{

Washington, DC: Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), a member of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, today sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff seeking answers on why Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors at the Calais, Maine border crossing permitted an individual convicted of assault and carrying a cache of weapons to enter the United States in April.  The individual, Gregory Depres, was scheduled to be sentenced in a Canadian court on assault charges the day he crossed the border in Maine, and on the day after he crossed the border, he was named a prime suspect in a gruesome double murder in Canada.  He was arrested in Mattapoisett, Massachusetts, his last known address, and currently is being held on murder charges. 

 "It’s outrageous that a chainsaw-toting convicted criminal claiming to be a Marine working on President Bush’s security detail was allowed to enter the United States.  The bizarre story he spun for Customs inspectors at the border should have raised enough suspicions to prompt inspectors either to arrest him or deny him entry into the United States. We were fortunate that this individual was apprehended in Massachusetts before he could cause further harm and was not a terrorist determined to attack our country,” Rep. Markey said. 

Congressman Stephen F. Lynch, member of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Affairs, said, "What Congressman Markey and I are requesting is an official report from the Secretary of Homeland Security that details whether proper security measures were indeed taken here, and whether we should require agents to take further steps when dealing with suspicious persons like Mr. Despres in the future.”

The letter asks Secretary Chertoff to respond to a series of questions, including:

• Were CBP inspectors at the Calais crossing aware that Mr. Despres had already been convicted of assault and was due in court to be sentenced for that assault on the day he appeared at the border crossing? 
• Did CBP inspectors seek criminal history information about Mr. Despres from Canadian or U.S. law enforcement officials prior to letting him enter the U.S?  If not, why not? 
• What steps did CBP inspectors take to confirm his story that he was a Marine working on President Bush’s security detail? 
• Is it the position of the Department of Homeland Security that inspectors at the Calais crossing properly handled the situation involving this individual?  If not, what training or other reforms will the Department implement to ensure that CBP inspectors at our borders respond appropriately if similar situations occur in the future? 

A copy of the letter follows:

 

The Honorable Michael Chertoff

Secretary

Department of Homeland Security

Nebraska Avenue  NW

Washington, DC 202528

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We are writing to express our concern about recent press reports that indicate Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors at the Calais, Maine border crossing permitted an individual transporting a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, brass knuckles and a chain saw apparently stained with blood to enter the United States from Canada on April 25, 2005 ("Man With Chain Saw, Sword Is Let Into U.S.”, Associated Press, June 8, 2005). While CBP inspectors reportedly confiscated these weapons and fingerprinted the individual, Gregory Despres, they ultimately allowed him to cross the border into the United States.  It has been determined that on the same day he crossed the border, Mr. Despres was scheduled to be sentenced in a Canadian court on assault charges, and on the day after he crossed the border, Mr. Despres was named a prime suspect in a gruesome double murder in Canada.

This chilling case raises serious questions about security procedures at our border crossings.  We would appreciate the Department’s responses to the following questions:

(1)    Were CBP inspectors at the Calais crossing aware that Mr. Despres had already been convicted of assault and was due in court to be sentenced for that assault on the day he appeared at the border crossing?  If yes, why was he nonetheless permitted to enter the