This interview reprinted from the Journal of Commerce, October 29, 2007 www.joc.com © copyright the Journal of Commerce. All rights reserved. Published with copyright permission from the Journal of Commerce. http://www.joc.com/copyrights – 11/5/2007

Q:

What direction will Field Ops take on your watch?

A:

I think this is a very exciting time to be in Customs and Border Protection, when you look at the size, scope and magnitude of what we do. I see a number of things that are very important. One of my priorities is to continue to build on the relationship we already have with the trade community. That’s absolutely critical. We have to make sure we have the systems in place to deal with trade facilitation as well as enforcement because trade is important to our economy as it is to others around the world.

Q:

A Government Accountability Office report said CBP needs to improve its tracking of in-bond shipments. What are you doing?

A:

We’ve got to come up with a better way without standing in the way of commercial reality. I think we need to have more connectivity between our in-bond system and our Automated Commercial System and ACE. We’re dealing with huge amounts of computer-generated paper documents. We’ve got to get out of that mode. We need to look at diversions — freight that is supposed to go to Chicago ends up in Cincinnati because an importer redirects it in transit. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have diversions. That’s how commerce works. How do we have better control and reconcile it at the end of the day is a challenge. I have a group working on ideas and proposals. When we’re ready, we’ll sit down with the trade community and begin working them. At the end of the day, you get a better product.

Q:

During 2003, border inspectors with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service became part of Customs in the new Department of Homeland Security. Since then, there have been reports of low morale among agricultural specialists, which is one reason some members of Congress want to return agriculture inspection to the Department of Agriculture. Since the GAO report in January 2006, have conditions improved for the specialists?

A:

I believe the merger was the right thing to do, but it was difficult. Mergers are tough. When the merger took place, we realized how specialized agriculture was; we created the agriculture specialist position. That was recognition by the agency that you needed a different skill-set in that particular area. We had more than 300 vacancies among agriculture specialists. We had to bring them on and train them. Now they’re getting the experience. I believe they belong in Customs and Border Protection. Before the merger, we would examine a container, close it up and send it back to the container yard. Then the USDA would come in and pull the container and look for what they needed to look for. Now we can do all of these exams at once by integrated teams of agriculture specialists and CBP officers. Now CBP officers will find things and bring the agriculture specialist in. We didn’t have that kind of integration before the merger. The same thing happens on the agriculture side; they find things that don’t relate to agriculture, but would interest CBP officers.

Q:

How do you respond to CBP critics who want to put APHIS inspections back in USDA’s jurisdiction?

A:

I get just the direct opposite. I really believe we have a trust. At times, we may have differences, but my experience has been that we have been able to work them out. It may not have been fast enough for one side or the other, but the relationship with the trade community at the national and local levels is very good. As I travel around the country, I do not get many complaints. I know the trade community is not shy. If they have an issue, they will raise it, and that’s important. But I think we’ve shown that we’re an inclusive organization, that we really need their expertise. They bring a lot to the table for us. That relationship will continue.

— R.G. Edmonson