Hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee - U.S. Office of Customs and Border Protection

Interview

Hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee - U.S. Office of Customs and Border Protection

SEN. AKAKA: (In progress) -- or other activities. But the GAO report makes clear that thousands of people each year are entering the country illegally through official ports of entry.

I requested that GAO do this study because I was concerned that CBP was not hiring enough officers to screen travelers at ports of entry and that CBP offices were not receiving the training they need to do their jobs properly. This report reinforces my concern.

GAO investigators who visited border crossings found CBP officers missing from their inspection booths at some locations. At other locations officers failed to ask investigators for their identification or travel documents. GAO investigators also saw video of CBP officers waving vehicles through inspection booths without speaking with the passengers.

In short, CBP at times conducts inspections that are unlikely to detect people and goods that should not enter the country. Insufficient staffing and training seem to be the central reasons for these inadequate inspections. CBP simply does not have anywhere near enough CBP officers working at ports of entry, and officers are not provided the training they need to do their jobs effectively. CBP's own staffing model indicates that the agency needs to hire several thousand additional CBP officers.

Because of staffing shortfalls, CBP officers are being forced to work extensive overtime, sometimes 16-hour shifts. It is not realistic to expect an officer to stay as alert and focused as needed for 16 straight hours. Long overtime also leads to CBP officers calling in sick from exhaustion, worsening the staffing shortages.

CBP has made progress in improving its training programs. But staffing shortages have forced the agency to cut back on its training. New officers at land border crossings are supposed to receive 12 weeks of basic on-the-job training when they start. Most CBP officers receive less than that. Some receive as little as two weeks of on- the-job training, and more advanced training courses often are canceled or shortened because there are not enough officers to cover the inspection booths. As a result, officers are being placed in situations without the training they need to do their jobs.

Unfortunately, but predictably, staffing shortages, forced overtime and inadequate training contribute to serious morale problems in CBP. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising there is high turnover among CBP officers. At some ports of entry, CBP is losing officers faster than it can hire replacements.

Attrition is a major factor in the understaffing. This is a vicious circle. Understaffing creates problems that lead to turnover, and high turnover makes it very difficult to address the staff shortages.

As the GAO report notes, some CBP officers are leaving to take positions that provide law enforcement officer benefits. Even though CBP officers receive mandatory law enforcement training, carry firearms and make arrests, they do not receive the same enhanced pension benefits that other federal law enforcement officers, including Border Patrol agents, receive. Fixing this inequity would help mitigate the high turnover of CBP officers.

We owe the brave men and women charged with keeping terrorists, illegal drugs and other dangerous people and items out of the country much more training and working conditions.

GAO also found weaknesses in the infrastructure of land border crossings that allow people to bypass inspection booths entering the country without inspection. The physical environment at some land border crossings is not conducive to thorough inspections. In many ports of entry, visitors wait hours to enter the country because there are not enough inspection booths.

As a senator from Hawaii, I fully understand the importance of facilitating efficient entry into the country for legitimate travel and trade. Tourism is almost a $12 billion industry in Hawaii, the largest sector of our economy, and foreign visitors contribute enormously to Hawaii's and the nation's economy.

Approximately $4 billion in capital improvements in facilities at land border crossings are needed. But there is only approximately $250 million in the president's budget for infrastructure improvements.

Securing our nation's ports of entry is a critical national security priority. At the same time, we must never lose focus on the fact that these ports welcome millions of tourists, business people, students, immigrants and refugees who make this nation more economically and culturally vibrant.

As the president's new National Strategy for Homeland Security states, "Achieving a welcoming America must remain an important goal." It is time that we invest in infrastructure to make our nation's ports of entry more secure, inviting and efficient. One approach would be to examine ways of redesigning the gateways to this country to optimize security and maximize processing rates while improving the work environment of our Customs and Border Protection officers.

I look forward to learning more about CBP's successes and challenges, in particular staffing and infrastructure issues. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss these important issues.

And before calling on my friend, Senator Voinovich, for his opening statement, I'd like to say that there is a vote scheduled shortly. Senator Voinovich will chair the hearing while I vote, and I will recess briefly. After his statement I will return. We'll try it that way. But we'll see how it'll work.

So at this time let me call on Senator Voinovich.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If things work the way they work here in the Senate, we may not have the vote at that time. (Laughs.) So I'm going to make my statement rather short and hopefully maybe get a chance to hear the witnesses before we have to go and vote. We'll see how it works out.

First of all, I want to thank you very much for holding this hearing. I think you did a wonderful job in explaining what the problems are. And I'm not going to reiterate, because you laid them out. I think you did a terrific job in laying them out for the witnesses and for the people that are here today.

Second of all, I think that we should make it very clear that the budget of this agency is really robust. In fact, my understanding is they're not spending the money that we're already providing them in terms of hiring people. And as you know, we went ahead and passed a budget, the Homeland Security budget. And I think that between the White House and the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, they increased the budget about 24 percent. And if you take the $3 billion that we put in at the end, we're talking about almost a 50 percent increase in the amount of money for the Customs and Border Protection.

So the issue is not money. The issue is, what are we doing with the money, and how's the management coming along? And I think we all have to understand that securing the borders is a cornerstone to our national security. And securing -- there's 326 land, air and seaports. It entails more than preventing individuals from crossing these borders illegally. It includes protecting our economy from illegal goods, which is a big deal today.

That's why Senator Evan Bayh and I have a bill in to deal with these counterfeit goods that are coming in here, whether drugs or counterfeit merchandise coming in here. And it also, I think, includes protecting our environment from what I referred to as invasive species.

CBP holds this responsibility, and the American people are grateful to the thousands of officers who every day accept this responsibility. They do a very good job. They are conscientious workers. Nowhere in government is it more important than at CBP that you've got to have the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the right place at the right time so that they're going to be successful. However, as the GAO will discuss in its testimony, Customs and Border Protection faces significant challenges in getting the right people with the right skills in place.

And two of the three components that today make up CBP came to DHS with significant operational and management challenges. And one of the big problems when we did the 22 agencies and 200,000 people is we recognized that a lot of the agencies we were putting together were already in trouble. And here we are, same problems today. And Senator Akaka and I have been pushing legislation that would require a chief management officer that would have a six-year term that would concentrate on making the management changes in the Department of Homeland Security. And if we don't get that, we don't have our metrics, we don't have a strategic plan. We'll be here five years from now, and it will be the same story. And quite frankly, as a former mayor and governor, I'm fed up with it. I can't understand why we can't get the job done. And for more than four years, Customs and Border Protection must be able to identify the concrete steps -- in other words, they haven't been able to -- to ensure it has the skilled work force in place to meet its mission.

Senator Akaka, you did a great job of explaining the turnover rate and the training and so forth.

And CBP must find and take immediate steps to address the needs of its work force today, not in one or two years but today. And I just -- I mean, I think it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous that we do not have a performance measure for the traveler inspection program that identifies Customs and Border Protection's effectiveness in apprehending inadmissible aliens and other violators. It's just absolutely unacceptable. And one of the things that this committee's trying to do is we want the metrics. Before this administration leaves, we want the strategic plan, and we want the metrics. We want to be able, when the next administration comes in, we want to be able to say here's where you are in performing and going forward with your strategic planning getting the job done.

That's the only way we can do it, Senator Akaka. If we don't do that, then we'll get a new administration in, and we start all over again. So I'm anxious to hear the witnesses today.

And Mr. Morris, you know, what's the problem? Why can't you get the job done?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.

Now you know how passionate he can be. And he's been working really hard on human capital problems. And really, it's at the basis of what we're talking about.

I want to welcome to the subcommittee today's first panel of witnesses -- Paul Morris who is the executive director of Admissibility, Passenger Programs in the Office of Field Operations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Richard Stana, director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues at the Government Accountability Office.

I think you know that it is the custom of this subcommittee to swear-in our witnesses. And I would ask both of you to stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Thank you very much. Let it be noted for the record that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

I want the witnesses to know that while your oral statements are limited to five minutes, your entire statements will be included in the record.

So Mr. Morris, will you please proceed with your statement?

MR. MORRIS: Good morning Chairman Akaka and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss how the Department of Homeland Security, particularly Customs and Border Protection, CBP, is building a more secure and efficient border by continuing to strengthen our work force and enhancing our traveler inspection processes.

I would like to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the men and women of CBP who work on the front lines every day protecting this nation. Since its creation in 2003, CBP has made significant progress in effectively securing our borders and protecting our country against terrorist threats.

I am here today to discuss a recent report released by the GAO. First, CBP would like to express its disappointment for the inappropriate release of an office-use-only version of the report and the misuse of statistics CBP supplied to GAO. We believe that the information released in the official-use-only document could be detrimental to the effectiveness of CBP in carrying out our mission, and the misrepresentation of CBP statistics discredits the work of our front line officers.

CBP is responsible for protecting more than 5,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with Mexico and operating 326 official ports of entry. Each day, CBP inspects more than 1.1 million travelers. Though the vast majority of the people CBP officers interact with are legitimate travelers, there are those who would seek to do us harm. To that end, CBP intercepts more than 21,000 fraudulent documents and interdicts more than 200,000 inadmissible aliens each year. Despite the assertions made by the GAP, during fiscal year 2007 alone, CBP officers at our land, sea and airports of entry arrested nearly 26,000 individuals, including murderers, sexual predators, drug smugglers and individuals with links to terror.

DHS must be able to capitalize on our border inspection process. We must be able to verify the identity of all those who seek to enter. In partnership with Department of State, we are working to secure our homeland by strengthening our ability to identify accurately all persons before they enter the U.S. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative establishes these documentation requirements while continuing to facilitate the flow of legitimate trade and travel. Full implementation of WHTI will supply our officers with the technology and proper documentation to made admissibility decisions in a matter of seconds. This vital layer of security must be put in place as soon as possible and not be subject to repeated delays and endless new and ever-shifting requirements. We must advance to a smarter, more efficient and more secure border that includes these document controls.

CBP constantly and continually monitors our activities and operations in the field. After learning weaknesses in our land border inspectional procedures, we mandated that all land border ports of entry increase the number of primary name queries being performed with our final strategic goal to screen all persons arriving at ports. The implementation of WHTI facilitated technology and the requirement to present secure documents will raise these percentages even further.

CBP has also implemented a new directive which defines policy regarding land border inspections. CBP uses a layered approach to monitor and assess compliance. In the field, we require management to monitor port compliance with existing policies and procedures and conduct audits and assessments.

CBP has also implemented a system to track our effectiveness. CBP conducts compliance examinations involving random selection of vehicles and air passengers that ordinarily would not be selected for an intensive examination through a program called COMPEX. However, we strongly disagree with the inferences and assumptions made by GAO in their report which were based upon the COMPEX statistics CBP supplied. GAO was told that COMPEX, prior to October 1st of this year, monitored Customs law-related violations only, and that these statistics could not be extended to immigration and agricultural violations. However, GAO chose to disregard our advisories and publish misinformation.

We have no greater asset than our human resources. CBP continues to increase its work force, hiring 2,156 new CBP officers and 340 agriculture specialists in FY '07. Included in our five-year strategic plan, we have an objective of building and sustaining a higher-performance work force by refining the recruitment and hiring processes, improving our retention capabilities and enhancing deployment and staffing. We have developed a workload staffing model to better align resource needs and requests against levels of threat, vulnerabilities and work load.

However, we are challenged with the continuously expanding demand for our services as trade and travel to the U.S. continues to grow.

We depend on the dedication and training of our front line officers to conduct thorough inspections and make sound judgments. We have developed and implemented a comprehensive training curriculum. To make the best use of our training, we train our officers when they need to be trained and for the functions they are performing. This means that not every officer completes every training module but does receive the training need to do the job performed.

CBP has long recognized the need to improve our facilities and infrastructure to more effectively meet mission requirements. Unfortunately, the rapid evolution in CBP's mission coupled with years of neglect has left these vital assets in dire need of modernization and expansion. Expanded responsibilities and the deployment of enhanced technology have stretched our physical resources well beyond their capacity. In addition, CBP's infrastructure priorities have to compete with other federal buildings and court houses and will receive only a small amount of the funds allocated. Although we are working with GSA to streamline the seven-year construction process, right now our facilities are stretched to the limit.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you very much for your testimony.

I was just informed that the vote is running out, so I'm going to run and vote, and I'm going to then be back in 10 minutes or less. But in the mean time, this committee will be in recess.

(Recess.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you very much, Senator Warner.

Mr. Morris, as you know, I'm a strong proponent of improving training -- and I've said that in my statement -- and training opportunities for federal employees. Training can be a key to improving government efficiency, can help morale, as was mentioned by Mr. Stana, and maximizing employees' contributions. I am concerned that CPB (sic) is providing too little and that the training that CPB (sic) officers receive does not provide them with the concrete skills and knowledge that they need. And particularly, I'm concerned that they do not receive enough cross-training to master all of the functions that were folded into CPB (sic) with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Morris, how is CPB (sic) tracking and evaluating CPB (sic) officer training at the many different ports of entry to ensure that CPB (sic) officers receive sufficient and high-quality training?

MR. MORRIS: Senator, first let me explain that all of our officers before they are placed in a port of entry do go through 16 weeks of intensive training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glencoe, Georgia. Upon their arrival in the port of entry, we do have a post-academy training that is established for them. We do recognize that we need to make some modifications in that post- academy training and that's primarily because the original training package that we had put together, which consisted of 37 different modules was constructed in order to provide that cross-training that you talk about to bring customs inspectors, immigration inspectors and agricultural inspectors under a single management chain of command and to provide them with all the basic information they need for this very broad mission that we have -- counterterrorism plus all of these legacy missions.

We recognize that four years after the transition to DHS and the formation of Customs and Border Protection that we need to move beyond that cross-training. We now need to have function-specific training. So for instance, if an officer arrives at a port of entry and they're going to be assigned to a cargo environment, we want to provide them with as-needed, just-in-time training on the cargo environment. If later they move on to a new position working passport secondary, we want to provide them with that training package. What we don't want to try to do is force those 37 training modules on every officer upon their actual arrival in the port of entry. It simply is something that we cannot do because the magnitude of our mission -- the very diverse issues that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. So we really need to focus it on what the need is for the particular officers.

Do we have a mechanism that can establish exactly what training is necessary for each particular officer? We're working on refining that. We could not come up with a report that would state whether or not any given officer was trained in all of the program that were necessary for perhaps primary inspection. But we do track the training as delivered to every officer. I can tell you officer by officer what they have been provided with, but we need to take that next step and tie the training to the function that they are now performing so that we can better assess whether or not they are prepared for the job that they're currently doing.

SEN. AKAKA: Mr. Morris, the GAO report states that CPB (sic) officers are receiving as little as two weeks of on-the-job training, I am concerned that officers are being placed in situations without the proper training. And you just mentioned that while they're in a job, they do attend some of these modules that are prepared for them. I'm concerned that officers are being placed in these situations without the proper training and this can be dangerous for the officers and increases the risk of failed inspections.

My question for you -- is there someone in charge of CBP officer training agency-wide? You know, someone needs to be accountable and Senator Voinovich did mention the CMO that we've been talking about. Is there a CPB (sic) officer training agency-wide -- who is in charge of the training?

MR. MORRIS: The CBP does have an office of training and development. They are responsible for the oversight of the CBP Officer Academy in Glencoe, Georgia. They work with the Office of Field Operations -- which is the office directly over the ports of entry -- to ensure that there is post-academy that is provided to our officers, also. And if I could just clarify one statement, Senator, and that is that I think the two weeks that was mentioned was somewhat anecdotal. It's -- at various stages of post-academy training and officers could have only received two weeks of training and would not feel prepared for the full gamut of jobs that they have to perform.

We do track the post-academy training. We have training officers in the field. They're supposed to ensure that our officers go from beginning to completion on post-academy training. Bu there will be times when we have to delay training because we do not have the luxury of closing down a port of entry, or in some cases even closing a couple of lanes at a port of entry in order to accommodate training.

Trade, travel, facilitation of legitimate travelers into the United States must continue regardless of the administrative functions that we have otherwise.

SEN. AKAKA: Mr. Stana, I would like to hear your thoughts on CBP officer training as well, particularly whether CBP's ensuring that officers receive the right training and whether the effectiveness of the training is evaluated.

MR. STANA: Well, the point is correct that often times port directors have to make a decision on whether to have somebody go to training or to stay and staff a post. But at none of the locations we went to, none, was all 12 weeks of on-the-job training delivered -- none. It was as little as two weeks, as you pointed out. Sometimes the average was six to 10 weeks, but none were 12.

We also pointed out that in tracking the training and making sure that the training is useful, the Border Patrol would be a useful place to stop and question. The Border Patrol has 30 specific functions that they've laid out for the Border Patrol agents. And they test against each one of those 30 following training to make sure that the Border Patrol agents learned what they were supposed to learn. They test for proficiency. And I think that would be a good thing for the officers at the ports of entry to go to school on. I don't know if I could be as strong as to say that's best practice government wide, but it would certainly go a long way to picking up some of the training shortfalls.

The last point I'd make is that until you deal with the staffing question, the training issue is always going to be looming out there. You know, some of these ports are, you know, 30 to 40 percent understaffed. And until you deal with that, you're really not going to have time to get away and be trained properly so that you know how to do your job at the post you're assigned.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you very much.

Mr. Stana and Mr. Morris, we're going to go into a second round here. I'd like to hear both of your thoughts on this question. As legacy Customs, immigration or agricultural inspectors retire, CBP is losing their specialized knowledge and skills. I'm concerned that newer officers are not being trained adequately to replace that specialization. The question is, is CBP losing expertise as legacy officers leave the agency?

Mr. Morris.

MR. MORRIS: Well certainly any drain of qualified, very experienced officers concerns us. But I believe that the current training and recruitment that we are going through will replace those officers with officers of the same level of expertise as the years go by for them as well. As we grow into an agency with very vast responsibilities at the ports of entry and as our officers learn to enforce the laws that regulate various Customs issues and immigration and agricultural as well as all of the other federal laws that we handle at the ports of entry, they will gain that expertise. They will naturally fall into areas where they want to provide some emphasis or want to specialize.

In addition, we do have advanced training that we provide to officers that tend to go down these roads.

We have some advanced secondary training that we provide to officers that will be working in passport control secondary, so that they can better process individuals for asylum, for fraudulent documents, for expedited removal and the other tools that we have there. We have counterterrorism response training that we provide to our counterterrorism response teams. We also have training that teaches them how to detect deception and elicit response from individuals. We have training that we provide as far as just basic admissibility so that the officers working passport primary can focus on the issues that are presented to them with each individual that arrives there at the port of entry.

So yes, you know, it'll be a shame to see some of these officers that have that historical knowledge -- but the laws change frequently. We continually have to update our knowledge base and continually update our training. And our CBP officers, I believe, are very well qualified to carry out the job.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you.

MR. STANA: Mr. Akaka, you hit on a major pain point at the points of entry. What's working with One Face at the Border? Well, what's working is, is that the individual at the primary area, at the first booth, has a wider range of knowledge on agricultural issues, immigration issues, customs issues, and can decide at that higher level whether the individual in front of them merits further inspection. What else is working with One Face at the Border is you don't have a confusing dual-management system at the ports where you have people with one uniform sitting on one side of the room and another uniform sitting on another side of the room making decisions that could essentially be made by one service, so that's where it's improved.

What's not working so well yet is -- and particularly in the immigration area -- is that many of the officers who were trained under one face haven't received the detailed training -- or at least haven't comprehended the detailed immigration knowledge needed to make some of these very detailed and intricate decisions regarding things like expedited removal, humanitarian paroles, asylum -- the whole gamut of immigration law. It's much more complicated than you might think. And the port officers that we spoke to at the eight locations we visited told us to a port that as these people attrite -- either leave or retire -- there's a hole in the organization that's left behind. And whatever can be done to regain that specialization in the secondary area, primarily, would be very welcome by those port directors.

SEN. AKAKA: Yes. Senator Voinovich alluded to that too about the retirees. And I hope you'll really look at that. And I like to think of what we call emeritus types, you know, who can come back and give the kind of information that you don't read about in the books. And so I think that's something that we really need to look at.

Mr. Morris, I'm deeply troubled by the poor morale -- and this was mentioned by Mr. Stana -- of CBP officers. CBP faired poorly on the most recent Office of Personnel Management Federal Human Capital Survey. These results are disturbing as poor morale and high attrition make it even more difficult to address CBP's staffing shortfall. My question to you, Mr. Morris: What steps are being taken -- are you taking to improve CBP officer morale?

MR. MORRIS: Officer morale is a difficult area to address. And we recognize that it's really a combination of many things that can affect that. It is in many cases simply the nature of the job: The very difficult circumstances that we place the officers in on a day- to-day basis -- for instance, on the southwest border during the summer and on the northern border during the wintertime. And beyond that, the infrastructure is not there to really support effective and efficient inspections as well. And when we don't provide our officers with that infrastructure, with the facility that is conducive to conducting an effective inspection, it makes their job that much more difficult. And as we continue to have some difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff, we continue to have to go to overtime as a tool in order to make up for the difference. That working of overtime affects the quality of life for many of these individuals. And I think the work force of today is different than it was 20 or 30 years ago when they wanted the overtime. They wanted the long hours for the extra pay. But there does seem to be a shift in their focus, perhaps.

As far as how we're addressing -- as I said before, we would like to become the premier law enforcement agency, with respect to border security, in the world. And we have a professionalism program trying to instill some of that pride and just self-worth in our officers about what they're doing. I don't know that the GAO report went into this at all, but my personal feeling is that our officers are very proud of what they do. They think they have a very significant role in protecting this nation and we need them desperately at those points of entry on a day-to-day basis, conducting those thorough inspections.

But as you pointed out so very aptly in your statement, Senator, it's a vicious circle in many cases.

SEN. AKAKA: Mr. Stana, what are your thoughts on improving officer morale?

MR. STANA: Well, look, there's no easy answers here. I think some of the answers are in the data. People enjoy what they're doing. They understand the significance and the importance to national security and immigration management. On the other hand, they're not satisfied totally with pay. They're not satisfied with working conditions.

I think one way, you know, Mr. Morris and others have talked about, you know, trying to address the law enforcement retirement and law enforcement pay. Some of the answers suggested a PFP -- a pay- for-performance, kind of -- but we didn't get into that. One of the messages that the officers left with us is they'd like more of a say in how things are run. And this gets -- I don't know if you call it total quality management or -- it's the kind of management that we've seen the auto companies pick up on and use to good effect. And I don't know to what extent -- you might ask the second panel -- to what extent the agency has partnered with the union to try to get more of a voice from the bottom on what could be improved, what's not working well. Sometimes it could be something as simple as: Well, you need to put the (bowers ?) over there, or we need equipment in the booth for inspections that are configured this way, not that way. But the more people feel they have a role and a say in their work, the better off I think we all would be.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you very much.

Senator Voinovich.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Levin. Mr. Morris, most land border crossings were built at a time when there was a lower volume of travel and less recognition of the need for security. According to CBP estimates, the land ports of entry need almost $4 billion in upgrades. This does not include the additional billions that would take to improve infrastructure near ports of entry, such as widening bridges or highways that form choke points before land board crossings. It would take billions more to put the infrastructure in place to allow for exit screening through U.S. visit at land ports. You testified that CPB (sic) infrastructure must compete with other GSA building projects. My question for you is what can be done to better recognize, evaluate, and prioritize the pressing need for infrastructure improvements at ports of entry?

MR. MORRIS: Mr. Chairman, CBP and GSA recognize the I would say urgent need for new infrastructure at ports of entry to carry out our mission, and we have partnered with GSA to try to reduce the costs associated with the design and construction of our ports and try to reduce the amount of time that is necessary in order to complete our ports of entry.

As far as the prioritization of how funding is spent, I think we are going to simply need to continue to focus on making sure that our needs are heard and that they're given the proper priority. However, very often we do compete with other federal buildings such as courthouses which very often carry much more weight in getting the construction completed.

SEN. AKAKA: Mr. Stana, I would like to hear your view on this issue as well. The GAO's report indicates that weaknesses in physical infrastructure at ports of entry can result in failed traveler inspections. What are some of the more troubling problems you observed in the infrastructure of land border crossings?

MR. STANA: Well, first let me say that, you know, the fact that almost 60 percent of our ports are actually owned by GSA magnifies the kinds of issues that Mr. Morris talked about. You know, there's only about not even a third that are owned by CBP so they are somewhat confined and restricted, and then another 14 percent I believe are owned by private individual or private corporations like the Detroit Windsor Tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge in Mr. Levin's area. And this, you know, creates problems when you want things to be done. You have to get the approvals and you have to get in their priority system as well.

The kinds of problems that we saw include lanes that aren't confined, making it easier to run through a port without going into the secondary area if you're instructed to do so, making sure that all of the technology is in the right place. Now there's license plate readers there and they have portal monitors for radiation detection and so on. And this gets to a larger issue I think that you raised in your opening statement, Mr. Akaka, and that is is it really time for a 21st century port configuration. You know, if you go to a port of entry what you have now is akin to, you know, buying an old car from the 1960s and putting GPS on it and retrofitting power windows and satellite radio and all that kind of stuff when a new car incorporates that and it's much more easy to use and it works better.

And if we're going to spend $4 billion upgrading the ports we ought to make sure that we consider all of the things that are going to make the job easier. Is the computer screen in the right location in the booth to make it easy to query the text databases -- the law enforcement databases? Are the license plate readers in a position that gives the officer enough advance warning that a person -- should the portal monitors be placed, you know, several hundred yards away? Why would you put them right when -- right at the port when they could have an adverse consequence? So maybe it is time for CBP along with engineers and local governments who, you know, where these ports are located --perhaps the union -- to get together and consider how these ports ought to be configured to take us into the next era where we have to consider security and terrorism much more than we had to when these ports were designed and yet still allowing the relatively free flow of people and legitimate cargo.

SEN. AKAKA: Well, thank you for that forward look. Mr. Morris, CBP is under tremendous strain to complete - (inaudible) -- its visitor traveler inspection and anti-terrorism functions. I'm concerned that agricultural inspection is being sacrificed due to CBP's staffing shortage. How are you ensuring that there is enough focus on agricultural inspection?

MR. MORRIS: The CBP agriculture specialists play a very important role at our ports of entry and they're fully a part of the rest of customs and border protection operation at a port. In our training for our officers at the CBP officer academy, they get the cross training in the agriculture mission and they're made aware of the great importance of performing that mission at the ports of entry to protect the economic interests and the agricultural interests of this country. In order to ensure that the agricultural mission is thoroughly addressed at the ports of entry, we frequently put out musters for our officers, so in other words we're providing them with a briefing at the beginning of their shift that tells them to look for specific pests or specific items that are prohibited from entry. And we just -- we make sure that within each of the ports of entry our management oversees that joining of the two workforces.

And I should say that I believe that our agricultural enforcement is much better now than it was previously and it's better now because each CBP officer on primary inspection is a workforce multiplier for those ag specialists. They have the basic information that they need to identify when there may be an issue with an agricultural product and they refer it to secondary where the ag specialist then focuses on it. So I think we've really improved with this transition.

SEN. AKAKA: Now, Mr. Morris, in March 2003 CBP initiated its One Face at the Border program that unified and integrated legacy inspectors from three agencies into two new positions -- CBP officer and CBP agricultural specialist. CBP envisioned the results would be more effective traveler inspections and enhanced security at ports of entry. What is your assessment of the One Face at the Border program and what are the lessons learned from the effort?

MR. MORRIS: Well, I believe that as many have pointed out any transition of this magnitude takes a long time. I've heard estimates anywhere between five and 10 years before a transition such as this is complete.

But all that said, I believe that we have made outstanding progress in heading towards that one face at the border and a truly unified workforce with common missions and a common primary mission being counter terrorism.

We have seen the better interdiction and identification and apprehension of individuals with links to terrorism. We've seen a better sharing of information from the top to the bottom as far as intelligence information that is useful to our officers in the field. And we have overall continued to grow in the apprehension of individuals that are bringing in any number of prohibited goods as well as continuing to apprehend those that are attempting to unlawfully immigrate to the U.S. Yes, we still have work to do but I think we've made an outstanding first four years at it.

SEN. AKAKA: Well, I want to thank both of you very much for your testimony as well as your responses to the committee. It will be helpful and as you pointed out we have much to do, both as administration people and people of Congress. And so I want to thank you again for all you've done and will be doing for our country. Thank you.

MR. MORRIS: Thank you, Chairman.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you. Now may I call forward the subcommittee -- to the subcommittee to the second witness panel Colleen Kelly, national president of the National Treasury Employees Union? Welcome, Miss Kelly, and as you know it is the custom of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? Thank you very much. Let it be noted in the record that the witness answered in the affirmative. As with the previous panel I want you to know that -- (inaudible) -- statement is limited to five minutes. Your entire written statement will be included in the record. Will you please proceed with your statement, Miss Kelly?

MS. KELLY: Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the human capital challenges posed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's One Face at the Border initiative. NTEU represents customs and border protection officers, agriculture specialists, and trade enforcement employees at the homeland security department.

Shortly after DHS was created, CBP announced the One Face at the Border initiative that, as we've heard, combined three different inspector occupations -- customs, immigration, and agriculture. This major consolidation of the roles and responsibility of the inspectional workforce of the ports of entry has resulted in a huge expansion of the duties of each officer, and it has led to the dilution of the customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection specializations, weakening the quality of inspections.

CBP saw its One Face at the Border initiative as a means to increase management flexibility without increasing staffing levels. Their position was, and I quote, "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 front line employees will allow CBP to more easily handle projected workload increases and to stay within the present budgeted levels," end quote.

This has not been the case. The knowledge and the skills required to perform the expanded inspectional tasks under the One Face at the Border initiative have dramatically increased the workload of the CBP officer. CBP officers have twin goals -- anti-terrorism and facilitating legitimate trade and travel. On the one hand, CBP officers are to fully perform their inspectional 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 staff at the ports of entry creates an extremely challenging work environment for the CBP officer.

GAO testified today that CBP's own staffing model shows that several thousand additional CBP officers and agriculture specialists are needed at our ports of entry, and GAO testimony issued on October 3rd, 2007 stated, and I quote, "As of mid-August 2007, CBP has 2,116 agriculture specialists on staff compared with 3,154 specialists needed according to its own staffing model," end quote.

NTEU has called on Congress for an increase of at least 4,000 new CBP officers and agriculture specialists for CBP to achieve its dual mission. Staffing shortages are exacerbated by challenges in retaining staff, as we've heard today. This contributes to an increasing number of CBP officer vacancies which are currently estimated at 1,000 vacancies. According to GAO, and I quote, "CBP's on-board staffing is below its budgeted level. The gap between the budgeted staffing level and the number of officers on board is attributable in part to high attrition with ports of entry losing officers faster than they can hire replacements."

Through March of 2007, CBP data shows that on average 52 CBP officers left the agency each two-week pay period in fiscal '07. That's up from only 34 officers each two-week pay period in fiscal year '05. The most significant impediment to recruitment and retention of CBP officers that Congress can address immediately is the lack of law enforcement officer status, which we heard about earlier. The newly issued GAO report states, and I quote, "CBP officers are leaving the agency to take positions at other DHS components and other federal agencies to obtain law enforcement officer benefits that are not authorized to them at CBP," end quote.

For this reason legislation has been introduced into both the House and the Senate to provide CBP officers with law enforcement officer benefits. In addition, House appropriators have included in their FY '08 DHS appropriations bill a provision that would grant law enforcement officer status to CBP officers prospectively. NTEU is currently working with the House and the Senate to modify this provision so that some LEO retirement benefit is provided to all CBP officers. NTEU urges this committee to support our efforts to improve and to pass this legislation.

I have to mention that in Mr. Morris' testimony on the prior panel he testified that CBP is striving to be the premier law enforcement agency, and I agree with that goal. But I can tell you that will never happen without providing law enforcement officer status to these CBP officers. Widely reported morale problems at DHS also affect recruitment and retention, and we heard about that a little on the earlier panel. It also gets in the way of the ability of the agency to accomplish its mission. The proposed new DHS pay and personnel systems and CBP's unilateral elimination of employee input into routine workplace decision making, such as work shift schedules, have had a serious negative impact on morale and also need to be addressed.

I have to mention also that in response to Mr. Morris' answer to a question that you asked about morale at CBP and what they intended to do about it it's very clear to me that CBP has no plan to address this. The first time the employees answered the survey and made clear that the employee morale was so low -- 29th out of 30th -- the first time homeland security was very dismissive of those results. They said to the press and to Congress and to everyone else that, "It's a new department. We merged 22 agencies. Of course morale is low." They were very, very dismissive of employees' responses.

The next year when, again, employees had the same response now they've decided that Secretary Chertoff is convening some groups of executives and managers to talk about the issue. That is not how the problem will be solved. It will be solved by working with NTEU and with the front line employees to identify the issues that are impacting this morale issue, and it is about staffing -- about law enforcement officer status. It is about employee involvement in decision making, and it is about valuing and respecting the front line officers and the input that they have into how the work can be done better.

None of that is done today.

In conclusion, I would say that there are six recommendations NTEU has for CBP on their human capital challenges. One is to fill the vacancies and increase the CBP officer and agricultural specialist staffing to the levels in CBP's own staffing model; second, end the One Face at the Border Initiative; third, reestablish the specialization of prior inspectional functions; fourth, provide LEO coverage to all CBP officers with retroactive coverage; five, repeal Homeland Security's personnel flexibility authority; and six, allow employee input in the shift assignment system.

And I would just like to add as part of my statement a response to Senator Voinovich's question about how much NTEU and employee involvement there is with CBP. And as I signaled to Senator Voinovich when he asked the question, the answer is zero. There is zero involvement and there is a reason for that -- at least, there was a triggering reason. When this administration came into office, one of the first acts they did was to rescind an executive order on partnership. An executive order had been in place since 1993 that required federal agencies to work in partnership with the unions who represent front line federal employees and those employees. Within two months of taking office, this administration rescinded that executive order and as a result, every agency, including the U.S. Customs Service at the time and now Customs and Border Protection, does not work with NTEU or with employees in partnership in any way, shape or form.

The notice and the discussions that Mr. Morris referenced -- he said when there are changes at the ports, they notify NTEU. That is a legal obligation because we are the exclusive representative and they have a collective bargaining obligation. They interpret that as narrowly as possible, give us notice when they see fit, give us the minimal facts that they can and their intent always is to unilaterally move and to act on whatever their decisions are without NTEU's involvement or the involvement of the front line employees. So to Senator Voinovich's question, there is no NTEU or employee involvement on shift assignments, on training, on port operations, on retention, on morale -- on nothing. There is zero NTEU or employee input.

And with that, I am happy to answer any questions that you have for me today, Senator. Thank you.

SEN. AKAKA: Thank you very much. Ms. Kelley.

I was very troubled by the GAO report -- finding that CP -- BP officers receive as little as two weeks of on-the-job training. Are CBP officers being placed in situations that they are not prepared to handle?

MS. KELLEY: Unfortunately, they are at times. They do the best they can, they take their jobs very seriously, they do have the formal training from the academy but the front line, on-the-job training at the port -- actually getting to see the work done by an experienced officer, to have that 12 weeks as was described earlier provided to them is a critical piece of how well they will do the job and how fast they will be able to really understand all of the nuances and also see these experienced officers react not only to textbook knowledge, but also to gut reactions that they have built and acquired over the years that are really a very key part to doing this job.

SEN. AKAKA: Ms. Kelley, as CBP officers routinely seize narcotics and arrest drug smugglers, they also need to be prepared to apprehend suspected terrorists. Given these job duties, are you concerned that insufficient training creates a safety hazard for the CPB officers that you represent?

MS. KELLEY: I think it does at times create a safety risk and also, it does not allow these officers to do the first-class quality job that they are trying to do for a country. It does not give them the opportunity to do that. It doesn't give them the tools and the resources to be able to do it. And at times, it does make the environment unsafe.

SEN. AKAKA: You testified that combining the former customs inspectors -- INS immigration inspectors and USDA agricultural inspectors into generalist CBP officers has resulted in job responsibility overload and a dilution of specialization, weakening the inspection process. How could cross-training be improved to reduce the problems that you identified?

MS. KELLEY: Cross-training is a piece of it from a standpoint of an awareness, I would say. But to think that these officers can be cross-trained to be experts in all three areas of law -- each one of them have their own sets of law, rule and regulation -- the customs law, rule and regulation, the immigration law, rule and regulation as well as the agriculture law, rule and regulation. So cross-training surely serves a purpose from an awareness standpoint to then get those travelers or that cargo into secondary where the experts -- those who have the specialized skills can then continue to do that inspection and that work.

And so cross-training is a piece of it, but it is not the sole answer. The specialization loss is a very real one. It is one that needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed by staffing and a recognition that those secondary lanes need to be staffed, so that when someone who has an awareness from the cross-training that they received sends someone there that there is staffing there to do an adequate inspection, which too many times today that is not the case.

SEN. AKAKA: CBP officers at border crossings work long hours, breathing fumes from thousands of cars. Often they work while standing in high temperatures, particularly along the southern border. To some degree, these are realities of the job. My question to you is, what can be done to improve border crossings to make them more secure, efficient and comfortable work environments for CBP officers?

MS. KELLEY: I think that there are 326 answers to that question since there are 326 ports of entry because each one really is a different situation. They are all laid out differently, whether it's because of real estate or because of traffic. But each one is different and that's why the input of the front line officers who are doing this work is so key. They would have ideas about how to either redirect the traffic or insert fans or whatever equipment can be put into certain ports that would eliminate or at least reduce the fumes that they're subjected to. It may be that the staffing in those booths needs rotated more frequently on the southwest border because of the fumes than it does in some of the inland borders with less traffic.

So I really think there are 326 answers to that question, and the way to get the answer is not to have the port director and the manager sit down and discuss it. It is to work with NTEU and the front line officers. They have a lot of really good ideas about how to do the work better, about how to do the work safer and about how to make the port of entry more effective for America's taxpayers.

SEN. AKAKA: Speaking about morale and attrition, as you know, CBP officers do not receive the enhanced pension benefits that federal law enforcement officers receive. What effect does this treatment have on CBP officers' morale and attrition?

MS. KELLEY: It is a huge issue, Mr. Chairman. Everywhere I go, officers ask me what the chances are that this wrong will be made right and that they will be given the law enforcement officer status that they so deserve. It is a very big morale issue and it is an issue that really feeds into the retention that CBP acknowledges. And I will say that I'm glad to hear that CBP is acknowledging -- maybe because of the GAO report -- but acknowledging they have a retention problem because for years, NTEU has been raising this with them and they have never acknowledged that they had a problem that was different than any other federal agency. The idea that GAO can pinpoint that 25 percent of the officers say LEO is important to them is one that I think is a statistic that should not be lost on anyone. And hopefully, Congress will take appropriate action to give the long- overdue law enforcement officer status to these officers that they deserve.

SEN. AKAKA: Ms. Kelley, your written testimony notes the decrease in secondary inspections. GAO's report also observes that CBP's anti-terrorism and other travel inspection programs are not fully carried out due to understaffing. Do you believe that CBP cuts back on secondary inspections to deal with short-staffing?

MS. KELLEY: I do at times. I believe they make decisions every day about what work will be done and what work won't be done because of the staffing problem that is now acknowledged. Those 1,000 vacancies that are funded -- there is no reason, in my mind, that they are not filled -- and efforts to get additional funding for them for the 4,000 positions we think are needed.

But absolutely, I think every day -- I mean, I know I have been to ports where if a flight's coming in and it has to clear in 45 minutes and they're at minimal staffing, everyone is pulled to clear that flight -- from cargo, from secondary, from everywhere. It's -- you know, it's an operational decision that they make because they do not have the staffing that they need.

SEN. AKAKA: Whenever there are reports or news of poor traveler inspections, front-line CBP officers often receive the blame. I understand that many ports of entry do not have enough inspection booths, forcing travelers to wait in long lines. You testified that CBP's emphasis on reducing wait times creates a challenging work environment for CBP officers. The question is, are the officers you represent being pressured to conduct inspections quickly at the expense of being thorough?

MS. KELLEY: I believe many of them, if asked the question in an environment where they could answer it, would tell you yes, depending on the day. They very often feel they are not allowed to take the time that in their professional judgment is needed to ask all the questions and to have the conversation with the passenger that they think is needed to ensure they're making the right decision in entry or not. When you have the pressure of wait times, whether it's on a bridge or at the airport, and management says, "Move the line," you have to move the line in a shorter time, and that means you cannot spend the two or three minutes that you would to notice behaviors, to ask questions, to look at documents. You've heard the testimony of how many different documents there are that can be used to enter the country today, and in many cases officers report they have one minute to spend, if not less than one minute, with each passenger that they're making a conscious decision about to let into the country or not. So it is a very real factor.

SEN. AKAKA: Are these time goals enforced? For example, do CBP officers' performance evaluations reflect how quickly they inspect travelers? You mention one minute -- is that prevalent?

MS. KELLEY: Again, it depends on the day and the port, but it is not unusual that officers are visited by a supervisor who are told to -- and they are told to speed up the line, which means take less time with each passenger that's coming through.

As far as the airports, you know, a while ago I asked CBP -- I said, "I keep hearing about this 45 minutes, and, you know, is there some rule that it has to be cleared in 45 minutes?" And they assured me there was no such rule. What I then found out was, while there might not be a rule, if a flight goes over 45 minutes, a report is initially triggered back to CBP headquarters, who of course is calling the port saying, "Why is it taking you more than 45 minutes?" So while there's nothing that says you have to clear the flight, if you don't, you have to explain why you didn't. And most ports and port directors don't want to call that attention to themselves, so they move the flight.

SEN. AKAKA: Ms. Kelley, you testified that CBP no longer gives officers input into their schedules. Could you say a bit more about how scheduling used to work and how it changed and why this is a concern for CBP officers?

MS. KELLEY: The right of CBP to establish schedules -- what hours a port will be covered -- and more and more ports, of course, are on 24/7 coverage -- but it is the right of management to determine what hours they need coverage, how many employees they need to do the work, and what the qualifications are of those employees. That has always been a management right.

What used to happen, then, was once the shifts were established, employees would exercise their right to bid -- we called it a bid process -- to where they would say they would like to work four to 12, or midnight to eight, or eight to four, or whatever the shift was. And they had the right to say that because it was good for morale, it helped them to balance their family issues, whether they had working spouses or transportation issues or elder care issues or whatever it was.

A few years ago CBP decided that that input would no longer be allowed and that managers would just assign employees to shifts. There used to be a process that allowed employees to swap shifts, and that still ensured the coverage and everything that management mandated and had a right to mandate. It is very difficult in most ports today to swap shifts.

So management has taken away that right, I would say not for a business reason -- it's about control. They just want to be able to dictate to the employees, and they don't want to have to go through the work of working with the employees, which would really be a huge increase in their morale if a process like that were put back in place, for all the obvious reasons. I would say whether you work as a CBP officer or at any job anywhere, the idea that you would be able to express a preference for what shift works better for you -- and then even if you don't get the shift that you wanted, at least there's a clear, transparent process that you say, "At least it was a fair process, and then maybe the next time I would get my preferred shift." And that is not how it operates today.

SEN. AKAKA: Well, I noted your comments on the need for labor- management partnerships. I agree with you that this is important, and I want to thank you for your support of my bill to reinstate those partnerships.

MS. KELLEY: In fact, I was remiss in my opening, Mr. Chairman, in not thanking you for introducing that bill because you do clearly recognize the value that it brings, not just to the employees but to the department and to all of our citizens who are depending on the work of the Department of Homeland Security. So I thank you for your leadership in introducing the bill, and we're going to help you do everything possible to make it a reality.

SEN. AKAKA: Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses again for the time you spent preparing and presenting this valuable information to this subcommittee. We appreciate the hard work that you do to improve Customs and Border Protection.

Today's hearing highlights the need to really focus on making CBP an attractive place to work. CBP must address its staffing, training and morale problems. This is not merely a matter of being a responsible employer. The human capital problems at CBP undermine thorough inspections and create a serious homeland security risk.

One small step that I hope we will take soon is providing law enforcement benefits to CBP officers. Furthermore, I believe that it is time that we look closely at the infrastructure at the land border crossings. We must invest the resources to modernize our ports of entry to permit thorough and efficient inspections in an atmosphere that is inviting to visitors and a more attractive work environment for CBP officers.

This subcommittee will continue its attention to CBP inspections at our nation's ports of entry in the future. The hearing record will be open for one week for additional statements or questions other members may have. And again, my thanks to all of you for making this valuable hearing.

The hearing is adjourned.

Source