[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING WE HAVE WELL-TRAINED BOOTS ON THE GROUND AT THE BORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-923 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, PETER T. KING, New York
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts LAMAR SMITH, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
JANE HARMAN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon TOM DAVIS, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Columbia BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
Islands GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
AL GREEN, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
Jessica Herra-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
VACANCY PETER T. KING, New York (Ex
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Jeff Greene, Director & Counsel
Brian Turbyfill, Clerk
Michael Russell, Senior Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 1
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 2
The Honorable Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress From
the State Colorado............................................. 29
Witnesses
Panel I
Mr. T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol Council,
American Federation of Government Employees:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Ms. Colleen M. Kelley, National President, The National Treasury
Employees Union:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Mr. Robert B. Rosenkranz, Senior Vice-President, Government
Services Division, DynCorp International:
Oral Statement................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Panel II
Ms. Cynthia Atwood, Assistant Director, Filed Training
Directorate, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 58
Prepared Statement............................................. 59
Mr. Art Morgan, Director, Field Operations Academy, Customs and
Border protection:
Oral Statement................................................. 52
Prepared Statement............................................. 55
Mr. Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice,
Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 37
Prepared Statement............................................. 39
Chief Charlie Whitmire, Director, Border Patrol Training Academy,
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 53
Prepared Statement............................................. 55
Appendix
Additional Questions and Responses:
Responses from Ms. Colleen M. Kelley............................. 73
Responses from Mr. Robert B. Rosenkranz.......................... 74
Responses from Chief Charlie Whitmire............................ 75
ENSURING WE HAVE WELL-TRAINED BOOTS ON THE GROUND AT THE BORDER
----------
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations
and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:04 a.m., in
room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Carney, Perlmutter, and Rogers.
Mr. Carney. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee on Management,
Investigations and Oversight will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
``Ensuring We Have Well-Trained Boots on the Ground at the
Border.''
For some time now, I have been listening to my
constituents' concerns about immigration and potential reforms
to the system. Not surprisingly, border security is one of
their prime concerns. This conversation has gone national, and
that is a good thing. All Americans should be worried about our
porous borders.
But these discussions mean nothing if we can't hire and
retain the personnel we need to keep our borders secure, and
personnel are only as good as their training. That is why we
are holding this hearing today.
The Customs and Border Patrol force is one of the best
agencies in DHS and the Federal Government. Border Patrol
agents train at the elite Border Patrol Training Academy, and
customs and border protection officers are trained by the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
But it is no secret that CBP as a whole lacks the manpower
to fulfill its crucial mission. Currently, there are about
13,500 Border Patrol officers on the ground and only 18, 000
customs and border protection officers who are responsible for
inspections at more than 300 official ports of entry. The
administration urged for, and the last Congress authorized but
failed to fund, an additional 10,000 Border Patrol agents. I
haven't been here more than 6 months, but I know the money is
always hard to find.
I was happy to be able to support the fiscal year 2008
homeland security appropriations bill last week, which provides
funding for about 3,000 more Border Patrol officers and 400 to
450 more CBPOs. I am hopeful that we can continue down this
road in the coming years and fully fund all 10,000 of the new
positions.
My constituents are certainly fiscally conservative, and so
am I, but when they talk with me about immigration reform and
border security, the cost of training and retaining CBP agents
is not their primary concern. They want secure borders and the
peace of mind that comes with them.
Aside from funding more boots on the ground, we must also
ensure funding for our Federal law enforcement training
apparatus. Without adequate training capacity and
infrastructure, the staffing levels needed to enforce our
immigration laws and secure our border will simply be
insufficient.
Even with the best training, CBP still faces annual
attrition due to retirements and transfers. This subcommittee
and the full committee have been continually examining the
morale problems within DHS, but CBP personnel are so good at
what they do, they are being recruited to join other law
enforcement agencies. We have spent enough time and money on
their training that we must do everything we can in order to
keep retention up.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. I thank Chairman Carney for holding this
hearing that I had asked for earlier this year.
I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to
be with us. I know you are all busy.
We also are welcoming back to the subcommittee the
president of NTEU and the president of the National Border
Patrol Council, who also testified on this very topic 2 years
ago.
In 2004, the Congress authorized 2,000 new Border Patrol
agents for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, for a total of
10,000 agents over 5 years.
At that time, I raised concerns that the Department of
Homeland Security lacked the capacity and the ability to hire
and train this many agents in such a short period of time.
Therefore, this subcommittee held a hearing in May of 2005 to
examine in detail the capacity and cost of training new Border
Patrol agents.
At that time, we heard startling testimony from an
assistant commissioner of Customs and Border Protection who
said that it cost $179,000 to train, hire, equip and deploy
just one Border Patrol agent. As a part of its review, the
subcommittee was informed that the cost per agent could
actually range from $150,000 to $190,000 per agent. Today, we
explore whether any progress has been made to rein in those
costs.
Also in our 2005 hearing, we heard from the director of
FLETC that she was confident that the expansion of the Border
Patrol Training Academy could keep up with the influx of new
trainees. Last August, I toured the academy at Artesia, New
Mexico, and found many construction projects under way. Today,
we will hear about the current capacity of FLETC and how it
plans to meet this growing Border Patrol training demand.
In 2005, there were approximately 10,800 Border Patrol
agents. Today, we are told there are 12,380 agents on board,
with another 1,250 in training. To meet the president's goal of
adding 6,000 more new agents over 2 years, it is estimated that
8,800 will need to be hired during that period.
We will hear from our witnesses about the challenge in
hiring and retaining new agents, specifically the extent and
impact of attrition. We also will hear a private sector
perspective from the president of the Government Services
Division of DynCorp International. This company has provided
personnel for peacekeeping operations worldwide since 1994 and
currently trains the police in Iraq and Afghanistan for the
State Department.
It is critical that we stay on track to deploy the agents
Congress has authorized to secure our borders as quickly and
cost-effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing form
our witnesses how we are doing and what more can be done to
meet this goal.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
include in the record a GAO report that I requested on this
topic.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also, GAO Report No. GAO-07-540R Border Training, March 30,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Carney. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rogers. I yield back.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
I welcome the first panel of witnesses.
Our first witness is Colleen Kelley, president of the
National Treasury Employees Union. NTEU represents over 150,000
Federal employees, 15,000 of whom are customs and border
protection employees within the Department of Homeland
Security. President Kelley has been an NTEU member since 1974
and has served in various NTEU chapter leadership positions.
She was first elected president in August of 1999 and was
reelected to a second 4-year term in August of 2003.
Our second witness is T.J. Bonner, who serves as the
president of the National Border Patrol Council, a position he
has held since 1989. The National Border Patrol Council is part
of the American Federation of Government Employees. As
president of the NBPC, Mr. Bonner represents approximately
11,000 nonsupervisory Border Patrol employees.
Our third witness is Robert B. Rosenkranz, senior vice
president of DynCorp International and president of the
government services division. His prior employment includes
positions with DynCorp International predecessor KEI Pearson
and with Beamhit. Mr. Rosenkranz has a 34-year career in the
United States Army, retiring with the rank of major general.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement
for 5 minutes, beginning with President Kelley.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman Carney, Ranking
Member Rogers, members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on behalf of customs and border
protection officers' recruitment, retention and training
issues.
Shortly after DHS was created, CBP announced the One Face
at the Border initiative that combined three different
inspector occupations--customs, immigration and agriculture--
into one single inspectional position, naming it the Customs
and Border Protection officer, CBPO. This change in job
description and job duties resulted in the Herculean task of
training, retraining and cross-training over 18,000 newly
created CBPOs.
This major reorganization of the roles and responsibilities
of the inspectional workforce at the ports of entry has
resulted in a huge expansion of skills and duties and has led
to dilution of the customs, immigration and agriculture
inspection specializations, weakening the quality of
inspections.
The Government Accountability Office has been asked by
Congress to review this initiative, and I hope that hearings
will be held on its findings that are due out this fall.
Under the One Face at the Border initiative, the curriculum
for new hires at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
has undergone major changes. Prior to the merger, INS trainees
studied at FLETC for 65 days. Trainees from the former Customs
Service had a 55-day course, and agriculture inspectors
received separate specialized training.
New CBPOs today receive 73 days at FLETC, covering all
three types of inspections. Upon returning to their assigned
ports, CBPOs are to continue training through a combination of
classroom, computer-based and on-the-job training. NTEU
believes that this continuing training is inadequate. The lack
of mentoring and insufficient on-the-job training make it
difficult for CBPOs to become proficient in even one
concentration, even though they are expected to be proficient
in all three.
Almost all training except that received at FLETC and
firearms training is computer-based. Most of it is to be
completed by CBPOs using the virtual learning center on the
Internet, DVDs and videos. No time is specifically allotted for
CBPOs to view the videos or to sign onto the computer and
complete the training. CBPOs are expected to squeeze in this
training in between performing their other administrative
duties. They often use breaks or their own time before or after
work.
Upon completion of a training module, CBPOs are required to
place a training certificate into their personnel file. This
certificate states that the CBPO is fully trained on that
topic. If any problem occurs or mistakes are made, supervisors
refer to these training certificates and can use them as a
basis for discipline. CBPOs have twin goals in doing their job:
antiterrorism and facilitating legitimate trade and travel.
On the one hand, CBPOs are to fully perform their
inspection duties, yet at all times they are made aware by
management of wait times. In land port booths, wait times are
clearly displayed. At airports, all international arrivals are
expected to be cleared within 45 minutes. CBP's emphasis on
reducing wait times without increasing staffing at the ports of
entry creates an extremely challenging work environment for the
CBPO.
It is my understanding that there are currently over 1,000
CBPO vacancies. Widely reported morale problems at DHS affect
recruitment and retention and the ability of the agency to
accomplish its mission. This is a result of longstanding issues
such as the lack of law enforcement officer status for CBPOs
that Congress is now trying to address, and new issues such as
the proposed DHS personnel regulations that would be repealed
under H.R. 1684.
Additionally, CBP's unilateral elimination of employee
input into important workplace issues such as shift schedules
has had a serious negative impact on morale.
To ensure well-trained boot on the ground at the 327 ports
of entry, NTEU recommends the following. First, fill the
vacancies and increase CBPO staffing. Second, end the One Face
at the Border initiative. Third, reestablish specialization of
prior CBPO functions. Four, put into effect an in-depth on-the-
job training plan.
Five, allot specific times during tours of duty for CBPOs
to do all assigned computer-based training. Six, require
structured discussion time with all computer-based training.
Seven, make available refresher courses to all CBPOs upon
request. Eight, repeal the DHS personnel flexibility authority.
Nine, provide LEO coverage for all CBPOs and legacy inspectors.
And ten, allow employee input into the shift assignment system.
I urge the committee's continued oversight of both the One
Face at the Border initiative and the proposed resource
allocation model that is due this month from CBP.
I very much appreciate the efforts of this committee,
particularly on providing law enforcement officer status to
CBPOs and on repealing DHS's personnel flexibilities. I would
be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colleen M. Kelley
Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Rogers, I would like to thank the
subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on training of frontline
Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs) at the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). As President of the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that
represents over 18,000 Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs)
and trade enforcement specialists who are stationed at 327 land, sea
and air ports of entry (POEs) across the United States. CBPOs make up
our nation's first line of defense in the wars on terrorism and drugs.
In addition, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry specialists
and trade compliance personnel enforce over 400 U.S. trade and tariff
laws and regulations in order to ensure a fair and competitive trade
environment pursuant to existing international agreements and treaties,
as well as stemming the flow of illegal contraband such as child
pornography, illegal arms, weapons of mass destruction and laundered
money. CBP is also a revenue collection agency, collecting an estimated
$31.4 billion in revenue on over 29 million trade entries in 2005.
ONE FACE AT THE BORDER INITIATIVE
As part of the establishment of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) in March 2003, DHS brought together employees from three
departments of government--Treasury, Justice and Agriculture to operate
at the 327 Ports of Entry (POEs).
On September 2,2003, CBP announced the One Face at the Border
initiative. The initiative was designed to eliminate the pre-9/11
separation of immigration, customs, and agriculture functions at US
land, sea and air ports of entry. Inside CBP, three different inspector
occupations--Customs Inspector, Immigration Inspector and Agriculture
Inspector duties and responsibilities were combined into a single
inspectional position--the CBPO.
The priority mission of the CBPO is to prevent terrorists and
terrorist weapons from entering the U.S., while simultaneously
facilitating legitimate trade and travel--as well as upholding the laws
and performing the traditional missions of the three legacy agencies,
the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) and the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
This change in job description and job duties established by the
One Face at the Border initiative resulted in the Herculean task of
training, retraining and cross training over 18,000 newly created
CBPOs. The U.S. Border Patrol was spared this monumental training,
retraining and cross training need because DHS transferred the U.S.
Border Patrol Service as an intact unit within CBP and did not
integrate the Border Patrol Agent position with the three inspectional
positions working at the ports.
In practice, the major reorganization of the roles and
responsibility of the inspectional workforce as a result of the One
Face at the Border initiative has resulted in job responsibility
overload and dilution of the customs, immigration and agriculture
inspection specialization and in weakening the quality of passenger and
cargo inspections.
The processes, procedures and skills are very different at land,
sea and air ports, as are the training and skill sets needed for
passenger processing, cargo and agriculture inspection. Under One Face
at the Border, former INS agents that are experts in identifying
counterfeit foreign visas are now at seaports reviewing bills of lading
from foreign container ships, while expert seaport Customs inspectors
are now reviewing passports at airports.
It is apparent that CBP sees its One Face at the Border initiative
as a means to ``increase management flexibility"without increasing
staffing levels. According to CBP, ``there will be no extra cost to
taxpayers. CBP plans to manage this initiative within existing
resources. The ability to combine these three inspectional disciplines
and to cross-train frontline officers will allow CBP to more easily
handle projected workload increases and stay within present budgeted
levels.''
This has not been the case. The knowledge and skills required to
perform the expanded inspectional tasks under One Face at the Border
have also increased the workload of the CBPO. Also lacking in the
actual implementation of One Face at the Border is the ability to
consistently practice in doing the job. Practice at doing a job is what
makes a worker better at that job. A lawyer specializes in litigation,
contracts, family law or one of many specialties. A doctor specializes
in general medicine, surgery or one of many specialties. The CBPO has
no opportunity to develop a specialty now.
The CBPO is a generalist and is rotated from seaport cargo
inspection to land port vehicle processing to airport passenger
processing. The CBPO must know the laws and duties of all of these
specialized inspection processing systems. The CBPO is responsible for
ensuring nothing and no one gets through the port that threatens the
health, safety and security of the U.S. population, while at the same
time facilitating legal trade and travel. It is a heavy load that has
been demanded of these men and women.
Congress has some understanding that the security of the ports of
entry is dependent on transforming specialized immigration, customs and
agriculture inspectors into CBPO generalists under the One Face at the
Border initiative. That is why Congress requested that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) evaluate the One Face at the Border
initiative and its impact on legacy customs, immigration and
agricultural inspection and workload. It is my understanding that GAO's
final report on the One Face at the Border initiative will be issued
this fall. NTEU strongly urges the Committee to hold hearings on the
content and recommendations contained in the final GAO One Face at the
Border report.
Also, the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee added report
language to the FY 2007 DHS Appropriations bill that, with regard to
CBP's One Face at the Border initiative, directs ``CBP to ensure that
all personnel assigned to primary and secondary inspection duties at
ports of entry have received adequate training in all relevant
inspection function.'' It is my understanding that CBP has not reported
to DHS Appropriators pursuant to this language.
Training of New CBPOs:
With the implementation of the One Face at the Border initiative,
the curriculum for new hires at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia has undergone major changes. Prior to
the merger, INS trainees studied at FTETC for 65 days. Trainees from
the former Customs Service had a 55-day course at FLETC. Unlike Customs
and Immigration Inspectors who all attended basic Academy training at
FLETC, Agriculture Inspectors have a different background; those
Agriculture Inspectors who became CBPOs were required to complete the
same basic training course as a new CBPO hire.
New CBPOs receive 73 days of FLETC training on all three types of
inspection. ``Upon returning to their assigned port, they will be
trained for the next year by a combination of classroom, computer
based, and OJT training.'' The most critical part of this training is
the year of on-the-job (OTJ) training to teach specialized information.
This OJT training phase is not being adequately done. Many new
CBPOs report that few of them have received extensive post-academy
training yet are assigned to the primary passenger processing line.
Inadequate mentoring and OTJ training make it difficult for CBPOs to
become proficient in even one job while they are expected to be
proficient at three.
Cross-training of Legacy Inspectors:
The three disciplines' skill sets--immigration, customs, and
agriculture are highly specialized and require in-depth training and
on-the-job experience. Agriculture specialists have a science
background, immigration officers are trained to recognize suspect
documents and customs officers are trained to identify counterfeit
goods, drug smugglers and look for suspect passenger behavior at the
airports and suspect product at the ports.
CBPOs that have been given cross-training have reported to NTEU
that training is inadequate in time, resources and mentoring. According
to CBP, all cross-training has been provided via video, CD-ROMIWeb,
classroom instruction, on the job training (OJT), or a combination of
these methods. With limited exceptions, all of the training is provided
at the CBPOs' post-of-duty.
For legacy inspectors, the training both in class, computer based
and on-the-job is totally inadequate. According to CBP, all legacy
Customs and CBPOs had mandatory training on Immigration Fundamentals.
``It will be delivered during Officers' normal tour of duty in the form
of eight electronic 45-minute lessons, after which the employee will be
tested to ensure comprehension. A passing grade on the review is a
prerequisite to taking the training for Full Unified Primary
inspections.''
This is a typical story about this training from legacy inspectors:
``I took the immigration class in January of 2005 and have not been
in a booth since. That is until I was told 3 weeks ago to go upstairs
and get in the booth. I told the supervisor that I could not do it
because I do not remember the training as it had been almost a year.
She told me that she would put me with another inspector who would
watch me for about 30 minutes and then I should be good to go on my
own. After speaking with the experienced legacy INS inspector in the
booth about how I was doing she changed her mind when he told her I was
screwing up everything. CBP must create a refresher class for us or we
will wind up screwing up and getting fired. I feel we are being fed to
the lions.''
The Computer-based training Process:
Almost all training outside of training received at FLETC and
firearms recertification and safety training is computer based.
Training is supposed to be completed by CBPOs using the Virtual
Learning Center on the intranet, DVDs and videos. No time is
specifically allotted for CBPOs to view the videos or sign on to the
computer and complete the training. CBPOs are expected to squeeze this
training in on their breaks, and in-between performing other
administrative duties, or on their own time before or after work. If
intempted, some of these modules require them to start again at the
beginning; others allow for picking up at the screen that they left
off.
Upon completion of the training module, CBPOs are required to input
completion data into the Training Record and Enrollment Network
(TRAEN). This certificate states that the CBPO is fully trained on that
topic. If any problem occurs or mistakes are made, supervisors pull out
these training certificates and use them as a basis for discipline.
Some training modules refer to allotting time for a structured 10
to 15 minute discussion upon completion of the module. Rarely does this
happen. There usually is no interaction with their supervisor on module
content, nor are there any structured discussion or question and answer
sessions following completion of the training video.
For example, on 2/25/2004, CBP notified NTEU that ``CBP will be
providing Bio/Agroterrorism training to all CBPOs and Agriculture
Specialists. It will be delivered during employees' normal tour of duty
via a 20-minute video, with 10--15 minutes allotted for structured
discussion.'' I have heard that at most ports; the 10--15 minute
structured discussion did not take place.
CBP Emphasis on Wait Times:
Currently, there are thousands of different documents that a
traveler can present to CBPOs when attempting to enter the United
States, creating a tremendous potential for fraud. Each day CBPOs
inspect more than 1.1 million passengers and pedestrians, including
many who reside in border communities who cross legally and contribute
to the economic prosperity of our country and our neighbors. At the
U.S. land borders, approximately two percent of travelers crossing the
border are responsible for nearly 48 percent of all cross-border trips.
In FY 2005, over 84,000 individuals were apprehended at the ports
of entry trying to cross the border with fraudulent claims of
citizenship or documents. On an average day, CBP intercepts more than
200 fraudulent documents, arrests over sixty people at ports of entry,
and refuses entry to hundreds of non-citizens, a few dozen of which are
criminal aliens that are attempting to enter the U.S.
CBPOs have ``Twin Goals'' in doing their job--Anti-Terrorism and
Facilitating Legitimate Trade and Travel. CBP's priority mission is
preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United
States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and
travel. CBP's emphasis on reducing wait times without increasing
staffing at the ports of entry creates a challenging work environment
for the CBPO. On the one hand, CBPOs are to fully perform their
inspection duties, yet at all times they are made aware by management
of wait times. In land port booths, wait times are clearly displayed.
At airports, all international arrivals are expected to be cleared
within 45 minutes or a visual alert is displayed at headquarters and
local management is notified. CBP's website posts wait times at every
land port and allows travelers to check airport wait times by location.
Most travelers enter the U.S. through the nation's 166 land border
ports of entry (POEs). About two-thirds involve aliens and about one-
third involve returning U.S. citizens. The vast majority arrive by
vehicle. The purpose of the primary inspection process is to determine
if the person is a U.S. citizen or alien, and if alien, whether the
alien is entitled to enter the U.S. In general, CBPOs are to question
travelers about their nationality and purpose of their visit, whether
they have anything to declare, and review any travel documents the
traveler may be required to present.
At the land ports, primary inspections are expected to be conducted
in less than one minute. Travelers routinely spend about 45 seconds at
U.S.-Canadian crossings during which CBPOs have to assess oral claims
of citizenship in the United States or Canada.
When CBPOs are viewing documents and questioning individuals for
less than one minute, how much attention can realistically be put into
examining the documents, verifying that the person presenting the
document is the actual owner of the document, and determine that the
vehicle may or may not be carrying drugs or other illegal items?
Each day, CBPOs at 327 crossings process 1.1 million inbound
travelers, 327,500 private vehicles and 85,300 shipments of goods.
Eight thousand forms of driver's licenses, birth certificates, baptism,
or hospital records can be presented under existing rules. U.S.
citizens are not required to show any documentation to enter the U.S.
and need only make a declaration. If a person declares that they are a
U.S. Citizen, CBPOs are limited in what we can ask to determine if they
are telling the truth. Many complaints are lodged when CBPOs ask for
documentation.
At the airports, CBPOs are expected to clear international
passengers within 45 minutes. Prior to 9/11 there was a law on the
books requiring INS to process incoming international passengers within
45 minutes. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Protection Act of
2002 repealed the 45 minute standard, however ``it added a provision
specifying that staffing levels estimated by CBP in workforce models be
based upon the goal of providing immigration services within 45
minutes. According to GAO, ``the number of CBP staff available to
perform primary inspections is also a primary factor that affects wait
times at airports.''
It has also come to NTEUYs attention that the U.S. Travel and
Tourism industry has called for a further reduction in passenger
clearance time to 30 minutes. The industry's recently announced plan,
called ``A Blueprint to Discover America,'' includes a provision for
``modernizing and securing U.S. ports of entry by hiring customs and
border [protection] officers at the top 12 entry ports to process
inbound visitors through customs within 30 minutes." This CANNOT be
achieved at current staffing levels without jeopardizing security.
The emphasis on passenger processing and reducing wait times
results in limited staff available at secondary to perform those
inspections referred to them. NTEU has noted the diminution of
secondary inspection in favor of passenger facilitation at primary
inspection since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Why has there been this decrease in secondary inspections? NTEU
believes that it is because of the large number of CBPO job vacancies
and static overall CBPO staffing levels.
Staffing Shortages at the Ports of Entry:
The President's FY 2008 budget proposal requests $647.8 million to
fund the hiring of 3000 Border Patrol agents. But, for salaries and
expenses for Border Security, Inspection and Trade Facilitation at the
327 POEs, the President's funding request is woefully inadequate.
The President's FY 2008 budget calls for an increase of only $8.24
million, for annualization of 450 CBPOs appropriated in the FY 2007 DHS
Appropriations bill. NTEU is extremely grateful that Congress included
funding for an additional 450 CBPOs in the FY 2007 DHS Appropriations
bill.
In addition, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for
fiscal year ending September 30,2007, recently signed into law,
``recommends an additional $1 00,000,000 to improve significantly the
ability of CBP to target and analyze US-bound cargo containers, achieve
a capacity to screen 100 percent of such cargo overseas, and double the
number of containers that are subject to physical inspections. The
funding would support hiring up to 1,000 additional CBP Officers,
Intelligence Analysts and support staff, to be located at Container
Security Initiative locations overseas, U.S. ports of entry, or the
National Targeting Center.''
In addition, the SAFE Port Act authorizes CBP to hire a minimum of
200 additional CBP Officers in FY 2008 for ports of entry around the
nation and the House Appropriations Committee funded 450 additional
CBPO positions in the DHS FY 2008 funding bill.
There is concern among CBPOs, however, that in terms of real
numbers CBP has hired more new managers than frontline workers.
According to GAO, the number of CBPOs has increased from 18,001 in
October 2003 to 18,382 in February 2006, an increase of 381 officers.
In contrast, GS 12-15 CBP supervisors on board as of October 2003 were
2,262 and in February 2006 there were 2,731, an increase of 462
managers over the same of time. This is a 17 % increase in CBP managers
and only a 2% increase in the number of frontline CBPOs. (See
attachment 1)
There is also much concern that because of CBPO job vacancies,
today the number of CBPOs on board and working at the POEs is less than
the 18,001 CBPOs on board in October 2003.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report
(GAO-05- 663), International Air Passengers Staffing Model for Airport
Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved, there is much evidence that
airports are continuing to experience staffing shortages. Also, some
land ports are experiencing staffing shortages that have resulted in
compelled overtime.
In order to assess CBPO staffing needs, Congress, in its FY 07 DHS
appropriations conference report, directed CBP to submit by January
23,2007 a resource allocation model for current and future year
staffing requirements. Specifically, this report should assess optimal
staffing levels at all land, air and sea ports of entry and provide a
complete explanation of CBP's methodology for aligning staffing levels
to threats, vulnerabilities, and workload across all mission areas.''
It is NTEU's understanding that, to date, the Appropriations Committee
has not received this report from CBP.
Congress also mandated CBP to perform a Resource Allocation Model
in Section 402 of the SAFE Port Act. The CBP Resource Allocation Model
(RAM) is due this month, June 2007. NTEU urges Committee hearings to
review the findings of the CBP RAM.
It is instructive here to note that the former U.S. Customs
Service's last internal review of staffing for Fiscal Years 2000--2002
dated February 25,2000 also known as the 2000--2002 RAM, shows that the
Customs Service needed over 14,776 new hires just to fulfill its basic
mission-and that was before September 11. Since then the Department of
Homeland Security was created and the U.S. Customs Service was merged
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and parts of the
Agriculture Plant Health Inspection Service to create Customs and
Border Protection and given an expanded mission of providing the first
line of defense against terrorism, in addition to making sure trade
laws are enforced and trade revenue collected.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ISSUES
In February of this year, DHS received the lowest scores of any
federal agency on a survey for job satisfaction, leadership and
workplace performance. Of the 36 agencies surveyed, DHS ranked 36th on
job satisfaction, 35th on leadership and knowledge management, 36th on
results-oriented performance culture, and 33rd on talent management. As
I have stated previously widespread dissatisfaction with DHS management
and leadership creates a morale problem that affects recruitment and
retention and the ability of the agency to accomplish its mission.
In 2004, an OPM survey of federal employees revealed that employees
rated DHS 29th out of 30 agencies considered as a good place to work.
On key areas covered by the survey, employees' attitudes in most
categories were less positive and more negative than those registered
by employees in other federal agencies. Employee answers on specific
questions revealed that 44% of DHS employees believe their supervisors
are doing a fair to a very poor job; less than 20% believe that
personnel decisions are based on merit; only 28% are satisfied with the
practices and policies of senior leaders; 29% believe grievances are
resolved fairly; 27% would not recommend DHS as a place to work; 62%
believe DHS is an average or below average place to work; only 33%
believe that arbitrary action, favoritism, and partisan political
action are not tolerated; over 40% are not satisfied with their
involvement in decisions that affect their work; 52% do not feel that
promotions are based on merit; and over 50% believe their leaders do
not generate high levels of motivation and commitment. On the other
hand, most employees feel there is a sense of cooperation among their
coworkers to get the job done.
The 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey ratings were released in
January 2007 and not much has changed. Nearly 10,400 Homeland Security
employees participated in the survey and gave the department rock-
bottom scores in key job satisfaction, leadership and management areas
in relation to 35 other agencies in the survey. Of the 36 agencies
surveyed, DHS ranked 36th on job satisfaction, 35th on leadership and
knowledge management, 36th on results-oriented performance culture, and
33rd on talent management.
According to OPM, 44 percent of all federal workers and 42 percent
of non-supervisory workers will become eligible to retire within the
next five years. If the agency's goal is to build a workforce that
feels both valued and respected, the results from the OPM survey raises
serious questions about the department's ability to recruit and retain
the top notch personnel necessary to accomplish the critical missions
that keep our country safe.
DHS Human Resources System:
NTEU continues to have concerns about funding priorities at DHS. On
March 7, 2007, DHS announced that it will put into effect portions of
its compromised personnel system. Just a few weeks earlier, DHS
outlined plans to move slower on its controversial personnel overhaul,
formerly known as MaxHR, but now called the Human Capital Operations
Plan. The President's FY 2008 budget calls for only $15 million to fund
the renamed MaxHR personnel plan.
In July 2005, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
ruled that portions of the proposed DHS personnel regulations infringed
on employees' collective bargaining rights, failed to provide an
independent third-party review of labor-management disputes and lacked
a fair process to resolve appeals of adverse management actions. The
Appellate Court rejected DHS appeal of this District Court decision and
DHS declined to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
In a number of critical ways, the personnel system established by
the Homeland Security Act and the subsequent regulations issued by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been a litany of failure
because the law and the regulations effectively gut employee due
process rights and put in serious jeopardy the agency's ability to
recruit and retain a workforce capable of accomplishing its critical
missions.
When Congress passed the Homeland Security Act in 2002 (HSA), it
granted the new department very broad discretion to create new
personnel rules. It basically said that DHS could come up with new
systems as long as employees were treated fairly and continued to be
able to organize and bargain collectively. The regulations DHS came up
with were subsequently found by the Courts to not even comply with
these two very minimal and basic requirements.
With the abysmal morale and extensive recruitment and retention
challenges at DHS, implementing these personnel changes now will only
further undermine the agency's employees and mission. From the
beginning of discussions over personnel regulations with DHS more than
four years ago, it was clear that the only system that would work in
this agency is one that is fair, credible and transparent. These
regulations promulgated under the statute fail miserably to provide any
of those critical elements. It is time to end this flawed personnel
experiment.
It has become clear to the Committee that the Department of
Homeland Security has learned little from these Court losses and
repeated survey results and will continue to overreach in its attempts
to implement the personnel provisions included in the Homeland Security
Act of 2002. On May 11,2007, the full House approved H.R.1648, the FY
2008 DHS Authorization bill that includes a provision that repeals the
DHS Human Resources Management System. This past Friday, June 15,2007
the full House approved H.R. 2638, the fiscal 2008 DHS Appropriations
bill that zeros out all funding for MaxHR. Senate action on both these
measures is pending.
DHS employees deserve more resources, training and technology to
perform their jobs better and more efficiently. DHS employees also
deserve personnel policies that are fair. The DHS personnel system has
failed utterly and should be repealed by the full Congress. Continuing
widespread dissatisfaction with DHS management and leadership creates a
morale problem that affects the safety of this nation.
Law Enforcement Officer Status:
The most significant impediment to recruitment and retention of
CBPOs is the lack of law enforcement officer (LEO) status. LEO
recognition is of vital importance to CBPOs. CBPOs perform work every
day that is as demanding and dangerous as any member of the federal law
enforcement community, yet they have long been denied LEO status.
Within the CBP there are two classes of federal employees, those
with law enforcement officer status, Border Patrol Agents, and those
without. Unfortunately, CBPOs fall into the latter class and are denied
benefits given to other federal employees in CBP.
CBPOs carry weapons, and at least three times a year, they must
qualify and maintain proficiency on a firearm range. This tri-annual
firearms training and recertification also includes classes in arrest
techniques and self defense tactics training, and defensive and
restraint techniques. CBPOs are issued weapons (24-hour carry), body
armor, pepper spray and batons. For the most part, CBPOs believe that
firearms' training is adequate. When CBP changed the make of firearms
from one manufacturer to another, at the CBPOs request, NTEU protested
that the four hour training session on the new weapon was not adequate.
CBP addressed NTEU's members concerns by expanding training on the new
firearm to eight hours.
CBPOs have the authority to apprehend and detain those engaged in
smuggling drugs and violating other civil and criminal laws. They have
search and seizure authority, as well as the authority to enforce
warrants. All of which are standard tests of law enforcement officer
status.
Every day, CBPOs stand on the front lines in the war to stop the
flow of drugs, pornography and illegal contraband into the United
States. It was a legacy Customs Inspector who apprehended a terrorist
trying to cross the border into Washington State with the intent to
blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999. Every day,
CBPOs detain criminals attempting to enter or leave the country through
the ports.
For example, on June 5th, the El Paso Times reported that ``Customs
and Border Protection officers stopped a Kansas man wanted for murder
and rape Friday afternoon at the Zaragoza Bridge, agency officials
said.
Anthony Javier Llamas, 21, was crossing the bridge in a 2000
Mercury Cougar with three other occupants when an officer checked for
warrants and discovered an ``armed and dangerous'' alert for Llamas.
Llamas is wanted in Kansas in connection with a May 15 killing in
Wichita and on an unrelated rape charge, officials said.''
CBPOs clearly deserve LEO status. For this reason, legislation has
been introduced to amend the definition of law enforcement officer,
H.R. 1073, the Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act of 2007. NTEU
strongly supports ths bipartisan legislation introduced by
Representatives Bob Filner (D-CA) and John McHugh (R-NY) which has 97
cosponsors to date. This legislation would treat CBPOs and legacy
Customs and Immigration Inspectors and Canine Enforcement Officers as
law enforcement officers for the purpose of 20-year retirement.
On May 1 1,2007, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 1684
that included Section 501, a provision that grants LEO status to CBPOs
as of the creation of CBP in March 2003. CBPOs are extremely grateful
for this recognition of their law enforcement activities at CBP.
Unfortunately, Section 501 does not recognize previous law enforcement
service in the legacy agencies that were merged to create CBP.
Therefore, in order for CBPOs with legacy service to qualify for the
enhanced LEO retirement benefit, they must serve an additional 20 years
starting in March 2003.
The Committee is sympathetic to this unfortunate consequence of
Section 501 and is working with NTEU on hybrid-LEO coverage proposals
that would mitigate ths result.
Section 501 is a start. It is a breakthrough in that Congress
recognizes that CBPOs should have LEO coverage and NTEU members are
very appreciative of the Committee's efforts.
Work Shift Schedules:
Another major factor that has hindered recruitment and retention of
CBPOs is work shift determinations. In the past, the agency had the
ability to determine what the shift hours will be at a particular port
of entry, the number of people on the shift, and the job qualifications
of the personnel on that shift. The union representing the employees
had the ability to negotiate with the agency, once the shift
specifications are determined, as to which eligible employees will work
which shift. This was determined by such criteria as seniority,
expertise, volunteers, or a number of other factors.
CBP Officers around the country have overwhelmingly supported this
method for determining their work schedules for a number of reasons.
One, it provides employees with a transparent and credible system for
determining how they will be chosen for a shift. They may not like
management's decision that they have to work the midnight shift but the
process is credible and both sides can agree to its implementation.
Two, it takes into consideration lifestyle issues of individual
officers, such as single parents with day care needs, employees taking
care of sick family members or officers who prefer to work night
shifts. CBP's unilateral elimination of employee input into this type
of routine workplace decision-making has had probably the most negative
impact on employee morale.
A real life example of CBP's management insensitivity in scheduling
work occurred recently at a large airport. Due to a mistake by
management, two CBPOs who are married and have an 11 year old child
were both scheduled to work during the early morning shift for the
coming pay period, forcing them to scramble for child care coverage
between the hours of 4:30 am and the start of school. The couple only
recently moved to the area, and did not have family nearby. When this
matter was brought to management's attention, the Port Director would
not take any action to help the family. Clearly, this is exactly the
kind of situation that contributes to retention problems at CBP.
This is not an isolated incident. The ``command and control''
attitude of CBP management has created a work environment that is
reflected in the dismal DHS showing in the OPM federal jobs survey.
NTEU urges the Committee to look at CBPO attrition and vacancy
rates. I believe that CBPOs are quitting or retiring in large numbers
due to many of the problems I have cited.
NTEU RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure well-trained boots on the ground at the POEs, NTEU
recommends the following:
1. Fill vacancies and increase CBPO staffing;
2. End the failed One Face at the Border initiative;
3. Reestablish specialization of prior CBPO functions;
4. Put into effect an in-depth on the job training plan;
5. Allot specific times during tours of duty for CBPOs to do
all assigned computer-based training;
6. Structured discussion time must accompany all computer-based
training;
7. Refresher courses should be available to all CBPOs upon
request;
8. Repeal the DHS personnel regulations;
9. Comprehensive LEO coverage for all CBPOs and legacy
inspectors; and
10. Allow employee input in shift assignment system.
CONCLUSION
CBP employees represented by NTEU are capable and committed to the
varied missions of DHS from border control to the facilitation of trade
into and out of the United States. They are proud of their part in
keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe from
drugs and our economy safe from illegal trade.
The American public expects its borders and ports be properly
defended. Congress must show the public that it is serious about
protecting the homeland by fully funding CBP staffing needs, extending
LEO coverage to all CBPOs, ending the One Face at the Border
initiative, reestablishing CBPO inspection specialization at our 327
POEs and repealing the compromised DHS personnel system.
I urge each of you to visit the land, sea and air ports of entry in
your home districts. Talk to the CBPOs, canine officers, and trade
entry and import specialists there to fully comprehend the jobs they do
and what their work lives are like.
Again, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to
be here today on behalf of the 150,000 employees represented by NTEU to
discuss these extremely important federal employee issues.
Attachment I
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carney. Thank you for your testimony, President Kelley.
I now recognize Mr. Bonner to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL
COUNCIL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Chairman Carney, Ranking Member
Rogers, other members of the subcommittee.
On behalf of the 11,000 frontline Border Patrol agents, we
have some concerns about the training efforts that are under
way right now, to bring on so many people in such a short time.
As Mr. Rogers noted, back in 2004, Congress authorized the
addition of 2,000 agents a year over a span of 5 years. At that
point in time, that goal was achievable.
Now, we approach the 11th hour and there is a rush to bring
on an additional 5,000 agents, which will require the hiring of
perhaps as many as 9,000 employees in the span of 18 months.
Every major police department that has undergone even less
ambitious recruitment campaigns has suffered the consequences.
Corruption has increased. Officers have been poorly trained,
and the level of confidence that the public has in that
department has decreased dramatically.
I don't want to see the same thing happen to the United
States Border Patrol. There is no magic number to achieve
border security. It is not 18,000, even if there were such a
number. The number would be far greater than that. This is
something that the president is pushing for in the span of his
administration, but I think we need to step back and take a
close look at this and see if it is a wise, achievable goal. I
believe it is not.
Too many corners will have to be cut in order to attain the
goal of 18,000 agents by the end of 2008. We have already seen
a reduction of 2 weeks at the Border Patrol Academy. Further
reductions are planned. Another 3 weeks is being talked about
being removed. For employees who demonstrate proficiency in the
Spanish language, another 8 weeks would be removed.
In other words, some employees would be back on the line
after merely 6 weeks in the Border Patrol Academy. This, in the
estimation of the frontline agents who are the ones responsible
for providing the on-the-job training, is insufficient. They
need more time at the academy. They need more instruction. The
curriculum at the academy was not established on a whim. It was
established based on a lot of experience as to what people need
to be taught in an academy setting.
Then, of course, there is the challenge of providing one-
on-one mentoring. When you dump that many people into an
organization that is relatively small, essentially you are
taxing it beyond its capability to function properly. There is
on way that you can provide that one-on-one mentoring. In some
cases in the past, we have had one-on-twelve mentoring. That is
simply unacceptable.
We have morale problems causing attrition at an
unacceptably high rate. It is approaching 12 percent. Now, the
administration will try and claim that this number is lower
than 12 percent because they exclude people who leave within
the first 18 months of their employment, and they also exclude
people who transfer to other components of the Department of
Homeland Security. When you are trying to increase the size of
the Border Patrol, you have to factor in every person who
leaves the Border Patrol because they all have to be replaced.
Some would suggest that private corporations are better
suited to do this job. The National Border Patrol Council
disagrees. People who have been there and done that are in the
best position to impart the knowledge and the skills necessary
to do the job.
On behalf of the frontline employees, we implore you to
take a close look at this, slow this process down so that we
get it right. There is an old saying that there never seems to
be enough time to do something right, but there is always
enough time to do it over. Let's get it right the first time.
We need properly trained people. Absolutely we need border
security, but border security is not a function of the number
of agents on the line.
Let me posit this definition of ``border security.'' Border
security means that no person or no thing enter this country
without our permission. When we reach that goal, then we have
true border security, not when we have 18,000 Border Patrol
agents or 180,000 Border Patrol agents, but when we are
effectively controlling the border.
One other quick point--in order to do that, we need to
crack down on the employers because we could increase the
number of agents ten-fold and desperate people will still come
across as long as they can find work in this country.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
[The statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]
Prepared Statement of T.J. Bonner
The National Border Patrol Council appreciates this opportunity to
share the views and recommendations of the 11,000 front-line Border
Patrol employees that it represents regarding the challenges posed by
recent efforts to significantly increase the size of the Border Patrol.
It is quite obvious that our Nation's borders are out of control.
In any given year, the Border Patrol apprehends about one million
people attempting to illegally enter our country, and front-line agents
estimate that about two to three times that number slip by them.
Currently, somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens are
residing in the United States.
In recognition of this crisis, Section 5202 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorized the addition of
at least 2,000 Border Patrol agents per year over the five-year span
from 2006 to 2010. Sadly, the Administration's budget request for the
first of those years only requested funding for 210 positions.
Fortunately, Congress ignored that request and funded a total of 1,500
additional agents.
In May of last year, President Bush announced with a great deal of
fanfare that he was committed to increasing the size of the Border
Patrol to slightly more than 18,000 agents by the end of next year.
While these additional resources are desperately needed, the wisdom of
adding so many new agents in such a short period of time is
questionable. Every sizeable law enforcement agency that has ever
engaged in an overambitious recruitment program has suffered the
inevitable consequences of increased corruption and attrition, as well
as poorly-trained new officers, with a resultant loss of public
confidence. This occurred because these agencies were forced by
artificial time constraints to relax hiring standards and cut corners
in the screening and training processes. These same types of shortcuts
have already been implemented in the recruiting and training of Border
Patrol agents, and there is no reason to expect that the outcome in
this case will be any different from the experiences of those other
agencies.
Realistically, there is no magic number of Border Patrol agents
required to secure our borders, and even there were, it would certainly
be much higher than the 18,000 proposed by the Administration. The goal
of border security can only be attained by means of an all-encompassing
enforcement strategy that simultaneously focuses resources and efforts
on the border and the interior. The single most important step that
must be taken is the elimination of the employment magnet that entices
millions of people to violate our immigration laws every year. Once
people enter this country illegally, it is incredibly easy for them to
obtain a job. In order to fix this problem, a system must be put in
place that makes it simple for employers to determine who is authorized
to work in this country, and ensures that those employers who do not
comply with the law are severely punished. H.R. 98, the ``Illegal
Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2007,''
meets these objectives. It would require every job applicant to present
a counterfeit-proof Social Security card containing a recent digital
photograph and encrypted biometric information, and would mandate that
every employer verify the authenticity of such documents by passing
them through an electronic reader.
While an effective workplace enforcement system would dramatically
change the dynamic at the border by discouraging millions of laborers
from illegally crossing, it would do nothing to deter the tens of
thousands of criminals and handful of terrorists who attempt to enter
our country illegally every year. With proper types of surveillance
technology and barriers at the border, however, the odds of
apprehending these criminals and terrorists would be greatly enhanced.
This assumes, of course, that the Border Patrol has sufficient
staffing, and that these employees are provided with the proper tools,
training, and support. Otherwise, our borders will remain porous and
vulnerable. In order to maintain adequate levels of staffing, measures
must be taken to transform the Border Patrol into an organization that
is capable of attracting and retaining the best and brightest. Although
that once was the case, it is no longer true. For a variety of reasons,
morale has plummeted and attrition has soared to 12%.\1\ Unless these
disturbing trends are quickly reversed, it will be impossible to
recruit and retain large numbers of additional Border Patrol agents.
Thus, before discussing changes that need to be made in the hiring and
training processes, it is important to understand the problems that
cause employees to leave the agency. It is senseless to spend millions
of dollars recruiting and training individuals who will depart after a
short period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Any claims by the agency that the attrition rate is lower are
disingenuous. Its attrition figures often exclude employees who leave
during their first 18 months, as well as those who transfer to other
components of the Department of Homeland Security. It is clear,
however, that every person who leaves the Border Patrol for any reason
must be replaced in order to reach and maintain a numeric goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without question, the greatest sources of frustration among front-
line employees are the policies that interfere with the accomplishment
of the mission. These include:
The ``strategy of deterrence'' that forces agents to
maintain fixed positions and does not allow them to pursue
intruders who circumvent those positions.
The diversion of scarce resources from the border to
traffic checkpoints, to the detriment of the agency's
capability to apprehend people at the border. (Traffic
checkpoints have a legitimate backup role, but should never be
relied upon as the primary means of intercepting terrorist,
criminals, illegal aliens, and contraband.)
The vehicle pursuit policy that does not allow agents
to stop vehicles that break any traffic laws unless they have
supervisory approval to do so. Such approval is rarely granted.
Arbitrary reductions in the amount of overtime that
can be worked, further decreasing the agency's ability to
accomplish its mission.
A lack of critical infrastructure, including adequate
facilities, communications capabilities, and useful equipment.
At the same time, billions of dollars are being expended on
projects of dubious utility.
Systemic problems with the organization also contribute to the low
morale of employees. The transfer of the Border Patrol into the Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection was ill-advised from the outset, and
the situation has deteriorated with the passage of time. In order to
maximize its effectiveness, the Border Patrol should be an independent
component of the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, it needs to
be divorced from the politics of immigration. Law enforcement agencies
should never be allowed to become offshoots of the Executive Branch's
political agenda. They must be allowed to function independently, and
to objectively enforce all of the laws on the books.
Almost all of the emphasis during this recent hiring push has been
on recruitment, with very little attention paid to the retention of
experienced agents. This is a very serious oversight. Unless the agency
addresses the underlying causes of dissatisfaction, employees will
continue to leave at an alarmingly high rate. The agency therefore also
needs to utilize existing statutory authority to pay retention and
other types of bonuses to entice employees to stay.
Significant increases in the number of Border Patrol agents must
also be accompanied by a commensurate growth in the infrastructure that
supports them. Adequate equipment, facilities, and support personnel
are all necessary in order to ensure that the front-line agents are
able to effectively carry out the mission of the agency. Currently,
there are serious deficiencies in all of these areas. These additional
expenses must be factored not only into the cost of hiring new
employees, but also into upgrading support for current employees.
Some of the problems that exist in the recruitment and training
processes are:
The recruitment materials are extremely misleading,
highlighting duties that very few agents are actually allowed
to perform. This quickly leads to disillusionment once new-
hires are assigned to the field. It would be far better to
initially discourage applicants through an accurate portrayal
of work assignments instead of waiting for them to discover the
truth after large amounts of money have been wasted on
recruiting and training.
Agents who preside over oral hiring boards no longer
receive any information about the candidates they are
interviewing. This makes it extremely difficult to question
candidates about potentially troubling aspects of their past.
Background checks continue to be contracted-out even
after this process allowed an illegal alien to be hired as a
Border Patrol agent. That individual's immigration status was
not discovered until after he was arrested for smuggling
hundreds of other illegal aliens into the United States while
on duty. This is by no means an isolated case. Several gang
members have also been hired by the Border Patrol in recent
years, and they were also caught smuggling on duty.
In order to be able to train more recruits, the length
of the Border Patrol Academy has already been reduced from
nineteen to seventeen weeks. In October, an additional three
weeks will be removed from the curriculum. At the same time, a
new program will be instituted that eliminates another eight
weeks of instruction for trainees who demonstrate proficiency
in the Spanish language. These shortcuts will undoubtedly
create critical knowledge gaps for those who are trained in
these abbreviated classes.
Instead of being released, recruits who fail mandatory
subjects such as Spanish, law, firearms, physical training and
driver's training are being allowed to retake the courses under
Project Second Change, which is euphemistically called ``P2C.''
the clear intent of this program is to meet the artificial
recruitment goals at all costs.
Although the training facility in Artesia, New Mexico
is being significantly expanded, it is still incapable of
handling the numbers of recruits envisioned by the
Administration and Congress. Its remote location makes it
difficult to attract volunteer instructors, many of whom must
live in Carlsbad or Rosewll, New Mexico, each of which are
about an 80-mile round-trip commute. As a result, some agents
have already been assigned there against their will for six
months or longer. This policy is incredibly foolish.
Impressionable new-hires should be trained by instructors who
are both highly-qualified and highly-motivated. Serious
consideration needs to be given to utilizing an alternate
location that is better suited for the purpose of training
large numbers of recruits, or concurrently utilizing another
facility in order to handle to increased number of trainees.
The border Patrol's field training program needs to be
revamped and standardized in order to ensure that recruits are
learning all of the requisite skills in a systematic manner
after they graduate from the academy. Moreover, instead of
flooding high-intensity areas with large numbers of
inexperienced agents, the Borer Patrol needs to ensure that
there is a balanced mixture of personnel so that experienced
agents can provide critical one-on-one instruction and
evaluation of the recruits.
While some people believe that the foregoing problems suggest that
private contractors could perform these functions more efficiently, the
National Border Patrol Council does not share that view. The training
of law enforcement officers is a function that should always be
performed by those who have first-hand field experience in the
organization, as well as a vested interest in the success of its
mission.
In summary, hiring and training thousands of additional Border
Patrol agents during the next few years presents a number of
formidable, but not insurmountable, challenges. Although many of them
will require substantial expenditures to address, the security of our
Nation demands that we make that investment. The goal here is not
simply to hire more Border Patrol agents for the sake of doing so, but
to hire them for the purpose of securing our borders. All decisions
concerning the recruitment and training of Border Patrol agents must
therefore be governed by that overarching goal and purpose.
Shortchanging this process will ultimately diminish the security of our
Nation, and cannot be tolerated.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Rosenkranz to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ROSENKRANZ, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION, DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Rosenkranz. Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Rogers,
members of the subcommittee, I thank you for this invitation
this morning to discuss the vital contribution that DynCorp can
make to the U.S. Border Patrol mission.
Border patrol is a daunting challenge in trying to secure
our expansive borders with limited resources. Last year, the
U.S. military supplemented the Border Patrol and provided
valuable assistance. DynCorp International believes we can also
mitigate the impact of understaffing by providing a substantial
number of additional agents to work directly under the command
of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and other
agencies with the mission of securing the border.
We have been providing technical services to the Federal
Government for over 60 years. We have provided quality
technical services to our government in every war since
Vietnam. Our ethic has never changed. When we are needed, we
are there in support of the government's missions no matter how
difficult, no matter how dangerous, and no matter how remote.
We currently have about 14,000 employees, $2 billion in
annual sales, and our employees are in some 35 countries. We
have broad and deep experience in our core competencies of law
enforcement services, contingency support, logistics, base-ops,
field construction, aircraft and ground equipment maintenance,
maritime services, and program management.
Our experience providing civilian police to the Department
of State and the Department of Defense for peacekeeping and
community policing operations in post-conflict societies and
for foreign police training and development provide us with the
model and the infrastructure that allows us to meet the
staffing requirements of the Border Service.
Our role would be to recruit, vet, train and support the
Border Patrol agents that are needed to increase or temporarily
augment the border protection force. We have the competencies,
facilities and capacity to provide the quality and volume
required at very rapid rates. Although DynCorp is sometimes
labeled a private security contractor, we are not a traditional
security company at all. Primarily, we are a contractor for the
Department of State in support of the civilian police program.
The primary objective of that program is to assist emerging
and post-conflict nations with the critical task of creating,
renewing, revising or reestablishing the rule of law
infrastructure, including the establishment, reestablishment or
strengthening of local police forces. We have recruited,
screened, trained and deployed more than 6,000 American police
officers to conduct security policing in the Balkans, East
Timor, Haiti, Israel, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
After 13 years supporting the Department of State's
civilian police program, DynCorp has accumulated a great deal
of institutional knowledge on the most effective and efficient
way to recruit, screen, train, deploy and support our personnel
serving on police and security missions. In Iraq, we currently
deploy 754 police officers, and in Afghanistan, 622 U.S.
advisors and mentors. We train, advise and mentor Iraq and
Afghan police officers at all levels, and also provide full
support to our in-country workforce, including logistics, life
support, close protection, communications, transportation,
security, procurement and construction.
Active and retired U.S. law enforcement professionals form
the pool of target candidates to support the Department of
State's objectives. We have 48,000 names of current, former and
potential candidates for international law enforcement service
in our recruiting database. That includes 500 Spanish-speakers.
DynCorp International's traditions, values and experience
are the ideal alignment for the Border Patrol mission. Our
global experience in support of nation building and rule of law
training and mentoring are directly compatible with the mission
of our U.S. Border Patrol.
Our skills developed over the years in police training and
logistics ensure successful execution. Our demonstrated
contingency response capabilities in austere, remote and
inhospitable environments should instill confidence that we can
get tough missions done on time and in compliance with high
standards of performance.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I stand ready for your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Rosenkranz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert B. Rosenkranz
Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Rogers, and members of the
subcommittee, I want to thank you for this invitation this morning to
discuss the vital contribution that DynCorp International can make to
the U.S. Border Patrol mission. The Border Patrol has a daunting
challenge in trying to secure our expansive borders with limited
resources. Last year, the U.S. military supplemented the Border Patrol
and provided valuable assistance. DynCorp International believes we can
also mitigate the impact of under-staffing by providing a substantial
number of additional agents to work directly under the command of the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and other agencies with the
mission of securing the border.
DynCorp International has been providing technical services to the
Federal Government for more than 60 years, together with our namesake
predecessor corporation, DynCorp. We have provided quality technical
services to our government in every war since Vietnam. Our ethos has
never changed: When we are needed, we are there, in support of the
government's missions, no matter how difficult, no matter how
dangerous, no matter how remote. We currently have approximately 14,000
employees, more than $2 billion in annual sales, and employees deployed
in some 35 countries. Some 4,000 personnel support our contracts in
Iraq and Afghanistan and 142 have paid the ultimate sacrifice,
including 23 Americans. We have broad and deep experience in our core
competencies of law enforcement services, contingency support,
logistics, base operations, field construction, aircraft and ground
equipment maintenance, maritime services, and program management. We
also support the government's counter-drug efforts in Latin America and
South Asia and provide selected security services to customers in
various locations around the world.
Most people would agree that patrolling and securing the border is
essentially a policing function, not a function for a private security
company. It requires personnel who have been trained in the appropriate
use of force in civilian policing situations, who are sensitive to the
concerns of American citizens and governments located along the border,
who can work with local law enforcement, and who respect other
cultures.
Our experience providing civilian police to the Departments of
State and Defense for peacekeeping and community policing operations in
post-conflict societies and for foreign police training and development
provides both the model and the infrastructure that allow us to meet
the staffing requirements of the Border Service. Our role would be to
recruit, vet, train, and support the Border Patrol agents needed to
increase or temporarily augment the border-protection force. We have
the competencies, facilities and capacity to provide the quality and
volume required at rapid rates.
Although DynCorp International is sometimes labeled a ``private
security contractor,'' we are not a traditional security company at
all. Primarily, we are a contractor for the Department of State in
support of its Civilian Police Program. The primary objective of that
program is to assist emerging and post-conflict nations with the
critical task of creating, renewing, revising, or re-establishing Rule
of Law infrastructure, including the establishment, reestablishment, or
strengthening of local police forces. Since 1994, DynCorp
International's role has been to provide the mechanism through which
these foreign policy objectives can be accomplished. In the process, we
have recruited, screened, trained, and deployed more than 6,000
American police officers to conduct security policing in the Balkans,
East Timor, Haiti, Israel, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Separately, we
also provided timely support to the police force of St Bernard Parish,
Louisiana, after Hurricane Katrina.
Importantly, these officers have served under the direct
operational command of appropriate legal authority, such as the United
Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the
United States Central Command, or the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff. In
our opinion, this is the best way for private companies to support law
enforcement--by helping to provide and sustain an augmented force, not
by engaging as an institution in actual law enforcement or quasi-law
enforcement operations.
In St. Bernard Parish, all the personnel we provided were licensed
law enforcement officers who were deputized by the St. Bernard Sheriff.
This was an essential element of the service we provided to the parish,
because it allowed for clean lines of authority, established clear
rules for the use of weapons, and ensured that the assistance we were
providing would complement and augment the work of the Sheriff's
Department rather than interfere with it.
After 13 years supporting the Department of State's Civilian Police
Program, DynCorp International has accumulated a great deal of
institutional knowledge on the most effective and efficient ways to
recruit, screen, train, deploy, and support our personnel serving on
police and security missions. In Iraq, we currently deploy 754 U.S.
police officers (700 International Police Liaison Offers--IPLO's and 54
Border Enforcement Advisors), and in Afghanistan 622 U.S. advisors and
mentors. We train, advise, and mentor Iraqi and Afghan police officers
at all levels and also provide full support to our in-country
workforce, including logistics, life support, close protection,
communications, transportation, security, procurement, and
construction.
Active and retired U.S. law enforcement professionals form the pool
of target candidates to support the Department of State's objectives.
We have 48,000 names of current, former, and potential candidates for
international law enforcement service in our recruiting database,
including 500 Spanish speakers. Experience in every law enforcement
discipline and administrative or leadership level is represented in
that group. For service in Iraq and Afghanistan, these officers sign
one-year contracts, and are able to apply for a second or third year.
Approximately 40 percent of the officers who go to Iraq and Afghanistan
to train police sign on for a second year. To prepare our officers for
their assignments, we use three training facilities--one in northern
Virginia, one in southern Virginia, and one in central Texas, with a
total capability to train as many as 450 personnel at one time.
The support DynCorp International provides to police-reform and
development efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may be the most extensive
and challenging mission in the history of the Department of State's
Civilian Police Program. We advise, assist, monitor, and mentor
indigenous police officers in the full gamut of law enforcement
services, provide technical assistance, identify non-conforming
practices, establish investigative services and facilities, construct
or refurbish infrastructure facilities, and supply our government with
the vehicle to assist the local government with anything it may need to
be successful. We accomplish these tasks under very difficult and
dangerous conditions, with local police institutions that are severely
handicapped by inexperienced and poorly supported personnel who are
frequently the target of terrorism. They struggle against a lack of
tradition and education, and must eventually overcome distrust, lack of
confidence, and an absence of community support because of the
reputations established in the past.
DynCorp International's experience in supporting these missions in
austere foreign locations offers another important benefit to the
protection of our national frontiers--the ability to sustain Border
Patrol forces in remote locations along the border. In Iraq,
Afghanistan, Sudan, Liberia, and Iraq, we have built and operated
forward operating bases, military bases, training camps, and police
facilities. Should these types of facilities be necessary to sustain
forces in remote areas along the U.S. border, DynCorp International can
build them, maintain them, and provide personnel to work from them.
Before deploying overseas on a training mission, our police
officers typically undergo three weeks of training and orientation.
Since they already have the policing skills and have already passed
background and psychological screening, the three weeks of training are
spent preparing them for the specifics of their mission. The training
of a Border Patrol agent currently takes 10 months. Depending on
guidance from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the
curriculum could be modified to accommodate the previous training of an
experienced police officer and concentrate on training in the skills,
practices, and procedures specific to border security, thereby
accelerating the training cycle without sacrificing training quality.
Obviously, this would also ensure a faster augmentation of the Border
Patrol and--perhaps most importantly--provide a level of professional
experience that may not be available when recruiting from the general
population.
Half of the 10 months of current Border Patrol training is on-the-
job and in-service training, and might be waived or reduced if prior
law enforcement experience is accepted. Similarly, some of the academy
training might be redundant, or perhaps could be revised to gain
greater efficiencies. Since our costs are proprietary information, I
have not included a breakdown here. However, we estimate first-year
costs per agent at approximately $197,000, including salary, benefits,
and one-time costs for recruiting, screening and training (to including
housing, travel, and per diem). Additionally, as contract personnel
provided to the Border Patrol, these officers would provide a surge
force that could easily be reduced if the need for personnel on the
border were to diminish, and even if used for extended periods, would
not generate a retirement benefit liability.
The outline of a 10 week training course is described below. The
cost of training depends on curriculum content and length.
SUGGESTED BORDER PATROL SCHOOL CURRICULUM (taught by
Current/Former Border Agents and DynCorp International
Instructors):
Orientation and Mission
Overview of Border Patrol-DynCorp partnership
Expectations of Border Patrol
Expectations of DynCorp International
Border Patrol's Operational Directives and Policies
Philosophy, History and Role of the Organization
Admin Procedures
Chain of Command
Scheduling, Attendance, Timesheets, Vacation, etc
Operational Procedures
Border Security
Intervention
Detention and Arrest
1Mission, Knowledge and Skills Training
Law
Nationality Law
Immigration Law
Criminal Law
Statutory Authority
Federal Search and Seizure
Ethics and professionalism
Report Writing
Courtroom Procedures/Testimony
Basic First Aid/First Responder
Spanish Language and Culture
Physical Fitness
Defensive Tactics, Mechanics of Arrest and Officer Safety
Crowd Control Procedures
Emergency Response/Augmentation Force
Firearms Training, Qualification and Use of Force Policy
Motor Vehicle Operations policy and Procedure
Climate, Terrain; Working the SW USA Border Area
RECRUITING/SCREENING:
Current costs include recruiting (advertising and recruiter
contact) and screening (credit and criminal history, on line
psychological testing, background testing and medical records review) a
policeman prior to his deployment to training.
Current costs for screening include travel, immunizations, medical/
psychological evaluation, individual equipment issue, and deployment
training.
TRAINING COSTS PER STUDENT
Based on standard daily rate while attending Border Police
training. Content and length of the curriculum impacts the costs of
faculty and facilities.
HOUSING AND PER DIEM:
JTR Standard CONUS Rate for housing, meals and incidentals is
approximately $100/Day.
YEARLY SALARY:
Our average salary for Border Police agents is based on our
Hurricane Katrina relief effort experience.
RECRUITING, SCREENING, TRAINING, HOUSING AND PER DIEM, AND SALARY
COSTS PER AGENT FOR THE FIRST YEAR: $197,000
ESTIMATED DEPLOYMENT TIMELINES:
100 agents-3 months
1000 agents-13 months (Approximately 75/month)
Sustained rate--75 additional agents per month
LOGISTICS SUPPORT:
DynCorp International can provide the following categories of
support for all the agents we recruit, screen and train--
Equipping (Including weapons and body armor)
Transportation (Vehicles and Maintenance)
Construction (Billets and support facilities)
Communications (Radios, Info Tech)
Base Operations (Operations and Maintenance)
Aviation (Fixed and Rotary Wing)
Back Office (Administration, Human Resources, Procurement,
Finance)
SUMMARY
DynCorp International's traditions, values, and experience are in
ideal alignment with the Border Patrol mission. Our global experience
in support of nation building and rule-of-law training and mentoring
are directly compatible with the mission of our U.S. Border Patrol. Our
skills developed over the years in police training and logistics ensure
successful execution. And our demonstrated contingency-response
capabilities in austere, remote, and inhospitable environments should
instill confidence that we can get tough missions done on time and in
compliance with high standards of performance.
Mr. Carney. I thank all the witnesses for their testimony.
I will remind each member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bonner, in your opinion, how do we strike a balance in
the need to plus-up rapidly and to maintain the quality of both
training and operations?
Mr. Bonner. I think the outer edge is about somewhere in
the neighborhood of 20 percent to 25 percent. That is the limit
of how much you can increase a workforce in any given year.
When you stretch it beyond that, you are just asking for
trouble. So I don't know that there is a quick answer.
This isn't like a military exercise where you take a bunch
of 18-year-olds and give them a few weeks of boot camp and
throw them into the fray. This is civilian law enforcement, and
primarily immigration law enforcement, where you have to have
people who are knowledgeable not just with the language skills,
but cultural aspects and, most importantly, immigration law.
The last thing you want is immigration officers just
selecting people on the way they look and assuming that they
are illegally in the country. It takes a lot of training in
order to get people to that level.
Mr. Carney. Any ideas on the balance, though?
Mr. Bonner. I think that the goal of 2,000 a year was a
reasonable goal. I think that 3,000, I think you are starting
to push the edge of that envelope where you are in dangerous
territory. You are on that slippery slope where you are just
asking for more and more corruption.
Mr. Carney. OK, thank you.
Ms. Kelley, how would law enforcement status and
whistleblower protections benefit the Customs and Border Patrol
officers in the end and aid the department generally? Do you
believe that such status and protections would assist in
recruitment and retention, and more importantly, morale?
Ms. Kelley. I do. I think it would do all of those things,
Mr. Chairman. The whistleblower protections just across
government are a necessity for employees to be able to help to
identify things that are not working well, that are not in the
government's interest, and to know that they can do that
without fear of losing their job.
On the law enforcement officer issue, these CBPOs are
called law enforcement officers by everyone who speaks about
them, but they do not have that official status, nor do they
have it in their rights in their retirement. As a result, a lot
of the attrition that we see among the CBPOs is moving into
other occupations, whether it is within or outside the
government, where they do have that law enforcement officer
coverage and are recognized as such.
They are trained to do all of the things required to be law
enforcement officers. They must qualify three times a year on
the range, and they are all armed, and they are armed in their
jobs every day. And yet, they are denied that status. So I
think it would make a world of difference in attrition,
especially for the hires that have come in especially in the
aftermath of September 11.
But there are many thousands of employees, of officers
doing this work, who have done it for 20 years, who have been
waiting for the day for that recognition from Congress. And so
the current work to make that happen is a plus, but for many it
will be a little bit too late.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Mr. Rosenkranz, if I understand your testimony, you are
offering to provide the equivalent of a trained Border Patrol
agent for $197,000 the first year. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenkranz. Yes, sir. That is including the 1 year of
salary.
Mr. Carney. Right. According to press reports from just
last month, your company was actually recruiting from Border
Patrol to fill contract positions in Iraq. I have to say, this
appears like we are using one government contract to create
market for another government contract.
Moreover, the Border Patrol tells us that for fiscal year
2008, it is estimating the total cost of hiring, training,
equipping and paying for an agent's first year is $159,000.
That is just about $40,000 less than your estimate.
Factoring all this in, I guess I don't understand what
benefit necessarily the government derives from hiring one of
your agents over someone else. Can you please explain?
Mr. Rosenkranz. To your point about the cost, I think that
number doesn't include a full-year's salary, so I am not sure
about that, but I don't think so. On the other issue of
recruiting advisors for the Iraqi border patrol, that was a
mission for the State Department. We were told what we were
allowed to do and what we were not allowed to do, and we tried
to do it.
Mr. Carney. So you are saying that in effect the government
asked you to recruit, to rob Peter to pay Paul in a sense?
Mr. Rosenkranz. There was no Paul in that one. There was
just a request for a certain number of advisors for the border
patrol in Iraq, and we went out and tried to get that.
Mr. Carney. How many? Can you give me a rough estimate of
how many Border Patrol agents went from our border to the Iraq?
Mr. Rosenkranz. At the moment, I think 54 out of a total--
it has been suspended for the moment--but the total number
required is 123.
Mr. Carney. OK. Interesting. OK.
I now recognize Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kelley, you talked about 73 days training at FLETC is
what you currently have for your CBPOs. Is that correct?
Ms. Kelley. Yes, being trained in all three specialties:
immigration, customs and agriculture.
Mr. Rogers. And that is where? In Charleston?
Ms. Kelley. No, that is at Glynco.
Mr. Rogers. Glynco.
Ms. Kelley. At Glynco, the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center.
Mr. Rogers. Do you know what the costs are per officer to
train these folks?
Ms. Kelley. I do not know.
Mr. Rogers. Do you know what the capacity of that facility
is at any given point in time as far as trainees?
Ms. Kelley. I do not know that, but I can tell you that in
the aftermath of September 11, they had to put all of the
trainees for CBP on a 6-day training schedule, Monday through
Saturday, in order to accommodate all of the hires that the
agencies were needing to send through the academy. So there
definitely is a limit on it, but I don't know what it is.
Mr. Rogers. How many CBPOs are in the field right now?
Ms. Kelley. My best guess right now, because it is a moving
target every day, with the turnover, but I would guess right
now there are probably about 12,000.
Mr. Rogers. And you say we need 1,000 more?
Ms. Kelley. Well, there are over 1,000 authorized vacancies
today that are vacant, because they are not able to maintain.
There is this constant turnover, and we don't really know what
the attrition rate is because CBP won't provide that to us.
They tell us it is no different than the rest of government,
but I know that is not true. Anecdotally in the ports, many of
the ports are down 50 and 60 officers, which results in a lot
of overtime and a lot of coverage that just can't be provided
because they just don't have the officers.
Mr. Rogers. So if we had those 1,000 vacancies filled, we
would have a total of 13,000 in the field. Is that right?
Ms. Kelley. Roughly, yes.
Mr. Rogers. I am showing my ignorance here when I ask this
question. Do you know, has the administration set a goal for
CBPOs like he has for agents?
Ms. Kelley. Actually, at this point it is very, very
marginal. I believe the appropriations bill allows for 250
additional hires, which really is just a drop in the bucket.
Mr. Rogers. But you are not aware that he set a goal that
we need 15,000 or 18,000?
Ms. Kelley. I am not. What I can tell you is in 2000, the
commissioner of CBP at the time did a resource allocation model
and he determined that there was a need for a total of 21,000
officers at the time, and that was before September 11. The
department has not done an allocation since then and they owe
you one now.
Mr. Rogers. Right. I know that when I have been at the
various ports of entry, I see a variety of canine detection
teams being used by CBPOs. Where are they trained with those
teams? Is that also at Glynco, or do they go somewhere else for
that training?
Ms. Kelley. Basic training is at Glynco, but to tell you
the truth, there is very little of that training going on
anymore.
As I am sure you are aware, the canine officer position was
abolished when CBP put forward its One Face at the Border
initiative. They abolished that job title and series and made
them all CBPOs, with a collateral duty of canine. So there are
far fewer dogs and far fewer teams out there today, and even
those officers who have--
Mr. Rogers. If more people have that designation, that
capacity, why are there fewer canine teams?
Ms. Kelley. Well, because it is not a specialty anymore.
They were put in the general population of CBPOs. They have
made everyone a generalist, and now they are pulling these what
used to be canine officers, they pull them away from time with
their dogs to put them on passenger processing to meet the wait
times that I talked about in my testimony.
So they are not even being allowed to work full days with
their dogs, which was their primary duty, and to keep those
dogs ready and alert as detector dogs. It is a collateral duty
now. It is no longer recognized as a position within CBP.
Mr. Rogers. Do you have any idea how many canine detection
teams there are as CBPOs?
Ms. Kelley. I do not. I know there are many fewer today
than there were when One Face at the Border was put in place in
2003, but I do not have a number.
Mr. Rogers. You also made the statement in your list of
recommendations that we should end the One Face at the Border
initiative. Could you expand on that, because you didn't say
what you would suggest we do in the alternative?
Ms. Kelley. I think there needs to be a recognition of the
specialization that existed with immigration, with customs and
with agriculture, and a recognition that this move toward a
generalist is not a good move for the country or for the
officers who are trying to do these jobs.
There are very specific and distinct bodies of law, rule
and regulation that go with customs, with immigration and with
agriculture. And to try to make someone an expert at all three
of them is not even what they are trying to do. They are making
a generalist of everyone, with just a little bit of training in
each of the specialties down at FLETC, when they go through.
But they could be trained in passenger processing and then
not work a booth for months, as you saw in my testimony, or
they could be trained on customs documents and not do that work
for months.
Mr. Rogers. But isn't it useful to have that core knowledge
in case, for cross-training purposes?
Ms. Kelley. The core knowledge was always there, even
before the One Face at the Border initiative, because these
officers worked next to each other at the ports for all the
travelers who were coming across the borders or through the
ports.
There was always that recognition and kind of that core
knowledge. But the specialization that existed for customs law,
rule and regulation, and for immigration, and for agriculture
is not being held out as a standard anymore. It is to know a
little bit about everything, rather than the recognition that
the specialization is part of what makes our borders and our
ports so safe.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
We will do a second round, maybe more.
Mr. Bonner, you state, in the rush to recruit, we are doing
little to retain. In your opinion, what are the top three
impediments to retention and how do we solve those problems?
Mr. Bonner. First and foremost, policies that prevent
agents from doing their job are the single largest impediment
to retention. We go out and we recruit some fine young men and
women. We show them videos with agents rappelling out of
helicopters, riding on horseback, riding on ATVs. And then they
get out to the line and they are told, look kid, here is your
job; for 10 hours, you sit here and you watch this traffic. If
someone comes across the border, if they are within range of
your vehicle, without moving your vehicle, if you can go grab
them, you can do that. If not, call them out to someone else.
And they sit there for 10 hours a day essentially being
human scarecrows, and they are bored stiff. That is not what
they signed on for, and in very short order they move on to a
different career in law enforcement. Unless that changes, we
are going to chase away the best and the brightest.
Obviously, the way you fix that problem is allow the Border
Patrol to go back to patrolling the border. The single most
important step, as counterintuitive as that might sound, is to
go after the employers, which eliminates 98 percent of the
traffic.
Currently in any given year, 2 million or 3 million people
come across our borders illegally, the overwhelming majority of
whom are seeking employment in the United States. If we remove
them from the equation, then we are left with tens of thousands
of hardened criminals and a handful of terrorists.
And the Border Patrol would clearly have to modify its
tactics at that point. You don't just sit there and pretend
that you can deter criminals from coming across, because you
don't deter criminals except by putting them in jail. You have
to hunt them down, apprehend them, bring them in front of a
judge, and have them put away for a long time.
That is doable, but only if you eliminate all of the
millions of people who are coming across seeking employment,
and guess what? They are finding it. U.S. employers are free to
hire people who are in this country illegally, and everyone
knows it.
Mr. Carney. In your testimony, Mr. Bonner, you identify
policies that you believe interfere with the Border Patrol's
mission. Can you expand on that?
Mr. Bonner. I mentioned the strategy of deterrence, which
is sitting in a fixed position.
Then there is the over-reliance on traffic checkpoints. We
have stations along the southwest border where you have two or
three agents working the line and dozens of agents working at
the backup traffic checkpoints.
You have the vehicle pursuit policy which does not allow
agents to pursue vehicles that have broken any traffic laws,
unless they have supervisory approval, and that is rarely
given.
All of these policies frustrate the ability of the agents
to accomplish the mission.
Mr. Carney. Are you suggesting we need another set of rules
of engagement here?
Mr. Bonner. Absolutely.
Mr. Carney. Ms. Kelley, do you have an echo to that?
Ms. Kelley. Well, the issue of the policies in the ports
also impact how the officers at the ports of entry do their
jobs. I mentioned these wait times. Very often, officers are
pulled away from their other duties, whether it is inspecting
cargo or baggage or other things that are very important to
make sure the wrong things don't get into the country. But
first and foremost, the priority is clearing a flight in 45
minutes.
Those kinds of rules and procedures are not seen by CBPers
as the best use of their skills and/or of the best processes to
really protect the ports that they are trying to protect.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Mr. Rosenkranz, to your point about the pay, yes, that is
also part of the $159,000, too. It is in there as well.
I yield to Mr. Rogers of Alabama for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bonner, I wanted to ask you about the border. I know
the agents are often in great danger. One of the things that I
found when I was in Nogales is they drove along very
mountainous terrain along the border. One of the concerns they
had was rocks being thrown across from the Mexican side. Even
smaller rocks when they get some velocity coming off those
mountains can be very dangerous projectiles.
Are you aware of any initiative that Border Patrol has
taken to make those vehicles safe from those kinds of airborne
projectiles?
Mr. Bonner. We have what we call ``war wagons.'' It is a
steel mesh, a heavy steel mesh that covers every inch of glass
on that vehicle, all of the windows, the side windows, the
front and back windows. That is the only measure that I am
aware of that has been taken to protect the agents from those
projectiles.
Mr. Rogers. Are you aware of any initiative by Border
Patrol to find alternative vehicles that have been used in
other places like in Israel where they have a similar problem?
Mr. Bonner. They have experimented with some of those on a
limited basis. They are quite expensive, but I would say that a
human life is worth a lot of money. So I think that no expense
should be spared to protect these agents.
But more importantly, when we know that there are areas
where our agents are being ambushed, that are right next to the
international boundary, wisdom and prudence dictates that we
withdraw a little bit to an area where we control things,
because we are relying on a neighbor to the south that is not
very cooperative with us.
Mr. Rogers. That is correct.
Mr. Bonner. I would say that if those types of attacks were
happening from our side of the border, being launched from our
side of the border, that our law enforcement officers would be
all over that. It would end in a hurry.
Mr. Rogers. But it seems to me at a minimum in those very
few areas where that is such a danger, we ought to have the
proper vehicles there that can protect our agents.
Mr. Bonner. We should. If we are going to put our agents in
harm's way--
Mr. Rogers. We don't have them everywhere, but at least in
those areas it seems to me--
Mr. Bonner. If we are going to put them in harm's way, we
absolutely should protect them.
Mr. Rogers. But another thing I have found is that just the
terrain in general along the border is just tearing all these
vehicles up. They are aren't built for it, and the
manufacturers are not willing to make accommodations unless we
buy a whole lot more. So it is a real practical problem.
I want to talk to you a little bit about something you made
reference to in your opening statement, and I was glad that you
did touch on it, and that is how you came up with this 12
percent attrition rate. I had the opportunity to catch your
interview on the Glenn Beck program a while back, where you
made reference to that.
But the thing that was most startling in your interchange
with Mr. Beck was you had talked about from the time we started
this buildup of Border Patrol agents, to now--and this is about
a month ago we have had a grand total or a net increase or 650
agents.
Is that a number you still feel is accurate?
Mr. Bonner. That was the number from when the president
announced, with great fanfare in May of last year, that he was
going to increase the size of the Border Patrol. At that point
in time, it is my understanding, and I haven't seen all of the
official figures, but it was my understanding based on informal
figures provided to me that that is pretty close to the truth.
Mr. Rogers. And that is after 3 years?
Mr. Bonner. No, that is in the span of about a year that
they managed to add that many.
Mr. Rogers. You are very familiar with the facility at
Artesia, I take it?
Mr. Bonner. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Do you believe it is possible that they can
train 6,000 more Border Patrol agents in the next 18 months to
meet the president's goal?
Mr. Bonner. No, I do not. They can cut the corners. I
suppose they can do anything. They could do a mail order
training course, but that is not going to yield a good quality
product.
Mr. Rogers. Well, let's talk about the quality of the
product. You made reference a little while ago to the fact that
they were reducing the time by taking people who are Hispanic
and can speak Spanish fluently, and removing that part of the
course for them. That makes sense, it would seem to me, if
somebody is fluent in Spanish that you are not making them sit
through Spanish lessons for a month or 6 weeks.
Mr. Bonner. I am less concerned with that aspect than I am
with the other 5 weeks that are being taken off of courses that
are essential to understanding the culture, essential to arrest
techniques. These are some of the things that are being
shortchanged as they reduce the length of the academy. There is
simply no way around it. When you take 5 weeks out of a 19-week
curriculum, something has to give.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you know that we are having to tie up
Border Patrol agents to train many of the courses there that
are not law enforcement-related. You are aware of that?
Mr. Bonner. I am aware in some instances.
Mr. Rogers. In virtually all. One of my problems has been
that we are classifying--and I tried to change it last year and
got resistance from your union and others--we are classifying
these faculty positions as inherently governmental, when in
fact teaching Spanish is not something that you have to be a
trained Border Patrol agent or Border Patrol officer to do.
If we could free up those people to go out and work on the
border, it would make it a lot easier for us to cover the
border more securely, and at the same time train up officers
and agents in an effective way. I am just talking about those
that are non-law enforcement-oriented.
I have gone over my time. I look forward to my third series
so I can get to our friend at DynCorp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to start using the tunnels from here on out, now
that I am in Washington in the summer, instead of running over
to the Capitol. I am not appearing at my best, let's put it
that way, when I get back here.
I have a couple of questions, and they are very
preliminary, and I apologize if you have already answered them.
Can somebody quickly again just give me the distinction
between a CBPO, an officer, and an agent? What is the
difference, if there is a difference between a protective
officer and a border agent?
Ms. Kelley. The CBPOs work at the ports of entry, at the
airports, the seaports and the land ports. Border Patrol agents
work between the ports of entry.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Next question is again another very
preliminary one. Generally, how are all of our men and women in
both of these organizations, and you can split them up as you
like, how are they allocated between the north, the south, and
then the ports?
Ms. Kelley. The CBPOs are allocated based on decisions that
are made by CBP headquarters. There are more officers on the
northern border today than there were before September 11. The
southern borders were always ports that were staffed at high
numbers, but I will tell you they have some of the highest
turnover, and probably some of the largest number of vacancies.
And then the airports, seaports and other border crossings
within the United States are staffed, again based on whatever
CBP determines. They can have one or two officers there. They
can have hundreds. They take the staffing that they have and
they need more staffing, but they take the staffing that they
have and allocate it as they see fit.
Mr. Perlmutter. Does anybody know if it is three-to-one,
four-to-one, south to north?
Mr. Bonner. Within the Border Patrol, approximately 10
percent of the workforce is along the northern border, with the
balance on the southern border and a small number along the
coastal waters down in Florida and the Gulf Coast.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Recently, we had the incident--and I
don't know if you talked about the patient with tuberculosis--
we had the incident up in New York. Do any of you have any
particular positions on that?
That seemed to be a fairly straightforward situation, and
hopefully it was just a one-time event where somebody just had
bad judgment. But is there something about the training that
would lead to a mistake like that? Do any of you see that?
Ms. Kelley. I can't really talk about specifics of the case
because there is still an ongoing investigation within CBP.
I am not stating that there was any direct correlation
between that very, very unfortunate incident and the training.
However, my comments about training in general are made in
light of the fact that I know this committee is interested in
ensuring that CBP staff have the training that they need.
There are a lot of things that I believe are not being
addressed, but I would not say that they were specifically tied
to this incident based on what we know, even though it is still
under investigation.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, one of the things you have been
talking about, or the panel has been talking about, is just
there is this need for many more border agents and protective
officers. Training is getting squeezed to some degree.
So I guess my question--there are a couple of questions.
First is, does anybody have a position on whether or not we
should be privatizing?
Mr. Rosenkranz, this is probably where you come in--whether
we should be privatizing or adding some private security forces
to either the border or the ports, and we think that the
training of the private individuals is better or the same as
what we are getting within the system now.
Ms. Kelley. I don't have any first-hand information other
than what Mr. Rosenkranz has told us about training and the
work that they do. I believe that the ports of entry should be
protected by Federal employees who are trained by the Federal
Government and who have that responsibility, that commitment. I
believe without question it should be done by Federal employees
and not privatized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Bonner?
Mr. Bonner. I agree with Ms. Kelley. I think it would be a
serious mistake to set up a dual structure of Federal employees
and private contractors. It is just an invitation to disaster.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Rosenkranz?
Mr. Rosenkranz. I think there is a point that is missed
here. The people that we recruit would be police officers,
either retired or serving. They go through additional training
and then they would come under the control of the Border
Patrol. They would be additional employees in the same
structure. The distinctions are not visible.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Bonner, do you think that hiring the private
contractors is the answer to the problem?
Mr. Bonner. No, I don't think so. I think that there is a
temptation to throw a lot of personnel into the mix here as if
somehow that is going to solve the problem. We have seen that
that really hasn't worked. The ramp-up that started back in the
early to mid-1990's, since that occurred, we have percentage-
wise increased the size of the Border Patrol substantially,
probably to the same degree that they are talking about with
this 18,000.
As a consequence of that, the Border Patrol in its official
estimates claims that they now control 150 miles of border.
Taking that at face value, now they are saying that if we give
then 18,000 total agents, and invest billions of dollars in
SBInet, that within 6 years we will have complete control of
all of our borders. And the Border Patrol is responsible for
8,000 miles of land and coastal borders.
Within the span of the last dozen years, we have managed to
control 150 miles, by their estimates, and now all of a sudden
we will have all 8,000 miles in 6 years? I don't believe that
for a second, and anyone who does I have some beachfront
property in Iowa that I am willing to sell at a bargain price.
Mr. Carney. I am from Iowa, actually.
[Laughter.]
It is a beautiful state.
Mr. Bonner. But you don't have any beaches there, and you
know that better than most.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carney. Yes.
Mr. Rosenkranz, I have to confess, I need a quick tutorial
here on how DynCorp does this. You offer a service of trained
enforcement agents. Where do they get their training and then
who paid for that training?
Mr. Rosenkranz. The cost of the training is included in the
number. I emphasize the fact that the number includes an entire
year's salary, not 5 months. It is the entire year. The way it
would work is the way it works now. The difference, I think, in
the recruiting process is that it is easier to recruit retired
police to go to Arizona than to go to Baghdad. I think we could
be successful.
The process would be the same as the government follows. We
would determine the exact syllabus and the exact curriculum
based on what the Border Patrol said had to be in it, but we
have offered in our statement a potential syllabus, a potential
curriculum that could be followed, and we pick 10 weeks as a
fair number. It could be less or it could be more, depending on
what is required.
And then we recruit and vet and then train these folks, and
then deploy them to the Border Patrol and they would work for
the Border Patrol. They would be policemen. So we assume that
there is less training required before they are put into the
force.
As I mentioned at the end of the statement, we can provide
other support: back-office support, construction support,
whatever is required to supplement what the Border Patrol has
now.
Mr. Carney. OK. So in your view, the value added to the
extra cost, the cost differential about the $40,000 roughly is
that other stuff you bring? What is different than what the
government does in that?
Mr. Rosenkranz. I think we can come up with whatever number
is required from us. We can come up with that number in a short
timeframe, train them, and provide them to the border police. I
think that I will submit additional information so you can see
the difference in the cost.
I think our cost is less, actually. Because we didn't want
to appear to be deceptive, we put everything in there, and we
would be very happy to compare that to what it costs to do the
same functions as the government.
Mr. Carney. I would absolutely love to see that.
Mr. Rosenkranz. OK.
Mr. Carney. I appreciate it.
Mr. Rosenkranz. I think there is an advantage here in that
we can provide the amount of people that you need--not 6,000 a
year, but we can provide, as we indicated in our report, 1,000
a year, and more than that if you desire us to expand our
facilities. We can do it at a price that is less than the
government is spending now.
Mr. Carney. OK. Well, like you said, I am looking forward
to seeing those documents.
I recognize Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the chairman.
One of the things that we agree on, Mr. Bonner, is 18,000
is not enough. I really believe it is going to be a larger
number that is required. I have said that publicly for years.
But I also don't believe that we have the capacity at Artesia,
even with its enhancements, to meet the need of just getting to
18,000 and sustaining that.
Mr. Bonner. I agree.
Mr. Rogers. I have gotten nothing but resistance to efforts
to think outside the box to try to meet that demand in the
interim. One of the things that, as you know, I have looked at
is bringing the private sector in, companies like DynCorp,
Blackwater and others, to serve in a supplemental capacity.
Mr. Rosenkranz, I was a little surprised when I heard your
number earlier in this testimony, because I have not heard a
number that large. I have known it to be an expensive endeavor,
but the reason I understood for it being a little bit expensive
was because it was temporary. We could say that as soon as this
contract is over, you go away. Whereas with these
infrastructures, they are permanent and we have to sustain them
and we just can't shut them down.
But tell me more about this--well, rather than putting you
on the spot, I would like to see the same thing you provide the
chairman about your costs. I would like to ask you, I heard you
make reference to the different areas where you have a presence
or have had a presence. Are you still in New Orleans in the
sheriff's department down there?
Mr. Rosenkranz. No, we are not. We completed that mission.
Mr. Rogers. How long were you there?
Mr. Rosenkranz. About 1 1/2 years, I think.
Mr. Rogers. So right after the hurricane for about 1 1/2
years, you provided personnel. Was it 70 or 80 personnel
working in the sheriff's department?
Mr. Rosenkranz. I have to check on that number, sir. I
don't remember. I think it was less than that.
Mr. Rogers. Weren't those individuals deputized while they
were there?
Mr. Rosenkranz. The people who work for the department were
deputized.
Mr. Rogers. But your employees worked for the department?
Mr. Rosenkranz. Right. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. So when you send your personnel to the border,
you could have them deputized to serve in a law enforcement
capacity?
Mr. Rosenkranz. Yes, sir. Once we provide these people to
the agency, in this case to the Border Patrol, they work for
the Border Patrol and they take the responsibilities of any of
the border patrolmen, the same capacities.
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Rosenkranz. These are all required to be police
officers already.
Mr. Rogers. As you are probably aware--I don't think I have
had this conversation with you--but I tried vigorously a year
ago to push legislation that would allow us to contract out
with entities through the Federal Protective Service, for
services like you have been talking about where we could spec
the requirements that we have for a Border Patrol agent or a
Border Patrol officer, spec them very specifically, and then
contract out for somebody to provide that.
I ran into a complete buzz-saw from these two folks over
here and others who want to keep the system just the way it is.
It has been my view that we could take those kind of personnel
who have been trained to the same academic criteria and law
enforcement criteria and put them under the supervision, and be
trained by Border Patrol agents, retired Border Patrol agents
on the border, and they would function effectively.
My question to you is--and I won't ask you if you agree
with that because I am certain you would--but would you think
that private source personnel, hired under the kind of program
I just described, would be better suited to be given a distance
along the southwest border that they control without any
interaction with the Border Patrol? Or should they be
integrated with the Border Patrol along the border in a
subordinate capacity?
Mr. Rosenkranz. Our assumption was that these are people
that would be integrated into the current structure. Being
given a separate segment of the responsibilities it not a
problem except for the question of who is going to manage them.
We can provide the management, but our initial thoughts on this
based on the knowledge we have is that these would be people to
be seamlessly integrated into the Border Patrol. That is the
basis on which we provided our testimony.
Mr. Rogers. OK.
Mr. Rosenkranz. We think we can do that, and we would be
very happy to have a test of that, or a pilot of that to show
what we are talking about.
Mr. Rogers. I would very much like to see that. I don't
hold out a whole lot of hope, but I would like to see that
happen. I think it would work. That is one of the reasons why I
think it won't happen is because it would work.
I want to make a comment before I let the mike go, because
I won't ask for another round.
I understand from past discussions that the way to answer
the chairman's question when he had a view, is that the way you
all do this is when you are being asked to provide personnel as
officers or agents or whatever, you all would ask for the
academic criteria and other training, and then you would set up
a training campus somewhere and then you would hire and train-
up folks to meet that criteria at a separate location that you
may or may not already have.
Is that correct, Mr. Rosenkranz?
Mr. Rosenkranz. Yes, currently the training facilities that
we are using to train the civilian police for the State
Department would be the facilities we would use for this
mission, and we would expand them as necessary. This would be
completely autonomous in that part of the training piece. It
would not impinge on the Federal facilities at all.
I would assume, as we do with the State Department, that
the Border Patrol would provide people to either add to the
faculty presentations or supervise the faculty, and certainly
check their credentials. The State Department does that on a
continuous basis.
We have run these schools, but they do oversight and ensure
that we are meeting the requirements and the specifications,
and that is what we would expect in this case. We have two
schools in Virginia and one in Texas.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado for another 5
minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Rosenkranz, does your company do any of
the private contracting, private security forces in Iraq?
Mr. Rosenkranz. At the moment, our work is with the State
Department exclusively. We do a protection mission and a
civilian police mission with the State Department.
Mr. Perlmutter. Because as I was listening to Mr. Rogers,
and at some point we have substantial numbers of private
security contractors in Iraq. Has your company ever done that?
Mr. Rosenkranz. They did some protection for commercial
firms in Iraq in the 2003 or 2004 timeframe, before I joined
the company.
Mr. Perlmutter. Do you know whether, and I know you were
answering this for Mr. Carney and Mr. Rogers, but have you or
has your company analyzed what services you could provide for
the Border Patrol? I mean, is there a specific proposal that
you responded to or that you prepared?
Mr. Rosenkranz. We prepared the testimony, but there is no
proposal so there is nothing to prepare. I am sorry. There is
no solicitation, so we prepared no proposal. Certainly, we
could do that if somebody asked us.
Mr. Perlmutter. In thinking about this, though, one of the
issues that we are confronted with is the bad morale and the
turnover that we have seen within our agents and our officers
to some degree. To what do you attribute that, if you guys have
taken a look at this?
Mr. Rosenkranz. The morale of the Border Patrol?
Mr. Perlmutter. Yes.
Mr. Rosenkranz. I can't address that because I don't know.
I can tell you that the morale on our force is a crucial
element of our management of these policemen in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as you can imagine. It is not just the post-
traumatics, but the stuff on the mission, because it is a very
dicey, difficult mission.
We have 40 percent of our people--and this is a 1-year
assignment. We hire these people for 1 year. They go over to
Iraq or Afghanistan and then they come home, and 40 percent
elect to stay an additional year.
I have been out to counsel them in their mission areas, and
I am amazed at the level of morale and spirit that you see in
these men and women who come from the police departments of the
United States. It is very impressive.
Mr. Perlmutter. How many people do you have, or does your
company have working for you and working for the State
Department?
Mr. Rosenkranz. We have at the moment in Iraq and
Afghanistan about 1,400-plus officers; in the field, about
4,000 people between the two countries to support them.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Bonner, my question to you is also
about the morale and turnover. I may have missed your testimony
on this, and I apologize. But do you have anything that you
attribute this?
We have had a couple of hearings on morale within the
Department of Homeland Security as a whole, but we have also
heard particularly within Customs and Border Patrol that there
is really been some disenchantment or whatever.
Mr. Bonner. As a matter of fact, the Office of Personnel
Management every 2 years for the last three cycles has done
surveys. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security in the 2004 and 2006 reports, DHS has ranked dead
last, and Border Patrol is down at the bottom of that
dishonorable mention.
The reasons are many, but the single largest complaint we
get is that agents are simply not allowed to do their jobs.
Beyond that, you have low pay and other issues that cause
people to question their judgment in accepting employment with
the Federal Government.
Mr. Perlmutter. How are they not allowed to do their job?
What do you mean?
Mr. Bonner. There are various policies that prevent them
from actually going out and utilizing their statutory arrest
authority, such as being forced to sit in static positions;
being deployed to areas where the traffic has moved away from;
not being allowed to stop vehicles that break traffic laws. The
whole list of policies prevent them from doing their jobs.
Mr. Perlmutter. Ms. Kelley?
Ms. Kelley. The One Face at the Border initiative that has
really not allowed employees to use their experience, their
expertise in the customs or immigration or agriculture arena is
one of the biggest contributors to poor morale for the CBP
officers and throughout CBP.
In addition to issues around scheduling, a lack of
recognition by CBP that while many of these ports have gone to
24/7 coverage, which absolutely is understandable and is
needed, but there is still a way to schedule employees with
their work to recognize the fact that there are family issues,
whether it is child care or working spouses.
Every shift must be covered by qualified individuals, and
that is management's right to do, but there was a time up to a
few years ago where there was involvement by the employees in
being able to at least raise their hand on different scheduling
assignments in order to ensure that this was a place they could
continue to work and not have to make a choice between family
and the job.
And that just isn't the case anymore. Schedules are put in
place with zero consideration of employee input or
volunteering. That has also contributed, as well as the lack of
expertise and recognition of the skills that they have.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman.
Seeing no further questions, I thank the panel for their
valuable testimony and for the members for their questions.
The members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for the panel. I encourage you to expeditiously
answer them and submit them in writing.
The first panel is dismissed. Thank you once again.
I now welcome the second panel of witnesses.
Our first witness is Richard Stana. Mr. Stana is the
director with the Homeland Security and Justice team at the
U.S. Government Accountability Office. During his 31-year
career with GAO, he has directed reviews on a wide variety of
complex military and domestic issues in headquarters, the field
and overseas. Most recently, he has directed GAO's work
relating to immigration and border security issues.
Our second witness is Art Morgan, director of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Field Operations Academy, a
position he has held since January of 2006. In his current
position, Mr. Morgan has oversight for basic training of all
CBP officers, agriculture specialists, and other CBP
professionals such as entry and import specialists. In
addition, he is responsible for advance programs delivered at
the CBP Field Operations Academy in Glynco, Georgia, and ports
nationwide. Mr. Morgan has spent the past 35 years of public
service, having begun his career as a customs inspector at
O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois.
Our third witness is Charlie Whitmire, chief patrol agent
of the United States Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New
Mexico. As the chief of the Border Patrol academy, Chief
Whitmire directs all efforts related to basic, advanced and
post-academy training. He currently manages a combined staff
and student population of over 1,100 agents plus support
personnel. Chief Whitmire began as a Border Patrol agent in
1983.
Our fourth witness is Cynthia Atwood, assistant director
for the Field Training Directorate at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, FLETC. In this position, Ms.
Atwood is responsible for the direction, planning and
management of FLETC's field training site. She began her FLETC
career in 1995. Ms. Atwood began her career at an agent with
the Department of Agriculture's Office of the Inspector
General.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement
for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Stana.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. STANA, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stana. Chairman Carney, Mr. Rogers and members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing on the training of new Border Patrol agents.
In May 2006, the president called for comprehensive
immigration reform that included, among other things, adding
6,000 new Border Patrol agents by December 2008. This would
increase the number of agents to about 18,300, which is an
unprecedented 48 percent increase in just 2 years.
In addition, Congress is considering legislation that would
authorize an additional 10,000 agents, which could increase the
size of the Border Patrol to about 28,000 by 2012. It is
important that these new agents receive the training needed to
effectively carry out their national security and immigration
enforcement responsibilities envisioned in various immigration
reform proposals.
My prepared statement is based on a report requested by Mr.
Rogers and issued in March on the nature and cost of training
provided to new Border Patrol agents, and whether the capacity
exists to train the potentially large influx of new agents. In
my oral statement, I would like to highlight the following
three points.
First, training for new Border Patrol agents includes both
basic training at the Border Patrol Academy at Artesia, New
Mexico, and post-academy and field training, which is provided
after the new agent is assigned to the sector. Academy training
is currently 81 days long and consists of Spanish language, law
and operations, physical fitness, driving, firearms, and
general operations training.
While we did not independently evaluate the effectiveness
of academy training, we found that the program exhibits all of
the applicable attributes of an effective training program.
As shown in table one of my prepared statement, for
example, the Border Patrol's training program determines the
skills and competencies needed by its workforce, incorporates
measures of effectiveness into courses it designs, tracks the
cost in delivery of training, and provides for an effectiveness
evaluation by the Border Patrol. Border Patrol officials told
us they are confident that the academy can handle the large
influx of new trainees expected over the next 2 years.
Second and perhaps most importantly, a potential capacity
problem exists regarding the post-academy and field training
components of the program. Border Patrol officials were
concerned that they may not have enough experienced agents in
the sectors to serve as first-line supervisors and trainers for
the new agents. For example, the chief of the Border Patrol
told us that while the average experience level of Border
Patrol agents agency-wide is about 4 or 5 years, in some
southwest border sectors it is only about 1 1/2 years.
In addition, although the Border Patrol has a desired ratio
of five new agents to every supervisor, the overall agent-to-
supervisor ratio for the southwest border sectors range from
seven to one up to eleven to one. Moreover, this capacity
shortfall would likely be exacerbated if some training is
shifted from the academy to the sectors, and if the more
experienced agents are transferred to the northern border or
leave the agency.
The transfers and the shifting are actions that are planned
or under consideration. The additional burden this would place
on already strained field resources could degrade the sectors'
ability to provide adequate supervision and training for the
new agents.
My third point deals with the cost to train a new Border
Patrol agent. We found that the average cost was consistent
with the average cost of similar Federal and state law
enforcement training programs. In 2006, the average cost to
train a new Border Patrol agent was about $14,700, whereas it
cost $15,300 to train a BIA police officer, about $15,500 for
an Arizona police officer--that is a state police officer--and
about $14,700 for a Texas state trooper.
The Border Patrol estimates that the average cost to train
a new agent this year is about $16,200. The increase is
primarily due to hiring additional academy instructors, which
increased CBP's instructor costs from about $2,800 to $6,100
per student. CBP's position cost model estimates that it costs
about $156,000--and this is a figure we talked about in the
previous panel--to deploy an agent. This model includes direct
and indirect costs to recruit, train, equip and deploy the
agent.
In closing, given the unprecedented ramp-up of new Border
Patrol agents envisioned in the various immigration reform
proposals, it will extremely important that the Border Patrol's
training programs turn out new agents who are proficient in the
safe, effective and ethical performance of their duties.
Whether or not the Border Patrol Academy will be in a
position to provide basic training to new agents, the numbers
to be hired over the next 5 years would likely severely strain
the sectors' ability to provide adequate supervision and field
training. The planned transfer of more experienced agents to
the northern border, a shift of training from the academy to
the sectors, and the possibility of an exodus of experienced
agents to other law enforcement agencies could further
exacerbate these concerns.
Finding ways to meet these challenges will be essential to
maintaining a quality training program and an effective border
patrol force.
This concludes my oral statement, and I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The statement of Mr. Stana follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard M. Stana
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carney. I thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Morgan to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ART MORGAN, DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS ACADEMY,
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Morgan. Good morning, Chairman Carney, Ranking Member
Rogers, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am pleased
to be here to discuss how U.S. Customs and Border Protection is
training our CBP officers who work at the 326 official ports of
entry.
My name is Art Morgan. I am the director of the Customs and
Border Protection Field Operations Academy, which is located at
the FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, in
Glynco, Georgia. I have held this position and similar
positions since July of 2000.
Each day, CBP officers inspect more than 1.1 million
arriving travelers and examine their documents, baggage, and
conveyance. Last year alone, CBP welcomed over 422 million
travelers through the official ports of entry. CBP officers are
America's frontlines, the guardians of our nation's borders.
They safeguard the American homeland at and beyond our borders,
protecting the public against terrorists and their instruments
of terror.
These frontline employees steadfastly enforce the laws of
the U.S., while fostering the nation's economic security
through lawful international trade and travel. They serve the
American public through vigilance, integrity and
professionalism.
As director of the Field Operations Academy, I oversee the
delivery of basic and advanced training to CBP officers. The
majority of our workload focuses on delivering training to CBP
officers at the FLETC in Glynco, and to the CBP ag specialists,
or agriculture specialists, which we do in cooperation with the
United States Department of Agriculture at that agency's
Frederick, Maryland, training facility, where we have added 3
weeks of CBP training to the longstanding agriculture training
that the USDA has provided these similar officers before the
merger.
The Field Operations Academy works hand in hand with FLETC
to deliver our 73-day integrated program which we call ``CBPI''
to the CBP officers. The CBPI course is dynamic and
comprehensive training that prepares CBP officers for their
unique field assignments. The CBP course provides students with
the foundation necessary to become Federal law enforcement
officers with the most extensive arrest and search authority
authorized by the Constitution and United States law.
Each of our classes consists of about 48 students. We
instruct CBP officers in passenger processing, trade
processing, conveyance processing, officer safety and survival,
and our automated information systems. Officers also receive
training in the Constitution of the United States, customs law,
immigration law, and agricultural laws and agency procedures.
We also teach them firearms and physical techniques.
I would like to clarify something from previous testimony.
We did take two courses--one was the immigration course and one
was the customs course--we put them together. When we put these
two courses together, there were many overlapping parts that we
of course we able to not duplicate, and we created the CBP
officer course and we added extensive amounts, 16 hours, of
agricultural training on top of that to create the current
course that we provide for the CBP officers, as one part of the
three-phase training we do for new CBP officers.
They start with pre-academy training, which is 1 month at
their port of entry, where they have a pre-designed course of
training, which is delivered to them at their port of entry,
then 73 class days with us in Glynco, where they learn primary
processing, how to do the primary job of a customs and border
protection officer. Then they go back for post-academy work,
which they learn in their port of entry for the secondary tasks
that they learn.
We also provide 20 hours of direct training on the treasury
enforcement communications to the CBP officers. Students are
evaluated extensively throughout the course, with rigorous
written examinations--we have eight of them--and mock port-of-
entry practical exercises which requires them to use the text
computer system in a simulated field environment, where we use
role players to have them actually have to show us and
demonstrate to themselves and to their instructors that they
have mastered what we have taught them.
At the academy, we create CBPOs throughout the basic
training by emphasizing the overall goal of detecting terrorism
and protecting America. These words are prominently displayed
in most of the training venues utilized by CBP.
In order to effectively prepare CBPOs for their critical
field assignments, we select some of the finest employees from
the ports of entry and we bring them down to the academy for a
3-to 5-year tour of duty as instructors. We can also augment
these instructors with shorter term temporary assignments. In
doing this, because we staff in this manner, we are able to
change our through-put of students drastically as we have done
every year for the past 5 years.
I welcome answering any questions that you gentlemen would
have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Whitmire, your testimony summary for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF CHARLIE WHITMIRE, DIRECTOR, BORDER PATROL
TRAINING ACADEMY, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DHS
Chief Whitmire. Good morning, Chairman Carney, Ranking
Member Rogers, and distinguished members of the subcommittee
this morning. I would like to thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak with you today about how U.S. Customs and
Border Protection is training our Border Patrol agents, who
work between the ports of entry.
My name is Charles Whitmire. I am the chief of the United
States Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. I believe
we have met before, sir. I am responsible for providing basic
training to new Border Patrol agents at the academy, and I
provide advanced training to seasoned journeyman agents as
well.
We share some 7,000 miles of border with Canada and Mexico.
Border Patrol agents are America's frontline, the guardians of
our nation's border. They safeguard the American homeland at
our borders, protecting the public against terrorist and
instruments of terror. As America's frontline border agency,
CBP employs a highly trained workforce, while utilizing our
resources and law enforcement authorities to discharge our
priority mission of preventing terrorist and terrorist weapons
from entering the United States.
In order to become a more efficient training program, the
Border Patrol Academy's current 81-day training program will
become a 55-day program at the beginning of fiscal year 2008.
However, the standards, quality of instruction, and esprit de
corps will remain the same. The only significant change to our
Border Patrol basic training will take place in the Spanish and
post-academy portions of the program.
All current curriculum hours remain the same. I repeat: All
current curriculum hours remain exactly the same. Not one hour
is deleted from our current law enforcement curriculum. Only
Spanish is removed from that curriculum and taught in a
separate stand-alone.
On October 1, 2007, all Border Patrol trainees will begin
that 55-day core basic training program, and will be given a
Spanish language exam when they arrive at the academy. Trainees
who pass the Spanish language exam will report directly to
their duty stations at the end of the 55-day program to begin
post-academy training. Trainees who need Spanish immersion
training will be placed in an 8-week task-based language
training program that requires successful completion prior to
reporting to their duty stations.
The Border Patrol Academy anticipates that approximately 50
percent of the trainees will need to complete the Spanish
language immersion course at the end of the 55-day basic
training program. The new post-academy training program will
consist of classroom and computer-based training and task-based
scenarios that incorporate the most current information
available. The computer-based training modules will be
interactive and will include multi-media formats in order to
capture the trainee's interest, while conveying information in
the most effective use of time.
Instructor-led courses will also reinforce what was learned
in the computer-based training modules through the use of
modern adult education teaching methods. Several of the basic
training subjects will be on-the-job training and will be
coordinated with a field training officer program currently
being developed by the Office of Border Patrol.
Sir, anyone who opines that Border Patrol training has been
degraded is simply uninformed. We are currently working with
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to prepare the
Artesia facility to accommodate basic Border Patrol training
for 34 classes at one time for approximately 1,600 to 1,700
trainees.
Currently, there are more than 1,300 Border Patrol agent
trainees at the academy to date. In fiscal year 2006, the
academy had 38 classes for a total of 1,889 new Border Patrol
agents. Approximately 1,407 have graduated. During fiscal year
2007, we are expecting 78 classes for a total of 3,900
students. To date, 2,463 trainees have arrived and 721 have
graduated.
In fiscal year 2008, we are expecting to train 97 classes
for a total of 4,850 students. Therefore, the number of staff
officers needed to accomplish such a monumental task will also
increase. The academy staff currently consists of 450
employees, including permanent and detailed agents on temporary
assignment, rehired annuitants, and attorneys and support
personnel who handle day-to-day operations.
Thank you for having me here today. I stand ready to answer
any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Morgan and Chief Whitmire follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement of Art Morgan and Charles Whitmire
Good morning Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Rogers, distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss
how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trains our frontline
employees, CBP Officers, who work at the official ports of entry, and
Border Patrol Agents, who work between the ports of entry.
Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers are America's frontline, the
guardians of our Nation's borders. They safeguard the American homeland
at and beyond our borders, protecting the public against terrorists and
the instruments of terror. These frontline employees steadfastly
enforce the laws of the United States while fostering our Nation's
economic security through lawful international trade and travel. They
serve the American public with vigilance, integrity and
professionalism.
Securing our Nation's borders is an enormous challenge. We share
more than 7,000 miles of borders with Canada and Mexico and operate 327
official ports of entry. Each day, CBP Officers inspect more than 1.1
million arriving travelers, and examine their documents, baggage, and
conveyances. Last year alone, CBP welcomed over 422 million travelers
through official ports of entry.
As America's frontline border agency, CBP employs a highly trained
workforce, while utilizing our resources and law enforcement
authorities, to discharge our priority mission of preventing terrorists
and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. CBP has made
great strides toward securing America's borders while facilitating
legitimate trade and travel and, thereby, ensuring the vitality of our
economy and securing our Nation.
Our efforts to gain operational control of our borders and push our
zone of security outward enable CBP to better perform the traditional
missions of its legacy agencies, which include: apprehending
undocumented aliens attempting to enter the United States illegally,
stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband, protecting our
agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases,
protecting American businesses from the theft of their intellectual
property, regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting
import duties, and enforcing United States trade laws. In fiscal year
2006 alone, CBP processed more than 29 million trade entries valued at
$1.8 trillion, seized 2.5 million pounds of narcotics, processed more
than 25 million containers, intercepted 47,951 significant plant pests,
and inspected 132 million vehicles.
It is our task to ensure new officers and agents are prepared to
operate in the challenging legal, cultural and physical environments
that exist along our borders, north and south, east and west. It is our
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: How
effectively are new agents and officers performing their duties in the
operating environment?
We take our responsibility to train seriously, and our investment
in training reflects that reality. At the heart of our basic training
philosophy is the importance of bringing experienced Border Patrol
Agents and CBP Officers 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 CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents
so effective in the many environments in which they work, and that
engine is the esprit de corps. Our practice of bringing field agents
and officers to the academy benefits the new trainees, and it is also a
career development opportunity. While on assignment as an academy
instructor, field agents and officers increase their knowledge and
skills in the areas they teach, become better prepared to participate
as sector and field instructors in the post-graduate portion of basic
training and learn and receive practical experience in supervision and
leadership.
We are proud of the training program we have created to train men
and women for important jobs as CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents.
A review conducted by the Government Accountability Office between
September 2006 and March 2007 concluded that, ``the Border Patrol's
basic training program exhibits attributes of an effective training
program.'' \1\ Additionally, CBP works closely and effectively with the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Our close working
relationship ensures that our officers and agents receive the best and
most up-to-date training available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO Report No. GAO-07-540R Border Training, pg.3, March 30,
2007
Border Patrol Agent Training
Border Patrol Agents are responsible for preventing the entry of
terrorists, undocumented aliens, and human and drug smugglers and the
smuggling of narcotics, weapons, and people between the official ports
of entry. One of the most important duties performed by a Border Patrol
Agent is known as ``line-watch''. This involves the detection and
apprehension of undocumented aliens and their smugglers by maintaining
surveillance from covert or overt positions, pursuing leads, responding
to electronic sensor alarms, utilizing infrared scopes during night
operations, using low-light level television systems, sighting
aircraft, and interpreting and following tracks, marks, and other
physical evidence. In addition, Border Patrol Agents perform traffic
checks, traffic observation, city patrol transportation checks, and
other administrative, intelligence, and anti-smuggling activities.
To prepare new Border Patrol Agents for this dynamic and
challenging position, they complete a rigorous 81-day training program
consisting of 663 curriculum hours in the following subject areas:
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. Additionally, in Fiscal Year
2008, the planning and anticipation is for two program lengths: 55 days
for trainees with Spanish language proficiency and 95 days for those
requiring language training. This plan will significantly reduce the
amount of time to prepare bi-lingual trainees to be deployed to our
borders. Working with FLETC, we were able to find ways to effectively
and efficiently train new agents.
The Academy's New Mexico location provides a unique environment
similar to the Southwest border where all new Border Patrol Agents are
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
can depend on at home. Another important aspect of our basic training
is our use of practical exercises throughout a trainee's 81 days at the
Academy. These exercises require trainees to practice observational
skills and interviewing techniques, while applying their job knowledge
of documentation requirements, immigration issues, checkpoint
operations, and vehicle stops.
After graduating from the basic academy, probationary agents are
required to complete a post-academy course of study one day a week.
This weekly classroom instruction, within their respective Sectors,
continues for 20 weeks. The Post Academy Training Program is committed
to the continued basic training development of probationary agents for
the Office of 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.
Spanish--A comprehensive combination oral and written
Spanish exam, administrated by a Post Academy Examination
Review Board.
CBP Officer Training
The CBP Officer's primary responsibility is to detect and prevent
terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from entering the United
States, while facilitating the orderly flow of legitimate trade and
travelers at the 327 official ports of entry in the United States. This
requires enforcing laws related to revenue and trade, seizure of
contraband, interdiction of agricultural pests and diseases, and
determining the admissibility of persons. CBP Officers perform the full
range of inspection, analysis, examination and law enforcement
activities relating to the arrival and departure of persons,
merchandise and conveyances such as cars, trucks, aircraft, and ships
at the ports of entry.
To prepare to execute these duties, new CBP Officers attend 73 days
of training, 578 hours of lecture, laboratories, and practical
exercises, at the Field Operations Academy, within the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. Before entering the CBP
Academy, CBP officers receive structured pre-academy training at their
assigned Ports of Entry prior to completing the CBP Officer basic
training course at the Field Operations Academy in Glynco, Georgia.
The course is a dynamic and comprehensive training program that
prepares CBP Officers for unique field assignments and provides
thorough development in critical subject-matter areas. The course
provides students with the foundation necessary to become Federal law
enforcement officers with the most extensive arrest and search
authority authorized by the Constitution and United States law. The CBP
Officer basic course provides training on firearms/tactics, counter
terrorism, arrest techniques and defensive tactics, passenger
processing, trade processing, officer safety and survival, automated
information systems, and conveyance processing. Additionally, during
training, CBP Officers receive training from the CDC/U.S. Public Health
Service on medical/biological threats, Annually, CBP Officers continue
their education with classroom, on-the-job, and computerized training
to update their skills and inform them of new procedures and possible
threats.
Students are evaluated extensively through rigorous written
examinations and mock Port of Entry practical exercises that simulate
the field environment to the greatest extent possible. These exercises
allow new officers to demonstrate their ability to successfully perform
their duties and take the appropriate steps in meeting the unique
challenges of their duty assignments.
Upon successful completion of basic academy training, new officers
receive Post Academy On-the-Job training that is specifically related
to their designated job functions. This structured program includes
classroom, hands-on, and computer- based training. It was developed to
provide seamless progressive instruction that covers various work
environments and programs that extend beyond their initial primary
inspection training.
Training Costs
The cost for training a new Border Patrol Agent in Fiscal Year 2007
is $16,220. Specifically, the tuition and miscellaneous cost is $4,807,
the lodging and meals cost is $2,256 and instructors and support staff
cost is $9,157. (Tuition includes items consumed by students, such as
printing, pencils, paper, ammunition, and uniforms; miscellaneous costs
are contract costs for bus transportation, dining hall, custodial
services, and other student services.) The cost for training a new CBP
Officer is $10,752. CBP has worked extensively to constrain these
costs, while ensuring top-of-the-line training for our agents and
officers.
The Office of Border Patrol is in the midst of an unprecedented
surge in the number of Border Patrol Agents. The President and Congress
have directed CBP to increase in size from almost 9,000 agents in 2001
to over 18,000 agents by the end of calendar year 2008; doubling the
size of the Border Patrol. Border Patrol is also the beneficiary of
support from Congress in terms of funding, resources, and attention.
Growing so rapidly is not an easy task, but it is one Border Patrol is
accomplishing. In Fiscal Year 2006, the Border Patrol Training Academy
trained 1,407 new Border Patrol Agents. Through new recruiting methods,
more effective training, and competitive pay and benefits packages,
Border Patrol is on pace to meet its goals.
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee today
to publicize the advanced and highly effective training we provide to
our officers and agents on the frontlines. We are proud of the training
we provide.
We would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Whitmire.
I now recognize Ms. Atwood for 5 minutes to summarize her
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA ATWOOD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD TRAINING
DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER, DHS
Ms. Atwood. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, and
distinguished members of the committee, it is a pleasure to
appear before this committee today and discuss the status of
the Border Patrol training being conducted at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, Artesia, New Mexico, site.
This training is being accomplished in support of the
Secure Border initiative. With me today are the site director
for the Artesia, New Mexico site, Joseph Wright, and our senior
associate director in our Washington office, Mr. John Dooher.
FLETC's mission is to train those who protect our homeland.
FLETC is the Federal Government's leader for and provider of
world-class law enforcement training. FLETC prepares new and
experienced law enforcement professionals to fulfill their
responsibilities in a safe manner and at the highest level of
proficiency.
Training consists of all phases of law enforcement
instruction, to include firearms, driver training, defensive
tactics, and legal instruction. Through consolidated training,
FLETC can respond quickly to emerging training needs, readily
adapt to new requirements, and focus exclusively on training,
which is FLETC's only mission.
FLETC delivers interagency training with optimal efficiency
through the government-wide sharing of facilities, equipment
and expertise, which produces economies of scale available only
from a consolidated law enforcement training environment. There
are currently 83 Federal partner organizations engaged in law
enforcement training at FLETC sites.
FLETC currently operates four training sites throughout the
United States for multiple agency use. FLETC headquarters and
its largest training site, Glynco, Georgia, has classrooms,
dining and residence halls, and state-of-the-art facilities for
firearms, physical techniques, driver, marine and computer-
based training.
Two field locations that provide both basic and advanced
training are located, again, at Artesia, New Mexico and
Charleston, South Carolina, sites. The fourth training site,
Cheltenham, Maryland, provides in-service and requalification
training for officers and agents here in the metropolitan
Washington, D.C., area.
In collaboration with the Department of State, FLETC
operates international law enforcement academies in Gaborone,
Botswana and San Salvador, El Salvador. FLETC also maintains a
very robust state and local law enforcement training program.
As assistant director for field training, I am the senior
FLETC official with management oversight on behalf of the
director of the FLETC for the field sites in Artesia, New
Mexico, Charleston, South Carolina, Cheltenham, Maryland, and
also for our National Center for State and Local Training.
As this committee is aware from the testimony of FLETC
Director Connie L. Patrick when she appeared before the
committee on May 24, 2005, the Artesia, New Mexico, center is
the principal site for Border Patrol training. This site
consists of more than 3,000 acres. FLETC Artesia has been
operational since 1989 and serves to accommodate Border Patrol
training, Bureau of Indian Affairs police and tribal officer
training, Federal flight deck officer training, Federal air
marshal training, and other law enforcement training as
required.
In 2003, Border Patrol training conducted at other FLETC
sites was consolidated at FLETC Artesia. As necessary, FLETC
continues to utilize its other locations to host Border Patrol
training. Today, the Artesia site has the latest state-of-the-
art facilities and offers the type of specialized training
environment most suited to Border Patrol functions. The
practical, hands-on training capabilities at a single location
affords the Border Patrol training that is second to none.
This year, FLETC will complete a new dormitory that will
accommodate 608 trainees and allow for the total housing of
over 2,000 trainees at any one time. FLETC also has built in
flexibility at the Artesia site to further expand its housing
as necessary. Much of what has been accomplished in Artesia
would not have been possible without the generous support of
Congress through the annual appropriation process.
With congressional funding support and strong cooperation
and leadership of the Department of Homeland Security and
Customs and Border Protection, FLETC believes it is in the very
best position to accomplish the goals set for Border Patrol
training in the Secure Border initiative within the timeframe
established.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee
may have at this time.
[The statement of Ms. Atwood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia J. Atwood
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before this Committee
today to discuss the status of the Border Patrol training being
conducted at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's (FLETC)
Artesia, New Mexico site. This training is being accomplished in
support of the Secure Border Initiative.
INTRODUCTION
FLETC'S mission is to train those who protect our homeland. FLETC
is the Federal Government's leader for and provider of world-class law
enforcement training. FLETC prepares new and experienced law
enforcement professionals to fulfill their responsibilities in a safe
manner and at the highest level of proficiency. Training consists of
all phases of law enforcement instruction, to include firearms, drivers
training, defensive tactics, and legal instruction.
Through consolidated training, FLETC can respond quickly to
emerging training needs, readily adapt to new requirements and focus
exclusively on training, which is FLETC's only mission. FLETC delivers
interagency training with optimal efficiency through the government-
wide sharing of facilities, equipment, and expertise, which produces
economies of scale available only from a consolidated law enforcement
training environment. There are currently 83 Federal partner
organizations engaged in law enforcement training at FLETC sites.
FLETC currently operates four training sites throughout the United
States for multiple agency use. FLETC headquarters and its largest
training site, Glynco, Georgia, has classrooms, dining and residence
halls, and state-of-the-art facilities for firearms, physical
techniques, driver, marine, and computer-based training. Two field
locations that provide both basic and advanced training are located in
Artesia, New Mexico, and Charleston, South Carolina. The fourth
training site, Cheltenham, Maryland, provides in-service and re-
qualification training for officers and agents in the Metropolitan
Washington, DC area. In collaboration with the Department of State,
FLETC operates International Law Enforcement Academies in Gaborone,
Botswana, and San Salvador, El Salvador. FLETC also maintains a very
robust state and local training program.
As Assistant Director for Field Training, I am the senior FLETC
official with management oversight on behalf of the Director of the
FLETC for the field sites in Artesia, Charleston, and Cheltenham, and
for the National Center for State and Local Training.
ARTESIA, NEW MEXICO, CENTER
As this Committee is aware, from the testimony of FLETC's Director,
Connie L. Patrick, when she appeared before the Committee on May 24,
2005, the Artesia, New Mexico Center is the principal site for Border
Patrol training. This site consists of more than 3,000 acres. FLETC
Artesia has been operational since 1989 and serves to accommodate
Border Patrol training, Bureau of Indian Affairs Police and Tribal
Officer training, Federal Flight Deck Officer training, Federal Air
Marshal training, and other law enforcement training as required. In
2003, Border Patrol training conducted at other FLETC sites was
consolidated at FLETC Artesia. As necessary, FLETC continues to utilize
its other locations to host Border Patrol training. Today, the Artesia
site has the latest state-of-the-art facilities and offers the type of
specialized training environment most suited to Border Patrol
functions. The practical, hands-on training capabilities at a single
location affords the Border Patrol training that is second to none.
This year, FLETC will complete a new dormitory that will accommodate
608 trainees and allow for the total housing of over 2,000 trainees at
any one time. FLETC also has ``built-in flexibility'' at the Artesia
site to further expand its existing housing as needed.
Much of what has been accomplished in Artesia would not have been
possible without the generous support of Congress through the annual
appropriation process. With Congressional funding support, and the
strong cooperation and leadership of the Department of Homeland
Security and Customs and Border Protection, FLETC believes it is in the
very best position to accomplish the goals set for Border Patrol
training in the secure border initiative and within the timeframe
established.
BORDER PATROL TRAINING WORKLOAD
The aggressive growth plan for new Border Patrol agents is
necessary in order to reach the President's goal to significally
increase the number of agents. We have approached the training program
and scheduling with urgency and the need to accelerate training. The
plan has been to train as quickly as possible to the level of putting
the new Border Patrol agents needed on our borders in an orderly and
sensible manner. For Fiscal Year 2007, FLETC and CBP project 3,900
agents will commence training. I am pleased to note that we are on
schedule and will reach a 34-class overlap next month. While this is a
significant milestone, we have in place all the necessary resources to
meet the training challenge. In Fiscal Year 2008, with the President's
funding request, we will conduct training for 4,350 new trainees. By
the end of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2009, the remaining
workload of 850 to meet the 6,000 net total (with attrition) of new
trainees provided for in recent appropriations will be completed. By
the end of the calendar year of 2008, the projected number of Border
Patrol will be at 18,000.
BORDER PATROL TRAINING PROGRAM
In Fiscal Year 2007, the Border Patrol and FLETC instituted an 81-
day training program following a full review of the training
curriculum. In Fiscal Year 2008, the planning and anticipation is for
two program lengths: 55 days for trainees with Spanish language
proficiency and 95 days for those requiring language training. This
plan will significantly reduce the amount of time to prepare bi-lingual
trainees to be deployed to our borders. Let me assure the Committee
that we are working very closely with CBP and the Border Patrol Academy
to maximize the training experiences and maintain the quality of the
training. At the same time, we are pleased that the costs associated
with this training continue to be very economical. In Fiscal Year 2007,
the total cost for training at Artesia, to include tuition, room and
board, miscellaneous, and instructors is currently $16,220 per student
for 81 days of training. Specifically, the tuition and miscellaneous
cost is $4,807, the lodging and meals cost is $2,256 and instructors
and support staff cost is $9,157. (Tuition includes items consumed by
students, such as printing, pencils, paper, ammunition, and uniforms;
miscellaneous costs are contract costs for bus transportation, dining
hall, custodial services, and other student services.) We continuously
revise our numbers based upon training volume and other changes as they
occur throughout the training year and we expect this total cost
actually will be lower by the end of fiscal 2007. We will be pleased to
provide this committee with the final cost numbers at the end of fiscal
year 2007.
CAPACITY
Questions have been asked regarding FLETC's capacity to meet Border
Patrol training requirements. From the beginning, FLETC has pledged
that it will bring to bear every resource it has to successfully
implement this important initiative.
In addition to housing, significant upgrades in other facilities
have been completed at our Artesia, NM training site. These include
language laboratories, expansions to the physical training facilities,
an enclosed aquatic training site, two new emergency response ranges,
an off-road four-wheel drive course, and a Border Patrol Check Point
practical exercise area. Also, a skeet (shotgun training) range and
renovation of an existing firearms range to accommodate 100 yd rifle
training is underway.
Should it prove necessary to consider alternatives to the present
training plan, FLETC is prepared to utilize other FLETC or DHS sites to
assist in meeting the training demand. Finally, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, allow me to underscore the points that FLETC
does understand the significance of conducting this training
effectively and expeditiously and we will not loose sight of the very
important mission entrusted to us.
CLOSING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today. This
completes my statement and I would be pleased to address any questions
the Committee may have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
I will remind each member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel.
I now recognize myself for questions.
Ms. Atwood, what percentage of FLETC services are performed
by Federal Government employees, and what percentage by
contractors? And do you have an opinion as to whether portions
of the training curricula can or should be handled by private
contractors?
Ms. Atwood. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. I do
believe that there is some misunderstanding about FLETC and the
fact that we currently contract out 59 percent of all of the
work that we do.
Mr. Carney. I am sorry. That number again?
Ms. Atwood. It is 59 percent that is currently contracted
out.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Ms. Atwood. A large portion of what we do is in conjunction
with government contractors. We have, however, maintained that
the core mission, the basic law enforcement training, since our
initial FAIR Act inventory back when we were with the
Department of Treasury, and continuing on today under the
Department of Homeland Security, is properly classified as
inherently governmental.
I think it is also important to note, though if I may, sir,
that we also do contract out extensively in areas for advanced
training, and those areas where we couldn't possibly maintain
efficiently a staff that would have specialized experience in,
say, the banking institutions or something that is extremely
specialized that we contract out for in our advanced training
environment. We utilize guest lecturers in that category. But
the basic, fundamental core skills for Federal law enforcement
officers and agents we do maintain is inherently governmental.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Mr. Stana, in your opinion, is CBP taking adequate steps to
ensure that the quality of training is maintained as the hiring
increases?
Mr. Stana. I am not as concerned with the academy training.
They seem to have the kinds of programs that would adequately
train people, and they have the controls in place to monitor
that circumstance. I would expect that over time, although
their resources may be strained, it appears as though they will
be able to handle an influx.
What really worries me is when the academy training is over
and the agent is deployed to the sectors, who is going to be
there to mentor the individual? Not only from the standpoint of
teaching someone the ropes--how to apprehend someone, how to
conduct the job and perform well--but what we have seen in past
ramp-ups like this, after IRCA after IRA, when the number of
agents went up quickly, is we get a few bad apples into the
Border Patrol core. If we don't have the proper supervision to
identify these bad apples and get them out of that barrel as
soon as we can, we could get ourselves in trouble.
I would note also that there are some intelligence reports
that drug cartels are trying to find people with clean records
and get them into the Border Patrol. If we don't have the right
supervision to watch these people, we could be in a lot of
trouble down the road.
Mr. Carney. So you would patrol the patrollers?
Mr. Stana. Well, you spent a lot of time earlier talking
about what happened in the TB traveler case, and whether it was
training or whether it was just incompetence or whether it was
somebody trying to give somebody a break. It really boils down
to internal controls and supervision. Are these people made
well-aware of what their responsibilities are--and that is what
happens in the sectors--and are they supervised to make sure
they do it well?
Mr. Carney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Whitmire, GAO found that the training program for the
Border Patrol is effective--very good news. We understand you
will introduce a series of changes to the training course for
Border Patrol agents with a focus on more field training. Do
you have enough supervisory agents on hand to support that
change in the training?
Chief Whitmire. Are you referring to in the field or at the
academy, sir?
Mr. Carney. In the field.
Chief Whitmire. I would have to defer that question, since
training is the only piece of the Border Patrol equation that I
control. HRM and Chief Aguilar is the individual that would
have to speak to the issue of whether or not there is
sufficient supervisors in the field to mentor the agents, sir.
Mr. Carney. OK. Do we have enough officers at the classroom
level?
Chief Whitmire. At this point, I have enough agents to
provide all the training. Correct, sir. I have 350 detailed
Border Patrol agents, about 100 CDIs, of course development
instructors on hand, and about 48 rehired annuitants that are
working very effectively for us to provide instruction.
Mr. Carney. Good. And they in your opinion will be able to
handle a surge that hopefully will occur?
Chief Whitmire. That will go up somewhat. Our peak overload
will come into effect about a month from now when we will have
a total of a 34-class overlap, 1,600 to 1,700 trainees. At that
point, I will have about 500 to 600 instructors providing
instruction for those agents, sir.
Mr. Carney. Very good.
My time is up for this round of questions. I now recognize
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Atwood, you indicated that you use 59 percent of your
personnel as contract personnel.
Ms. Atwood. That is correct, sir, 59 percent of our FLETC
workforce is contracted out.
Mr. Rogers. But not at Artesia.
Ms. Atwood. That is the overall number, sir.
Mr. Rogers. What would the percentage be at Artesia?
Ms. Atwood. I don't have that number, but I will certainly
get that for you, if that would be acceptable.
Mr. Rogers. It would, but could you say that it is
significantly below 60 percent, in your estimation, knowing
that you don't know the accurate number yet?
Ms. Atwood. I am sorry, sir. I really wouldn't want to
speculate. I would assume that it would be similar across the
board, especially at the Artesia, New Mexico, site where they
utilize the same type of contracting services that we use for
transportation, for role-player services, for armor services
and the like.
Mr. Rogers. I would be very surprised if it was 60 percent
or 59 percent, but I would love to see that, and I would
appreciate it. I look forward to it. The only thing I did
notice that was privatized at Artesia when I was there were the
security guards.
Ms. Atwood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. All right. I want to go back to Mr. Stana,
talking about the field mentoring. Did you look at all about
annuitant hires and the effect of that on the ability for the
field mentoring to take place?
Mr. Stana. We spoke with the officials at the sectors, and
we discussed the possibility of bringing in more annuitants to
help out here. That certainly is one way to try to address that
sort of challenge. But there really is no substitute for having
a person who is young, vigorous, maybe 10 years further down in
their career, do those kinds of things--a person that actually
does the job, as opposed to having a mentor who may be retired
or doing something on a part-time basis.
Mr. Rogers. So in your opinion, then, if we were to lift
this requirement that all faculty at the academy have to be
trained Border Patrol agents, so that many more of them in the
peak of their career could get out into the field and serve as
a mentor, that would be a good thing?
Mr. Stana. That would be one way to help out this
situation. Another way would be to try to stem the flow, the
exodus of people out of the agency for whatever reason--better
working conditions, better environment, better pay.
Mr. Rogers. OK.
Mr. Morgan, talking about the Border Patrol officers and
their training, you mentioned, was it 450 in the school right
now at a time? Or was it 45? I can't remember.
Mr. Morgan. Right now in basic CBP officers school, we have
currently today 596 students.
Mr. Rogers. And they are there for a 73-day program?
Mr. Morgan. Seventy-three class days, which is
approximately 15 weeks, depending on holidays.
Mr. Rogers. OK. Are you all being required or tasked to
meet a surge in manpower like the agents are?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. What is your target?
Mr. Morgan. For this year, the unit is 48 students per
class. We started fiscal year 2007 with the goal of 33 classes.
We are now going to run 44 classes. The prognosis for fiscal
year 2008 is 66 classes.
Mr. Rogers. OK. And what is the number that you are trying
to achieve as far as the number of trained Border Patrol
officers in the field? There are 12,000 now, according to
earlier testimony, with 1,000 vacancies.
Mr. Morgan. CBP officers?
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. I think there is substantially more than 12,000
in the field right now. My part of the equation is the number
of students that we start with. I really don't know what the
plans are. There are various programs under which Congress has
authorized additional people, and then there is attrition, and
that is how our workload goes up and down. But we base ours on
student starts, how many students start in the class, so I
really don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Rogers. The reason I ask is Ms. Kelley testified
earlier that there were 12,000 officers and 1,000 vacancies for
CBPOs, but wasn't aware if the president had targeted a
threshold that we are trying to achieve, like we are doing with
agents. We have a little over 12,000 agents, but we need 18,000
is what he is after. And you are not aware of any target
either?
Mr. Morgan. I am not.
Mr. Rogers. OK. One question before I lose my time.
Mr. Whitmire, do you really believe that you are going to
be able to hit your target by December of 2007, having 6,000
new Border Patrol agents through your academy?
Chief Whitmire. By December 2008?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
Chief Whitmire. Absolutely. We have a plan in place, sir.
Remember, I handle the training piece of the equation.
Mr. Rogers. I understand that. I am just talking about
pushing through the numbers in the next 18 months.
Chief Whitmire. Absolutely. We absolutely do, sir. The plan
is in place.
Mr. Rogers. I hope you are right.
Chief Whitmire. I hope I am, too, sir.
Mr. Carney. We all share that hope.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to kind of shift a little bit back to where we
were with the prior panel. Mr. Rogers has been focusing on
privatization and private contractors providing border
security. We have had a couple of hearings on the National
Guard, and I would like to know how the National Guard, and
whether any of you are involved with assisting or training the
National Guard under this Operation Jump Start, where they are
supposed to come and assist with border security and border
patrols.
Chief Whitmire. Speaking for the academy, we have no
interface with Operation Jump Start and the National Guard,
sir. That is handled at the sectors.
Ms. Atwood. I would echo that, sir. FLETC is not involved
with the training of the National Guard.
Mr. Perlmutter. With respect to some of the testimony we
had earlier about the morale of our agents and our officers. Do
any of you have any opinions about what is going on there or
how we can improve that, so that we don't have the turnover and
we don't need as many mentors because we have people who stay
online and don't leave the system? Mr. Stana?
Mr. Stana. Let me just start by saying we all ought to
acknowledge it is a tough job, whether you are sitting in one
spot like Mr. Bonner was talking about, or you are doing night
patrols at a checkpoint. It is not an easy job and you are
often doing your job in circumstances and in an environment
that are unpleasant.
The second thing I would say is one of the reasons why many
of these agents go to other law enforcement groups is the law
enforcement pay. I think one of the earlier panelists mentioned
that. I am not advocating necessarily for it, but we ought to
recognize that pay is an issue.
Third, it is a job that is almost like you have a shovel
and somebody tells you--I don't know if you ever were in basic
training when if you did something wrong, you were shoveling
piles from one place to another, but you never get finished. It
is a job that has some built-in frustrations because you see
oftentimes the same person trying to come through again and
again and again, for whatever reason.
So there are some frustrations to the job that you can deal
with, like pay, working conditions. There are some things you
can't. It is just a tough job.
Mr. Perlmutter. Has there been a change in the mission that
has made it a tougher job?
Mr. Stana. With SBI coming on board, the Secure Border
Initiative, the mission may change a bit. I must say, if you
have been on night operations with the Border Patrol or day
operations, you probably came to the same conclusion. I did.
And that is, it is not a very efficient way to apprehend
individuals: patrolling, waiting for people to come to you,
sitting on that spot, or patrolling several miles inland.
With the Secure Border Initiative, if it works correctly,
you would have radar sensors, night cameras, identifying where
to go to pick up. And that may have an effect on the number of
agents you would need to do the job. It may not be 18,000. It
may not be 28,000. It probably is more than 12,000, though, but
there are some challenges with that, too, but that may help
better define the mission and take some of the frustration out
of the job.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK.
Thanks, The Chairman. I have no more questions.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
I will start the second round.
Mr. Morgan, you are responsible for training the CBP
officers and ag specialists at FLETC Glynco. Is that correct?
Mr. Morgan. The ag specialists are trained at the United
States Department of Agriculture Professional Development
Center in Frederick, Maryland. We participate in that training.
We manage that training for our officers up there, but most of
the training is provided by the United States Department of
Agriculture.
Mr. Carney. OK. So it is the USDA curricula.
Mr. Morgan. It is mostly a USDA curriculum, and we provide
3 weeks of CBP training.
Mr. Carney. OK, good.
Mr. Morgan. And then we manage them, any discipline that
needs to be done, any of that kind of activity. We run the
academy. The USDA provides the expert instruction.
Mr. Carney. OK, very good. Thank you.
Mr. Whitmire, in your opinion, what value do Border Patrol
agents add as trainers at the academy?
Chief Whitmire. Sir, the Border Patrol, as you are aware,
is a paramilitary-type organization. Basic training is probably
the most critical point in a person's career in that we are
attempting to instill esprit de corps, mission focus,
organizational identity and integrity.
The idea that someone else, either from another agency or
as a contractor, could convey those intangibles is simply
outside the realm of belief to me, after 24 years. I have a
number of years conducting training exercises and operations
for the United States Border Patrol, sir.
Mr. Carney. I agree. I have a military background as well.
The intangibles are something that really, from my perspective,
create the culture that you need that becomes a common threat
throughout the entire agency. I know DHS is struggling with
that now. So to have a situation where you create the esprit de
corps, what it means to be a CBP officer, what it means to be
on the border--these are your brothers and sisters.
Whatever we can do to foment that, to promote that, and to
make sure it becomes part of the mindset, I think is absolutely
critical.
I have no further questions. If we could stand by for one
moment.
Go ahead, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. This is to Chief Whitmire.
Is there any kind of a continuing education, continuing
training process? I had mentioned earlier the gentleman who
allowed the TB patient in. It may have been that he had a bad
day or made a bad judgment, or whatever, but what kind of
continuing education, continuing training program do you have?
Chief Whitmire. Good question, sir. All individuals who are
hired today into the Border Patrol, not into the CBP ranks, but
into the Border Patrol, but also in CBP ranks, are hired under
the FCIP program, the Federal Career Internship Program. It is
a 2-year probationary program.
On the Border Patrol side, we provide basic Border Patrol
training and then there is a post-academy training that follows
as well, up until the 20th month. That is provided to every
Border Patrol agent. At this point, we are changing that
program, but it will become more effective and more efficient.
Nonetheless, it covers all of the mission-critical tasks
following the academy.
There are two parts to it. Our part, the Border Patrol
Academy owns the academic portion of the training and the
sectors on the field training unit portion of that training,
which acclimates those people to the particular environment and
sector that they are going to be working in.
But yes, there is a continuing training program. As well,
there is in-service training and some of that is provided by
the Border Patrol Academy such as our in-service journeyman
training, which is given to every Border Patrol agent, made
available to every Border Patrol agent. There is also
supervisory Border Patrol agent training, and a number of
opportunities for in-service training for agents.
Mr. Perlmutter. I didn't allow, or none of you offered, but
do any of you have an opinion--Mr. Stana offered his opinion--
on the morale issues and the turnover?
Chief Whitmire. I would offer this, that the basic premise
that morale is a serious issue in the Border Patrol is one that
is put forward by the union and specifically those individuals
in the union. I am not familiar with that border patrol, and I
am very familiar with the field agents in the field.
Also, just as it was put forth, a number of incorrect items
were put forward concerning the Border Patrol Academy. I would
offer that Mr. Bonner has never been to the United States
Border Patrol Academy since I have been the chief, yet
Congressman Rogers asked him directly if he was very familiar
with the Artesia facility. I have never seen him there.
As well, I am not familiar with the border patrol that he
depicts. That being said, in answer to your question, sir,
there are things in play--the voluntary relocation program that
is being offered to Border Patrol agents.
For those of you that are probably aware--and maybe not
aware, Mr. Stana is and touched on that subject--the Border
Patrol is in a lot of places that a lot of people do not want
to be. That is just the Border Patrol, just as in the military.
The voluntary relocation program is going to address some
of those issues. People will be allowed to move, which is one
of the biggest issues that comes up in the Border Patrol.
Individuals are in a place that they don't want to be and would
like to get closer to home, with little chance to move there
other than going to the supervisory ranks. There are a number
of programs that we are putting in place as we speak that will
address some of those concerns.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
Ms. Atwood?
Ms. Atwood. Perhaps if I have anything to add to this
particular discussion it would just be that I came into Federal
law enforcement in 1984. Over the years, I have noticed that we
have a number of opportunities to move around to other agencies
that didn't exist perhaps in the years where individuals would
begin with one particular agency and remain with them for their
entire career.
So it is well-known that there are a number of
opportunities out there for you in Federal law enforcement.
Some people like change, and I am talking in addition to what
Chief Whitmire spoke to about the difficult conditions, et
cetera. But I really don't know that.
I know I haven't personally seen any statistics that would
indicate that this type of turnover is specific to CBP, because
it does tend to be a group of individuals in law enforcement
who do enjoy change, and frequently go from one agency to
another. We are a restless group.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK, thank you.
Mr. Morgan. May I?
Mr. Perlmutter. Sure.
Mr. Morgan. I would like to just say I see the morale at
our academy is outstanding. The people that are there
understand the mission. They understand the importance of it.
The students leave the academy with extremely high morale,
knowing what they know and knowing what they don't know, if you
understand what I mean.
Sometime next year, we will hit what I think is a crucial
point. There are 18,000 CBP officers. Sometime next year, one-
third of those will be newly hired who have gone through the
new curriculum. They will not know customs or immigration or
agriculture. They will know being a CBP officer. It will hit
the one-third mark, and I think that starts to get to where the
numbers affect that.
I think some of the morale problems that Ms. Kelley might
have mentioned is some of the people that came from one of the
legacy agencies or not. And I think as time goes on, I think
that aspect of it will improve.
Mr. Stana. I just might add that we have some work under
way for this committee and for Mr. Akaka on the Senate side,
specifically aimed a the One Face at the Border initiative, how
well it is working, what the challenges are, and what some of
the vulnerabilities are, frankly. We will be addressing many of
these issues.
If you would like a preliminary briefing on this, we
perhaps could arrange it, but given that most of the
information we would be discussing is sensitive in nature, I
can't describe it here.
Mr. Carney. Sure.
I have a follow-on for Mr. Perlmutter's questioning. If I
come in as a new recruit, is there a clearly delineated career
path I could follow if I want to get in a supervisory position
at some point?
Mr. Morgan and then Mr. Whitmire.
Mr. Morgan. It is one thing that we talk about. At the last
day at the academy, we have several hours of time which we call
``career survival and enhancement.'' We talk about the ways
that CBP officers can go. We encourage them to concentrate on
their basic job for at least 2 or 3 or 4 years, to be the best
officer they can be wherever their supervisor puts them.
Personally, I tell them if your supervisor puts you on lane
12 at San Ysidro, be the guy who when you are there, you become
the best so that the supervisor never has to worry about that
lane when you are there, and then look on to other jobs. We do
describe many opportunities that exist for them to go. One of
the most normal is through the supervisory ranks from a GS-11
to GS-12 to GS-13 and GS-14.
Others are international jobs. CBP now has people in I
think it is 50 international locations where CBP officers can
serve, at our National Targeting Center. There is not one path.
There are many paths that they can take, or they can stay right
in their home port and progress there. We explain that to them
many times, but on the last day in particular.
Mr. Carney. It gets stressed on the last day. Maybe it
makes sense to do it earlier so that they are thinking about it
and get more excited about this opportunity.
Mr. Whitmire, do you care to comment?
Chief Whitmire. I would just say that we are the same as
every other Federal law enforcement agency--FBI, DEA, U.S.
Marshals--exactly the same within the constraints of OPM
regulations. We have a very clearly defined career path.
Mr. Carney. OK. Very good.
Ms. Atwood?
Ms. Atwood. Ditto.
[Laughter.]
Seriously, it is the same pretty much for every Federal law
enforcement agency. You have the same career path. I started as
a GS-4 co-op student and was able to have the benefit of
working in a career path that actually at that time went to GS-
12.
By working my way through and having the benefit of field
training officers to work with me to enhance the skills that I
have obtained at FLETC, then you are able to then choose if
supervision and leadership is an area that you believe that you
could provide additional benefits for or not.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
I just have one more quick follow-on. After you graduate,
and you are in your position for 3 or 4 or 5 years, whatever it
might be, is there a requirement or is it voluntary to take
additional education credits for whatever it might be?
Ms. Atwood. Go ahead.
Mr. Morgan. For CBP officers, there is a set of training
requirements that they must go through every year. Many of them
are online and they get it through our online system there.
We also have 50 advanced courses which are just-in-time
training. When an officer is assigned to a particular team or
when he is assigned to a particular duty at his port of entry
or her port of entry, they will come back for an advanced
training course either at Glynco or one of the major ports of
entry, where we coordinate training for them.
For instance, if somebody is going to be on an outbound
currency interdiction team looking for drug money going out of
the country, or terrorist money going out of the country, they
would go up to New York and take our outbound currency
interdiction team training before being assigned to that team.
There are 50 classes like that.
Mr. Carney. OK.
Ms. Atwood. Sir, if I can just add to that. That is a good
segue to just make sure that you know that part of FLETC's role
is to provide for both the basic and advanced training needs of
law enforcement. We do have well over 100 advance training
programs that we provide just for that continuing education for
Federal law enforcement nationwide.
Mr. Stana. Just to balance out the discussion, keep in
mind, Mr. Carney, that what you have here is people at the
ports of entry who may be working double shifts. When are they
going to have time to train? They need to be at the booth.
Similarly, you have Border Patrol agents who because of
shortages need to be on patrol constantly, and don't get a
chance to train.
So the training may be there. It may be well-designed. It
may be well-meaning, but can the agent or the officer afford to
get away from the post to take the kind of training that they
need to take to be fully effective.
Mr. Carney. That is a very good point. Thank you, Mr.
Stana.
Mr. Rogers, any further questions?
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morgan, I wanted to follow up on some
comments made by Ms. Kelley earlier about the use of canine
detection teams. She indicated that there had been a diminution
in the number of those teams because of this One Face at the
Border initiative and its effect on personnel.
Are you aware of a decline in the number of those teams
being used by CBP?
Mr. Morgan. I am not aware of that. Unfortunately, I would
have to defer answering that. I don't really have any direct
knowledge about that.
I do know that one thing she mentioned is true. I wouldn't
call it a collateral duty, but you now become a CBP officer
first, and then you become a canine officer. That is a new
methodology that is in use.
I am not responsible for training the dog handlers. I have
heard nothing about any diminution or lessening.
Mr. Rogers. Where are those dog handlers trained?
Mr. Morgan. Dog handlers are trained at Front Royal,
Virginia, El Paso, Texas, and then the USDA has a facility down
in Orland, Florida, where they train the beagles.
Mr. Rogers. OK. Thank you. I have been to two of those. I
have not been to the one in Florida, but I am going to try and
get down to see it soon. But those are the ones that train for
CBPOs as well as agents.
Mr. Morgan. Yes. Border Patrol, too. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Excellent. I knew the agents did, but I didn't
know the CBPOs did.
Mr. Whitmire, you heard earlier in testimony I talked with
Mr. Bonner about his interview on Glenn Beck's television
program, where he said that from the time the president
announced his desire to get 6,000 new agents through the
academy and in the field, we have only got 650. Did that number
sound about right to you?
Chief Whitmire. I couldn't speak to the exact number. I am
not certain of the dates, but I can ensure that we forward the
information to you, giving whatever dates and time actually you
would like, sir--what numbers were on board and are on board. I
speak to the training numbers that enter on-duty and exit the
academy.
Mr. Rogers. Let me talk to you about that for a few
minutes. You have heard me talk about the concern I have about
all these faculty positions being designed as inherently
governmental. Do you believe that all the faculty positions at
your campus need to be designated as inherently governmental?
Chief Whitmire. Whether or not they are designed as
inherently governmental makes little difference to me, sir.
What I believe is that Border Patrol agents should be training
Border Patrol agents in every facet of our academy.
Mr. Rogers. Including Spanish language?
Chief Whitmire. Absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. Including CPR and basic life support?
Chief Whitmire. Absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. Boxing fundamentals?
Chief Whitmire. We don't teach boxing. Well, possibly
fundamentals anymore absolutely should be taught by Border
Patrol agents.
Mr. Rogers. Report writing?
Chief Whitmire. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. HIV-AIDS awareness?
Chief Whitmire. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Firearm safety?
Chief Whitmire. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. And basic physical conditioning?
Chief Whitmire. All of that, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Should be taught by a Federal Border Patrol
agent?
Chief Whitmire. Every hour.
Mr. Rogers. How many personnel did you have on your faculty
prior to being charged with this increase of agents? I am going
to go back behind where the president wanted to go up to 6,000,
and go back to 2004 when the Congress authorized 2,000 new
agents a year for 5 years. What was the size of your faculty?
You said now you have 350 agents and 40 annuitants, and then a
few other people.
Chief Whitmire. Actually, I have about 100 permanent
instructors, 350 detailers, and 48 annuitants today, sir, yes.
Mr. Rogers. And how does that compare with 3 years ago?
Chief Whitmire. I probably had about 200 instructors total,
between several different facilities. In 2004, I was running
the Charleston facility and as well as had Artesia and Glynco
training facilities, so it was split between three facilities.
Mr. Rogers. OK. So you have about a 250 percent increase
since 2004, and you are anticipating another 200 folks by next
year?
Chief Whitmire. I would say that is fairly accurate, sir.
The good thing about detailers is they allow me to expand and
contract that in the future should the surge decrease, those
people return to the sectors.
Mr. Rogers. The last thing I want to touch on is I talked
with you when I was there about the concern about recruitment
and having that ready pool of applicants, primed, and ready to
start your academy.
As you will recall, there is a lot of dialogue about how
many people they have to go through, how many applicants they
have to go through to get somebody that is actually a
candidate. As I recall, it was about 30 or 35 applicants that
you have to go through to get one person that is adequate.
Chief Whitmire. I believe that is correct, sir.
Mr. Rogers. My concern at that time was that this vetted
pool of applicants was not big enough to meet your surge
demands going through the academy at that time, and this was
almost a year ago. We talked about some plans that you were
going to try to develop to build that pool.
At that time, that ready pool of applicants was about 500
to 600 people. Do you have any idea at this date in time how
many ready applicants or candidates for your academy are
sitting waiting to start?
Chief Whitmire. I do not, sir. That is a function of HRM,
but I am certain we could forward that information to you.
Mr. Rogers. OK. Thank you.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony today.
It has been quite enlightening.
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in
writing to them.
Hearing no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX: Additional Questions and Responses
----------
Questions from Hon. Christopher P. Carney
Responses from Colleen M. Kelley
Question 1.: In your opinion, how many Customs and Border
Protection Officers would be needed to have a robust and fully staffed
force at our ports of entry?
Response: According to the former U.S. Customs Service's last
internal review of staffing for Fiscal Years 2000--2002 dated February
25,2000 also known as the 2000-2002 RAM, the Customs Service needed
over 14,776 Customs Inspectors (an increase of 6,481 new hires) just to
fulfill its basic mission--and that was before September 11.
The RAM also shows that a total of 1,291 Canine Enforcement
Officers (an increase of 650 new hires) would be needed in order to
fulfill the Customs Service's canine inspection duties. It has long
been proven that detection canines are an invaluable part of the
security system at the ports of entry. Detection canines are trained to
detect explosives, drugs, concealed humans and currency. In the past,
canine teams have been deployed during every shift at 24 hour ports of
entry which necessitated overtime assignment for some canine teams.
Since July 2005, dog teams work regular time only. Under the One Face
at the Border initiative, canine handlers do fill in for overtime duty,
but without their dogs.
NTEU believes that both bomb and drug canine detection teams are
integral to securing our border. CBP Officers nationwide and NTEU
strongly support H.R. 659 introduced by Representative Michael Rogers
(AL), a Ranking member of this subcommittee, to increase by not less
than 25 percent the number of trained canine detection teams deployed
at and between the ports of entry.
Since the release of the U.S. Customs 2000--2002 RAM was released,
the Department of Homeland Security was created and the U.S. Customs
Service was merged with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
parts of the Agriculture Plant Health Inspection Service to create
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and given an expanded mission of
providing the first line of defense against terrorism, in addition to
making sure trade laws are enforced and trade revenue collected, while
at the same time facilitating the flow of travel and trade.
According to GAO, with the merger of the three agencies inspection
forces, there are now approximately 18,000 CBP Officers currently
employed by CBP. Based on the expanded mission of the CBP Officers, and
based on the results of the 2000--2002 RAM that stated the U.S. Customs
Service needed to hire over 6,000 new inspectors to address the
expanded workload projected at that time, I believe that at least
22,000 CBP Officers would be needed to have a robust and fully staffed
force at our ports of entry.
Congress mandated CBP to perform a Resource Allocation Model in
Section 402 of the SAFE Port Act. The CBP Resource Allocation Model
(RAM) was due last month, June 2007. According to conversations that I
have had with CBP, they plan to report out an allocation model that
will only show how the agency is allocating existing resources rather
than a model, such as the U.S. Customs Service 2000-2002 RAM, that
reviewed current staffing levels and projected the required number of
positions, the Optimal Staffing level, needed to fulfill its mission.
NTEU strongly urges Committee hearings to review the findings of
the CBP RAM when it is released.
Question 2.: On page 5 of your testimony you raise the concerns of
Customs and Border Protection Officers on the increased hiring levels
of managers over the hiring levels of frontline employees. How does
this affect operations? And what are your recommendations going
forward?
There is much concern among CBP officers that in terms of real
numbers CBP has hired more new managers than frontline workers.
According to GAO, over the same time period, CBP showed a 17 % increase
in CBP managers and only a 2% increase in the number of frontline CBP
Officers.
At some ports, the ratio of supervisors to frontline CBP Officers
has increased dramatically aggravating the vacancy situation. Prior to
9/11, the goal was one supervisor to every 15 inspectors. I have heard
that at some ports of entry there is one supervisor for every six CBP
Officers. The increase of supervisors at the expense of frontline
workers has put strain on the frontline work load that is manifested in
compelled overtime and increased wait times at the ports. This ratio
puts increasing scheduling pressure on rank and file frontline officers
further demoralizing the workforce.
Question 3.: Has the Department been helpful in providing refresher
courses to CBP Officers that request them?
I only have anecdotal information that management has not been
responsive to CBP Officers' requests for refresher courses. The larger
issue is that management does not set aside work time for taking
training courses and there is no feedback or question and answer time
with training module instructors or supervisors. That is why NTEU
recommends that CBP put into effect an in-depth on the job training
plan; allot specific times during tours of duty for CBP Officers to do
all assigned computer-based training; provide structured discussion
time must accompany all computer-based training; and provide refresher
courses to all CBP Officers upon request.
Question 4.: Will the expected increase in retirees from the civil
service affect Customs and Border Protection Officers? How badly?
Response: It is my understanding that by the end of 2008, fully one
third of all CBP Officers will be new hires. There will be a huge loss
in institutional and inspection specialization knowledge with the
retirement of these legacy officers. This loss of inspection
specialization knowledge is compounded by the One Face at the Border
initiative because new hires are not given the length and depth of
classroom and on the job training in customs, immigration and
agriculture laws and procedures as legacy officers received.
Questions from Hon. Christopher P. Carney
Responses from Robert B. Rosenkranz
Question 1.: The Committee received the cost comparison between
DynCorp International and CBP of training a border patrol agent for a
period of one year, but profit is not broken out. What is the
anticipated profit per proposed agent, and how was it calculated?
Our pricing model carries a modest and reasonable profit that is
consistent with other government contracts providing similar functions.
In the services industry, revealing information such as profit margin
on labor and materials can give competitors valuable insight into a
company's pricing. While we prefer not to reveal such specific
information in open testimony, we would be happy to provide it
confidentially to members of the subcommittee.
The important question to answer, however, is whether our approach
could provide the Border Patrol with the personnel it needs, in the
time it needs them, with the training and professional skills necessary
to function at a high level, and at a reasonable cost. We believe the
answer to that question is yes. In addition, our model would give the
Border Patrol great flexibility to reduce the force if necessary or to
take experienced contractors into the Border Patrol itself.
Questions from Hon. Yvette D. Clark
Question 1.: DynCorp has faced repeated criticism and scrutiny from
a variety of sources, including from the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, for the quality of the Iraqi security forces it
trains, questions about disappearing expenditures, and about the
actions of its own instructors. It seems that DynCorp presents the
perfect example of what can go wrong when the government depends too
heavily on private contractors with little oversight. With all of these
problems, why does DynCorp feel it would be able to do a better job
than the current CBP operation?
How are the above problems being addressed, and how would these
issues be resolved in a CBP training program?
The assumptions behind this question are untrue. Our company has
done an excellent job in the police training programs in and
Afghanistan, and our trainers and program have been praised in an
inspector general's report which we will be happy to share with the
Representative. We have a policy of transparency, and have cooperated
fully to answer all questions about any of our support activities for
the United States government. We are currently cooperating closely with
the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, and we believe
the record will show that we have acted honorably and in good faith in
all matters under review.
We take our obligations seriously, and we have assured the Chairman
and the Secretary of State that if we have made any mistakes or have
failed to live up to our obligations, we will acknowledge any of our
mistakes or failures.
DynCorp International supports the State Department and the
Department of Defense in providing on-the-job field verification and
mentoring to Iraqi police who graduate from Iraqi police academies. We
recruit experienced American police officers, both men and women, from
across America, proven performers from our home towns and cities, who
are then carefully screened and vetted. These are very dedicated
officers who sign up for one year, but quite often reenlist for an
additional year or two because of their commitment to their difficult
and dangerous mission. They want to continue doing something important,
meaningful and selfless. Nineteen of our American employees have died
in the line of duty in Iraq.
It is untrue that there have been problems with disappearing
expenditures or inappropriate behavior by our police trainers, and I
would have to question the source of your information. If you have any
credible information to support this allegation, we would appreciate
receiving it at your convenience. We have provided well over one
thousand U.S. police trainers to the Department of State for the rule
of law training and mentoring mission in Iraq, and they have performed
with great distinction under very adverse conditions. If there are any
instances of problems, we immediately remove the trainers from their
positions and send them home.
It is also untrue that we work in Iraq with little oversight. The
Departments of State and Defense provide constant oversight, direction,
and supervision to our trainers and advisors in Iraq. In fact, our
trainers work for the Civilian Police Advisory Training Team, and
receive all operational guidance and instruction from that command.
Because of the prior police traditions and culture in Iraq, and the
very difficult security situation, progress with the development of the
Iraqi police force has been slow, but there is progress being made.
To the question of why do we feel that we can do a good job
training Border Patrol agents, we believe our ability to accomplish the
training mission in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans makes
us exceptionally qualified to support the CBP training mission. Our
``recruits'' would be highly qualified American policemen further
qualified by their Border Patrol training. They would become effective
members of the Border Patrol team. We believe that outsourcing the CBP
training would be a very cost-effective way for the Border Patrol to
quickly increase qualified staffing while maintaining appropriate
command and control over all the personnel under its command.
Question 2.: During the hearing on June 19, Mr. Rosenkranz
testified that DynCorp no longer has any security personnel in Iraq.
However recent media reports from the region have stated that DynCorp
employees are currently in Iraq. Please explain this discrepancy and
the nature of your company's presence in Iraq.
DynCorp has two major contracts in Iraq. We are providing rule of
law personnel to the State Department under our Civilian Police
(CIVPOL) program to support the ongoing State Department post conflict
reconstruction mission. Secondly, we are under to Diplomatic Security,
an agency in the Department of State, to protect U.S. Government
personnel and dignitaries in Northern Iraq. In both of these missions,
our personnel are armed for both self protection and the protection of
those for whom we are responsible. We are also tasked by Department of
State with providing services for our own operations. We are not a
security company. We do not provide security to commercial companies,
the Department of Defense, other Government Agencies, Iraqi government
agencies, or any other activity in Iraq.
Questions from Hon. Christopher Carney
Responses from Chief Charlie Whitmire
Question 1.: Can Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border
Protection Officers perform computer based training modules while on
duty? Is there a supervisory agent on hand for a question and answer
session after a training module is completed?
Response: Border Patrol Agents can perform computer-based training
while on duty.
Several factors are considered when this type of training is
required or available, including the length and location of the
training, the number of employees at the location, and the available
computers.
There is always a Supervisory Border Patrol Agent available to all
employees; however, training-specific questions are generally handled
by the sector training staff. Without prior training or knowledge of a
specific training course or module, the supervisory staff may not be in
the best position to answer employee questions. The topic of training
often dictates who should answer any questions.
CBP Officers are allowed time on duty to complete required computer
based training and are encouraged to complete optional computer based
training and refresher training when possible. Most of the computer
based training modules are designed to be self-study, but officers are
encouraged to ask questions.
CBP also offers some courses in a facilitated training environment
where an instructor and/or supervisor are present in the room to answer
questions or lead discussions about a particular topic.
Question 2: Has CBP considered bonuses for experienced and
qualified Border Patrol agents or Customs and Border Protection
Officers that volunteer their time to instruct and train new recruits?
What is the current policy?
Response: CBP does not have difficulty attracting qualified and
experienced instructors for basic and advanced training. The academies
select individuals for three to five year tours of duty to serve as
instructors. These individuals are selected for career ladder
promotions that begin at a GS-12 and end at the GS-13 level. When
returning to the field, many of these individuals are recruited at the
higher grade.