Statements and Speeches

Statement on the Rangel Substitute to the Customs Border Security Act
May 22, 2002

By Henry A. Waxman

I am here to urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute, which would strike section 144 from the bill.

As the ranking member of the committee that has jurisdiction over the Postal Service, I am especially concerned about section 144. This section would allow customs agents to inspect outbound mail without a search warrant.

Never in our nation's history have we allowed law enforcement to inspect the outbound personal letters of our nation's citizens without a search warrant. This is an intrusion on the privacy of American citizens sending letters abroad and it could have adverse effects on the delivery of letters by the Postal Service.

The ACLU opposes the measure saying that it violates people's expectation of privacy in the mail and that the Customs Service's interest in protecting our borders is "is adequately protected by its ability to secure a search warrant."

A leading association of business mailers is concerned about the provision saying that it would "slow the pace of mail and add millions to the cost of shipping goods overseas."

And the Postal Service is strongly opposed to the provision. They say that it will have a "detrimental impact"on their ability to move mail and could "jeopardize our international express mail service."

Not only is this provision troubling from a civil liberties standpoint and the standpoint of mail delivery, it may also violate our commitment under international mail treaties.

In addition, it contradicts section 3623 of title 39, which prohibits inspection of certain classes of mail without a search warrant. The provision does not amend title 39 and instead would create a statutory conflict.

The Customs Service has full authority to search outbound mail now as long as it first obtains a search warrant. Customs argues that this requirement creates too much of a burden for them and that they need broader search authority.

It may be that the Customs Service needs broader authority, but Ways and Means has never held a hearing on this issue to explore why this authority is needed or its impacts on civil liberties. And the Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Postal Service, has not had an opportunity to examine this issue at all, despite its impacts on the Postal Service.

These are serious concerns that need to be explored. We should not approve this unprecedented authority until Ways and Means and the Government Reform Committee have had an opportunity to examine the impacts on civil liberties and mail delivery.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Rangel substitute to give us an opportunity to explore these concerns.