[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 6029-6030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE BORDER PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Comprehensive Border Protection Act of 1999 which Senator Grassley and 
I introduced on March 23, 1999. This bill enhances our efforts to 
secure our borders by providing the U.S. Customs Service with the 
necessary funding it requires to perform the multi faceted functions of 
drug interdiction, trade facilitation, and international passenger and 
cargo inspection services. The bill also addresses the concerns that I, 
as well as many of my colleagues, have regarding the U.S. Customs 
Service and its ability to efficiently and effectively: Determine 
enforcement and trade facilitation goals, objectives, and priorities; 
allocate assets and resources in response to changing threats and 
needs; address employee misconduct and integrity concerns; and ensure 
full participation in a comprehensive strategy to combat international 
drug trafficking and money laundering.
  Combating international drug trafficking is critical to our national 
security. While we have experienced some success in our counter drug 
operations along the Southwest border, there are undeniable signs that 
drug traffickers are adapting to our law enforcement efforts.
  During the 1980s, as our law enforcement presence increased along the 
Florida coast, drug traffickers responded by relocating their 
operations to the Southwest border. Reacting to this change, we 
abandoned Customs marine operations in Florida and intensified our 
efforts along the United States-Mexico border. Now, drug traffickers 
have renewed the use of established smuggling routes in the Caribbean 
and off the coast of Florida to surreptitiously import their 
destructive cargo into the United States.
  During fiscal year 1998, Customs cocaine seizures in my home State of 
Florida totaled 69,479 pounds, a 23 percent increase over 1997 
seizures. Drug related deaths in Florida also increased as more and 
more of our young adults experimented with heroin--the most pure heroin 
we have ever encountered; heroin so pure it can be smoked, rather than 
injected into a vein with a syringe.
  An effective U.S. drug enforcement strategy must be proactive, 
including an intensified interdiction effort that exploits the inherent 
vulnerabilities of transporting drugs into the United States by air, 
land and sea. As one of our primary interdiction agencies, Customs must 
have the necessary assets and resources to meet its interdiction 
responsibilities.
  Interdiction, however, is but one part of a successful drug 
enforcement strategy. Our strategy must also emphasize fundamental 
investigative work required to identify, infiltrate, disrupt and 
dismantle drug smuggling and money laundering organizations. To perform 
its investigative responsibilities, Customs must have the appropriate 
funding to sustain an experienced work force of inspectors and agents 
dedicated to drug enforcement operations. These inspectors and agents 
must be assigned to the most vulnerable and critical locations where 
illegal shipments of drugs enter the United States--our border with 
Mexico, as well as Florida and the Gulf Coast.
  Our counter drug strategy must also recognize the importance of, and 
be sensitive to, the needs of the international trade community. 
Enhancing and facilitating open trade is essential to our economic 
health. To sustain U.S. economic growth, we must maintain the free flow 
of trade across our borders, while remaining vigilant to ensure that 
our open borders are not exploited by those who would use legitimate 
commerce to conceal their illegal activities.
  Over the past few years, U.S. seaports and airports have benefitted 
from the increasing growth of international commerce. During 1998, 
international traffic at Florida ports increased approximately 17.9 
percent. In response to the increase in international passenger and 
cargo arrivals, a number of new cruise ship terminals, container 
freight stations and passenger inspection facilities have been 
constructed and expanded. Additionally, operations in free trade zones 
and bonded warehouses have increased. However, in the face of this 
growth, I am concerned that Customs have been unable to adequately 
respond through the reallocation of personnel and funding.
  We must ensure that Customs, in response to growth and change in 
international commerce, is prepared to review its resource allocation 
process on a regular basis. Customs must be able to shift both 
personnel and funding as threat and need dictate. States, such as 
Florida, that depend on the presence of Customs personnel to facilitate 
international trade, must be assured that sufficient Customs assets are 
in place to inspect and process both international passengers and cargo 
as they arrive in our seaports and airports.
  The Comprehensive Border Protection Act of 1999 establishes a more 
accountable Customs Service by requiring Customs to report to this 
body, no later than 120 days after this legislation is enacted, on the 
methods utilized to identify enforcement priorities and trade 
facilitation objectives. This legislation requires that Customs 
establish performance standards and objectives against which we may 
evaluate the progress toward the goals identified in the customs annual 
plan. This legislation is a significant step toward giving customs the 
ability and authority to reallocate resources in order to meet 
enforcement demands and commercial operations needs.
  The bill also directs Customs to develop and implement an 
accountability model to address violations of administrative policies 
and procedures, as well

[[Page 6030]]

as allegations of corruption. The purpose of this provision is to 
ensure employee misconduct at the Customs Service is addressed in an 
efficient, effective and equitable manner. It is essential to the 
credibility of the agency that Customs address allegations of employee 
misconduct without unnecessary delay.

                          ____________________