Critics Discount Plan to Charge $1 Border Toll : Hearing: Government experts offer dire warnings of problems the fee would cause, and say it might even increase lawbreaking. But their concerns do little to dampen lawmakers’ enthusiasm.

WASHINGTON —  It started more than a decade ago as a relatively simple concept: Collect a $1 toll from everyone who enters the country as a way to pay for hiring more Border Patrol agents and cracking down on illegal immigration.

But that was before the federal analysts began scrutinizing the proposal. As a congressional subcommittee hearing demonstrated Tuesday, from basic ideas mighty complexities grow--especially when the subject involves a host of government agencies and regulations.

Government experts recited a litany of potential “negative ramifications” to imposing a border toll. They cautioned that such a fee would violate federal statutes and require “extensive and difficult” negotiations with Canada and Mexico.

Illegal immigration could increase , they said, because some border residents might bypass inspection stations to avoid paying a nominal fee. Approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement would be further jeopardized. “Total vehicular time” through the point of entry would rise significantly.

Other ominous warnings were issued: Officer safety would be endangered if immigration inspectors were distracted by requests to convert pesos to dollars. A “complete monetary inventory” would be required every 30 minutes when INS personnel rotated between toll booths and field duty. There would be a greater potential for law enforcement officers to be bribed because they are taking cash, in the form of tolls, from those crossing the border. And there would be the problem of handling those funny-shaped Canadian coins since, by law, all government fees must be paid in U.S. currency.

In the end, “applicants for entry would pay more for less service” unless more border facilities were built, said James A. Puleo, INS acting executive associate commissioner for operations.

Puleo was among the agency officials at the hearing representing three government agencies--the INS, the Customs Service and the State Department. They joined business groups and border community advocates to raise numerous questions about the border fee.

Should a nonpayer be denied entry? Can he be returned without creating traffic gridlock? Could automated toll collection systems operate reliably in the heat and humidity of the Southern border? What about the adverse economic impact on border towns?

Yet the multitude of concerns did little to dampen enthusiasm for a border toll among lawmakers who want to toughen enforcement of the nation’s boundaries without having to raid the federal Treasury to pay for it.

“I think the border fee makes some sense,” said Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres). “It sounds like a reasonable proposal and one that we ought to continue to look at.”

Democrats and Republicans alike appeared to reject many of the arguments raised by agency officials, who took turns attempting to poke holes in the border fee plan.

The three-hour hearing was a shining example of government bureaucracy “at its best,” cracked Condit, who ran the hearing in his role as chairman of the government operations subcommittee on information, justice, transportation and agriculture.

“They all had their axes to grind as to why we couldn’t do it,” said Rep. Steve Horn (R-Long Beach). “Yet they have no real solutions to the problems.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who proposed a border toll on June 30, said Tuesday’s statements by State Department and INS officials “are the same tired, bureaucratic responses they’ve given each time a border crossing fee has been proposed.”

Last month, the INS was sharply rebuked for failing to take advantage of federal laws that allow the agency to collect fees for a wide range of inspection services. An audit report issued by the inspector general found that the INS could generate at least $170 million more in user fees each year if it required visitors to pay for inspection services.

For the past two years, the agency has considered the feasibility of a per-vehicle border fee, but discussions have not progressed beyond the talking stage, INS officials said.

“It’s easy to sit here and say we want to do it,” Puleo said. “But it’s not that easy to implement.”

The border toll concept was introduced in 1982 by Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) as part of his landmark immigration reform legislation that became law in 1986. His toll idea, however, never passed Congress.

Feinstein said she is preparing legislation that would include a modest border crossing fee to secure more funding for the Border Patrol. She estimated that a $1 toll would generate more than $400 million annually to hire agents and purchase equipment and helicopters.

Such a proposal is hardly a radical notion, Feinstein said in testimony before the House subcommittee. She noted that there are 15 toll bridges already carrying travelers between Mexico and Texas and three bridges between Michigan and Canada.

Feinstein said she has discussed the toll proposal with Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and hopes that the Clinton Administration will lend its support.

Yet the testimony Tuesday from government and business officials consisted mostly of dire warnings about the numerous complexities of implementing a toll plan and the economic harm to border towns that rely on daily border crossings.

“The issues are international, legal, political, economic and operational,” said Harry W. Carnes, director of the Customs Service’s User Fee Task Force. “The economic consequences of a border crossing fee need to be evaluated closely. In trying to solve one problem, others may be exacerbated.”