plant material that can harm our agriculture industry.
We get 112 million international passengers a year, so the
challenges in an airport the size of DFW or JFK or LAX are
pretty immense, but I think our folks do a very good job of
trying to make sure that they are protecting the environment
and protecting our agriculture industry.
Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Rangel.
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Commissioner. I know you have to leave. Does
your commission involve itself with the need of improvement in
infrastructure? Would the improvement of infrastructure be of
any assistance to you in the enforcement of laws?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yeah. The infrastructure improvements that
were made to our ports of entry as a result of the American
Recovery Act were immense. Many of those projects were already
planned in the works----
Mr. RANGEL. Are you satisfied that we are keeping up with
our infrastructure in order to support your efforts to enforce
the law effectively?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We have a number of plans to increase our
ports of entry. The new JFK terminal with JetBlue, the work
that has gone out at Houston Hobby and others.
Mr. RANGEL. How do you share your plans? Were they included
in the omnibus bill where you had input?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. They are. We work closely with the
interagency, with GSA and others, and we work closely with
Members of Congress who have particular interest in trying to
improve their facilities.
I couldn't agree with you more when it comes to an
efficient, well-planned infrastructure for international air
travel or cargo makes a huge difference in us being able to
enforce.
Mr. RANGEL. Well, my point is, do you have an overall plan
that you can present, rather than depending on Members, so that
when we are talking to a President, no matter who she might be,
about a plan for infrastructure, we could include your plan as
a part of that overall plan as relates to commerce and
interstate trade? Do you have that?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We do have that--we do have that plan. We
do work it through the interagency.
Mr. RANGEL. Could you share your commission's plan as it
relates to improvement in infrastructure as it impacts on your
job?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I can.
Mr. RANGEL. And I might say, if you can recommend anything
to this committee that you think could help you to enforce the
laws that we have already passed, it would be helpful.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I can.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield back.
Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Young.
Mr. YOUNG. Hello, Mr. Commissioner. Thanks for being here
today.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Thanks.
Mr. YOUNG. So it is no secret there is a major trade
agreement that will soon come before Congress. And sort of
outside the scope of this hearing, I have got major concerns
about several provisions of that agreement, including
intellectual property protections. But with that said, I am not
confident that agreement will move forward.
There is a school of thought out there, however, that we
should wait to consummate any trade agreements whatsoever until
we fully enforce all existing trade agreements. And I feel very
strongly, as do so many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, that we have to be very vigilant about enforcing trade
agreements. This is why I and others have supported giving
tools, a new Trade Enforcement Trust Fund, new legal options to
those whose rights have been violated or intellectual property
stolen. And your agency, Customs and Border Protection, we have
given you new tools to go after those who would evade
antidumping and countervailing duties provisions.
So my question is this: Though I know you have already
reassured us that you will be vigilant, what impact do you
think it would have on, say, Indiana manufacturers, Indiana ag
producers, who want to sell to 95 percent of the world's
consumers who are outside of the United States, if we waited
until we fully enforced every existing trade agreement?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. So I think my answer on full enforcement
is one that I am often asked in other settings, and that is on
border security, also exactly what is border security and what
are the numbers? We make a lot of seizures. We seize a lot of
products that come in. We work very hard to be open and
transparent with the agriculture and the manufacturing
stakeholders. And I think you all have heard that repeatedly
from the trade.
Full enforcement is probably one of those that's in the eye
of the beholder. But I think the fact that we send a strong
message to the rest of the world that we are going to work very
hard to inspect and to seize and to enforce the laws that
Congress has passed.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes. So in short, as the commissioner of Customs
and Border Protection, do you believe that we can make
significant improvements, stay vigilant, enforce our trade
laws, while opening up foreign markets to Indiana manufacturing
goods,food, fiber, et cetera?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yeah. I think we know very well the----
Mr. YOUNG. Yes?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Yes.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I neglected to ask you for
unanimous consent to insert into the record of the hearing my
letter to the commissioner on September 23 with the questions
that I referenced.
Chairman REICHERT. Without objection.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-------
Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Tiberi.
Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Commissioner, I recently introduced a bill with several
of my colleagues called the STOP Act, Mr. Neal referenced to
you earlier, to try to keep illicit drugs from entering our
country through foreign posts. And just this last weekend in
Cleveland, Ohio, seven folks died from overdoses of these
drugs.
This bill would extend the same level of advanced
electronic security screening to packages coming into the
United States from overseas through the postal system, the U.S.
Postal System, that currently applies to the same packages that
come in through private carriers. Senator Portman has
introduced it in the Senate on a bipartisan basis as well.
And last week, in the Senate in front of the committee, the
assistant commissioner in the Office of Field Operations of
CBF--CBP stated that having access to advanced electronic data
would allow CBP to be more effective in targeting potentially
illicit shipments. Do you believe that having access to
advanced electronic data from these foreign shippers would help
you all perform more sophisticated risk analysis in order to
target these potential illicit shipments?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I do. Just as the information that's been
helpful in recognizing people that shouldn't get on an airplane
because of advanced passenger information and the same way with
cargo that comes into this country that is manifested, for
instance, on a ship 72 hours in advance and even preloading,
having that information so that we can do everything that we
can based upon risk is important, and yes, I agree.
Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Certainly, I appreciate your efforts
in drafting an interim final rule on the Enforce and Protect
Act. I was Trade chairman when that process began. And we were
very clear that CBP was to operate under specific deadlines.
The law created a mandatory deadline of 300 days to make a
final determination, but in your interim role, sir, in the
discussion section, CBP seems to imply that these rules are
aspirational. So in our opinion, there is no flexibility under
the statute in these deadlines.
Can you clarify to the committee what plans you seem to
want to follow in terms of timeline set in the statute by
Congress?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Well, we do want to obey and follow all of
the timelines that have been set. And I wasn't aware of the
kind of distinction that you were talking about, that the
proposal may be more aspirational than fact based, and I am
happy to spend a little time looking into that and finding out
about that.
But, you know, we were given a lot of timelines with a lot
of work, and I can assure you we are going to do our very best
to meet those and we are going to do our very best to
prioritize and triage those as the most important to the
subcommittee and the committee as a whole.
Mr. TIBERI. I appreciate that. Thank you for your
leadership, sir.
Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Tiberi.
We moved through the questioning rather quickly, but I want
to give the members who are still present here one last
opportunity, if anyone has a burning question left, I would
like to recognize that member.
Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just continuing then, Commissioner, this action that you
took in September of last year concerning this approximately 4
million pounds of Peruvian timber, had that ever been done
before or since?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We have seized lumber--I don't know about
Peruvian timber, but we have seized lumber in the past and held
it. Of course, it can be expensive and difficult when you are
making those seizures, so----
Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, sir. When you do make those seizures, who
is responsible for storing the timber?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We ask that the private sector, that the
party that was involved in this, that they bear the cost of
that rather than the American taxpayer.
Mr. DOGGETT. And they are requested to provide a bond or
insurance on the timber?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. We request that they make the payment,
whether it is through a bond until a final determination is
made, but we want that--we work very hard to try and get that
money in advance on a seizure storage.
Mr. DOGGETT. With the information that has come out, that
is still--a very significant portion of Peruvian timber is
illegally harvest, does that not provide you specific
actionable basis for holding each shipment that comes to the
United States from Peru?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I think it would provide, with the United
States Department of Agriculture, under their authority, a
great deal of information. As I said earlier in the testimony,
we have a lot of boots on the ground in a lot of places where
USDA or Consumer Product or others don't. That is why
collaboration is really important.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, they have authority. You have authority
for the 30-day hold like that that you put--or the 30-day
preventing them from entering the United States that you
utilized last September.
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. And we need to make sure that we do it in
conjunction with the information that they provide us. You are
right.
Mr. DOGGETT. And you don't--you say you do not know how
much Peruvian timber has come into the United States in the
last 8 years?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I just don't have that right
in my mind. It actually may be in the book with all of the
information.
Mr. DOGGETT. All right. So I may be able to get it
afterwards, as well as to find out how much of that has been
inspected?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I am happy to tell you that.
Mr. DOGGETT. And the 4 million pounds of timber, is it
still sitting in Houston today, a year later?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. It was excluded from entry into the
country.
Mr. DOGGETT. Does it sit in a ship? Has it gone back to
Peru? Or what has happened to it?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I know that it was excluded so that the
profit that could be made of that timber coming into the United
States could not be--could not go back to the illegal loggers.
Mr. DOGGETT. Is it being held in Houston?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I don't believe it is.
Mr. DOGGETT. Okay. You think it is not anywhere within the
boundaries of the United States, including our territorial
waters?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I don't believe it is.
Mr. DOGGETT. And are you able to identify to us the
importers and our consignees of that timber?
Mr. KERLIKOWSKE. I believe we have protests filed by
several different organizations so that some of the--over that
seizure. So some of this is in litigation.
Mr. DOGGETT. What are the----
Chairman REICHERT. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
Chairman REICHERT. Any other member have--wish to be
recognized?
Well, I want to thank the commissioner for his testimony
today. Thank you for answering the questions and also
committing to providing us with follow-up information and the
reports that we have requested.
Please be advised that members will have 2 weeks to submit
written questions to be answered later in writing. Those
questions and your answers will be made a part of the formal
hearing record. Our record will remain open until October 11th.
And I urge interested parties to submit statements to inform
the committee's consideration of the issues discussed today.
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]