[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRAINING MORE BORDER AGENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INTEGRATION, AND OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-097 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
?
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Christopher Cox, California, Chairman
Don Young, Alaska Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Loretta Sanchez, California
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania, Vice Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Chairman Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Jane Harman, California
Peter T. King, New York Peter A. Defazio, Oregon
John Linder, Georgia Nita M. Lowey, New York
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Tom Davis, Virginia Columbia
Daniel E. Lungren, California Zoe Lofgren, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Rob Simmons, Connecticut Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Mike Rogers, Alabama Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Islands
Katherine Harris, Florida Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
Michael McCaul, Texas
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania
______
Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight
Mike Rogers, Alabama, Chairman
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
John Linder, Georgia Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Tom Davis, Virginia Zoe Lofgren, California
Katherine Harris, Florida Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Michael McCaul, Texas Islands
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Ex
Christopher Cox, California Ex Officio
Officio
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Management,
Integration, and Oversight..................................... 1
The Honorable Kendrick B. Meek, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Integration, and Oversight......................... 2
The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 17
The Honorable Donna Christensen, a Delegate in Congress From the
U.S. Virgin Islands............................................ 20
The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas........................................ 47
The Honorable Michael McCaul, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas............................................. 18
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the States of New Jersey.................................. 22
WITNESSES
Panel I
Chief Thomas Walters, Assistant Commissioner for Training and
Development, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Mrs. Connie Patrick, Director, Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center, Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Panel II
Mr. T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol Council
Oral Statement................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Mr. Gary Jackson, President, Blackwater USA
Oral Statement................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
APPENDIX
Questions for Mrs. Connie Patrick:
Questions from the Honorable Mike Rogers....................... 57
Questions from the Honorable Bennie Thompson................... 58
TRAINING MORE BORDER AGENTS
----------
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Management,
Integration, and Oversight,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rogers, Cox, McCaul, Meek,
Thompson, Pascrell, Christensen, and Jackson-Lee.
Mr. Rogers. [Presiding.] This Committee on Homeland
Security's Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and
Oversight, will come to order.
I want to thank our witnesses first for taking the time out
of their schedules to be with us here today.
We are holding this hearing to examine how the Department
of Homeland Security can hire and train 2,000 new Border Patrol
agents. We are also interested in finding out how much this
will cost.
Last week, under the leadership of Chairman Cox, the House
passed the first Department of Homeland Security authorization
bill. This legislation included specific authorization for the
Department to hire the 2,000 Border Patrol agents.
In my view, all of these agents are necessary to help
secure our borders, and they must be hired as quickly as
possible. But it is also important to hear from the Department
about its capacity to hire these new agents and determine
exactly how much they will cost to train.
Recently, the subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr. Meek, and
I wrote Secretary Chertoff requesting a detailed breakdown of
the cost involved in hiring and training new agents. We
specifically asked about the cost of recruitment, salaries,
training, lodging, meals, training facilities, instructors, and
equipment, among other things.
Although the Department has not yet submitted its official
response, DHS did submit some preliminary figures to us last
Friday evening. We will explore those dollar figures with our
witnesses today.
We will also discuss the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center and explore how many agents the facility can train per
year. We would also like to hear about the Center's current
training capacity and determine how much it will cost to expand
the Center to accommodate a significant increase in training.
We need to ensure the best possible training for Border Patrol
agents while safeguarding taxpayer dollars.
To address these issues, we are pleased to have on our
first panel, Chief Thomas Walters, the Assistant Commissioner
of Training and Development at the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, and we will also hear from Director Connie Patrick,
from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Our second panel will include Mr. T.J. Bonner, the
President of National Border Patrol Council, and Mr. Gary
Jackson, the President of Blackwater USA. Blackwater is a
private tactical training firm that has trained over 50,000 law
enforcement, military, and civilian personnel.
We thank you for being here and look forward to your
testimony.
And with that, I will yield to my colleague from Florida,
the Ranking Member, Mr. Meek.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
calling this hearing today on the DHS's ability to increase
training capacity for Border Patrol agents.
And to our witnesses, I want to welcome you to the
subcommittee also.
It was my pleasure to join you, Mr. Chairman, on the letter
to DHS in an attempt to get real numbers for training Border
Patrol agents. Recently, the Department provided an unofficial
response, and in that response they stated that the cost was
$179,000 per person to train a civilian to be a Border Patrol
agent.
Mr. Chairman, we need to take a serious look at that
number. As an oversight subcommittee, we have the
responsibility to make sure that the costs for training a
Border Patrol agent conforms with the same and similar costs
and time for other agencies.
But that kind of comparison only tells half of the story.
To assess the training program, we cannot begin and end with an
examination of cost alone. We must also look at the contents of
training itself.
Mr. Chairman, it does not include the training assessment
of the terrain and vulnerability of each part of the American
landscape.
In addition to the Southwest, we must include the northern
border, the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Keys to ensure that
the Border Patrol can protect every part of our borders.
Mr. Chairman, I hope our witnesses here today can explain
how the new risks and vulnerabilities experienced by this
nation and the great importance of border security have played
in the role in the development of a training program that
supports and promotes and facilitates the national Border
Patrol strategy.
Mr. Chairman, if there is not a direct link between
training and the Border Patrol strategy, then we have to do a
lot of work in this subcommittee also working with the
Department to protect the American people.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this hearing is to
examine the federal law enforcement training capacity. Let me
say from the outset that if we determine from this hearing that
the capacity of the training system is not standing within
principles of the Congress and what the American people
deserve, then we should make sure again, Mr. Chairman, that we
work with this agency in making sure that we put forth the best
training for these Border Patrol officers as much as possible
and as soon as possible.
Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for
any statement he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Like you
and the Ranking Member, I am happy that we are here for this
hearing. As you know, Border Patrol is our key front line
support for protecting our borders.
As part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004, Congress authorized the hiring of 2,000 additional
Border Patrol agents annually for fiscal years 2006 through
2010. Recently, this committee authorized $1.9 billion for
border security, including the hiring of 2,000 new Border
Patrol agents in the 2006 DHS authorization.
The Border Patrol within the U.S. Customs and border
protection at DHS, is responsible for patrolling the border
areas of the United States between the ports of entry and
preventing terrorists and terrorists' weapons as well as
undocumented immigrants in cargo from crossing the border.
In a post-9/11 world, the Border Patrol is our first
defense at the border against terrorists hoping to cross into
this country and cause harm.
Mr. Chairman, the following priorities must be fulfilled if
we are to adequately address this problem. First, the
administration must employ more agents as well as consider
increasing the number of administrative and support personnel
so that the agents we have can do their job as trained. Second,
it must use the technology necessary to monitor every mile of
the border 24 hours and 7 days a week. And using technology, we
must examine the force multiplier effect that technology can
provide.
Lastly, most important, Mr. Chairman, this administration
must have a comprehensive Border Patrol strategy. The
Department of Homeland Security must develop a Border Patrol
strategy that reflects the threats and vulnerabilities this
nation faces from terrorists.
Today, the democratic staff will release a report that
examines the failure of the current border security strategy.
This report highlights the staffing and technology deficiencies
in the administration's current border priorities. I hope that
the report will allow the committee to better assess how we can
help the men and women of the Border Patrol do their job of
securing our nation's borders.
I want to thank you for calling this hearing, and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
Prepared Statement by the Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative
in Congress From the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing is focused on the process
and costs associated with hiring, training and otherwise preparing new
Border Patrol agents. This is an especially timely hearing given that
the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for 2006 was
passed by the House of Representatives last week, which authorizes
funding for hiring an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents next year.
America's vast land borders are the longest undefended and
undisputed borders in the world. Our borders are the gateway for
billions of dollars in commercial trade, as well as for millions of
visitors. These same borders can be exploited by terrorists seeking to
enter the U.S. or transport weapons of mass destruction. The homeland
security presence must be intensified on the border to deter and
apprehend potential terrorists.
With approximately 10,800 agents on board presently, the Border
Patrol has limited ability to provide coverage and response
capabilities along the entire border. Additional agents are an
important factor in enhancing such security, although they are just one
part of the broader border security strategy we must deploy.
As part of this hearing, Members will have an opportunity to gain a
greater understanding of the process and costs of training Border
Patrol agents at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC),
as well as the effectiveness of the current training regiment in
preparing these agents for defending the border against the terrorist
threat.
With the hiring of thousands of new agents over the next several
years, it is critically important that we make sure that such training
is done in the most cost-effective manner possible. We also need to
make sure that we are focusing on the right tasks.
On May 19, 2004, CBP Commissioner Robert Bonner gave a speech at
the opening of the Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. The
Commissioner highlighted new components of the training program, which
included training on ``sophisticated detection, sensoring, and
surveillance technology;'' biometric training in IDENT and IAFIS;
interrogation techniques; and other ``anti-terrorism'' training.
Customs and Border Protection also has an Anti-terrorism Training
Team, which operates in D.C. and Laredo, Texas. In 2004, Border Patrol
agents received training on detecting terrorist trends and fraudulent
documents. The issue of terrorist travel has been a major focus of this
Committee over the past two years, and I'm interested in learning more
about what training is being provided in this area and how it is
coordinated with FLETC training and other DHS programs.
I look forward to further discussing with each of our witnesses the
existing training capabilities and the counter-terrorism skills that
this training is instilling among the new agents, so that we can truly
maximize the opportunities to prevent terrorists from entering the
United States.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for their appearance today and look
forward to their testimony.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
Again, I want to say how pleased we are to have both of you
here, very distinguished guests, and we know you are going to
be very informative.
I would point out that your full statements will be
submitted for the record. If you just want to provide a summary
during these introductory remarks, that is fine.
And now the Chair calls the first panel and recognizes
Chief Thomas Walters, Assistant Commissioner for Training and
Development at the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF THOMAS WALTERS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Walters. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member
Meek and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am here
today to discuss the capacity of CBP and FLETC partnership to
train the quality and quantity of new Border Patrol agents that
are needed.
At the core of my comments today, and the reason we train,
is the mission of the Border Patrol. Right now it is just after
1400 hours on Tuesday, May 24, and as I speak to you, somewhere
out along the border there is a lone agent taking 5 or 10 or
perhaps as many as 50 aliens into custody by herself.
In a large railroad yard somewhere along the border, north
or south, another team of agents is dodging in-bound and out-
bound trains while they cross the rails and climb up and down
every car in a long trail of rail cars searching for every
little hiding place in a freight train that will soon head into
our nation's interior.
And as I speak to you, hundreds of agents are interviewing
the aliens they have apprehended in the Spanish language and
are making decisions about the status of those aliens under the
immigration laws and other laws based on these Spanish language
interviews.
Other agents are out there flying helicopters, some are
checking electronic databases and some, having just noticed
some recently turned over pebbles or crushed grass somewhere
along the border fence, are preparing to use the tracking
skills they learned over the years, and they will track groups
of illegal entrants through the deserts or forests until they
catch them.
By the way, as I speak to you, more than half of the 11,000
agents that wear the uniform are just now waking up and will
soon be getting ready to report for duty for the work shift to
cover the hours of darkness where most of our illegal
incursions occur and while most of our citizens, including
myself, will be resting comfortably at home.
It is my task to make sure new agents are prepared to
operate in the exotic legal cultural and physical environments
that exist along our borders, north and south, east and west.
It is my job to establish and maintain the continuous
communication and interactions between the training we deliver
and the tasks in the operating environment and the new tools
and new technology added to our inventory and the changes in
law, policy and procedures and tactics and the new directions
we get from DHS and CBP leadership.
We build our basic training according to the best practices
established in the academic community. We use a formal
instructional system design and evaluation process that begins
with a careful and continuous examination and assessment of the
tasks that are performed in the field. We train to task.
We test how well the trainee performs, and we test the
effectiveness of our own training methods and our own
instructors. We evaluate the overall effectiveness of our
training by training's real gold standard: How effectively are
new agents performing their duties in the operating
environment?
We take our responsibility to train seriously, and our
investment in training reflects that reality. Our basic
training program for Border Patrol agents is an intensive 10-
month formal training process, roughly divided in half between
in-residence training at the Border Patrol Academy and a post-
graduate program that includes classroom and on-the-job
training in the Border Patrol sectors.
At the heart of our basic training philosophy is the
importance of bringing experienced Border Patrol agents into
the training process to give context and to give credibility to
the subjects we present and just as importantly to fuel the
engine that makes the Border Patrol so effective in the many
environments in which they work, and that engine is esprit de
corps.
Our practice of bringing field agents to the Academy
benefits the new trainees, but it is also a career development
opportunity for the field agents as well. While on assignment
to the Academy as instructors, field agents increase their
knowledge and skills in the areas they teach, become better
prepared to participate as sector instructors in the post-
graduate portion of basic training and learn and get practical
experience in supervision and leadership.
Since 1977, we have worked in partnership with the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center to ensure that Border Patrol
training is done professionally and that the return on our
basic training investment is a positive one. Because of the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, CBP and other
organizations participating in the FLETC do not have to devote
resources to building and managing training facilities and
acquiring related training services.
Because the Federal Law Enforcement Training exists, the
participating organizations do not have to continuously open
and close training facilities as missions and budgets evolve,
and because the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center exists,
CBP and the other participating agencies can access law
enforcement expertise from other organizations as needed.
I thank the members for giving me the opportunity to
address this subcommittee today and stand ready to respond to
any questions you might have. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Walters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief Thomas J. Walters
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Meek, and Distinguished Committee
Members, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the
successes and challenges of training more Border Patrol agents and to
increasing training capacity more effectively, as demonstrated by the
operations and law enforcement initiatives of the Department of
Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center.
CBP, as the guardian of the Nation's borders, safeguards the
homeland--foremost, by protecting the American public against
terrorists and the instruments of terror; while at the same time
enforcing the laws of the United States and fostering the Nation's
economic security through lawful travel and trade. Contributing to all
this is the Border Patrol's time-honored duty of interdicting illegal
aliens and drugs and those who attempt to smuggle them across our
borders. We cannot protect against the entry of terrorists and the
instruments of terror without also reducing illegal migration across
our borders. And this can only occur if Border Patrol agents are
properly trained.
CBP Border Patrol's National Strategy has made a centralized chain
of command at Headquarters a priority and has increased the
effectiveness of our agents by using intelligence driven operations to
deploy our mobile resources. The Strategy recognizes that border
awareness and cooperation with our law enforcement partners is
critical. CBP is committed to creating the right combination of
personnel, technology, and infrastructure to gain operational control
of our borders. Recognizing that we cannot control our borders by
merely enforcing at the ``line,'' our strategy incorporates a
``defense-in-depth'' component, to include transportation checks away
from the physical border as well as checkpoints. We will not be able to
achieve control of the border unless our apprehensions demonstrate the
futility of attempting to enter the United States illegally. The
additional agents used to man these checkpoints, blended with
infrastructure and technology, increase the probability of arrest of
those who attempt to circumvent primary inspection at the checkpoint.
Permanent checkpoints allow CBP Border Patrol to establish an important
second layer of defense.
The foundation of our border enforcement effort is the uniformed
officer in the field and the training he/she receives.
Training
DHS has established a comprehensive training plan for our CBP
Officers, Agriculture Specialists, and Border Patrol Agents. Carrying
out the Nation's homeland security mission requires a workforce with
the necessary skills and proficiency to fight terrorist threats while
effectively carrying out our traditional missions of interdicting
drugs, intercepting illegal immigrants, and facilitating legitimate
trade and travel.
BP Academy in Artesia, New Mexico
Commissioner Robert C. Bonner dedicated the New Border Patrol
Academy in Artesia, New Mexico on October 21, 2004. The Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) hosts the Border Patrol Academy.
This training facility consolidates all Border Patrol training assets
at a primary facility, thus creating a cost-efficient, totally
encompassed learning environment with regard to Border Patrol agent
education. In the past, Border Patrol agents were trained in several
different locations, including New Mexico, Texas, Alabama, Georgia and
South Carolina. FLETC was an instrumental partner in our consolidation
effort and we continue to work closely with them on issues affecting
the Border Patrol Academy.
The consolidation of educational assets and expertise at a
centralized location is an extraordinary benefit to both the agents and
the agency. The agents receive specialized training and the agency
receives a higher caliber of employees.
The Border Patrol Academy is responsible for addressing the basic
and advanced training needs for more than 11,000 Border Patrol agents
nationwide. New Border Patrol agents must complete a rigorous, 19-week
training program that includes courses in anti-terrorism, federal
Immigration and anti-drug laws, criminal law and statutory authority,
behavioral science, intensive Spanish language training, Border Patrol
Operations, care and use of firearms, physical training and motor
vehicle operations. The Academy's New Mexico location provides a unique
environment similar to the Southwest border where many Border Patrol
agents are initially assigned.
Combining all of our tested methodologies and best practices under
one roof allows us to more effectively and efficiently provide an
advanced training environment that enables our agents to reach that
state of readiness, that state of professionalism their fellow agents
can depend on in the field and, more importantly, the American people
depend on at home.
After graduating from the basic academy, probationary agents are
required to complete a post-academy course of study. The Post Academy
Training Program is committed to the continued basic training
development of probationary agents for the U. S. Border Patrol. The
program is managed and coordinated by the Post Academy Coordinator.
Post Academy schedules are developed and are used as a weekly guide for
instructional topics and assignments. The Post Academy examinations are
administered at two intervals after basic training graduation, during
the 28th and 40th week of the trainee's service. The exams consist of
two parts, both of which are taken at each of the two intervals: LAW--a
comprehensive written exam in immigration, criminal, statutory, and
nationality law; and SPANISH--a comprehensive combination oral and
written Spanish exam, administered by a Post Academy Examination Review
Board, upon completion of the law portion.
Another important part of our basic training is our use of
practical exercises throughout a trainee's 19 weeks at the Academy.
These exercises require trainees to practice observational skills and
questioning skills, while applying their job knowledge of documentation
requirements, immigration issues, checkpoint operations, and vehicle
stops.
CBP realized it needed to unify and integrate its existing
operations and workforce. While new officers and agents receive a wide
range of intensive training during their first two years, journeyman
agents complete training based on operational priorities and workforce
needs.
Agents receive formal instruction at their stations in Non
Intrusive Inspection (NII) devices, including personal radiation
detectors, which are utilized at all Border Patrol checkpoints. This
field training is being incorporated into the Basic Academy curriculum
and should be in the classroom materials in Artesia very soon.
Expedited Removal training has been a vital tool in addressing the
increased smuggling of Other than Mexicans (OTMs). Classes have been
implemented for agents, train-the-trainer, and supervisory training on
signatory authority. This training has recently expanded and is
occurring in selected areas throughout the Southwest border in an
effort to disrupt OTM smuggling and increase the number of aliens
removed.
One of the specific areas addressed in the 9/11 Commission Report
was fraudulent documents training. Under our new curriculum, basic
trainees receive fraudulent document training at the Academy that
culminates with a graded practical exercise during which trainees
examine characteristics of unique documents and determine if the
documents are genuine, counterfeit or altered. The course highlights
fraud indicators that may be present in evaluating any document for
authenticity. Security features of U.S. entry documents and imposter
detection are emphasized as well. Additionally, Fraudulent Document
training for all Border Patrol agents is being conducted with a 2-day
Anti-Terrorism course. This course will build on the instruction given
at the Border Patrol Academy that integrates CBP directives with the
agent's job responsibilities as the first line of defense.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Forensic Document Laboratory
(FDL) teaches a 3-day intensive train the trainer session for the CBP
Office of Field Operations and CBP Office of Border Patrol on
fraudulent document detection. The FDL assists our frontline officers
with any forensic document analysis, provides training, and issues
intelligence alerts about current fraudulent document trends as needed,
and does so on a recurring basis. A Pocket Guide Reference on Document
Security Features and Printing Techniques has been provided to all
frontline officers. CBP constantly evaluates and adjusts training in
the field to meet the current operational need.
CBP has participated in Master Exercise Practitioner (MEP) training
conducted by FEMA. As certified MEPs, Border Patrol agents have worked
with CBP Officers at the Ports of Entry and other agencies to develop
and deliver tabletop, functional, and full-scale exercises designed to
detect, deter, or respond to terrorist threats and incidents.
CBP developed a Counter-Terrorism Response (CTR) protocol and
training to address questioning and detaining possible terrorist
subjects. CBP also has a Detecting Deception and Eliciting Responses
(DDER) Course which is advanced training in non-coercive interviewing
techniques and includes a day of classroom lectures on such topics as
Behavioral Analysis and Interviewing Strategies, followed by 2 days of
CBP specific ``role playing'' exercises. The primary focus of the DDER
course is to enhance questioning skills and to build upon the officers'
arsenal of interviewing techniques while confronting potential
terrorists. The Office of Training and Development is focused on
expanding these courses throughout CBP as quickly as possible.
CBP Office of Training and Development is working to validate
Supervisor Technical Training and other Leadership, Management,
Executive, and Communications courses that Border Patrol staff
currently use. This effort will assist CBP in building a more coherent
program that benefits all facets of our agency.
Conclusion
We have made much progress to deny terrorists the ability to travel
freely into the U.S., identify potential alien smugglers, and constrain
the mobility of known and suspected terrorists. In addition to the
initiatives described above, we are working aggressively with our
international partners to improve standards for travel documents,
enhance aviation safety and port security, and speed the exchange of
terrorist identifying information. DHS understands that we must engage
in a global effort each day, through collaboration, information sharing
and ongoing dialogue to bring the weight of our collective law
enforcement and intelligence capabilities to bear against those who
seek to do us harm.
I would be happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chief Walters.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Connie Patrick, the Director
of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Ms. Patrick?
STATEMENT OF CONNIE PATRICK, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mrs. Patrick. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Meek and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to
be with you here today to discuss training more Border Patrol
agents: How the Department of Homeland Security can increase
training capacity most effectively.
Seated behind me are the senior managers of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center who have joined me today in the
first row here.
I want to acknowledge the generous support that the
Congress has long extended to the FLETC. I stand ready to work
with you and direct the FLETC toward successful completion of
the objectives set forth by the administration and Congress in
the protection of our nation.
The FLETC's primary mission is law enforcement training,
and each dollar provided to the FLETC goes for the use and
benefit of all the 81 federal agencies that participate as
FLETC partners.
The FLETC was founded on two guiding principles: quality in
training and economies of scale. Neither of these can be
achieved without the cooperation of its partner organizations
and the concept of consolidated training, which means shared
training knowledge and experience, better use of available
funds and law enforcement training uniformity and
standardization.
During FLETC's 35-year history, more than 600,000 agents
and officers across all three branches of government have
graduated from training programs conducted at the FLETC. This
training includes mandatory requirements and other core
elements such as ethics, firearms, vehicle operations, physical
training, and investigative skills and techniques.
A consolidated approach provides the opportunity to deliver
high-quality training using state-of-the-art facilities, a
permanent cadre of trained instructors, and consistency of
training content and quality. The daily interaction and
training of students from different agencies encourages
networking and agency cooperation. In addition to the permanent
cadre of trained instructors, partner organizations also assign
instructors to FLETC on a rotational basis.
The congressional authorization of rehired annuitant
authority has also helped to provide an optimum mix of
instructional staff. This combination of permanent detailed and
recently retired staff provide a balance of experience and
fresh insights from the field.
Training at the FLETC is conducted via a long-standing
shared funding concept. Our partners pay for their travel,
their meals and lodging for their trainees, and FLETC provides
for the cost of basic tuition through directed appropriations
from the Congress.
This shared funding concept ensures that newly hired
federal law enforcement agents and officers are assured a
standardized training regardless of the size or responsibility
of their employing agencies.
Mr. Chairman, with the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, we entered a new era in law enforcement. The
FLETC is an example of the spirit of cooperation and
consolidation intended by the DHS legislation.
The FLETC also provides critical state, local, tribal and
international law enforcement training activities that
compliment the mission to secure our homeland.
Under departmental leadership, FLETC works closely with all
elements of the DHS as well as other departments and
independent agencies with law enforcement authority. FLETC, as
a component of DHS, supports unity of command and the
coordination and efficiencies being sought in the public law
that created the Department.
The FLETC continues to demonstrate the ability to rapidly
respond to emerging needs in a fiscally responsible manner
while maintaining the integrity and quality of training. For
example, in fiscal year 2004, the Border Patrol requested
consolidation of all of their training at the FLETC's Artesia,
New Mexico facility. The Border Patrol and the FLETC worked
cooperatively to accomplish this task within 90 days.
Also, following 9/11 the FLETC trained thousands of federal
air marshals while significantly increasing training levels for
all its other partner organizations. Over the years, FLETC has
experienced periods of substantial growth in the training
request by its partner organizations, and using innovation and
imagination to maximize resources, these increases have been
accommodated. That ability continues.
Temporary adjustments, such as extending the training work
week from 5 days to 6 days and less than optimal lodging
options provide significant increases to training capacity at
the FLETC's Artesia facility.
FLETC successfully implemented the 6-day training week for
over 2 years to meet the 9/11 training needs. However,
extraordinary measures such as 6-day training weeks are
difficult to sustain, take a toll on both staff and facilities
and are costly.
In closing, let me assure you that DHS and FLETC are
committed to providing the highest quality law enforcement
training at the lowest possible cost. Substantial savings are
being realized through the operation of consolidated training
sites.
I also want to commend the remarkable staff at CBP Border
Patrol and FLETC, as well as our partner organizations who have
contributed so much to the success of consolidated training.
Their enthusiasm, flexibility and talented assistants will
continue to be of great benefit.
Mr. Chairman, we invite you or any member of the committee
to visit any of the FLETC training sites.
And, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this
concludes my prepared statement, and I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mrs. Patrick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Connie L. Patrick
Good afternoon Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Meek, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be with
you today to discuss ``Training More Border Patrol Agents: How the
Department of Homeland Security Can Increase Training Capacity Most
Effectively.'' Seated behind me are the senior managers of Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) who have joined me today.
OPENING REMARKS
I want to acknowledge the generous support the Congress has long
extended to the FLETC. I stand ready to work with you and direct the
FLETC towards successful completion of the objectives set forth by the
Administration and Congress in the protection of our national security.
The FLETC's primary mission is law enforcement training, and each
dollar provided to FLETC goes for the use and benefit of all of the 81
federal agencies that participate as FLETC partners. The FLETC was
founded on two guiding principles: quality in training and economies of
scale. Neither of these can be achieved without the cooperation of its
partner organizations in the concept of consolidated training, which
means shared training knowledge and experience, better use of available
funds, and law enforcement training uniformity and standardization.
During FLETC's 35-year history, more than 600,000 agents and officers,
across all three branches of government, have graduated from training
programs conducted at FLETC. This training includes mandatory
requirements and other core elements, such as ethics, firearms, vehicle
operations, physical training, and investigative skills and techniques.
The consolidated approach provides the opportunity to deliver high-
quality training using state-of-the-art facilities, a permanent cadre
of trained instructors, and consistency of training content and
quality. The daily interaction and training of students from different
agencies encourages networking and agency cooperation. In addition to
the permanent cadre of trained instructors, partner organizations
assign instructors to FLETC on a rotational basis. The Congressional
authorization of rehired annuitant authority has helped to provide an
optimum mix of instructional staff. This combination of permanent,
detailed, and recently retired staff provides a balance of experience
and fresh insights from the field. Training at the FLETC is conducted
via a long-standing, shared-funding concept. Our partners pay for
travel, meals, and lodging for their trainees; and FLETC provides for
the cost of basic tuition through direct appropriations from the
Congress. This shared-funding concept ensures that newly hired federal
law enforcement agents and officers are assured of standardized
training, regardless of the size or responsibility of their employing
agencies.
Mr. Chairman, with the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, we entered a new era in law enforcement. The FLETC is an
example of the spirit of cooperation and consolidation intended by the
DHS legislation. The FLETC also provides critical state, local, tribal,
and international law enforcement training activities that complement
the mission to secure our homeland.
Under Departmental leadership, FLETC works closely with all
elements of the DHS, as well as all other Departments and independent
agencies with law enforcement authority. FLETC, as a component of DHS,
supports unity of command and the coordination and efficiency themes
sought in the public law that created the Department.
The FLETC continues to demonstrate the ability to rapidly respond
to emerging needs in a fiscally responsible manner, while maintaining
the integrity and quality of training. For example, in fiscal year
2004, the Border Patrol requested consolidation of all of their
training at the FLETC's Artesia, NM facility. The Border Patrol and
FLETC worked cooperatively to accomplish this task within 90 days.
Also, following 9/11, the FLETC trained thousands of Federal Air
Marshals while significantly increasing training levels for its other
partner organizations.
Over the years, the FLETC has experienced periods of substantial
growth in the training requests by its partner organizations. Using
innovation and imagination to maximize resources, these increases have
been accommodated; that ability continues. Temporary adjustments, such
as extending the training work week from five days to six days and less
than optimal lodging options, provide significant increases to the
training capacity at the FLETC's Artesia facility. FLETC successfully
implemented the six-day training week for over two years to meet the 9/
11 training needs. However, extraordinary measures, such as a six-day
training work week, are difficult to sustain, take a toll on both staff
and facilities, and are costly.
CLOSING
In closing, let me assure you that DHS and FLETC are committed to
providing the highest quality law enforcement training at the lowest
possible cost. Substantial savings are being realized through the
operation of consolidated training sites. We are also aware of the
important opportunities and challenges that remain ahead.
I also want to publicly commend the remarkable staff at CBP, Border
Patrol, and FLETC, as well as our partner organizations who have
contributed so much to the success of consolidated training. Their
enthusiasm, flexibility, and talented assistance will continue to be of
great benefit.
Mr. Chairman, we invite you and any member of the Committee to
visit any of the FLETC training facilities.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have at this time.
Mr. Rogers. Excellent. Thank you.
I want to thank both of you for your statements. I would
like to start off with some questions.
In anticipation of this hearing, as I said in my statement,
Ranking Member Meek and I inquired about these training costs.
It has kind of been a hard number for us to get our arms around
exactly how much it costs to train the Border Patrol officers.
All of us in the Congress are determined to make sure that we
have--our Border Patrol officers have whatever training they
need and that we do it right.
Now, having said that, we have gotten different numbers as
to what it costs. We have been given a number by the
Congressional Budget Office of $150,000 per agent, by the
Administration of $175,000, by the Department of Homeland
Security of $179,000, and the homeland security appropriations
bill had $189,000. So you can see it goes anywhere from
$150,000 to right at $190,000.
But for the sake of this hearing, since you are here, Chief
Walters, we will use your number of $179,000.
I find that number just staggering, frankly. As I
understand it, it is a 5-week in-house training program, and
from your statement I understand there is another--I am sorry,
5-month training program.
Mr. Walters. Right.
Mr. Rogers. And there is another 5 months of field
training; is that right?
Mr. Walters. That is correct.
Mr. Rogers. When I thought about that number it just seemed
so--because that does not include, as I understand it, any
construction monies. That is just for the training. That is
just incredible.
So I had my staff yesterday--as I was flying into
Washington, it occurred to me that we should compare this to
some costs that people can relate to. So I had my staff contact
the Administration--or the Admissions Office at Harvard
University to get the costs for room and board, tuition and
fees, the whole shooting match at Harvard, and it is just under
$40,000 per year. And what that is telling me is that it is
going to cost more to train a Border Patrol officer in a 10-
month program than it is to get a 4-year degree at Harvard
University.
Explain to me how that is, Chief Walters.
Mr. Walters. Okay. What that cost includes is to recruit,
hire, and train. So the recruiting and hiring fees, of course,
that is not something that Harvard would worry about. It also
includes the equipment for a Border Patrol agent, one-third of
a car, one pistol, the leather, the uniforms. It also includes
an estimated rental for office space and a computer and all
those other costs. We can at some future time satisfy you, I
think, that this is a reasonable cost.
But it is expensive, and that is why DHS, the Commissioner,
and the organization is looking carefully at the right mix of
agents and infrastructure, agents and the tools that they use,
things like helicopters and sensors and all those things that
you have heard us talk about. It is a high number, and it is a
number that has to be balanced, but I think we can satisfy you
as to what our thinking has been in order to arrive at that
number.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I look forward to getting those details,
because it does seem--you know, when you look at a GS-7 pay and
assume that they came in at a GS-7, for the year that is
$38,000. A third of a car might be $10,000. I mean, as I try to
mentally go through the exercise of adding it up, it does not,
so I do look forward to getting some details.
Ms. Patrick, I would like to ask you, at FLETC, are you at
maximum capacity already on training Border Patrol officers, or
could you absorb more if they were sent to you without any
extra money?
Mrs. Patrick. We could absorb--As far as our chokepoint
right now at our dormitory, we could absorb more, but they
would have to double bunk. We would have to add more bunks into
a single room. But up to certain numbers we can absorb.
Mr. Rogers. What would you estimate that number to be?
Mrs. Patrick. Well, right now with the supplemental that
was just provided with the extra 500, right now with their base
of about 700 plus the 500 that were in the supplemental, right
now we were funded and we can deal with the current, that would
be 1,400. In addition to that, I have numbers--.
Mr. Rogers. But now in order to do that, you would need the
money that was in the supplemental.
Mrs. Patrick. Right.
Mr. Rogers. The $189,000 per agent.
Mrs. Patrick. No. Actually, what was provided to FLETC for
that was $1,882,000.
Mr. Rogers. For 500 more officers.
Mrs. Patrick. For 500 more. And we can do that without any
additional facilities.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Mrs. Patrick. But if you add to that, it will require some
additional capacities that would be accomplished over about a
year period of time.
Mr. Rogers. But you could do those without any structural
enhancements.
Mrs. Patrick. Right.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. My time is up. I look forward to more
questions in a minute, but at this time I will yield to my
Ranking Member, Mr. Meek, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had an opportunity to
read both of your statements prior to the meeting and I just
wanted to let you know that this subcommittee meeting is very
important to us all and I am pretty sure to the Department.
There is a great deal of concern about the training. No one
really wants to criticize the integrity of the training. I know
that it is at the highest level that it could possibly be. But
at the same time, we are talking almost $180,000 to train one
individual, and I understand that that includes vehicles, room
and board, support staff that I would like to talk further
about because the information that I have seen does not support
the increase in support staff as it relates to the training.
But has the training changed, and I do not know, Chief,
maybe this is for you, has the training changed since 9/11 of
adding additional training? That is one question.
Second question is, why does every Border Patrol officer,
Customs and Border Patrol Protection officer have to go to one
place for their in-service training versus a diversity of
areas? Like I mentioned, the Florida Keys is a different kind
of border there. The Gulf of Mexico, different kind of effort
there. If you can answer those two questions, and I have one
more for you before my time runs out.
Mr. Walters. Okay. The change for the Border Patrol Academy
basic training curriculum, and advanced training curriculum,
and the training we give to our incumbent officers, has been
significant. We are a new agency now, we are CBP, we are not
what we used to be. We have a new priority mission, which is
preventing the entry of terrorists, and our training has
changed to reflect that reality.
For instance, we have a new basic training block--8 hours
of anti-terrorism for basic agents; and for our agents out in
the field already, we have a 2-day anti-terrorism course for
our Border Patrol course that is also delivered. Plus an 8
hours fraudulent documents class which goes to incumbent agents
as well.
We have made other changes, and I can tell you in CBP,
including the Border Patrol Academy, preventing the entry of
terrorists' weapons is somewhere in virtually all of our
training modules. Whether it is the law classes or the Spanish
classes or the PT classes, all of that is in there.
Your second question was why CBP officers--.
Mr. Meek. I will remember my second question in a minute--
just joking. The second question was, why does the training--
well, what--.
Mr. Walters. Why do they have to be located in just--.
Mr. Meek. Why does it have to be located where it is
located versus training throughout the United States,
especially where we have illegal border entry? I mentioned the
Florida Keys, I mentioned the Gulf of Mexico. Also you have the
U.S. Canadian border where you have a number of these issues.
Mr. Walters. We get the best training for our advanced
officers, those that have already gone through the training
program, the basic training program, wherever we can find it.
Sometimes it is at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
and sometimes it is other locations.
For instance, we send CBP officers, including Border Patrol
agents, to a weapons of mass destruction identification school,
and that is in Washington State. And we have small boat schools
that we send people to, including the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center but also others in Florida. So it is not
exclusive.
When we talk about the uniform Border Patrol agent
refresher training in their core duties that have to do with
really being a Border Patrol agent, not management or
supervision, we do try and locate that all in a single location
and that is because our basic training feeds our advanced
training, and it has to be in close contact.
Mr. Meek. Let me just, if I can, Chief and Director
Patrick, let me just mention something real quick. I know that
there is an overall training. How much does it cost to train a
law enforcement officer just basic training, like $23,000 or
something? How much does it cost just for the basic training,
not the advanced training that the Chief was talking about?
Mrs. Patrick. For tuition for one student for the total
program, $8,734.
Mr. Meek. Okay. That is to get their certification.
Mrs. Patrick. That is their tuition cost.
Mr. Meek. Tuition costs.
Mrs. Patrick. Right.
Mr. Meek. And that will get them their certification.
Mrs. Patrick. Right.
Mr. Meek. Okay.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can have a second round.
We do have a number of members here that are attending this
meeting, but thank you very much for your response to my
questions.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, to the gentleman from California, Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an exceptionally
important array of topics, and I am sorry we have just this
afternoon to delve into some of them.
Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, where you left off and see if I
can understand, either from CBP or from the FLETC standpoint,
how these numbers for recruiting, training, and hiring break
down.
Since you were providing the numbers for us, Mr. Walters, I
wonder if I could ask you this question. What we are looking at
right now is a combined figure for recruiting, training,
hiring, all mixed together. If you wash out the recruiting and
the hiring, what fraction is the training of that total figure?
Mr. Walters. I can say that the salary and benefits for a
half a year, not just the pay of GS-7 but all the other pieces
that we do, the retirement and the--.
Mr. Cox. Yes, I am just interested in the training figure,
which would not, presumably, include any salary or benefits.
Mr. Walters. The basic agent training piece for us is
$23,118, and that is the one-each cost, and that is things like
the supplies and the bill-backs or the reimbursables we do with
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. We order printing,
they do the printing, we reimburse them for the printing, and
that is sort of a one-each cost. That is what the $23,000 each
represents.
Mr. Cox. So is it fair to say that the $20,000 represents
the training figure? Is that your answer to my question?
Mr. Walters. There is more to that figure. That is the
basic one-each cost.
Mr. Cox. Of the--.
Mr. Walters. It does not include the instruction costs.
Mr. Cox.--$179,000 combined figure that you provided to the
committee for recruiting, hiring, and training, what portion
would be the training?
Mr. Walters. You are correct. The $23,118 is the training
portion of that $179,000 figure.
Mr. Cox. All right. And just to make sure that we are
clear, I will do a little quick math and subtract $23,000 from
$179,000 and get $156,000. The amount for recruiting and hiring
sum to $156,000; is that right? That would be true if $23,000
is the training figure.
Mr. Walters. The full cost of recruit, hire and train is
$179,000.
Mr. Cox. Right.
Mr. Walters. So what you are doing is backing out the
$23,000 as training and saying that is other than the training
costs. Is that--.
Mr. Cox. I am trying to check my math and make sure that we
are agreed that the cost of training is $23,000, which would
leave us with $156,000 remaining that we would allocate either
to recruiting or to hiring.
Mr. Walters. That is one way of looking at it, yes, sir.
Mr. Cox. And is that accurate?
Mr. Walters. That is accurate according to the spreadsheet
if you divide the $179,000. And that training, of course--I do
not want to sound overly burdensome on this, but you cannot
train unless you recruit and hire.
Mr. Cox. All right. And that is where I am going next. Now,
of the $156,000, how much is recruiting?
Mr. Walters. The recruiting, pre-employment, background
investigation, the medical, sending Border Patrol agents
through the oral interviews, doing the recording of the
applicants' application and tracking that is $33,645.
Mr. Cox. Thirty-three point six, so we will call that
$34,000. And then I will do some more quick math and subtract
$34,000 from $156,000 and I get $122,000. So are we then agreed
that the $122,000 figure applies to hiring?
Mr. Walters. Yes.
Mr. Cox. All right. And what is embedded in the $122,000
that we are calling the hiring costs?
Mr. Walters. The salary and benefits is another?
Mr. Cox. The salary for 1 year?
Mr. Walters. It is a half-year salary and benefits.
Mr. Cox. Half-year. Okay.
Mr. Walters. And that is $56,700, so round off to $57,000.
Mr. Cox. The first-year starting salary for a Border Patrol
agent is two times $56.7K?
Mr. Walters. Yes. That is the salary and the benefits.
Mr. Cox. Okay. And then that leaves us with $122,000 minus
$57,000, $65,000. And what is the rest of the $65,000, hiring
costs?
Mr. Walters. We provide equipment at $45,000 each and other
support, which is an aggregate cost of things like a computer,
a telephone, X amount of square footage of office space, some
portion of furniture and those kinds of issues, one each, for a
Border Patrol agent.
Mr. Cox. All right. So by far the largest cost is the
hiring costs, and the hiring costs include, if I were an
accountant, what I would call full costs for all allocable
overhead--certain square footage of the offices desks,
computers, et cetera. So we are not missing anything when we
look at that $122,000 figure for hiring. That is the full cost,
right?
Mr. Walters. For the hiring piece, yes, sir.
Mr. Cox. All right. And so to get back to the Chairman's
initial concern about the training costs and comparing it to
Harvard University and so on, it really is not as bad it looks
because it really costs $23,000 to train; is that right?
Mr. Walters. That is one way to perceive it, yes, sir.
Mr. Cox. All right. Well, I see that my time is expired. I
am happy to return to this, but at least we have got some of
our basic assumptions nailed down.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson, for any questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Patrick, how many different agents do you train on
behalf of--.
Mrs. Patrick. We train 81 federal agencies as well as
state, local, and tribal agencies.
Mr. Thompson. I know it will be time-consuming but can you
provide us the training costs to this committee of each one of
those agencies?
Mrs. Patrick. I can.
Mr. Thompson. So we can look at the numbers?
Mrs. Patrick. I could. I will.
Mr. Thompson. Is it standard and do you include salaries
and other things in the cost of the other agencies also?
Mrs. Patrick. No. Actually, our instructors, the shared
costs that I mentioned in my remarks, we determine how many
instructors it will take, and we provide half of those
instructors. So if it requires additional staff, then we would
have to determine what that would cost FLETC to provide the
training, and that would be an expense that FLETC would need to
bear for the cost of providing the training.
But with our permanent staff, which our total cadre is
around 1,000 employees, we would actually, and I would have to
get the exact number of trainers that we have, but currently we
can meet with the Border Patrol-we can meet the numbers that
have been provided so far with just the supplemental and their
base, 700 plus the 500, with the existing staff that we have.
Anything in addition to that we would have to determine
exactly how much we would have to provide, and then we would
have to provide you what the added number of instructors would
be.
Mr. Thompson. Well, if we now say that we will train 2,000
additional Border Patrol agents, do you have capacity to
provide that training?
Mrs. Patrick. We do. There are a few things that we would
have to do if we were going to reach the 2,000 number in
addition to what we are already doing with the supplemental. We
had to build some capacity for sewage, just the infrastructure
with the city that we have had to do that and some IT
adjustments, and that was just to deal with the supplemental.
But if the numbers were to go to the 2,000 mark, we could, in
the short term, we can double bunk our--chokepoint our
dormitories. We could double bunk.
Now, we could actually go outside to nearby communities,
Carlsbad and Roswell, and use housing in the economy, but,
idealistically, when you have basic training students, it is
better to house them in close proximity to one another and near
the facilities. And over the long term, we would have to build
additional capacity in the dormitories to accommodate 2,000.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Walters, from your perspective, do you
get feedback from agents that they have been trained for one
job but when they get on the job they are required to do jobs
for which they have not been trained for?
Mr. Walters. I do not get that feedback.
Mr. Thompson. So it is your testimony here today that to
your knowledge every Border Patrol agent that you know of is
only doing Border Patrol work that he was trained. They are not
doing auto mechanic work, they are not doing administrative
work over and above whatever is required for Border Patrol
agents.
Mr. Walters. Oh, no, sir, I cannot say that. I did not mean
to intimate that. It is clear to me based on my experience and
what I know today that Border Patrol agents do whatever it
takes to get the job done, and sometimes they do those kinds of
administrative tasks in order to get the mission accomplished.
We try not to do it that way on the Border Patrol side of the
house. Sometimes we do it that way, because we do not have
enough support staff in all the right places, at all the right
times, on every occasion to get it done the right way.
Mr. Thompson. So you are now saying you do know that they
are doing something beyond what they have been trained to do,
because it is getting the job done.
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir. I understood your first question to
be, are Border Patrol agents coming to me and saying, ``I am
not trained to do welding or I am not trained to do
administrative work,'' and I have not heard that, but in fact I
do know that they are doing that kind of work when they are
pressed to do that.
Mr. Thompson. So now that you know that, what have you done
in your capacity to change that?
Mr. Walters. Well, since we became an organization in CBP
and we united all the different pieces together, we have looked
hard at how to best structure the Border Patrol, and that is an
ongoing process right now. What is the right level of
infrastructure, administrative support and those kinds of
things that lets the Border Patrol agent be a good Border
Patrol agent and focus on those tasks and not focus on other
tasks. That is clearly an exercise that has been going on for a
little while.
We did not have it right when we were on the other side of
the house in INS. We are trying to get there. I do not think we
are there yet, but I think we are on the way. We are doing the
work, the background work, to decide what that package ought to
look like.
Mr. Thompson. So you are saying you are doing the
background work but you have not done anything yet.
Mr. Walters. I have not, but I know it is being worked on.
I am really the training expert and the Chief of the Border
Patrol Academy and Assistant Commissioner for Office of
Training and Development, and I know from the other side of the
house the Chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar, and the
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are all in discussions
on how best to structure the Border Patrol. And a lot of that
is going on right now.
In other words, I am not qualified to give you the best
answer on that, sir, but I will take that back with me.
Mr. Thompson. I caught you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
McCaul, for any questions he may have.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to follow up on a question that Chairman Cox
asked regarding salary, and I believe you testified that it is
$57,000 for 6 months for salary?
Mr. Walters. For salary and benefits, yes.
Mr. McCaul. And benefits.
Mr. Walters. Right.
Mr. McCaul. So if you double that per year, it is $114,000
salary and benefits. A U.S. attorney makes that much money; an
assistant U.S. attorney makes less than that. I find that hard
to believe that that is the actual number.
Mr. Walters. I have some experience in a past life with
looking at budget for individuals in the federal government and
I do know that the salary that you get in your paycheck is
different from the total investment by the government, by the
organization, and it is significant, again, as I said earlier.
Mr. McCaul. And this is for someone hired out of the field,
I mean, brand new, and they are making $114,000 a year, plus
benefits--.
Mr. Walters. No, no. That is the benefit?
Mr. McCaul. I mean, yes.
Mr. Walters. That would include the benefits; yes, sir.
Mr. McCaul. Yes. I am looking at basically the initial
salary. It is at a GS-5 to GS-7 level to hire a Border Patrol
agent, which is between $34,000 to $38,000. So--.
Mr. Walters. I cannot certify to the granularity of that
figure. It may be that it is not the average of a GS-5 or a 7
or a 9. It may be the average grade of every Border Patrol
agent. I do not know that for a fact, but I can certainly--.
Mr. McCaul. So then you are telling me the average is
$114,000.
Mr. Walters. I am sorry, I do not know the answer to that
here today, sir.
Mr. McCaul. Okay. Because that would be--if you subtract
the salary even on the high end, GS-7, that equates to $77,000
and benefits. I do not know what those benefits could be. I
guess I am just confused about that. Perhaps if you could maybe
come back to the committee and let me know what it is that we
are paying these guys when they start working, both salaries
and benefits, and what are the benefits. That would help me.
Secondly, I live in a border state, and we, just as you
know, authorize and appropriate 2,000 additional Border Patrol
agents, and my constituents, first and foremost, want to know
how soon they can get it going and get to work. How soon can we
hire, train and get 2,000 agents on the border? We have got a
real serious situation down there from a national security
standpoint, in my view. Now we have volunteers lining up to try
to tackle what should be the federal government's
responsibility.
Can you give me some idea of how long it would take to
fully train and put them down on the border?
Mr. Walters. The program itself, the Academy program, of
course, is 20 weeks long. The recruiting and hiring process is
ongoing right now. So we will train our target number and we
will get to 500 net new by the end of fiscal year 2005. Right
now we assume that we will add another 210 to that, and in the
meantime we will also compensate for whatever losses we have
through attrition, retirees or people going to other employment
or those kinds of things. We are able to do that.
And by the time this next budget cycle comes around and we
have come to some certainty of what the number will be, we will
also be able to adjust to that, but it will take us I think
2,000 is probably near the maximum per year that we could hope
to add net new without significantly going on the other side of
risk management.
But we can do it, sir, and we can do it within a year. We
can hire them and put them into training within the year. Of
course some of them will graduate in following fiscal years.
Mr. McCaul. And I am just kind of curious, you hear a lot
about the retention rate, it is hard to keep Border Patrol
agents. Do you know what the retention rate is, on average?
Mr. Walters. The last figure I saw, which is about a month
old, was on the order of 6 percent or less for the Border
Patrol as a whole. That includes Border Patrol and Border
Patrol pilots of every age and grade.
Mr. McCaul. And then final question: Can you speak to the
detention space at all or is that out of your expertise?
Mr. Walters. I can say this about detention space: We need
it, we cannot do our job without it, but I cannot talk to it as
an issue; no, sir.
Mr. McCaul. Well, I know you do, and that is why we
appropriated 4,000 additional beds.
Mr. Walters. We appreciate that.
Mr. McCaul. My question would be how soon we could build
that, but that is probably for another witness.
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands, Ms. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to the panelists.
Ms. Patrick, I am not really clear about the relationship
between FLETC and the Artesia Training Facility. I see you
worked together to set it up, but maybe you could explain to me
what the training relationship is between FLETC.
Mrs. Patrick. And Border Patrol?
Mrs. Christensen. And you can add if you like, Mr. Walters.
Mrs. Patrick. Okay. Just real briefly, the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, the way I describe it to the
community leaders, is that we have become a training
corporation, basically, that our headquarters is located in
Glynco, Georgia, and we have training facilities located in
different sites within the U.S.
One is in Artesia, New Mexico, one is in Charleston, South
Carolina, one is Cheltenham, Maryland, and we also are
responsible for the International Law Enforcement Academy in
Botswana, Africa and will soon be developing with the State
Department and Justice the ILEA, International Law Enforcement
Academy in South America. That is what FLETC does.
The Artesia campus is predominantly--right now we train
Border Patrol, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the FFDOs, the
flight deck officers, and the--.
Mrs. Christensen. But it is a part of FLETC.
Mrs. Patrick. Right.
Mrs. Christensen. It is not separate. Okay.
Mr. Walters, some concerns have been raised about salary,
and can you tell us whether the salary is for a 5-day week or a
6-day week? And I ask that because in the Department of
Homeland Security appropriations bill, there is a section that
talks about back pay for officers for FLETC training, and they
were not paid for the sixth day of training each week that they
were there.
So could you tell may first whether the salaries are a 5-
day week or a 6-day week?
Mr. Walters. The salary figures that you see estimated are
for the standard 5-day work week. We have not added anything
into that. But I understand that other issue has been resolved.
But let me take that back.
Mrs. Christensen. The issue has been resolved?
Mr. Walters. Let me take that back and make certain of
that. I do not want to misspeak on that.
Mrs. Christensen. Is there an overtime cap in place, and if
so, what is that?
Mr. Walters. There is an overtime cap. I think it is in the
order of $30,000 plus per year is the cap, but this body
thought it important enough to put in a waiver that the
Commissioner could grant if that occasion comes up. So I do not
see that as a major issue.
Mrs. Christensen. So you will report back to the committee
on the resolution of the back pay issue from January 2002 to
October 2004?
Mr. Walters. I will certainly give you a status report;
yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Chief Walters again, I have open waters as our border. I
represent the U.S. Virgin Islands, 170 miles plus of it. And
with all of the focus on the southwest and the northern
borders, is there training as well for Border Patrol agents on
patrolling and interdiction in this kind of setting as well?
Mr. Walters. Yes, there is, and we have a Border Patrol
sector in Puerto Rico, and we also have major coastal areas,
things like a sector in Miami, we have a sector in New Orleans,
and we do work closely with them to make sure that they are
trained to operate small boats and operate in that kind of
environment and get on and off ships and freighters and that
kind of thing.
Mrs. Christensen. And you are aware that even though there
is a Border Patrol unit in Puerto Rico, they are pretty much
stationed in the Mona Passage and they do not have the
additional capacity to patrol St. James, St. Thomas and St.
Croix.
Mr. Walters. Yes, ma'am, I am familiar with that issue.
Mrs. Christensen. Is any other language taught in the
training? I know there is Spanish, but you said that since 9/
11, of course, the focus is now on antiterrorism. Is there any
other language besides Spanish that is offered or taught?
Mr. Walters. For basic trainees, no, ma'am, and Spanish is
taught both to Border Patrol agents and to those going to
certain select ports that are mainly Spanish-speaking on the
CBP officer side as well. But I am not aware of any other
language capacity that belongs to CBP. Spanish is taught to
basic.
Mrs. Christensen. If you are concerned about terrorism, I
mean, you are not necessarily concerned--you have to place some
degree of focus on people other than persons crossing over from
Mexico.
Mr. Walters. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Christensen. But there may not be any other language
being--.
Mr. Walters. There is not an official program within CBP to
teach any language other than Spanish.
Mrs. Christensen. I think my time is up, but I may have
questions on a second round.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Pascrell, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walters, in the past, border agents have had an
attrition rate of between 20 and 30 percent. I want to know,
would like to know, and I am sure the panel would like to know,
what is the attrition rate right now?
Mr. Walters. The attrition rate for all Border Patrol
agents is around 6 percent, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Are you telling me that the attrition rate
has dropped from where it was prior to 9/11 to 6 percent?
Mr. Walters. The current is 6 percent. In the past, I have
known for the Border Patrol, as an entity, to have the
attrition rate globally to go up around 15 percent, and that
was right after 9/11 we lost a lot of agents to our air
marshals. They went and staffed that program and decided to
change jobs. So I am aware that it was higher, but I am not
aware that it ever went up to 20 percent.
Mr. Pascrell. Other folks on this panel have asked you a
question about whether or not you would be able to handle the
number of recruits. Just how many applications are you getting
now?
Mr. Walters. I do not know the answer to that. I am not as
familiar as I probably ought to be with that. I can get back to
you on that. But your question is, what are the number of
applications? I can say that generally we have a strong
interest in the Border Patrol occupation, and when we announce
it publicly, we get a good response.
Mr. Pascrell. So even in terms of numbers, if we wanted to
go up to what many folks are talking about in the House, and
that is 2,000 agents, you would be able to have enough
qualified applicants in a pool to choose.
Mr. Walters. It would certainly be a task for us to take
on. I can say that we do not have that in the pool today, but
if we are given the opportunity to train 2,000 more Border
Patrol agents, we would find a way to do that. We have doubled
the Border Patrol in the past, and we found ways to recruit and
hire that many people.
Mr. Pascrell. Chief Walters and Director Patrick, I am
going to ask you a question the rest of my time on the
following subject: Most of the interest is upon how many people
we interdict trying to get this border illegally, all our
borders.
I want to deal with something other than people. I want to
deal with what is coming across the borders. For instance, what
training goes into a border agent with the trucks that are
coming across the border from Mexico, which are now able to
move into this country freely? What training do you give? What
do they look at in these trucks? I mean, if they cannot find
cocaine, how are they going to find weapons of mass
destruction, you tell me?
Mr. Walters. If we are looking at the Border Patrol piece,
the Border Patrol agents do a traffic checkpoint, and it is
usually someplace other than right at the border. So they use
what they can, and things like dogs, canine and non-intrusive
inspection devices, density meters and those kinds of things
are common.
Mr. Pascrell. What percentage of trucks do they stop to
look at?
Mr. Walters. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Would you be surprised if I told you less
than 5 percent?
Mr. Walters. I have no idea to know whether that is a good
number or a bad number, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Would you get back to us, to every member of
this committee, to tell us what is being inspected that comes
over, not only from the South but from the North? I mean, how
in God's name are we going to stop weapons coming into this
country if most of the vehicles that come into this country are
not properly inspected? You tell me.
Mr. Walters. We do inspect every vehicle at some point, at
some level, but if you are talking about taking apart,
unloading it, and doing a thorough inspection of every piece of
it; no, we do not do that. But what we try and do operationally
is target and profile the kinds of vehicles that are likely to
hold contraband or weapons of mass destruction. We do not get
to all the millions of vehicles and do a thorough inspection on
all the millions of vehicles that come in, that is true; but we
do, I think, a very good job of targeting and looking at a high
proportion at least of high-risk vehicles.
Mr. Pascrell. I have heard a lot of discussion concerning
what we inspect at our ports, but indeed coming across our
borders we have very little idea what is coming into this
country right now, whether it is vegetables or weapons, do we?
Mr. Walters. If you are talking about in between the ports
of entry, you are right, we do not know what we do not know.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
I want to go back to the capacity we were talking about a
little while ago. If the money was appropriated, whatever the
accurate figure is--I would like for both of you to answer
this--could you train 2,000 new officers over the next 12
months--18 months?
Start with you, Chief.
Mr. Walters. Yes. If we are given the opportunity to add
2,000 Border Patrol agents and get them into training before
the end of the next fiscal year, we can do that. I have every
confidence.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Patrick?
Mrs. Patrick. I agree.
Mr. Rogers. The reason I ask the question is, earlier this
year we had another hearing and Asa Hutchinson was one of our
panelists. He was asked that question and he said it was not
possible to train that many officers in a year and I find that
startling. I cannot help but think that if you did not have the
capacity, then we could contract out to supplement what you can
do.
Mrs. Patrick. Well, based--.
Mr. Rogers. Go ahead.
Mrs. Patrick. I was going to say, based on what I know our
capacity to be, and we continue to build up our facilities over
time, especially after 9/11 when we had to build capacity for
the Air Marshal Program, which is not being fully utilized now.
So we have capacity to meet the numbers that you are
suggesting.
And I do not know what the time reference was when he was
testifying and how far along we were in terms of building
facilities, but we have made a lot of progress, particularly in
Artesia. But to meet the numbers, 2,000, we can do that.
Mr. Rogers. With existing infrastructure?
Mrs. Patrick. We have--I have done estimates not exactly at
2,000 but close to 2,000 and, as I said, emergency measures are
doubling up in the rooms will give us additional capacity. That
will work for some time, but after a period of time it would be
necessary to build additional--a dormitory or use rooms in the
community in order to house them, because it would just be too
cramped.
The one thing we are currently using in Artesia is a
swimming pool that belongs to the city to do aquatic training,
and in light of two Border Patrol officers dying last years in
a drowning, it is a very important part of the curriculum to
have that number of students, depending on the school to train
them in an aquatic facility at some point in time, we would
need to build a training facility. And other than that, other
than from about $1 million for sewage enhancements and IT, we
could do it.
Mr. Rogers. Let me ask this question then: What is the
dollar amount that you believe, Ms. Patrick, that you need to
train 2,000 new officers over the next 12 to 18 months?
Mrs. Patrick. To be exactly precise, I would rather give
that to you in writing so I could--because my numbers are not
at 2,000. I have got numbers between 1,600 and 2,350, and I
will provide all that to you.
Mr. Rogers. I look forward to receiving that.
Mrs. Patrick. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. Help me understand the relationship--according
to your numbers, we need $179,000 per Border Patrol officer to
train them. The total number, yes, we are still a little
sketchy on that, but just for the sake of this, $179,000.
Ms. Patrick, do you need anything over and above that to
train those officers?
Mrs. Patrick. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. What would you need?
Mrs. Patrick. The tuition money that I spoke to, in our
base, we are already funded for 700 new starts every year for
Border Patrol. That covers their attrition, that is already
funded. Anything above that would require tuition.
Mr. Rogers. So the tuition number is not incorporated in
your number of $179,000, Chief Walters?
Mrs. Patrick. No. And that is--.
Mr. Rogers. That is my question.
Chief Walters, the $179,000 per Border Patrol officer that
you suggested does not include the tuition to send them to
FLETC?
Mr. Walters. There may be some overlap there. We would
better check that. I think that for the first 700 that I would
have to train, I have included tuition as a reimbursable, but
everything over that I probably did not. But rather than let me
speculate here, let me go back and do a good job on that and
get you a report on it.
Mr. Rogers. Go back to something I asked a little earlier:
If you did not receive any new money, as I understand it, you
could take the one point some odd million dollars that you have
just received and train a large number of Border Patrol
officers?
Mrs. Patrick. About 1,400.
Mr. Rogers. Fourteen hundred. Okay.
Has there been a history, Chief Walters, with any
contracting out with universities, law enforcement departments,
or any entities like that to meet these surge demands for
Border Patrol officer training?
Mr. Walters. For basic training, no, we have never used
contract employees directly. No, sir.
Mr. Rogers. My time has expired.
I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Meek.
Mr. Meek. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I
am just so pleased that we are having this hearing, because it
is actually unfolding quite a bit. Some that I am encouraged to
hear good answers on and some that I am still not clear on.
I can also say that there is a three-prong issue here. One,
the training that you are already providing, which we are
examining now; two, you have a private sector that is walking
the halls of Congress saying that, ``Listen, we are willing to
serve our country in any way.'' Interesting, the next panel we
will have not only a member but the president of Blackwater USA
that has stepped up to the bat, many of whom serve this country
in a military capacity before, willing to stand up and do what
they have to do and offer their services in this area. And
there are a couple of other people, a couple other U.S.
companies that are willing to do so.
And then you have this third thing that makes this whole
debate very interesting. You have U.S. citizens that have now
taken it upon themselves to try to protect our borders, and
this is something that we thought that we would never come to
or get to the point where we would have that happen. Now that
is happening, and it is not going away anytime soon.
So that means one of two things: One, either we have to
look at the way we are doing business or, two, do business
better or either start talking about other alternatives in
protecting our borders. We know our men and women that are out
there on the border, as you mentioned, Chief, in a very
eloquent way, and I just want to say to the--I know that you
are the Assistant Commissioner of Training and Development for
the Bureau, but you can shake the Commissioner's hand when you
see the Commissioner. Let it be known that you are pleased to
come before the committee anytime to answer these very tough
questions.
But it is important that we rise to the occasion to get
these numbers right. And I know the men and women out there are
doing the best they can. You mentioned the work that they are
doing, the next shift that is coming on as it relates to the
nightshift, but there are private sector companies that are out
there saying without any hesitation that they can train 2,000
new border protection and patrol individuals to rise to the
occasion.
The last thing that I know that I want, and I do not want
to speak for other members of the committee, the U.S. taxpaying
citizens, many of whom that have served their country, have to
take it upon themselves to get a yard chair and sit out on our
borders to stop individuals from coming in.
And that brings about the pivotal question here and I think
that is the thrust mainly behind this whole debate.
Now, I think that once we start looking at the way we do
business, I think that we can do business better, and that is
making sure that we not only train but we preserve the
Department and the Customs and Border Protection officers'
integrity of the reason why they joined the Patrol in the first
place.
I used to be a state trooper, and I bring this up like once
every meeting, because I think it is important. I have been on
the front line, and it has always been a question of
privatization--always. We never had individuals in the State of
Florida saying, ``Well, I am retired, I have some military
background. I want to go out and be a state trooper because
there is just lawlessness in the streets.'' But we have that in
this case.
And so I do not want to be a Member of Congress with a
conspiracy theory of saying that those that are in power, those
who are in control of training and making the decisions over at
DHS want to set the stage for the private sector to come in and
do the job that we should be doing anyway. One may say in some
circles, ``Let's put the cookie on the bottom shelf so that
everyone can reach it.''
I just want to know how do you feel mainly, Chief, and if
you want to, Director, you can chime in, how do you feel about
this ever-growing threat of two things: One, American citizens
by the numbers continuing to go out and try to protect our
borders; two, the private sector's ongoing push of saying that,
``We are here to serve if we are asked to do so.'' Is that a
discussion within the Bureau, because it is definitely reality?
Mr. Walters. I would like to take that first, if I might.
The involvement of the citizenry, of course, as the
Commissioner has noted in previous hearings, is really at the
heart of the democracy. We appreciate the citizens' involvement
and we appreciate the interest. And as long as the line is
drawn where they do not try and go too far with that and try
and make arrests or insert themselves and make the problem
worse. I do not think we have hit that point yet, I am not
saying that.
I appreciate all the attention that we have brought to bear
on this by the citizen involvement, but I agree with you that
there is a limit to citizen involvement and that we need to do
a better job and keep that about where it is now would be as
far as I would want to go with that.
And then as far as the private sector involvement in
training, you are right, it is a sensitive issue. It is a
sensitive issue at the state law enforcement level, same with
the federal government. Our gold standard so far has been our
training is evaluated by how well the agents perform in the
field. So far they have been performing pretty well, and so I
do not have the impetus to try and change that formula for
basic training very much.
Now, for advanced training that is a different story, and
that is not the subject of the hearing today, but for basic
training it is very important, I think, that the green shirts
be perceived to give context to that training and be able to
speak the details of policy and procedure and not just the
mechanics of the subject that is being trained.
Mr. Meek. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has run
out.
But I want to thank you, Chief, for responding in a way,
because I know a lot of the frontline men and women are very
concerned about the criticism that the Department is receiving,
especially the Bureau, on the issue of the cost of training.
So hopefully we can hammer it out and members of Congress
can be educated more on the ins and outs of it, and hopefully
we can work together in making sure that we keep integrity of
what we have right now and build on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
And the Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Chairman Cox, for any additional questions he may
have.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, the purpose of this hearing is to find out how
the Department of Homeland Security can increase training
capacity more effectively, and for that reason, we are trying
to understand how much it costs us to do it the way we are
doing it; whether or not we have any capacity we can take
advantage of; whether there are other ways that we can help you
to train more people and place them into service as quickly as
they are needed.
In listening to the testimony thus far, I am going to recap
what I think I have learned for the record, and please correct
me, Director Patrick or Chief Walters, if any of this is
incorrect.
The full cost of recruiting, training, and hiring a new
Border Patrol agent, which includes almost a half-year's
salary-42 percent of a full year, five-twelfths-and associated
overhead--computers, phones, cars, uniforms, equipment and so
on--is $179,000. Of that, the actual training cost is $23,000.
Am I right so far?
Mr. Walters. Yes, sir.
Mrs. Patrick. I can speak to how much it costs us. I do not
know what his additional costs are. I know what our costs are.
Mr. Cox. Why don't you speak to that and make sure we are?
Mrs. Patrick. It is $8,734 per person. And that is for the?
Mr. Cox. Eight thousand seven hundred and thirty-four
dollars is the tuition we were speaking of earlier?
Mrs. Patrick. Tuition, correct. And actual tuition is
$5,754, and the instructor cost per student is $2,980. So the
total is $8,734 per student for what it costs us to train that
person with our instructors and our tuition.
Mr. Cox. All right. Because the numbers are sufficiently
manageable, I am not going to inquire into why tuition is
separate from instructor costs, but?
Mrs. Patrick. That is our total cost for producing the
training.
Mr. Cox. What most of us would understand to be tuition,
which pays for that, is $8,734.
And, Chief Walters, is that embedded in the $23,000 figure
you gave us for training?
Mr. Walters. No, I do not believe it is.
Mr. Cox. So can you tell us what the $23,000 is for?
Mr. Walters. The $23,000 covers reimbursable type things
one use each, things like supplies and things that the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center does for us, specifically for
our employees that we reimburse them for.
Mr. Cox. Since that is roughly three times the tuition, can
you give me an example of a reimbursable or one-time use
supply?
Mr. Walters. Printing costs to run telephones?
Mrs. Patrick. Have you accounted for the per diem?
Mr. Walters. No, that is not part of the $23,000.
Mrs. Patrick. Oh, it is not? Oh.
Mr. Cox. Printing is not very expensive. Telephone use,
likewise, it is very cheap. How do you get to $23,000?
Mr. Walters. I will have to get some more detail on that,
obviously, for you, sir.
Mr. Cox. All right. Let me now ask another question. So
somewhere in the neighborhood of $31,000 is the training costs
then. Is that right, 23 plus 8, or 23 plus 9? Am I in the right
neighborhood for the training costs?
Mr. Walters. Your addition is correct, sir.
Mr. Cox. Okay. And what we are teaching according to the
Border Patrol agent fact sheet distributed by CBP, the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Office of the Department of
Homeland Security, is the following: We are teaching
immigration nationality law, Spanish, PT and firearms. Do
people ever waive out of any aspect of that training? If I show
up and I say, ``I already know all this immigration law, can I
just test out?
Mr. Walters. No. It is more like a military boot camp where
everybody participates at the same level and we build unit
cohesiveness.
Mr. Cox. And what happens if I actually speak English as my
second language, and I am amazingly literate in Spanish? Can I
test out of that?
Mr. Walters. No, not in the current procedures, but you can
help your classmates to hone their skills in Spanish.
Mr. Cox. Now, when I show up I am supposed to be able to do
25 sit-ups and 20 push-ups and also a step test. And when I
finish the PT course, I am supposed to be able to run one and a
half miles in 13 minutes, supposed to be able to do the 220
yard dash in 46 seconds, and I am supposed to complete the
confidence course in two minutes and a half. What happens if I
can do that when I come? Will you just let me see if I can show
you I can already do that?
Mr. Walters. No. We do not test out the individual elements
of the program. Graduating classes graduate together.
Mr. Cox. So let me ask you this: Would it be an option if
we are trying to increase the throughput and we have training
capacity constraints, would it be an option to let people test
out?
You already let them apply online on the Internet. Could we
not let them, through some secure means, show that they are
already literate in Spanish and that they already understand
all the immigration nationality law that they need to know;
maybe make them physically show up for one day and perform
their marksmanship and also do the PT exit course? And, if they
meet the standards, then you can place them right into the
apprenticeship where they really have the on-the-job training
that is so important.
Mr. Walters. I hear what you are saying. We have looked at
that in the past, and we have looked at it often.
What the Border Patrol Academy really does is provide the
entire context for a Border Patrol agent before this new Border
Patrol agent goes out to the field and begins his on-the-job
training. So we have to be certain that he has all the pieces
so that he is not a risk to himself or to the people out there
or to other agents when he gets out there. So we have not
allowed people to test out.
It is also the advantageous to us to bring people in as a
group and testing them as a group because it helps to build
unit cohesiveness and esprit de corps. That is an important
piece of what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Cox. Director Patrick, do you want to add to that?
Mrs. Patrick. Like Mr. Walters, we have looked at that same
scenario. After 9/11, with the Federal Air Marshals Program, we
actually did end up doing some of that prior law enforcement
experience-there were abbreviated training programs for those
officers to get them out faster. And so we have experience
doing that.
The policy in terms of liability, et cetera, usually the
agency makes a determination of what they are willing to do,
and then we will help develop the appropriate requirements for
whatever the training will be. But we have discussed it before
in a different context and have actually done it in the past.
Mr. Cox. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to explore
this.
Obviously, the main object of all of this exercise is,
first, to prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorists'
weapons onto U.S. soil. Second, to enforce the immigration laws
and the drug laws.
We are not really getting on to that business if we are
making people go through the motions of things they already
know. We ought to get on to that more meaningful training, and
I think we have some avenues to do that and to do it more
efficiently for the taxpayer.
I appreciate this interchange. We want to give you all the
support that we possibly can.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Thompson, for any additional questions he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Walters, could you explain a detailing of people for
training from the Department's standpoint? One of the concerns
we hear as a committee is that when details occur, areas are
left understaffed. And I would like to know whether or not that
is the case and if it is, have you looked at addressing what is
acquired so that we will not have to get in the situations of
being short-staffed?
Mr. Walters. Yes. Well, the formula that we came up with is
to allow the Chief Patrol agents out in the sectors to
determine which people are going to be assigned on temporary
assignment. When we were under the highest class load that we
have ever been on, we have had as many as perhaps 250 Border
Patrol agents detailed from the field to the Academy. And that
was a good thing, but we were at about 11,000 Border Patrol
agents. So that is less than 3 percent--that is probably fewer
people than were on sick leave that day.
For that return on investment, we bring in and we add
another 1,000 or 2,000 Border Patrol agents that year by virtue
of having these people come in from the field. So to us that is
a good sensible investment and we manage the risk part by
letting the people in the field tell us which people can come
and which ones cannot.
Mr. Thompson. So it is your testimony that when the
detailing occurs, from your professional standpoint, we are not
put in any vulnerable position or anything like that?
Mr. Walters. For the training piece, I can speak to the
training piece, sir, and it is not large enough to make that
kind of a difference in this organization, in the Border Patrol
organization.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I want to thank both of you for being here and
taking the time to--oh, I recognize the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Meek.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, I really would appreciate if we could have some
comparisons of--I know that, Madam Director, you have, I
believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of about 81 different
law enforcement agencies that actually go through your basic
training.
Chief, I think it would be helpful for us all to see a
comparison to other training agencies that actually train law
enforcement officers in advanced training of costs that is
associated with that. I think it will not only bring about a
level of clarity for members of the committee, but also I would
assume maybe defend some of the things that you have mentioned
here today that goes into that training.
And, Mr. Chairman, if we could disseminate that amongst the
committee and get it to us as soon as possible, I think it
would be helpful in our work.
Mr. Walters. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Rogers. We will do that.
Again, I thank both the witnesses, and this panel is
excused, and we will call up the second panel.
The Chair now calls the second panel and recognizes Mr.
T.J. Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council,
for any statement that you may have.
STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL
COUNCIL
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, other distinguished
members of the subcommittee.
Without question, the Border Patrol faces an incredible
challenge. Last year alone the officers apprehended nearly 1.2
million illegal entrants into this country. Most alarmingly,
however, they estimate that for every person they catch, two or
three get by them. We need reinforcements desperately and we
need them yesterday.
More important than anything else is to bear in mind the
reason for these additional Border Patrol agents. It is for
securing our nation's borders. You can never lose sight of
that. It is not simply an exercise to see whether we can bring
on 2,000 people or 3,000 people. It is finding the right
people, providing them with the right training, giving them the
right support, and providing them with the right
infrastructure.
Currently, far too many Border Patrol agents are assigned
to duties that should be done by support personnel. They are
manning cameras, looking at sensors, they are repairing
vehicles, they are transporting illegal aliens, do all manner
of jobs that should be done by other support personnel that are
not in place. We have a number of other weaknesses in the
existing infrastructure. The buildings that we occupy, in many
cases, are far too small for even the existing number of
people, and when we increase the number of people, the problem
will only get worse.
The weapons that we carry in some cases are prone to
failure. These are weapons that are breaking down after as few
as 5,000 rounds, and many of these weapons now have 15,000,
20,000 rounds of ammunition that have been fired through them
through the quarterly qualification process. Body armor that
our agents have been issued in many cases is long overdue for
replacement, and in some cases it is of a material that is
defective, that is wearing out within a matter of months rather
than years and yet we have not replaced these things.
I do not know what the true cost of hiring a Border Patrol
agent is. We have heard a lot of figures here, but this I can
tell you: We do not have enough infrastructure right now, and
this figure that has been batted about of $57,000 for a half
year's salary, when we start these agents out we are paying
them about $35,000. So they are not the highest paid, and that
is one of the reasons that we are losing these agents.
They look around at other parts of the federal law
enforcement community, and even state and local, where these
agents, after 5 years on the job, are making between $50,000
and $60,000 a year. They see a police officer in San Diego, for
example, being hired at that same amount, and it is a real
temptation to go over and work for a different agency.
We need to do something about all of these types of issues
if we are going to be able to attract people to the United
States Border Patrol and, more importantly, to hang on to these
people.
And the Academy training is just the beginning of the
process. The most important part of the training is that one-
on-one mentoring that goes on when that agent comes back to the
field. It is critical that we have enough experienced agents
there to take these new agents by the hand and show them how to
do that job, because it is not just the factory where we are
cranking out new Border Patrol agents. We are trying to train
people so that they can do the job properly, so that we respect
the rights of those who are being encountered.
Not everybody that is encountered by an immigration officer
is an illegal alien, and it is very important that these
officers have the training so that they do the job properly and
do not violate the rights of United States citizens or aliens
who are in this country lawfully.
I would like to talk a little bit about what it is going to
take to hang on to some of the folks that we have. Pay is very
important, as I mentioned. We are underpaid in comparison to
the rest of the federal law enforcement community.
Job satisfaction is another thing. Some of the strategies
that are being employed right now, such as the so-called
strategy of deterrence where our agents are forced to sit in
one place for the entire 8-, 10-hour shift is just mind-
numbing, and it is moronic in this post-9/11 environment to
think that a terrorist is going to be deterred by an agent just
sitting in one spot. These agents need to be allowed to pursue
people who are crossing our borders.
As I said, the most important thing to bear in mind through
this entire discussion is why we are hiring these agents. There
is a crying need for agents, clearly, which is borne out by the
call for citizen patrol groups, military on the border.
Clearly, we are not doing our job, but the reason we need
more Border Patrol agents is to secure our borders. We need to
spend whatever it takes, not try and do it on the cheap; not
try and figure out how we can cut corners to hire as many
Border Patrol agents as possible, but to spend whatever it
takes to support these men and women so that they can go out
there, give them the policies that they need.
For example, one of the most important things that this
Congress can do to support the Border Patrol is to pass
legislation that makes it easy for Immigration agents, not
necessarily Border Patrol agents, but for Immigration agents to
crack down on employers who are hiring illegal aliens. We know
that is why 98 percent of the people are coming across the
borders, and yet millions of people are in this country as we
speak working without fear of being removed from this country.
If we eliminate that employment magnet, it would make the
job of the Border Patrol 10 times easier than it is now because
we would reduce the amount of traffic from millions of people
coming across the border on an annual basis to thousands of
people. And then what you would have would be criminals and
terrorists coming across, and we could focus on that.
And I believe that with a workforce of 20,000 Border Patrol
agents, we actually could secure the borders, which would solve
a lot of the problems that you have with the citizen patrols
being up in arms and saying, ``The government is not doing its
job.'' We are not doing our job, but we need support from
Congress in the form of laws that are easy to enforce, and we
need support from Congress in the form of enough money so that
we have not just the agents out there but the infrastructure to
support those agents, and its sorely lacking right now.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]
Prepared Statement of T.J. Bonner
On behalf of the 10,000 front-line employees that it represents,
the National Border Patrol Council appreciates the opportunity to share
its views and recommendations regarding the challenges presented by the
public mandate to significantly increase the number of Border Patrol
agents.
Beyond a doubt, our Nation's borders are out of control. With only
10,700 agents responsible for patrolling about 8,000 miles of land and
coastal borders, the Border Patrol is simply overwhelmed by the volume
of traffic that constantly streams across our borders. Front-line
agents estimate that between three and four million people cross our
borders illegally every year, yet they are only able to apprehend
slightly more than one million of them. The most troubling aspect of
this problem is the fact that we know nothing about those who
successfully enter our country illegally. Although the overwhelming
majority of them are searching for employment opportunities, it has now
been confirmed that a significant number are criminals. In the first
three months after the integration of the Border Patrol and the FBI
automated fingerprint systems last September, more than 23,500
criminals--about 8% of the total number of all persons apprehended--
were arrested, including 84 homicide suspects, 37 kidnaping suspects,
151 sexual assault suspects, 212 robbery suspects, 1,238 suspects for
assaults of other types, and 2,630 suspects implicated in dangerous
narcotic related charges.\1\ It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that
same percentage to the millions of people who avoid apprehension, nor
is it unrealistic to assume that some terrorists are also taking
advantage of our porous borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Customs and Border Protection press release, December 20, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to bring our borders under control, a comprehensive
enforcement strategy is needed. By far, the most important step that
can be taken is to directly confront the problem at its source rather
than continuing to tinker with the symptoms. Without question, the
overwhelming majority of people enter the United States illegally in
search of economic opportunities. In order to change this dynamic, the
employment magnet must be eliminated. The only way to do this is by
enacting legislation that makes it easy for employers to know which
applicants are authorized to work in this country, and painful for them
to hire those who are not. H.R. 98, the ``Illegal Immigration
Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2005,'' achieves
these goals. Even this measure, however, would not eliminate the need
for significant growth of the Border Patrol in order to enhance its
ability to effectively deal with the increasing problem of criminals
and terrorists seeking to enter our country.
This expansion presents a number of challenges. In addition to
significantly increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, there must
be a commensurate growth in the infrastructure that supports them.
Adequate equipment, facilities, and support personnel are all necessary
in order to ensure that the new agents are able to effectively carry
out the mission of the agency. Currently, even the existing workforce
is plagued by deficiencies in all of these areas. Thus, these
additional expenses must be factored not only into the cost of hiring
new employees, but also into upgrading support for current employees.
To cite but a few examples:
The number of support personnel is wholly inadequate,
causing able-bodied Border Patrol agents to be assigned to
duties such as monitoring cameras and sensors, operating
communications equipment, and repairing vehicles. Not only does
this waste money by having lower-graded work performed by
higher-paid employees, it detracts from the accomplishment of
the agency's core mission by diverting trained law enforcement
personnel away from their primary duties.
Numerous buildings were designed for only a small
fraction of the employees that are currently assigned there,
and even more facilities are woefully inadequate for the number
of employees that are projected to be assigned there in the
near future.
The overall condition of the Border Patrol's vehicle
fleet is deplorable. A large percentage of vehicles have
mileage that far exceeds the recommended amount for law
enforcement vehicles, and need to be sold or scrapped.
Inordinate amounts of time and money are being spent to keep
these vehicles operating. In many locations, the few vehicles
that are serviceable at a given moment are being operated 24
hours a day, accelerating their breakdown. This situation also
forces agents to wait for the previous shift to bring in
vehicles, causing needless gaps in coverage along the border.
Many Border Patrol agents are still carrying handguns
that are prone to breakdowns after firing as few as 5,000
rounds of ammunition, a threshold that was surpassed several
years ago.
In most locations, numerous employees have to share a
single computer terminal, causing countless hours to be wasted
waiting to access these workstations.
Far too many Border Patrol agents are wearing body
armor that has expired or is made out of defective material
that deteriorates in a matter of months when exposed to
ultraviolet light or perspiration.
The communications system in many areas is filled with
large expanses where radios are unable to transmit or receive,
needlessly endangering agents in the field.
Front-line employees deeply appreciate the recognition
by Congress of the need to quickly reinforce the thin ranks of
the Border Patrol. The process of hiring and training
substantial numbers of new agents will be complicated by a
variety of problems, however:
The recruitment program needs to be significantly
expanded. When the decision to drastically scale back on the
recruitment and hiring process was made early last year, it
stranded thousands of interested applicants in the hiring
pipeline. Unfortunately, most of them have since moved on to
other careers.
The screening process, wherein suitable candidates are
identified through testing, interviews and thorough and timely
background checks, is a critical part of the recruitment
process. The temptation to cut corners on these processes for
the sake of expediency must be resisted at all costs. A lack of
attention to these important matters up front can be incredibly
damaging and costly later.
The training process entails much more than just
teaching new recruits the fundamentals in the structured
environment of the Border Patrol Academy. Following that 19-
week course, new-hires continue their academic studies at least
once a week for the next six months. Even more importantly,
they are paired up with experienced agents during that same
period to receive one-on-one field training. This critical
aspect of the training process limits the number of agents that
can be trained at any given time. For this reason, the National
Border Patrol Council believes that it would be a mistake to
attempt to increase the size of the Border Patrol by more than
25% annually. The addition of 10,000 Border Patrol agents over
the next five years as authorized by the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 is well within this
margin, however. The Border Patrol was able to absorb a similar
increase following the passage of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which also
authorized a doubling of the Border Patrol workforce. That
legislation called for the addition of 1,000 Border Patrol
agents and 300 support personnel for each of the following five
fiscal years. Despite the skepticism surrounding those
ambitious hiring goals, they were in fact met during the first
four years. The latest authorization actually represents a
smaller annual percentage increase than the previous build-up,
and is likewise attainable.
The training facility in Artesia, New Mexico is less
than ideal for training large numbers of new Border Patrol
recruits. It is remotely located, and the existing facilities
are inadequate. Although a substantial investment in facilities
will undoubtedly need to be made regardless of where the
training facility is located, some thought needs to be given to
the desirability of the location from the viewpoint of the
potential pool of permanent and temporary instructors. It will
be difficult to entice an adequate number of volunteer
instructors to go to Artesia for a minimum of six months, and
it would be foolish to force employees to go there as
instructors for any length of time. Impressionable new-hires
deserve to be trained by instructors who are both highly-
qualified and highly-motivated.
The Border Patrol needs to revamp and standardize its
field training program to ensure that new-hires are learning
all of the requisite skills in a systematic and comprehensive
manner. The current system is too haphazard, and is in need of
vast improvements.
The recent practice of requiring former Border Patrol
agents to complete the entire 19-week Border Patrol Academy
course again after they are re-hired is a waste of time and
precious resources. These employees have already proven their
mettle, and any refresher training that might be necessary
could be accomplished in much less time.
Hiring large numbers of new employees will accomplish very little
if they merely use the Border Patrol as a springboard for other law
enforcement careers. For a variety of reasons, the Border Patrol has
experienced a considerable amount of difficulty in retaining agents
beyond a few years:
Lack of job satisfaction. The most commonly-cited
complaint concerns the so-called ``strategy of deterrence''
wherein agents are required to sit in stationary positions for
eight to ten hours a day instead of being allowed to pursue
those who are crossing our borders illegally. This ``scarecrow
strategy'' never deterred anyone from crossing--at the most it
merely pushed traffic to another part of the border--and has
facilitated the entry of countless criminals and terrorists.
Low pay. Border Patrol agents are paid considerably
less than many other Federal, State and local law enforcement
officials performing tasks of comparable complexity and danger.
Because of their training and reputation, Border Patrol agents
have no problem finding employment with other law enforcement
agencies.
Lack of mobility. Agents have very little choice in
their initial assignment, and then find it very difficult to
subsequently relocate. Even though the National Border Patrol
Council convinced the agency to participate in a test program
that dramatically reduced the cost of relocations, the agency
has used this authority sparingly, and recently even canceled
more than 150 transfers that had previously been approved. As
might be imagined, this has had a devastating effect on morale.
New personnel system. The recent changes in the
personnel system authorized by the Homeland Security Act of
2002 have caused numerous employees to reconsider their
decision to remain with the Federal Government. All employees
want to be treated and paid fairly, and to have a say in the
decisions that affect their working conditions. Although the
new rules purport to be progressive measures that will reward
and encourage superior performance and hold all employees
accountable, they are in fact throwbacks to the corrupt,
cronyism-based nineteenth century civil service system that
nearly ruined public service in this country. Even though this
system has not yet been officially implemented, disturbing
evidence of management abuses of power in anticipation of this
new authority is already coming to light.
Although the attrition rate has stabilized at a relatively low
level lately, this will not last, as the aforementioned problems have
not been resolved. The current level is artificially low for two
primary reasons:
The dearth of recent new-hires skews the rate lower
than normal, as the attrition rate has historically been
highest among employees during their first three years of
employment.
Budgetary shortfalls at all levels of government--
Federal, State, and local--are temporarily keeping dissatisfied
employees in place. As soon as these other agencies begin
hiring large numbers of employees, a mass exodus of Border
Patrol agents will undoubtedly occur, as was the case when the
Federal Air Marshal Service began its hiring expansion and the
Border Patrol's attrition rate soared to nearly 20%.
While the aforementioned challenges are formidable, they are not
insurmountable. Many of them will require substantial expenditures to
address, but the security of our Nation's borders is a worthwhile
investment. It must constantly be remembered that the goal is not
simply to hire more Border Patrol agents--the underlying reason for
this build-up is the security of our borders. Every decision related to
the hiring of Border Patrol agents must therefore reflect that
overarching goal and purpose. Shortchanging this process will
ultimately diminish the security of our Nation.
Mr. Rogers. Very good. Thank you.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Gary Jackson, President of
Blackwater USA, for any statement you may have.
STATEMENT OF GARY JACKSON, PRESIDENT, BLACKWATER USA
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Meek, thank you.
And I hope you heard my first part of my testimony, and I
hope that my testimony is helpful to the committee in
determining how we can most effectively train more Border
Patrol agents.
Our Border Patrol agents have a daunting, overwhelming task
providing security for thousands of miles of border to prevent
terrorist activity, illegal immigration, and drug trafficking.
I look forward to discussing ways Blackwater may be able to
assist in making this daunting task to secure our borders more
effective.
Blackwater was founded in 1997 from a clear vision of the
need for innovative, flexible training, and security solutions
in support of national and global security challenges. Both the
military and law enforcement agencies needed additional
capacity to fully train their personnel to the standards
required to keep our country secure. Because these constraints
on training venues continue to increase, Blackwater believes
that the U.S. government would embrace outsourcing of quality
training. We built Blackwater's facility in North Carolina to
provide the capacity that we thought our government would need
to meet its future training requirements.
Over the years, Blackwater has not only become an industry
leader in training but at the cutting edge in five additional
business units. These units completely support the training
center itself. They are target systems, security consulting,
aviation worldwide services, canine services and Raven
Development Group, which is a construction company.
As we grew, we quickly realized the value to the government
of one-stop shopping. While there are other companies who offer
one or two distinct training services, none of them offer all
of our services and certainly not at one location, except for
FLETC.
The importance of this cannot be overstated. Being able to
conduct training at a centralized locality is the most cost-
effective, efficient way of ensuring that new federal law
enforcement agents are trained to the level demanded by today's
national and homeland security challenges.
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, can be
proud of the way in which it recruits and trains our Department
of Homeland Security law enforcement professionals. The sites
at Glynco, Artesia, Charleston, and Cheltenham continue to be
professionally managed, and when the scheduled renovations are
completed, the FLETC network should be fully capable of
providing the capacity needed to train the required numbers of
agents.
As a private firm, Blackwater is not in competition with
FLETC. However, as a company of committed Americans, we are
prepared to and fully capable of supporting the FLETC mission
when surge capacity is required. We already enjoy a very good
relationship with FLETC. Both of our organizations benefit from
the wisdom of many retired military and law enforcement
professionals, and we continually see people with whom we have
worked and served with during our government service.
Based on limited information, this is from me, sir, we have
drawn up a rough order of magnitude as to what the costs would
be to provide a turnkey solution to train 2,000 new Border
Patrol agents at Blackwater. Again, on limited information that
I have at our facility, that solution would cost approximately
$40,000 per person for the 18-to 20-week course. Now, there is
a 19-week course and a 20-week course. The course I am led to
believe is a 19-week course utilizing a one-week transit.
When I give that price, we are pricing a full burdened
number that accounts for overhead, general and administrative
expenses, and is based on what it costs for tactical driving,
firearms, classroom training at our facility.
Further, we believe it would take us approximately one year
to train all 2,000 agents. Blackwater successfully conducts a
similar public-private partnership with the Department of State
to recruit, train, deploy and manage diplomatic security
specialists in Iraq and other areas of interest.
Securing our borders will continue to be a challenge for
our nation. The urgency is clear: history repeatedly
demonstrates that innovation and efficiency are what alter the
strategic balance and Blackwater offers both in support of
training of new Border Patrol agents.
Just as the private sector has responded in moving mail and
packages around the world in a more efficient manner, so too
can Blackwater respond to CBP's emerging and compelling
training needs. We are committed to supporting the United
States, the Department of Homeland Security, the Customs and
Border Patrol Service, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center in fulfilling their mission, in securing our borders,
and keeping all citizens safe.
I hope my brief comments have highlighted some of the
alternatives available to most effectively augment our border
security efforts, and I look forward to hearing your questions
and observations.
[The statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Jackson
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meek, and Committees Members
for the opportunity to explore with you concerns surrounding our border
security. It is an honor for me to appear before you today. I hope that
my testimony is helpful to the committee in determining how we can most
effectively train more Border Patrol Agents.
Our Border Patrol agents have a daunting, overwhelming task;
provide security for thousands of miles of border to prevent terrorist
activity, illegal immigration, and drug trafficking. I look forward to
discussing ways Blackwater may be able to assist in making this
daunting task to secure our borders more effective.
Blackwater was founded in 1997 from a clear vision of the need for
innovative, flexible training and security solutions in support of
national and global security challenges.
Both the military and law enforcement agencies needed additional
capacity to fully train their personnel to the standards required to
keep our country secure. Because the constraints on training venues
continued to increase, Blackwater believed that the U.S. Government
would embrace outsourcing of quality training. We built Blackwater's
facility in North Carolina to provide the capacity that we thought our
government would need to meet its future training requirements.
Over the years, Blackwater (www.blackwaterusa.com) has become only
an industry leader in training, but at the cutting edge in five
additional business units: Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater
Security Consulting, Blackwater Aviation Worldwide Services, Blackwater
Canine, and Raven Development Group.
Blackwater is the nation's largest private tactical and firearms
training facility. Our 6000 acre facility was ready when the country
needed it. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen had sent a ripple
through the U.S. Navy, and after the tragedy of September 11, 2001,
that ripple was felt worldwide. The Navy appropriately responded
realizing that in order to combat today's terrorist threat, all Sailors
would need substantial training in basic and advanced force protection
techniques. The Navy moved swiftly to create a sound training program,
but realized that it did not have the requisite infrastructure or
capacity to execute its plan.
Because of our ability to support our government's emergent and
compelling needs, Blackwater was selected in an open and competitive
bid to assist the Navy and we now execute and manage that contract all
over the country. Sailors the world over are now better prepared to
identify, appropriately engage, and defeat would-be attacks on naval
vessels in port and underway. To date, Blackwater has trained
approximately 35,000 Sailors.
As we grew, we quickly realized the value to the government of
``one-stop shopping''. While there are other companies who offer one or
two distinct training services, none of them offer all of our services,
and certainly not at one location. The importance of this cannot be
overstated; being able to conduct training at a centralized locality is
the most cost-effective, efficient way of ensuring that new federal law
enforcement agents are trained to the level demanded by today's
national and homeland security challenges.
The Federal law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) can be proud of
the way in which it recruits and trains our Department of Homeland
Security law enforcement professionals. The sites at Glynco, Artesia,
Charleston, and Cheltenham continue to be professionally managed and
when the scheduled renovations and upgrades are completed, the FLETC
network should be fully capable of providing the capacity needed to
train the required number of agents.
As a private firm, Blackwater is not in competition with FLETC.
However, as a company of committed Americans we are prepared to and
fully capable of supporting the FLETC mission when surge capacity is
required. We already enjoy a good relationship with FLETC. Both of our
organizations benefit from the wisdom of many retired military and law
enforcement professionals and we continually see people with whom we've
worked and served with in during our government service.
Based on limited information, we have drawn up a rough order of
magnitude as to what the cost would be to provide a turnkey solution to
train 2,000 new Border Patrol Agents at Blackwater. That solution would
cost approximately $40,000.00 per person for the 18-week course. That
is a fully burdened number that accounts for overhead, general and
administrative expenses, and is based on what it costs for tactical
driving, firearms, and classroom training at our facility. Further, we
believe it would take us approximately one year to train all 2,000
agents.
Blackwater successfully conducts a similar public-private
partnership with the Department of State to recruit, train, deploy and
manage Diplomatic Security Specialists in Iraq and other areas of
interest.
Securing our borders will continue to be a challenge for our
nation. The urgency is clear. History repeatedly demonstrates that
innovation and efficiency are what alter the strategic balance, and
Blackwater offers both in support of training new Border Patrol agents.
Just as the private sector has responded in moving mail and
packages around the world in a more efficient manner, so too can
Blackwater respond to the CBP emergent and compelling training needs.
We are committed to supporting the United States, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Customs and Border Patrol Service, and the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in fulfilling their missions in
securing our borders and keeping all citizens safe.
I hope my brief comments have highlighted some of the alternatives
available to most effectively trainng augment our borders security
efforts and I look forward to hearing your questions and observations.
Mr. Rogers. Great. I thank you both.
At this time, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
post a board up that is an illustration of the Border Patrol
agent level. Without objection.
If you will look over here, you will see over the years
what our level of agents has been. Currently, it is at 10,914.
With H.R. 1817, it would go to almost 13,000, which I think you
touched on that, Mr. Bonner, in your statement, the need.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 23097.001
Let me ask you, aside from the infrastructure enhancements
that you have referenced that we need and other enhancements as
far as pay that deal with job satisfaction, would that level of
agents adequately meet our Border Patrol needs in this country
if we were to go to that 13,000 level?
This is for Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. No, I do not believe it would, not if we
continue to pursue the current strategy. I believe that you
could put hundreds of thousands of Border Patrol agents out
there. As long as the employment magnet is switched on, people
who are making $2 or $4 a day are going to continue to come
across. These are very desperate people. That is why hundreds
of them die crossing the deserts every year. They really have
very little to lose. They will do anything to get into this
country because they know that there is a pot of gold at the
end of that rainbow; that being?
Mr. Rogers. So you are saying there is no number of Border
Patrol officers that can stop the flow of illegal immigrants
into this country.
Mr. Bonner. Not under the current strategy, sir. Now, I
believe that if you combine this strategy with a strategy that
turns off that employment magnet, then you could achieve it
with probably about a doubling of our current workforce,
allowing us to go after the roughly 2 percent of the traffic
that is out there now who are criminals and terrorists who are
breaching our borders. I believe that we could control that.
Mr. Rogers. Go back to the training we talked about a
little bit earlier. Do you believe that the 2,000 agents that
we have authorized could be trained in the next 12 months with
our existing infrastructure?
Mr. Bonner. I believe so. I think the real bottleneck is
that on-the-job training. I think that theoretically you could
put any number of people through a basic academy, but you need
that one-on-one mentoring very desperately in a law enforcement
environment, and I think that about the most that you can
reasonably do in any given year is to increase by 25 percent,
and this is within that figure.
Mr. Rogers. What steps could we take to better integrate
these officers, these new officers in?
Mr. Bonner. Well, I think it is not so much just a matter
of integrating them in, but I think it is a matter of
supporting them with the infrastructure so that you have enough
support personnel so that they are not forced to do these jobs
that you could actually be hiring someone in at a lower grade
who wants to, for example, monitor a camera. This agent hired
on to do a specific job, they wanted to be a law enforcement
officer, and if they are stuck in one spot monitoring a camera
or repairing vehicles, very soon they say, ``I think I am going
to look for another job.''
Mr. Rogers. Yes. You made the reference earlier in your
statement that we need to be careful, not try to meet these
Border Patrol officer levels on the cheap. Did you find--I know
you were present for the first panel's testimony--did you find
surprising the number of $179,000 to train each additional
officer, not including FLETC's tuition?
Mr. Bonner. I have not seen the breakdown, so I do not know
what they are factoring into that. Now, if it factors in
everything that you need, your vehicles, your share of the
support personnel, I think the number would be low, but I do
not know exactly what they are including.
Mr. Rogers. You think $179,000 would be low?
Mr. Bonner. Would be low if you are including the entire
package. If when you hire a Border Patrol agent you say,
``Okay, this is what it is going to take,'' you have to have
your part of the communications network, including the radio
dispatchers, the radio infrastructure, and you have to have
your part of the vehicle that this person is going to drive,
and you have to have your part of the weaponry and the uniforms
and all that. I think that number would be low. But as I said,
I have not seen a breakdown, so I do not know what all they are
including in there.
Mr. Rogers. All right. Let me shift gears a minute.
Mr. Jackson, you talked about $40,000 being a figure based
on the limited information that you have got that you could
train these Border Patrol agents. Is that using the same
curriculum, as you understand the curriculum, as currently
offered?
Mr. Jackson. Sir, as I did state in my statement, we have
minimal information here. We understand it is about a19-week
course. We did some due diligence. We understand that 7 weeks
of it, probably 6, 7 weeks of law enforcement. You did mention
in your statement about the firearms training. There is the
firearms training, there is the driver training. There is a 6-
or 7-week Border Patrol operations training, which we are
assuming is on-the-job type training under the basic school
level.
So what we did is we took our GSA, our Government Services
Administration, validated pricing, utilizing the JFTR, the
Joint Federal Travel Regulation, and tried to take that period
of time, use it against the training that we do now for a lot
of different government entities and basically came up with a
rough order of magnitude for that period of time about a 20-
week course. It is fully burdened. That would be ammunition.
That means we would provide the guns, we would provide
everything for them, and they would basically supply us with a
ready candidate on day one, and 19 weeks later we would hand
back to the government a fully trained--.
Mr. Rogers. Let me ask this question, then my time is
running out. If we, as the Federal Government, were to offer
you $100,000 per officer, could you assure us that you would
give them equal or better training than they are receiving from
FLETC?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir, I could assure you of that.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. I have got more questions, but I will
wait until the next round.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Meek.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is an honor,
President Bonner, having you before the committee.
Also, President Jackson.
Mr. Bonner, I am familiar with your advocacy on behalf of
the men and women in Border Patrol and we appreciate it.
Mr. Jackson, I just want to let you know that you all run a
very professional outfit. I have had an opportunity to see some
of your people work firsthand, not only in Iraq but also in
Afghanistan due to my visits abroad.
Mr. Bonner, President Bonner, you mentioned something about
Border Patrol agents and you said they are doing jobs that
others can do. Can you elaborate on some of the positions that
may exist already in the Patrol that those kind of individuals
can handle the monitoring of television monitors, alarms that
may go off? Can you elaborate a little further on how we can
possibly get more of our men and women out doing the work of
being a Border Patrol officer versus being in the office?
Mr. Bonner. Well, for example, we have what are called law
enforcement communications assistants who are supposed to be
manning the radios, the cameras, the sensors. Unfortunately,
when you do not have enough money to hire those people at a
lower grade than you would hire a Border Patrol agent, then
someone has to do that.
You have immigration enforcement officers who belong to ICE
now who are supposed to be handling all of the transportation
of illegal aliens. But, for various reasons, one of which is
the Border Patrol no longer controls these resources, so
instead of just saying, ``Hey, we need you to go pick these
people up,'' you have to make high-level calls and beg to have
the work done. And, eventually, you just throw your hands up
and say, ``We will do it ourselves.'' But then you are paying a
journeyman Border Patrol agent at the GS-11 level to do
something that could be done by someone at the GS-9 level.
Mr. Meek. Which can hopefully put them back on, I guess,
patrol.
Mr. Bonner. Right. I mean, you have trained these officers,
these Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration
laws, so you should be using them for that purpose. They should
not be in a garage, for example, helping to repair vehicles
because you do not have enough mechanics and not enough money
in the budget to hire the mechanics. You should figure out a
way to get those support positions filled so that you can free
up all of your resources.
I mean, at any given time, at the very best, we only have
25 percent of that 10,700 agents working on the line, because
we are running 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week. But when you
strip away the people who are in support positions, at any
given moment there are probably fewer than 2,000 Border Patrol
agents out there protecting America.
Mr. Meek. Okay. On the tail end of your answer there, I
sure would appreciate if the counsel would put together some
sort of white paper on how we can improve the efficiency of the
Department, especially the Bureau, in being able to help the
Border Patrol officers from having to carry out those kind of
duties that you mentioned.
I am pretty sure as we move forth in trying to put more
agents on our borders that we can even increase that number by
relieving those that are doing lesser duty and putting them out
in the effort in protecting our borders. So if you can advance
that to the committee, I sure would appreciate it, because it
could be a part of the solution.
One other thing I want to ask you, because I have to ask
President Jackson a question quickly: Where are we losing our
Border Patrol officers? Where are they going? That is one part
of it.
The second part is, what are the law--the chairman
mentioned something a little earlier. If you are already
trained in the area, 9 times out of 10 you already have your
law enforcement certification, your Academy may be shorter than
the average person that comes off of the street, because you
are coming, one, under law enforcement experience, and you have
a certification. That happens in many of our state law
enforcement agencies and local law enforcement agencies.
Where are we losing our men and women? I mean, we are
training them and then they are going off and others are
benefiting from it.
Mr. Bonner. Historically, we lost most of our agents to
other federal law enforcement agencies. We are seeing a trend
now emerging where they are going off to the state and local
law enforcement agencies as well. One of the reasons that the
current attrition rate is relatively low is twofold: One, we
have not hired that many people, and we lose most of the agents
either during that first year or in the next couple of years.
The--excuse me for just a second.
Mr. Meek. Well, while you are taking a water break there, I
am not going to--hopefully, President Jackson, I will get back
to you, but is it true that when someone goes--let's say, for
instance, an individual leaves from the Border Patrol and goes
to the Federal Air Marshal Program. They do not have to go
through the whole training experience all over again. Is that a
correct statement would you believe?
Mr. Bonner. When they did the air marshals ramp-up, they
had a reduced course for those who had prior federal law
enforcement training. One of the disturbing things is when we
are hiring people back--such as I believe we hired about 400 of
our Border Patrol agents back from the Air Marshal Program--
many of those agents were required to undergo the entire 19
weeks of training, even though they had already done that just
a few years prior to that. These were people that if the law
had changed slightly, maybe a week refresher course and they
would have been back up to speed. It was just a tremendous
waste of resources and money.
Mr. Meek. Well, Mr. President, I mean, I think you just
answered the prevailing question that was asked by the chairman
of the other panel. In many instances, these individuals are
already trained, and they are being double counted, and I mean
that is an extremely awful lot of money that this Congress is
being told. Even on the rehire because you do have people that
are coming back and you have people that are cross-pollinating
through the federal law enforcement experience. They want to be
a Border Protection officer, some may leave, I do not know,
ATF, but they have that basic law enforcement training.
Mr. Bonner. I think they could do much better, sir. I think
they could figure out?make modules and say, ``Okay, you already
know general arrest authority, you already know this, so we are
going to give you a little bit of refresher on that and we are
going to heavy up on the immigration law because you have never
been taught that.'' But I think that is something that needs to
be looked at.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extended time.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Cox.
Mr. Cox. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by asking Mr. Jackson
the same question you asked him with a different figure. You
asked him if he could provide thorough training for $100,000. I
want to ask if you could provide thorough training for $32,000,
because that is the figure, as I understand it, that we were
just given by the first panel for the training piece itself,
not including hiring, recruiting and so on.
And when people come to you as surge capacity instructees,
they have already been recruited and we are going to put them
in the field and pay them at the government's expense, not
yours. They will be paid in fact while they are taking
training, so the comparable figure that we should be asking
about, if I am not mistaken, is $32,000. Is that in the
ballpark of what you could do?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir. It is well in the ballpark, but I
would then question what does the $32,000 cover? Again, I do
not have the requirements. I do not know the specified
requirements that the Border Patrol needs to get through that
19 weeks of training.
Mr. Cox. All right. So we may be asking you an unfair
question in the sense that you have not been able to do a
formal presentation of what you could do for X amount because
they have not told you exactly what would be required.
Mr. Jackson. If I knew what the requirements were. Does
that include the officer's gun, his primary weapon and
secondary weapon at the end of training? Does he walk away with
that gun? I train a lot of people and I provide the weapons.
Our prior performance, our number one prior performance on
this type of evolution would be the U.S. Navy. The Navy came to
us after the USS Cole and said, ``We cannot train our men and
women, sailors, in firearms and force protection because we do
not have any instructors left. So they came to us 3 years ago,
opening a competitive bid. We did that, and we have trained
about 35,000 sailors across the United States, in San Diego,
San Antonio, Texas, Virginia and North Carolina. We do that for
anywhere from 1-to 3-week types of courses. They gave us the
curriculum, here is the curriculum, the U.S. Navy curriculum,
and said, ``This is exactly what you will teach,'' and that is
exactly what we did.
They provide us with a qualified person on Monday morning,
and we provide them with a fully certified student, graduated
on either the first, second, or third week depending on how
long the course is. Utilizing our GSA, our costing models, that
is how I came to you with that number. So what are the
requirements for a 19-week course? I do not know the exact
specified requirements, though. If they gave that to me, I
could come back to you with a detailed pricing, but it would
cost as an outsourced solution.
Mr. Cox. But you are certainly interested in pursuing that
option?
Mr. Jackson. We are always interested in pursuing--helping
the U.S. government. That is what we do. I have a medium-sized
company with a lot of--probably 90 percent of our staff is
former law enforcement or former military, anywhere from the
minimum 4 years to the maximum 30-something years in service.
We have 1,300 people working for Blackwater around the world
today, and, again, probably somewhere around 85 to 90 percent
of those people are former something U.S. government, and that
is what we do.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Bonner, you certainly appreciate what we want
this training to produce. You know what we really need on the
job.
I am intrigued by the interchange you just had with Mr.
Meek about your interest in modules for training that might
take advantage of different levels of preparedness that
trainees bring to their basic training.
The Government Accountability Office when it reviewed FLETC
operations said that it was not really taking advantage of
alternative instructional methods, including e-learning. Do you
think there is any opportunity, particularly on the legal side,
for that kind of training?
Mr. Bonner. I am sorry, which kind of training was that?
Mr. Cox. E-learning; that is to say distance learning,
Internet and so on. Is it possible that for the book learning
part of this the Internet could be one means of reducing the
cost?
Mr. Bonner. It is a possibility, but one of the concerns I
have at this level of a person's career is part of what you are
doing is evaluating that person to make sure that they have the
right stuff to be a federal law enforcement officer. You just
do not want to give anyone a badge and a gun and arrest
authority and throw them out there, because that would be an
invitation to disaster. Probably more important in that is that
on-the-job training would occur when they get back from the
Academy where you are really scrutinizing--.
Mr. Cox. I could not agree with you more. In fact, what I
would like to see is the training being more focused on that
aspect. I am concerned that we are placing a significant
emphasis on the very rudimentary parts.
Mr. Bonner. I could not agree with you more. One of the
things that has troubled me for a long time is the fact that
the Border Patrol goes through the pretense of firing people
based on suitability through their 6-and 10-month law and
Spanish examinations and artificially lowers the number to get
rid of people when they should just tell them, ``Look, you are
not working out. Based on what we have seen out in the field,
you are just not working out,'' and they do not really need a
reason.
And that is the current state of civil service law. You can
fire someone within that first year based on that gut feeling
you have that they are just not going to work out. And they
would be doing a favor to these people instead of saying, ``You
know, you got a 69.99 on the Spanish test. You almost made it.
Have a nice life.''
Mr. Cox. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is
expired.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member from
Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bonner, one of the discussions that we have constantly
had to address here is with respect to how Border Patrol
relates to other law enforcement officials, and you will have
some members of Congress who would like to see some of that
responsibility passed on to local law enforcement through some
kind of training component, reimbursement component. What has
been the experience of the Border Patrol along those lines with
other law enforcement? Do they want to get involved in those
issues or would they rather see it remain at the federal level?
Mr. Bonner. Most law enforcement officers that we interface
with at the state and local level would like to have limited
authority to deal with situations where they feel it is
appropriate to take action, but they do not want to become
full-time immigration law enforcement officers, especially in
communities that have a very large percentage of illegal
immigrants, because it would just tie up all of their resources
and prevent them from going out and doing the other aspects of
their work, such as protecting the citizenry.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Jackson, you know, when you look at the
numbers that you have presented to us today, to be quite honest
with you, they are startling, going from $40,000 to somewhere,
$179,000 or $180,000. And if I glean from your testimony, as
someone in the private sector, you would not be adverse to
having the opportunity of training any of these law enforcement
personnel for these various responsibilities.
Mr. Jackson. No, sir. We are standing by.
Mr. Thompson. And have you approached any of these agencies
with this offer up to this point?
Mr. Jackson. Not on this particular requirement. But over
the years, we are 8 years old and we have approached many, many
entities on giving them different solutions. And we do a lot of
them today. Again, we do the Navy, we have the Department of
State. These are major, major programs that we run today.
Mr. Thompson. Well, if the Border Patrol module could be
provided to you and you could cost it out and you could come
back and say for one-half of what you are presently spending I
could give you that same individual that would meet every
qualification or requirement that is presently put in this
manual, so you are saying you could do it.
Mr. Jackson. There is absolutely no doubt that we could do
it. I would say to you, sir, that we are probably the only
private company in the United States today that could do that.
And the reason I say that is we are really the only private
company in the U.S. that has a 6,000 acre private training
facility of a--maybe not on the FLETC standard because it is
not paid with taxpayers' money--it is on our standard. It is on
a very, very high standard, and we are training tens of
thousands of people every year. These are everybody from your
tier one, your best of the best of the military, to your best
of the best of the federal law enforcement.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Bonner, are there any lateral transfers
into the Border Patrol under existing standards, to your
knowledge? In other words, if I am in another federal service,
am I allowed to transfer?
Mr. Bonner. You are allowed to transfer, but they will make
you go through the entire 19-week Border Patrol Academy. Even
if you are a--let's say you are a 20-year veteran with all
kinds of commendations, they will still make you go through the
entire 19-week Border Patrol Academy.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson-Lee, for any questions she may have.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. I thank the chairman and I thank the
Ranking Member for this hearing, and I thank the witnesses.
I apologize for being delayed. I was in a Judiciary
Committee hearing on the other side of the campus, but this is
a very important hearing and raises a very important question.
I think some weeks ago, Mr. Bonner might have been present, I
raised issues about the largeness of the Homeland Security
Department--180,000 strong that may speak to some of the
concerns being expressed about the question of capacity.
And capacity for me is equal to security and equal to the
securing of the homeland, the ability to provide the resources
on an ongoing basis. I am still committed to the 9/11
authorization bill, which authorized 2,000 Border Patrol agents
per year, as I understand, over a 5-year period and 800 ICE
agents over a 5-year period.
I want to just raise the comments of Connie Patrick to
frame my question and also to provide some insights on how
crucial I think or what a state of crisis we are in without
putting crisis and alarmist together but that we need to move
energetically. That is why I compliment the chairman and the
Ranking Member of the subcommittee and the chairman and Ranking
Member of the full committee, because I think their efforts
have really focused on the urgency of the work of the Homeland
Security Committee.
But, Ms. Patrick said over the years FLETC has experienced
periods of substantial growth in the training requests by its
partner organizations. Using innovation and imagination to
maximize these resources, these increases have been
accommodated. That ability continues. But at the close of that
paragraph, she said, ``However, extraordinary measures, such as
a 6-day training work week, are difficult to sustain, take a
toll on both staff and facilities and are costly.''
In the last 24 hours in Houston, a federal law enforcement
organization was able to capture an individual who allegedly
came to Houston under the pretense of meeting with Al-Qa`ida to
sell them a bomb-making formula or to sell them a bomb. I think
that says to us in the backdrop of the near scare that we had a
couple of weeks ago of a Cessna that seemed to have broken
through all of our security here in Washington, D.C., that
homeland security should be a very high level of concern.
I also add my concern of giving a sense to the American
people that they have got to do it themselves. I point out the
minutemen. Today, in Texas, a number of state legislatures have
asked the minutemen through all of their patriotism to stay
home, because Texas poses, even though I know many of us have
indicated and respect their concern and their patriotism, but
they can create a volatile situation on the border for
untrained, unauthorized individuals.
My question to both of you would be, is the issue of not
being able to have the capacity to train an overall management
issue of an overly big corporation, such as the Department of
Homeland Security? And in the course of just a side question,
does the federal training also have training in languages such
as Spanish?
Mr. Jackson, do you have capacity in your training?
But, Mr. Bonner, in particular, are we overwhelmed by the
largeness of the department. Should we have a narrow training
facility that deals specifically with training of border patrol
agents and not have this sort of comprehensive hand that does
law enforcement, maybe local and state involvement, but really
focused because we say that homeland security is a priority.
Should that not be separated out, distinguishable in order to
secure the homeland?
I thank the gentleman, and I would appreciate an answer
from Mr. Bonner and Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Bonner. The Border Patrol does have its own unique
training facility, which was incorporate by FLETC back in 1977,
I believe. It has managed to maintain pretty much an
independent role there, although there are some courses that
FLETC oversees.
Probably the biggest mistake that the Border Patrol has
made of late is one that was not so much their doing but a
political consideration: moving from Charleston out to Artesia.
I do not believe that community has the infrastructure to
support that large of an operation, and, certainly--and this is
no slam on the Chamber of Commerce there--it is not something
as enticing as, say, Charleston, South Carolina or the St.
Simons Island near Brunswick, Georgia where you want to take
your family while you go instruct for 6 months to bring them
out into the middle of nowhere in Artesia, New Mexico.
That presents a challenge. We need to look at different
ways of doing things if we are going to step up and meet the
challenge of training, not just these 2,000 but the bill, the
9/11 bill calls for 2,000 agents being trained every year for
the next 5 years. And I think that is really a minimum figure
if we want to secure our borders. We need to train as many
people as possible, so we need to look at different ways of
achieving that goal.
Mr. Jackson. Ma'am, again, I came today to say that I could
help FLETC if their capacity was not--if they were not prepared
for that emerging and compelling capacity. We are prepared to
do that. We have grown over the last 8 years utilizing a
modular system, and, again, I have heard modular a couple of
times a day. We use a modular system and it is scalable. It
scales up, it scales down.
We are prepared to scale up to support a FLETC Border
Patrol emerging and compelling requirement if that was
requested of us. And we also are prepared to go forward and we
could sustain that through a longer period of time if that was
required.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Can I ask the gentleman just an indulgence
on the question I asked about Spanish language training? Do you
have that capacity?
Mr. Jackson. Oh, yes, ma'am. We have every capacity that--
not to sound big-headed here, but we have every capacity that
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has. We work with a
lot of the exact same people. We work with the exact same
technologies. We understand e-training. We are working some
federal programs right now with these e-training distance
learning through the Internet, or law enforcement training
people. So, yes, ma'am, we are completely prepared for that.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I guess, inquire
both of you and the Ranking Member and also imposing it. As I
listened to Mr. Bonner, and I did not hear his earlier
testimony and scanned his written testimony, but I would hope
that in this hearing we are looking at giving the Border Patrol
agents greater capacity for training Border Patrol agents.
And I am not sure whether we are looking to give them an
opportunity to be trained elsewhere. I just think their mission
is so unique that it is important that they are trained by
those who know the uniqueness of their mission. Both northern
and southern border and. Also the teaching of their technology
that I hope that they will be getting is particularly specific.
Mr. Bonner, are you looking to be trained elsewhere or you
want more capacity in your own training facility?
Mr. Bonner. I think that in order to entice instructors who
are fully qualified and highly motivated, I think we need to
explore other locations beyond Artesia, and I concur with you
that there are parts of that training where it is very critical
that we have Border Patrol agents, people who have actually
been there, done that instructing.
There are other parts that are not as critical, but
certainly some parts, especially when it comes to immigration
law and Border Patrol operations, where you just cannot teach
that to an instructor. You cannot incorporate that into a
module, because you have that interface with those trainees and
those students. And talking to them not only during the class
but after class so that they can understand the culture of the
Border Patrol and the mission of the Border Patrol and that
they assimilate those important considerations.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank the Ranking Member.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
I want to follow up and make sure I understand what you are
saying. Do you believe--maybe this is what Ms. Jackson-Lee was
getting at--do you believe that we can comparably train these
people outside the existing Border Patrol infrastructure if it
is through a private contractor or maybe a major university
with a law enforcement department.
Do you believe that you could get a product out of that
infrastructure that would be satisfactory to you?
Mr. Bonner. I think there are parts that could be
contracted out, but I think there are other parts that have to
be taught by Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Are those part--you know, we heard
earlier in the first panel that there was a 5-month, 19-week
training program that was kind of on campus, and then another 5
months after that, there was training in the field. Do you
believe that the 5-month on-campus training could be contracted
out pretty readily?
Mr. Bonner. Only certain parts of it. There are other parts
that I believe would have to have Border Patrol agents as the
instructors. Now, I mean, one of the things that they have done
now is rehired annuitants, bringing them back to instruct--
people who served an entire career with the Border Patrol and
that is something that could be explored.
Mr. Rogers. So if the contractor or university were to hire
as part of their faculty former Border Patrol officers, do you
believe, do you believe the end product would be just as good
as what you are receiving from the current infrastructure?
Mr. Bonner. I believe it would be close. I am not sure that
it would be quite to the level, because I do not believe there
is any substitute for active field agents who are out there
confronting the problems every day and who can pass along some
of what they have gleaned over their careers.
Mr. Rogers. You talked earlier about the need, in your
view, for us to really pay more attention to what it is going
to take to retain our Border Patrol officers: compensation,
benefits, as well as infrastructure enhancements. When looking
to the Congress, if we can find a way to prudently and
effectively train these officers at a fraction of what is being
suggested here, don't you believe a significant amount of that
money we could direct to compensation?
Mr. Bonner. I am real unclear when they threw out these
numbers of $179,000, $189,000--what all is going into that mix.
Mr. Rogers. That makes several of us.
Mr. Bonner. Yes. If they are including your equipment, your
facilities, and your support personnel, your communications
devices, all of these things that are really necessary to do
the job, then the number does sound unreasonable, in fact it
sounds a little low. Now, if they are just talking about the
cost of a half-year salary and the actual training, then it
sounds very high to me.
Mr. Rogers. Let me skip to Mr. Jackson real quick. You
talked earlier in your introductory remarks that you have a
very complimentary relationship with FLETC. You work together
and you are there more to help supplement or enhance any
capability requirements that might exist. Has your company in
the past ever had any contractual relationship with FLETC that
was in fact a supplemental or complimentary relationship?
Mr. Jackson. No, sir, not supplemental in the training
side. We have on the target side, on a few other issues, we
have done some work. We were down there as little as 2 weeks
ago. Again, not on the training side, plus he is been able to
handle their load.
I would just like to mention, Ms. Jackson-Lee, there were a
couple of issues there that were going around. One was the
facilities. Facilities today are very, very expensive, as I am
sure you guys well, well know. There is one out there right
now, a Department of State cask facility. It started at $55
million 2 years ago and 3 years ago. It is at somewhere between
$600 million and $900 million today in Aberdeen, Maryland.
When you start talking about building new facilities to
have some place to train here because it is this kind of?the
reason that the FLETC has waited, the reason that Blackwater
has waited is we bring those people to our position and we try
to get everything that we can get done done there. Start moving
people all around the country, flying them in, flying them out,
put them on buses doing this, you lose travel days, you lose a
lot of training time.
The 19-week course, again, sir, I do not know exactly what
the curriculum looks like. Should it be 19 weeks? I am
listening to Mr. Bonner here. Should it be 19 weeks? There is
the first thing that somebody needs to look at. Does it really
need to be 19 weeks long?
As a private company, we hire former Border Patrol agents
to do our instructing to Border Patrol personnel. If we are
going to do FBI training for HRT, we hire former FBI HRT
personnel to teach that. We do not use law enforcement to teach
military, we do not use military to teach law enforcement. That
has been our mantra since the day we opened up, and that is
what we are doing today.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
Do you have any additional questions?
I yield to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Meek.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I once again want to
say that this hearing is very informative to me but I know also
to the committee.
President Jackson, I did not have an opportunity to ask you
the questions that I wanted to ask you. Did share with you that
I know that you are able and you are very good. We are not in
competition. But, you know, competition is good sometimes. I
mean, the U.S. Postal Service is what it is today because of
competition.
And I was in the state legislature before I got to
Congress, and there was always a concern about privatization
and the private sector and the good and bad that comes along
with that. But as it comes down to the protection of the
homeland and your company is an exception to the rule and
companies like it of being able to help this country meet its
objectives as it relates to protecting the homeland. So I do
not think that is anything that you need to worry about your
colleagues questioning in the law enforcement community, your
integrity of making sure that we commend what we have in place
now. But we want to continue to compliment.
So I want to just ask you just a round of questions that
maybe you can help clarify, because I believe this committee,
like it or not, we are going to have to play a role in how we
do business, because from what I am hearing and what I have
read and what I have received from the Department, it is not
necessarily something that I feel quite comfortable with at
this point. And that is the reason why on the last panel I
asked a question of the individuals that are in charge, the
Deputy Commissioner, Chief of.
Do we have a new way of thinking and training? I mean, are
we just looking at it in a way because this is the way we have
always done it? And so that is where I believe you come in.
I want to ask you, as it relates to the State Department
security agents, how many of those agents have you trained thus
far, and how many have you have at one time in training at your
6,000 acre facility?
Mr. Jackson. We are averaging today at Blackwater training
multiple units, usually between 10 and 15 units a day,
averaging this year for Monday through Friday, 450 students a
day, every day, day in and day out, another 100, 150 over the
weekend, every single day. We bus them in, we drive them in,
they live at our property, however they get there, about 450
students every day. Our capacity right now would be 1,000
students a day, which is--we have got some mid-term goals to
get there.
Mr. Meek. Okay. You are doing training but you also provide
services as it relates to the State Department and the
military. I know that you are doing some things in Iraq. It is
giving an afterlife to many of our men and women that are in
the specialty areas, special forces. I was down in Central
Command and they know that you are quite effective in
recruiting some of their guys over to Blackwater.
Do you see any future, not just for your company but
companies like your company that may very well see a market in
this, getting into the issue of border protection?
Mr. Jackson. Well, sir, listening to those numbers of pay
for starting Border Patrol agents, with those types of numbers,
I can put as many men together as you need, trained and on the
borders.
Mr. Meek. Okay. I want to ask this question because I am
not?my history in public service is not really one that pushed
privatization. I have some questions as it relates to the TSA
and the privatization project that they have there, but I would
much rather deal in a way to be able to let the Department know
in this hearing and also get the information with the
Department for those men and women that are in uniform trying
to do the things that they can do, because I believe that when
it comes down to protecting the homeland that there is room for
innovation. There is room for us to be able to look at
hopefully getting a bigger bang for our buck.
And it is interesting that you would be on the same panel
with Mr. Bonner who may have another view and another opinion
as it relates to that. And I mentioned in the last panel that
we have a third tier here. Well, I guess we are the third tier,
as elected citizens representing the taxpayers of the United
States. And now we have citizens that are kind of saying,
``Well, I know I am paying taxes, I am retired, ex-military,
what have you, but I am going out to protect my border.''
Now, Ms. Jackson-Lee time after time mentioned the fact
that those that are in elected service on a bipartisan level,
but, please, we thank you but do not do it. We have that. That
is not going away in my opinion. It is going to continue. I do
not care what we tell people. So that means we have to reform
ourselves. So I am very interested in how we are going to
proceed from this point, and both of you are going to be very
helpful in that process in providing us some very accurate
information.
The last thing that I would want to do, Mr. Chairman, is
set the stage, an uneven stage, that would put the Department
in a posture where it is not on equal footing of the private
sector if we are going to start to legislatively, respectfully
introduce the private sector into protecting our borders and
homeland. That is just my 2 cents that I want to put into this,
but I think it is very, very important.
Mr. Bonner, I look forward to receiving that information
from the Council on how we can use assistance or you
mentioned--I am sorry, I wrote it down on another page--those
individuals that can take over monitoring and transportation of
individuals that are apprehended.
And Mr. Jackson, please feel free to share with me and
other members of the committee on how Blackwater USA can serve
in the capacity of protecting our borders and training and in
other areas so that we know exactly what we are doing. But we
are very serious about this, because all we need is one or two
incidents to have us legislating in haste and then we do not
get what we want.
And so, Mr. Chairman, we have had more subcommittee
hearings than I thought we would have, and I would like to
thank you for--than we would have had in this entire Congress,
but I am glad that we are starting to look at the finer details
of the Department to be able to help the Department make itself
better and protecting the homeland. So I look forward to
working with you and not only members of our panel but our
other colleagues in making sure that we do what we need to do
for the American people.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Jackson-Lee, do you have any additional questions?
Ms. Jackson-Lee. I do, as the Ranking Member did, Mr.
Chairman, and have some concluding remarks and make sure that I
just pose another question to Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Jackson, I think all of us who have advocated in
different committees the importance of American businesses and
business being done on our soil and you are doing that, we are
certainly interested in the resources that you have and the
partnerships you have already established.
Might I just, as an aside, hope that you are--I think you
are in North Carolina, if I am not mistaken. You are in a
university state. I hope that you are interfacing with some of
the training techniques or opportunities with some of our
colleges. I would suggest historically black colleges and
Hispanic-serving colleges just because there are resources
there. There are also people there, potential trainees, that
may be of value. I hope that there is some partnership going
there.
But I think that Mr. Meek has made a very valuable point
along with Mr. Rogers on this whole issue of capacity and doing
it the right way, not doing it the wrong way. I just heard
another statistic about the percentage of Americans who said,
``Yes, we need military at the border.'' That may speak to my
distinguished Ranking Member's comment that people are going to
do what they want to do. If they do not see military at the
border, and they are thinking they need to go themselves. So
maybe 2,000 is not even enough.
And finding ways to share even the training might be an
approach to take, and I am interested in that. But, again, I
emphasize, I think, the idea of online Border Patrol agents and
ICE agents are the best to train their fellow men and women,
and I do not want to get away from that.
Mr. Bonner, tell me if you can just clarify, you seem to
suggest that you have a bad facility and you need to have
either a new location or an enhanced facility or somewhere else
that would encourage individuals to transfer over or to apply
for the first time to be Border Patrol agents which then ups
your numbers. Is that what I was hearing that is one of the
solutions that you are offering today?
Mr. Bonner. The concern I have is with attracting the
qualified and motivated instructors. You can train someone for
that 19-week period and it really does not matter where they go
because that is just 19 weeks of their life. They are brand new
and they do not know that from anything. It is a question of
can you entice people.
And the last thing you want to do is force someone to take
a Border Patrol agent and say, ``We are forcing you to go there
to be an instructor.'' They are doing that now, and regardless
of whether it is consciously or unconsciously, that is going to
rub off. That dissatisfaction will rub off on those very
impressionable new hires when this person gets up and says,
``Boy, this outfit has treated me terribly,'' and they go,
``What did I get myself into?''
So you want a place where people want to go. As I said
before, this is not a slam on the good people or Artesia, but
the infrastructure simply is not there to support such a large
expansion. Perhaps they need to look at finding facilities
elsewhere.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. But you do believe that we have a capacity
in the United States to find individuals that would either
transfer and/or for the first time be interested in Border
Patrol agents.
Mr. Bonner. We have no shortage of people wanting to apply
to be Border Patrol agents. Our problem is hanging on to people
once they come over and we mistreat them; either with the low
pay or some of the personnel regulations that are now being
implemented that strip away their rights and protections. And
these things are factors that are going to drive good people
away from federal service, and we have to look at all of these
things to make sure that not only do we attract the best and
the brightest, but that we manage to hang on to them.
Because it is a very expensive proposition to train
someone. We should not just be a springboard for all of these
other federal, state and local agencies. I mean, the training
is top-notch, and all of these other agencies are more than
willing to hire Border Patrol agents.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. We need to be able to retain them.
Mr. Bonner. Exactly.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Let me thank the chairman and the Ranking
Member and Mr. Jackson as well. Maybe we can find common ground
on working together.
Chairman I would also offer that we could do this for the
Transportation Security Administration. I would venture to say
to you that they need some training. And for those of us who
are consumers of their lack thereof on a regular basis, this
might be the committee where we have them come in and give us--
and I support TSA. I support the process or that structure that
we now put in place, but I would welcome the opportunity for us
to help them fix the training and the recruitment and the need
for greater professionalism in order to do the nation's work.
I thank both gentlemen. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady.
And I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and
I, thank the members for their questions.
We would like to let you know some of the other members who
were not here may have some questions they would submit to you.
We are going to keep the record open for the next 10 days, so
if somebody does submit a written question, I would ask you to
make a written response to that.
And with that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions and Responses for the Record
Questions from the Honorable Mike Rogers for Connie L. Patrick
Question: Of the 19 training weeks, (1) what is involved; (2) who
teaches each course?
Answer: The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Training Program is a 747-
hour/91-day curriculum that includes course work in law and Spanish, as
well as Border Patrol operations training, firearms training, physical
training, and drivers training. The curriculum requires some 2,652-
instructor hours to deliver. Federal Law Enforcement Center (FLETC)
instructors, some of whom are rehired annuitants with USBP experience,
teach the courses.
Question: Can we get the syllabus and course descriptions and
schedule of classes?
Answer: The program syllabus and Schedule of classes for the US
Border Patrol Integrated Basic Training Program are attached as an
electronic file.
Question: What would be the total cost of training 2,000 additional
agents at Artesia.
Answer: FLETC estimates the total cost would be $61,645,535.
Additional cost information is provided in the table that follows.
Additional FLETC Cost for Increased Border Patrol Agent Training 700
Attrition in Budget Base 1
Salary and Expenses
Basic Training Tuition (40 classes, 2,000 students).... $11,507,240
\1\ The FLETC budget for Fiscal Year 2006 already
includes funding for 700 students, which is considered
currently to be U.S. Border Patrol's attrition.
Instructors (66 FTEs).................................. 5,810,885
\2\ Temporary facilities include, but are not limited
to, modular classrooms, office space, breakout rooms,
computer and Spanish lab, sewer enhancements.
S&E Subtotal........................................... $17,318,125
\3\ The temporary facilities requirement is reduced by
$1,882,000, which was provided in chapter 2 of the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005,
Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 231,270.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements and Related....
Expense..............................................
Temporary Facilities/lnfrastructure,2,3................ $8,237,410
\4\ One-time construction cost.
Aquatic Training Center 4.............................. 3,000,000
\5\ One-time construction cost.
2 350-room Dorms 5..................................... 33,000,000
ACI&RE Subtotal........................................ $44,327,410
TOTAL.................................................. $61,645,535
Question from Congressman Bennie Thompson for Connie L. Patrick
Question: Can you provide training costs for each of the other
agencies that train at FLETC?
Answer: This information is attached as an electronic file.
(Maintained in the Committee's File.)
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
Basic Traininq Programs
Program Acronym
Basic Police Officer Training Program................ BPOTP
Customs and Border Protection Integrated............. CBPI
Criminal Investigator Training Program............... CITP
Federal Air Marshal Training Program................. FAMTP
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detection and ICE--D
Removal.............................................
Mixed Basic Police Training Program.................. MBPTP
United States Border Patrol Integrated............... USBPI
United States Marshals Service Integrated............ USMSI
Land Management Police Training...................... LMPT
Air Force Office of Special Investigations........... AFOSI FB
Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Pre Basic AFOSI PB
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Special Agent Basic ATF SABT
Training............................................
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Industry Operations ATF IOITP
Investigator Training Program.......................
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, AOUSC APPSTP
Abbreviated Probation & Pretrial Services...........
Basic Corrections Officer Training Program........... BCOTP
Basic Juvenile Corrections Officer Training Program.. BJCOTP
Bureau of Prisons Basic Training Program............. BOP P
Basic Telecommunications Officer Training Program.... BTOTP
Customs and Border Protection, Basic Import CBP BISA
Specialist A........................................
Customs and Border Protection, Basic Import CBP BISB
Specialist B........................................
Customs and Border Protection, Spanish Training CBP STP
Program.............................................
Central Intelligence Agency, Special Police Training CIA SPTP
Program.............................................
Citizenship and Immigration Service, Applications CIS AAB
Adjudications Basic.................................
Citizenship and Immigration Service, Asylum Center CIS ACAO
Adjudications Officer...............................
Citizenship and Immigration Service, District CIS DAO
Adjudications Officer...............................
Citizenship and Immigration Service, Immigration CIS II0
Information Officer.................................
Citizenship and Immigration Service, Immigration CIA OAFTP
Officer Anti Fraud..................................
Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Special Agent DCIS SAB
Basic...............................................
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental EPA EIB
Investigations Basic................................
Food and Drug Administration, Special Agent Training FDA SATP
Program.............................................
Federal Protective Service, Pre Basic................ FPS PB
Federal Protective Service, Follow On................ FPS FB
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Basic ICE BIT
Intelligence Training Program.......................
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Equivalency ICE ETP
Training Program....................................
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Special Agent ICE SAT
Training Program....................................
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Technical ICE TEOS
Enforcement Officer School..........................
Inspector General, Investigator Training Program..... IG ITP
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations, Pre IRSC PB
Basic...............................................
Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations, IRS SABT
Special Agent Basic Training........................
Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Basic NCIS BIOTP
Intelligence Officer Training Program...............
Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Special Agent NCIS SABT
Basic Training......................................
National Marine Fisheries Service, Basic Agent....... NMFS BA
National Park Service, Pre Basic..................... NPS PB
National Park Service, Ranger Basic Training Program. NPS RBTP
Treasury Inspector General Tax Administration, TIGTA SABT
Special Agent Basic Training........................
United States Marshal Service, Abbreviated Basic USMS APB
Deputy..............................................
United States Marshal Service, Detention / Aviation USMSDEO
Enforcement Officer.................................
United States Marshal Service, Deputy United States USMS DUSM
Marshal.............................................
United States Park Police, Follow On Basic........... USPP FB