U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

25–161 PDF 2018

S. Hrg. 114–738 

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE NEW LEADERSHIP 

AT THE U.S. BORDER PATROL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

BROOKE N. ERICSON, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

JOSE ́ J. BAUTISTA, Senior Professional Staff Member 

SERVANDO H. GONZALES, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Detailee 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Minority Senior Counsel 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 15 

Senator Baldwin ............................................................................................... 18 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 19 

Senator Booker ................................................................................................. 21 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 23 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 26 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 29 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 32 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 35 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 43 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 44 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Mark A. Morgan, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .................................................... 6 

Carla Provost, Deputy Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ......................................... 8 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Morgan, Mark A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 46 

Provost, Carla: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 46 

APPENDIX 

Chart ......................................................................................................................... 57 

Chart ......................................................................................................................... 58 

Chart ......................................................................................................................... 59 

National Treasury Employees Union Statement for the Record ......................... 61 

Response to post-hearing questions for the Record from: 

Mr. Morgan and Ms. Provost ........................................................................... 64 

(1) 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE NEW 

LEADERSHIP AT THE U.S. BORDER PATROL 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Lankford, Ayotte, 

Ernst, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp, Booker, and 

Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) 

is called to order. 

I want to welcome the witnesses. Certainly, thank you for your 

testimonies and your time here, today—the Chief and the Deputy 

Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). I am definitely interested 

in what you have to say. 

I decided to hold this hearing, actually, before the election, as we 

were monitoring the renewed crisis—I do not think the crisis ever 

went away, but, certainly, we have not been seeing the publicity 

about the unaccompanied alien children (UACs) coming in from 

Central America, which is pretty much at 2014 levels—just not 

being publicized. But, you, of course, are having to deal with it, so 

I think we want to really kind of highlight that. 

And, based on the election, I am also encouraged by the fact that 

I think we will have an incoming Administration that will be definitely dedicated and committed to securing the border, which we 

must do. 

So, I want to get your initial observations of where you think we 

are at, in terms of border security, and get some initial thoughts 

on what we need to do to actually secure the border and honor that 

commitment. 

I do not want to take a whole lot of time. We do have a couple 

of charts here, just laying out the problem. The first is just a chart 

of the history1, from 2009 through last fiscal year (FY), of the number of UACs that have come in from Honduras, Guatemala, and El 

Salvador. And, you can see, prior to Deferred Action for Childhood 
2 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

2The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 59. 

3The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

4The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

Arrivals (DACA), we were at pretty low levels—somewhere around 

3,000 to 4,000 UACs from Central America. In 2012, we went to 

10,000. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was implemented. 

All of a sudden, we hopped to 20,000, then 51,700, and back down 

a little bit in 2015. But, we are up there—almost to 50,000 in 2016. 

And, the initial starting months here, in 2017, do not look encouraging either. 

So, it is a real problem, but it is not the only problem, because, 

as our second chart1 shows, in addition to the incentives that we 

create in our law for UACs coming from Central America, now we 

see family units coming as well. And, those numbers of people coming in, as family units, actually exceeds the number of UACs. And, 

my concern is, we are not publicizing it, because the Border Patrol 

has been so humane and so effective at apprehending, processing, 

and dispersing. So, we have dispersed well over 120,000 UACs to 

all points in the United States. We actually have a chart2 here for 

Members to see, where the 120,000—it is really about 130,000 

UACs that have been dispersed around the country. I have Members’ States in yellow, so you can see how many UACs have been 

relocated into your States. That is the kind of information we have. 

I do ask unanimous consent (UC) that my written statement be 

entered into the record.3

I do want to take this moment to, certainly, thank Senator 

Ayotte for her dedicated service on this Committee. I think I speak 

for all of the Committee Members when I say we will definitely 

miss you and your participation here, on this Committee and in the 

Senate. And, we, certainly, wish you well in the next chapter of 

your life—in your next career. So, thank you for your service. 

With that, I would like to turn it over to Ranking Member Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER4

Senator CARPER. If I could just follow up, I was fortunate this 

morning to run into Senator Ayotte and a couple of our colleagues 

in the Senate dining room with Ali Mayorkas, who just stepped 

down as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). And, I am reminded, just on the heels of what our Chairman has said about Kelly, that, right after World War II, the British won—with a lot of help from us—and Winston Churchill, you 

will recall, was the Prime Minister (PM) of the country and, literally, carried them on his back through the war. And, 6 months 

later, he lost reelection. He was not reelected. And, one reporter 

said to him, at the time, ‘‘For you, Mr. Churchill, is this the end?’’ 

And, he replied, famously, ‘‘This is not the end. This is not the beginning of the end. This is the end of the beginning.’’ And, it has 

been a joy to serve with you. And, thank you for your service. It 

has been great having been on this Committee. And, for you, my 

friend, this is the end of the beginning. 

With that having been said, that is all I had to say—no, I have 

more to say than that. But, I want to start this morning by thank-
3 

ing you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing us together, and our witnesses 

for joining us, today. You take on tough jobs—really important jobs, 

hard jobs, and challenging jobs. But, I am impressed with you, I 

am impressed with the folks that you lead, and we are grateful for 

your service. Many times, I have been down to the border—sometimes with this guy and sometimes with others on our Committee—and I look forward to being back there—maybe with you— 

in the not too distant future. 

It has always been an important issue for this Committee and 

it is an important issue to me. It has commanded particular attention during the time I have been privileged to be Chairman and 

Ranking Member as well as just a Member of this Committee. I 

think everybody, certainly, in this room—and I think most people 

in this country—want stronger borders. If we do not have strong 

borders, we have a real problem. And, we all want to keep terrorists out of this country. But, we also need to remain clear-eyed 

about some of the other real risks and real solutions—and I always 

like to focus on the real solutions, the root causes, and how to address those root causes. 

Unfortunately, during this past campaign season—which, thankfully, is over—immigrants and refugees were too often unfairly attacked as a grave threat to our country—in many cases where they 

are not. We heard a lot about walls and deportations, and not 

enough about addressing the underlying causes of the real immigration challenges that we face. As a result, too many immigrants, 

who have come to the United States from all corners of the globe, 

are anxious that they will no longer be able to care for their families and contribute to our great country. This includes the ‘‘Dreamers’’ who were brought here as children, but are now fearful of 

being pulled from jobs, pulled from their schools, and deported to 

countries they may not even remember. And, I just do not think 

we strengthen our country by ignoring the contributions of immigrants or by turning our backs on refugees. 

Helping vulnerable people is part of our moral fabric as a country. Scripture teaches us that we have a moral imperative to the 

‘‘least of these’’ in our society—‘‘When I was a stranger in your 

land, did you take me in? ’’—and to treat other people the way we 

want to be treated. Doing so also contributes directly to our economic strength. For generations, our open and diverse society has 

attracted immigrants of all backgrounds, who have continually enriched our country and helped us to grow and to prosper. The deeply troubling attack this past week at Ohio State University (OSU), 

where I was once a Navy Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) 

midshipman, many years ago, weighs heavily on my mind and on 

the minds of many across this country. It reminds us that we must 

continue to be eternally vigilant. We must work hard to meet both 

our security challenges as a Nation and our moral imperatives. 

And, indeed, I believe we can do both—and I believe we must do 

both. 

Before I highlight some of the tools that I believe can help better 

secure our borders, I think it is important to, first, recognize the 

significant strides we have already made along our Southwestern 

border. This is thanks to the efforts of a lot of people, including the 

folks you lead. For years, we worried about large-scale undocu-
4 

mented migration from Mexico. Now, experts tell us that there are 

more Mexicans going back into Mexico, from the United States, 

than Mexicans coming out of Mexico into the United States, and 

that net migration is less than zero. The men and women at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) deserve a lot of the credit for 

that turn around, but, perhaps, the biggest factor for the change 

is the strengthening of the Mexican economy. They have a strong, 

vibrant middle class there, and it helps hugely. That is an important thing to keep in mind, as we talk about whether to reopen 

trade agreements in the region. 

The surge we are seeing today, along our Southwestern border, 

right now, is a different challenge—and it is mostly a humanitarian one, as you know. Thousands of kids and their families, from 

El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—most of us have been to 

those countries, which we call ‘‘the Northern Triangle’’—they are 

fleeing extreme violence and poverty in their home countries and 

are seeking asylum in the United States. We are complicit in their 

misery—and the Chairman has said this again and again—by virtue of our addiction to drugs. They send us drugs, we send them 

guns and we send them money. And, the people face lives of misery 

down there—horror down there—and they want to get out and they 

want to come here to be safer. 

Haitian migrants, on the other hand, including many who had 

been living and working in Brazil until its recent economic decline, 

are another new concern, as we know. Most of these migrants are 

turning themselves in to agents—not trying to evade the agents 

that work for you—so it is unlikely that we will fix these current 

challenges with a wall—or even with more Border Patrol agents 

(BPAs). Instead, we must address the root causes of this migration 

by helping the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras improve the desperate conditions that too many of their citizens face every day. When I am down there, I always talk about 

Home Depot to the folks in those countries. I say, ‘‘You can do it, 

Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. We can help. We cannot 

do it for you. You have to do it. But, we have an obligation to help, 

because we are complicit in your misery.’’ 

I traveled to the Northern Triangle, once again, this past October. And, I saw real efforts being made by the governments there 

to address the extreme poverty, violence, and hopelessness that 

drive so many of their citizens to make the dangerous journey 

across Mexico to our border. Last year, Democrats and Republicans 

provided about $750 million to support these countries, as they 

work to address these difficult conditions. I hope we can continue 

this bipartisan support. They have to do their share. Actually, they 

have to do a lot more of the heavy lifting than we do. But, if they 

do, then we have an obligation—I think a moral obligation—to help 

them. But, I believe it is cost-effective and the right thing to do, 

given that our addiction to drugs fuels so much of the lawlessness 

and instability in that region. 

We also have to work with our international partners to crack 

down on smugglers and traffickers who exploit migrants. I have 

been impressed, for example, with the vetted units that I have seen 

during my trips to the Northern Triangle—where our agents and 

our officers work side by side with foreign officers to target and 
5 

break up criminal trafficking networks. Of course, as the cartels 

become more sophisticated, we must also continue to evolve and 

take action here, at home. That is why I have supported commonsense and cost-effective solutions to strengthen our border security—and will continue to do so. That includes investments in advanced surveillance technologies, such as aerostats and drones, 

which, if used effectively, can be powerful force multipliers for our 

agents and others as well, as you know. It also includes resources, 

such as horses—remember the horses we saw down there?—and all 

kinds of boats, which may not be as high-tech, but can provide our 

agents with greater visibility across the border. Another commonsense solution involves fully staffing our ports of entry (POEs) and 

making smart investments in our aging port infrastructure. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not discuss how comprehensive 

immigration reform can also be a critical force multiplier. I believe 

it can be and it should be. And, the idea of a worker program, 

where the folks—a lot of people down there do not want to come 

here and live permanently. They would like to be able to travel 

back and forth—work and go home again. And, they sometimes get 

stuck up here. And, they, frankly, find it hard to get back down 

there and back up here. So, I think comprehensive immigration reform would help on that. 

As Republican and Democratic Administration officials have testified over the years, immigration reform would create legal channels for migration and ‘‘shrink the haystack’’ of unauthorized travelers, so that border agents can focus on the most significant security risks. 

Lastly, comprehensive reform would also strengthen us economically. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—not 

me—none of us—but the Congressional Budget Office, which is 

nonpartisan—comprehensive immigration reform would provide a 

5.4-percent boost in gross domestic product (GDP)—we could use 

that—more than $1 trillion dollars, by 2033. We should all keep 

this in mind as we head into the next Congress. 

Thank you, again, to you both for being here and for your leadership. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for pulling this together 

today. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. And, I would be 

remiss if I did not also thank you for just your partnership over 

the last 2 years. As Ranking Member—and as a bipartisan Committee—we actually keep track of this—we have passed 83 pieces 

of legislation out of this Committee—most of it unanimously. We 

are up to, I think, over 30 pieces of legislation having been signed 

into law now, in some way, shape, or form. That is a pretty good 

record. I think I have certainly valued the example that Senator 

Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins set, when I first joined 

this Committee—certainly which you and Senator Tom Coburn set. 

And, we have, I think, continued that tradition. So, I am going to 

miss you as my Ranking Member. And, I look forward to working 

with my next—Senator McCaskill is not here, but apparently she 

is going to be my Ranking Member. And, I certainly wish you well 

in your new assignment as well. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I promise not to go far. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 
6 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Morgan and Ms. Provost appears in the Appendix on 

page 46. 

Senator CARPER. It has been a pleasure to be here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You are still going to be on the Committee. 

Senator CARPER. A pleasure to be your wingman—you bet—and 

to serve with everybody. This is a good group. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We also have members, Chris Cabrera and 

other members of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC)—and 

we appreciate their attendance, as well as look forward to working 

with them, again, to make that commitment to secure our border, 

in 2017 and beyond. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will both rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the 

testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. MORGAN. I do. 

Ms. PROVOST. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Mark Morgan. Mr. Morgan is the current 

Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, within the Department of Homeland Security. Chief Morgan 

is the first person from outside of the Agency to be appointed Chief 

of the U.S. Border Patrol. He began his career in Federal law enforcement in 1996, as a Special Agent at the Los Angeles (L.A.) 

Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). During 

his tenure with the FBI, he held numerous key leadership positions. And, in a little more full-blown biography here, I see that he 

supervised an FBI-led hispanic gang task force that focused on the 

emerging presence of two organized and violent transnational 

gangs in Southern California: Mara Salvatrucha (MS–13) and the 

18th Street gang. I think that relates directly to a lack of border 

security, so we will probably want to ask some questions on that. 

Chief Morgan, you have the floor. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK A. MORGAN,1 CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MORGAN. Good morning. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to allow us to talk, today, about the United 

States Border Patrol. 

During my first 4 months as Chief, I have had the privilege to 

travel to 11 sectors to meet with thousands of United States Border 

Patrol agents, staff, and leadership from the Northern, Southern, 

and Coastal borders, as well as the United States Border Patrol 

Academy headquarters, here in D.C., the K9 training facility, and 

our Special Operations Group (SOG) in El Paso. 

In all of these interactions across the country, one thing was consistent and abundantly clear: The men and women of the United 

States Border Patrol have one of the toughest jobs in Federal law 

enforcement. They are the most assaulted Federal law enforcement 

in the United States. More than 7,400 Border Patrol agents have 

been assaulted since 2006. That rose, in fiscal year 2016, by 20 per-
7 

cent. Year-to-date (YTD), we are seeing an increase of assaults of 

200 percent from the previous YTD. It is a dangerous job. And, in 

my short time here, two Border Patrol agents have already been 

killed in the line of duty: Agents Manny Alvarez and David Gomez. 

They are faced with unforgiving terrain and weather, limited resources, long hours, and adverse conditions. And, they are often 

called upon to go above and beyond what they have been trained 

to do. They are tenacious in their pursuit of getting better, they are 

innovative, and they have a ‘‘can-do’’ attitude. They are dedicated 

to the mission, this country, themselves, and to doing something 

greater than themselves. I am honored to be serving with them. 

These are my first—and most important—observations in my first 

4 months here. 

Therefore, one of my focuses during my tenure, will be to continue to be their relentless advocate and to provide them with the 

tools, training, resources, and common-sense policies that they 

need to do their jobs effectively and safely. 

Over my 30-year career, the current challenges we face in 21st 

Century contemporary law enforcement are unparalleled. The 

United States Border Patrol team is committed to identifying how 

we can get better and continue to evolve, as an organization, to address the challenges we face. Here are just a few important areas 

of focus that I think we need to look at, as we move forward: 

Sustain and build the Border Patrol’s most valuable asset—our 

workforce; 

Focus on recruitment, retention, and diversity; 

Continue to improve on our threat-based, intelligence-driven, and 

operationally-focused strategy to increase our situational awareness and our competency levels across every mile of the United 

States border; 

Evaluate current policies and laws that directly impact our mission to protect our Nation’s borders, with an emphasis on broadening enforcement operations and increasing consequences for 

those illegally crossing our borders; 

And, reinforce our multilayered enforcement strategy and 

strengthen our situational awareness by continuing smart investments in infrastructure, technology, personnel, and operational assets. 

The same smart investments in our facilities need to continue to 

be a top priority as well. We need to enhance our agility, focusing 

both on mobile technology and a mobile workforce. 

We need to continue to strengthen our enforcement operations by 

expanding our intelligence-driven methodology, our counter-network strategies, our Air and Marine Operations (AMO), and our integrated operations with our partners, both domestically and internationally. 

We need to expand and integrate our information technology (IT) 

systems. We need to focus on the targeted expansion of our human 

intelligence base, our document exploitation capacity, and our collection and dissemination capabilities. 

We need to identify personnel needs across the spectrum of position classifications to ensure we have the correct balance of agents, 

staff, and intelligence analysts. 
8 

1The joint prepared statement of Ms. Provost and Mr. Morgan appears in the Appendix on 

page 46. 

We need to focus and determine alternatives, concerning the allocation of resources, in support of the current humanitarian mission 

that the United States Border Patrol is being asked to do in an effort to get badges back to the border. 

We need to develop a proactive communication strategy, in an effort to engage our internal and external partners and stakeholders. 

And, we need to enhance performance metrics to reflect our efforts toward our strategy, focusing on threats and our mitigation 

effectiveness. 

As we move forward, we will continue to focus on these priority 

areas—all of which will enhance the United States Border Patrol’s 

ability to detect, prevent, and respond to threats along our Nation’s 

borders. 

We look forward to sharing our efforts with the Committee in the 

future. I thank you for the opportunity to testify here, today, and 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Chief Morgan. 

Our next witness is Carla Provost. Ms. Provost is the current 

Deputy Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol at U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, within the Department of Homeland Security. Deputy 

Chief Provost is the first woman to be appointed Deputy Chief in 

the Agency’s 92-year history. In her 20-year career, Deputy Chief 

Provost has held nearly every position in the U.S. Border Patrol, 

including Chief Patrol Agent of the El Centro Sector. 

Deputy Chief Provost. 

TESTIMONY OF CARLA PROVOST,1 DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. PROVOST. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Carper, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to be here, today, alongside Chief Morgan. This is a proud moment for me, as this is my first appearance at a Congressional 

hearing, representing the dedicated and hardworking men and 

women of the United States Border Patrol. 

Though today marks 1 month into my current position as Deputy 

Chief, I have spent the majority of my professional law enforcement career—nearly 22 years—serving in the U.S. Border Patrol. 

During that time, I have seen quite an evolution. I entered on duty 

with the Border Patrol in January 1995. And, as an agent in the 

field, in both urban and remote border environments, I worked 

alongside my colleagues to address threats ranging from illegal immigration, smuggling, and trafficking to terrorism, by targeting, detecting, and interdicting potentially dangerous people and materials. 

I was also significantly involved with the training and management aspects of Border Patrol operations across four different sectors, in all four States along the Southwest border, instructing 

agents in law, firearms, and bike patrol as well as directing sector 

budgets and human resources (HR), while overseeing operations. 
9 

When I first came on board, there were less than 5,000 Border 

Patrol agents, nationwide. We were still processing on typewriters, 

and correction tape was worth its weight in gold. That year, we apprehended nearly 1.3 million people on the Southwest border, 

alone. As you can imagine, we did not possess the tools or the technology that agents use, today. Back then, it was common for the 

border to be marked by little more than a three-strand barbed wire 

fence or, in many places, nothing at all. We relied on 1960s-era aircraft for aerial support and, sometimes, homemade sensors and 

lighting to notify us of illicit activity. 

In the year 2000, we hit our high watermark of more than 1.6 

million apprehensions, nationwide. With that, came a renewed 

focus on border security, and the tragedy of the attacks on September 11, 2001 (9/11) only intensified that commitment. 

As I progressed, so did the Border Patrol. We began hiring new 

agents in earnest, growing our presence along the border, dramatically. Not only did this increase our situational awareness, but it 

also impacted local businesses and the economy. Growth in many 

areas along the border seemed to mirror our own. Newer technology, to include sensors, night vision, and remote video surveillance, began to improve our capabilities. New tools, like tasers and 

pepperball launching systems, gave us new and different approaches for uses of force. Thanks to Congress, we received new patrol roads and fencing in strategic locations as well as saw improvement in many of those already in existence. 

Here in Washington, I led the stand-up of CBP’s Use of Force 

Center of Excellence, which is now known as the ‘‘Law Enforcement Safety and Compliance Directorate,’’ dedicated to optimizing 

the safety, readiness, accountability, and operational performance 

of CBP law enforcement personnel by articulating use of force policy and supplying the highest-quality education and training to our 

agents and officers. 

I also served as the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), overseeing compliance 

with all CBP-wide programs and policies relating to corruption, 

misconduct, internal security, and integrity awareness. I am proud 

to have the opportunity to bring my field experience and perspective to the U.S. Border Patrol headquarters. 

I look forward to working with Chief Morgan and all of my colleagues in the Border Patrol, CBP, and our many partners to enhance our operations, to protect our Nation’s borders, and to ensure 

the safety of the public that we serve. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to 

your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Deputy Chief Provost. 

I will start the questioning with Chief Morgan. Obviously, I am 

concerned about the continued flow of UACs for a host of reasons. 

Because we have not ended the incentives for people to come into 

this country illegally, children continue to take the very dangerous 

journey, through Mexico, to come to this country. And, lives are 

being lost and assaults are perpetrated on them—and these children become real victims. 
10 

Talk a little bit about how the flow of UACs—how that overstresses your resources and how it distracts from your other missions. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. I refer to the Border Patrol’s involvement 

with UACs and family units as a humanitarian one, at this point. 

We know that, basically, of the other than Mexicans (OTMs)— 

which now is about 63 percent of our apprehensions—to include 

single family males—focusing on just UACs and family units, 

alone, on the OTM side—it is about 43 percent or 44 percent of our 

overall apprehensions. In the Rio Grande Valley (RGV), alone, it is 

probably closer to around 50 percent. It takes an exorbitant 

amount of resources and funding to sustain those operations, knowing that, basically, 100 percent of those family units and UACs are 

released into the United States. That is why I call that a humanitarian mission. 

I refer back to midnight one evening when I was in a sector, 

where I saw a 6-year-old and an 11-year-old, who had made the 

trek from Honduras, holding hands. I do not refer to that 6-yearold and that 11-year-old as national security or law enforcement 

threats. But, again, the Border Patrol is dedicating a tremendous 

amount of resources to taking those folks in and to processing 

them. 

At times, a lot of resources are dedicated to being professional 

child care providers, at this point. In RGV, alone, we have actually 

just established a second central processing center (CPC). Each one 

of those processing centers takes about 100 to 120 agents to man 

and is dedicated, basically 100 percent, to processing and taking 

care of the family units and UACs. We just recently opened up a 

temporary holding facility in Tornillo, Texas to help with that. The 

Ursula facility, in McAllen, Texas—as I know everybody is familiar 

with—that comes at a high cost as well to be able to run that facility and provide those resources. 

Recently, when I traveled to RGV, the Patrol Agent in Charge 

(PAC)—the supervisor that was in charge said, ‘‘Chief, we are 

going to do whatever this country asks us to do, but I never 

thought, in my 20 years, that I would be, as part of the procurement, ordering baby powder and baby wipes.’’ Actually, I just came 

from one sector, where one of the agents’ jobs during the day is to 

actually make sure that the food—the burritos that were provided—are being warmed properly. It takes a tremendous amount 

of resources to do this. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Can you talk about the realities on the border, when you have a surge—let us say 50 or 100 UACs and family 

members—the way they can be used as a diversion for higher-value 

smuggling, whether it is drug, human, or sex trafficking? Is that 

not the reality of what is actually happening? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, we have information that, absolutely, smugglers use that as a distraction. Yes, sir. And, again, the resources— 

it is absolutely impacting—as the Chief of the United States Border 

Patrol, I am comfortable in saying that the humanitarian mission—with the UACs and family units—it is impacting our ability 

to perform, I think, our national security and law enforcement mission. I am taking a considerable amount of resources and agents 

away from the border to take care of this mission. 
11 

Chairman JOHNSON. This is a problem we have not solved. And, 

I will read a quote from back on July 9, 2014. When Chairman 

Carper, at the time, called a hearing on this. Senator Carper said, 

‘‘How do we change the mindset, to turn off the flow, so the parents 

will say, ‘I want my kid to stay here and have an opportunity, have 

a future here’? How do we do that? ’’ And, I think it was the right 

question, in terms of how do we stop the flow. And, I think we 

probably have some difference of opinions, in terms of the effective 

way to stop the flow. I think Senator Carper—again, I would love 

to improve the conditions in Central America, so that there is not 

the incentive—the ‘‘push factor.’’ But, I am always talking about 

the ‘‘pull factor.’’ And, if we put up our other chart, of just UACs, 

we see that, of the children that have come here unaccompanied in 

2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016—at least the last 3 years—we are returning less than 4 percent. And so, is the reality not that, if you 

come as a UAC from Central America, and you get into this country—and, by the way, it is easy to get in here. You just turn yourself in and you are apprehended, you are processed, and you are 

dispersed. And, they have access to social media, so more children 

and more families in Central America realize this—and it creates 

an incentive: pay the fee and take the dangerous journey, because, 

if you get into America, you are going to stay. Is that not an enormous problem—and one of the reasons why we have not solved this 

problem? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. When we talk about ‘‘push-pull factors,’’ 

if we go back just a little while, in 2006, 90 percent of those we 

were apprehending were Mexican nationals. And, now, we are at 

36 percent. Why? Well, there are a couple of things that happened 

to explain why we see that dramatic decrease. One is a solid consequence delivery system, and there are a couple of things that 

happened. 

One is that we instituted expedited removal (ER), so that the individuals knew that, when they came, they were being held, and 

then they were being removed. That was a consequence. They knew 

that. It served as a strong deterrence. 

The other thing—one example is—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me just interrupt you. So, that is with 

Mexicans? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Or Canadians. But, talk about the difference between Mexicans and UACs or family units from Central 

America. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. So, what is happening with the UACs 

and family units—the OTMs, as we call them, from Central America—it is, basically, the same thing—is, right now, they know that, 

if they make it to the border, they will be released into the interior 

of the United States. Generally, that is done through a Notice to 

Appear (NTA). Border Patrol—we do not do that. We process them, 

as we normally do, and then we hand them over to the next Agency 

in the ‘‘whole-of-government approach’’—and then, that is done. 

But, that is the reality—they come to the borders, and they are 

being released. And, what that does is, it sends a strong message 

to those folks in the country that, if you get to the United States 

border, we are going to let you in. So, it is a huge ‘‘pull factor.’’ 
12 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, if we would go back to the process of expedited removal—with humanity—bring these kids and send them 

right back to Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, we would dramatically reduce the incentive—and my guess is, we would dramatically reduce the flow. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. And, that is why I was using the Mexican 

national example, because we used that same concept and, again, 

from 2006 we went from 90 percent to 36 percent. We reduced that 

‘‘pull factor’’ by instituting a system of consequences and expedited 

removal. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Deputy Chief Provost, I do not know whether you were involved, but we had a surge from Brazil. And, Secretary Michael Chertoff, at the time, had expedited removal. And, 

the surge ended. Is that not correct? 

Ms. PROVOST. Yes. So, in 2005, we did have a surge from Brazil. 

We had received the authority to conduct expedited removal, starting the year prior. We did start utilizing that, and when we delivered the consequence of the expedited removal—and then, actually, 

the physical removal to Brazil—the numbers did decrease. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Again, thank you very much for 

your testimonies and for your leadership for a short period of 

time—and actually for a long period of time, Ms. Provost. I will reiterate, again, that we need secure borders, and we need to have 

a strong, well-equipped, and well-trained Border Patrol force. I believe we have that—and probably the best we have ever had—certainly the most expensive we have ever had, because of the money 

that we spend to support the thousands of people who work under 

your leadership. 

I want to tell a quick story. I have told this before. Some of my 

colleagues have heard about it. I want to tell it again. Delaware 

has three counties. John McCain was once in our largest county, 

Sussex County, where we welcomed him, in one of his earlier campaigns. And, it is the third largest county in the country. We raise 

more chickens there than in any other county in America—and we 

process a lot of chickens. And, some of the folks who process those 

chickens come from Guatemala. And so, we have a significant Guatemalan presence in Sussex County. 

Two years ago, when the surge of UACs really got going, I was 

down in Sussex County at a place called La Esperanza—‘‘The 

Hope.’’ And, what they do there is, for the folks who show up on 

our doorstep, they try to provide some assistance for them, rather 

than just turn a deaf ear to them. 

During my meeting with them, they told me of a boy—a teenaged 

boy, who had arrived in Sussex County, recently, with his sister 

and their family. They told me this story that he told them. He 

said that, when he was 13 years old, he was approached by a gang 

in Guatemala. And, they said, ‘‘We want you to join the gang.’’ 

And, he said, ‘‘Well, let me talk to my parents.’’ So, he talked his 

parents, and they said, ‘‘We do not want you to be in any gang.’’ 

He ended up talking to the gang members—they approached him, 

again, a couple of weeks later, and said, ‘‘We want you to be in our 
13 

gang. Are you ready to join us?’’ He said, ‘‘I talked it over with my 

parents, and it is not something I want to do.’’ 

They did not receive this very well. And, a couple of weeks later, 

they said to him, ‘‘Have you changed your mind?’’ He said, ‘‘No, I 

have not.’’ And, they said, ‘‘If you do not change your mind, somebody in your family is going to die. Somebody is going to die.’’ He 

talked to his family. They said, ‘‘Join the gang.’’ And, he joined the 

gang. 

A couple of months later, for his initiation as a gang member, 

one of the requirements that he had to undertake was to rape his 

13-year-old sister. That was part of the initiation. And, he went 

home and told his parents. They said to him and his sister, ‘‘You 

are out of here. We are going to get you out of this country.’’ 

I dare say that if any of us lived in that kind of an environment 

with our kids, we would probably want them to be out of Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador—whatever country it was—and 

into a safer place. 

One of our witnesses—Holly, what was the name of that witness? 

You all may remember Bishop Mark Seitz. He is from El Paso, 

Texas. He was a witness 1 year or 2 years ago. He shared this 

analogy with us. He talked about a house. And, he talked about the 

fire department, and the fire department coming to the house and 

setting the house on fire. The fire department setting the house on 

fire, and then locking the doors and driving away. That was the 

analogy that he used. And, the reason why they have the kind of 

violence down there is, in large part, because of us—because of our 

addiction to drugs and the flow of the drugs through those nations. 

And, they come to our borders—and we send them guns and 

money, as I said earlier. 

So, what do we do about that? We have done great stuff on the 

border. We have great representation. You have explained some of 

what we are doing. We can always do more. And, we have been 

very generous, I think, in terms of our support for the assets—and 

whether it is walls, fences, or dirigibles—you name it, whatever— 

unmanned aircraft—all kinds of stuff. But, when you have a country where you have 15,000 small businesses extorted in a single 

year—basically, shut down—we know that small businesses are 

where jobs come from, in this country and, frankly, in other countries—15,000 shut down, because of extortion threats—that is just 

a loser. And, the kinds of threats that I just explained—just from 

the stories I heard in person—that has to be a part of the solution 

as well. It cannot be just us. 

Twenty years ago—Senator McCain will recall that, 20 years ago, 

somebody started ‘‘Plan Colombia’’. And, ‘‘Plan Colombia’’ was not 

the United States coming down and solving all of their problems. 

‘‘Plan Colombia’’ would say, ‘‘You have a problem here, and you 

have to fix your problem, but we are going to help you, because we 

are complicit’’—with our addiction to cocaine, at the time. ‘‘We are 

complicit, and we are going to help you as well.’’ 

So, having said that, there is a reason why—and I think, Deputy 

Chief, you mentioned that, in your first year on the job as a Border 

Patrol Agent—I think you said that there were 1.3 million people 

coming across our borders and being taken into custody. It peaked 

at 1.6 million. And, it used to be, in those earlier days, that they 
14 

were mostly Mexican. Today, there are more Mexicans going back 

into Mexico than are coming out. But, all of those people are coming out of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. What more can 

we do to make the ‘‘needle in the haystack’’—we can make either 

the haystack smaller or the needles bigger, and some of that involves work that is going to take place in those three countries. 

Give us some advice. How does comprehensive immigration reform 

help—particularly, when there is a guest worker program, where 

folks can come up from these countries, work for a while, and go 

back legally? Please. 

Mr. MORGAN. First of all, I think Comprehensive Immigration 

Reform (CIR) is definitely needed, and we fully support that. You 

just alluded to a couple of examples of that. 

Absolutely, there are definite ‘‘push factors’’: weak economies and 

a weak government. In some cases, violence, family reunification, 

and economic equality are also factors. Those are all true, and I 

agree with that. 

I think, from the United States Border Patrol perspective—again, 

I am just looking at the facts—and, like I said, when we do institute a really well-thought-out consequence delivery system, we do 

see that positively impacting the flow—meaning it does go down. 

That is definitely factual, and we can show that over the years. 

I think we need to have a facilitated discussion as well about 

some current law and policy. And, I can give you one example: 

credible fear. So, we know, right now, that smuggling organizations 

are absolutely using and exploiting a credible fear. We know that 

they are coaching individuals on specifically what to say when they 

come here. They just rattle off—and they memorize the magic 

words that they need to say, so that they will fall within the statute of credible fear. We think that that is being exploited. We think 

that it has been going far beyond the original intent of the purpose 

of credible fear, like sort of the example you just used. Right? That 

is what credible fear is supposed to be used for, absolutely—but we 

know it is being exploited. 

So, I think that is one thing that we can do, as a part of CIR— 

to take a look at those policies, where it makes sense, and try to 

have a good facilitated discussion. Are there some adjustments that 

need to be done going forward? 

Credible fear, alone—from 2000 to 2013, less than 1 percent of 

those coming across were claiming credible fear. Today, it has exponentially gone up—and it has continued to rise. We see that as an 

issue. 

Again, going back to the NTA, we know that that is definitely a 

‘‘pull factor.’’ We know that they are communicating, and they are 

like, ‘‘Hey, it does not matter. If you get here, you will be released. 

You say these magic words’’—even if you do not say the magic 

words, you are still going to be let into this country. 

I think we need to have a discussion about our utilization of the 

NTA, to make sure that we are really applying it where it is needed, going forward. I think that needs to be part of the facilitated 

discussion on immigration reform. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, I would 

just say one last quick sentence, if I could. I have said this before. 

I think it pertains to this discussion and is still appropriate, today. 
15 

No silver bullet to resolve it. No silver bullet. A lot of silver BBs. 

Some are bigger than others—and we need to do them all. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. And, again, I 

really appreciate the well-attended hearing, here. So, let us really 

keep it to 7 minutes. I would ask the Senators as well as the witnesses to keep the questions and answers within the 7 minutes, 

and we will proceed. And, everybody can have a chance to ask 

questions. Senator Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

having the hearing today, because it is a critical time. And, Chief 

Morgan, welcome to the Committee. And, to you, Deputy Chief Provost, and your officers out there, in the field, we appreciate what 

you guys do every day. As we heard earlier, it is under tough circumstances. And, to a certain extent, you are working under constraints that make it difficult for you to do your jobs. 

I am going to change the topic a little bit and talk about drugs, 

and, particularly, the transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) 

that bring those drugs across our border. As you know, this Congress—this Senate and the House—has acted, and the President 

has signed legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA). Senator Ayotte has just joined us. She is one 

of the original co-authors of that, and many Members of this Committee have been involved with it. It is important legislation. It is 

groundbreaking. It is really historic, in the sense that it focuses a 

lot on the demand side. 

We have had other witnesses before this Committee, who have 

talked about the importance of reducing the demand for drugs. It 

focuses on prevention, education, treatment, and recovery, as well 

as helps to get prescription drugs off of the shelves. That is all important. We have an opportunity, in the next couple of days here, 

actually, to look at new legislation to put even more money into 

those efforts—and we all think that is important. I believe that is 

really the core. 

But, there is still a huge issue with these drugs coming across 

the border. We have the opportunity to be able to increase the price 

of these drugs by better enforcement. Some statistics that I have 

seen indicate that we are stopping only about 1.5 percent to 2 percent of these drugs that are coming across the border. 

Recently, we had testimony before this Committee, indicating 

that about 100 percent of the heroin and about 90 percent of the 

cocaine is coming across the border—much of it, of course, from 

Mexico—particularly, with regard to heroin. And, even 

methamphetamines—most of the methamphetamines are now coming across the border from Mexico. 

And so, my question to you all is: What can you do better to stop 

these drugs, increase the price, and stop some of the consequences 

of these transnational criminal organizations, which not only add 

to crime here, in this country, but, of course, make these other governments—Mexico, Central American countries, Colombia, and so 

on—much more vulnerable to corruption? And, frankly, if you look 

at these numbers, they are increasing—not decreasing. 
16 

So, I guess my first question to you is: Are my statistics right? 

Are we only stopping about 1 percent or 2 percent of these drugs 

that are coming over the border—this poison that is coming into 

our communities? Do you think that is accurate? 

Ms. PROVOST. Sure. First and foremost, I would say that—as you 

know and you mentioned—the amount coming across—we track everything that we apprehend. And, you are correct. We are having 

a number of drugs: methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana crossing our borders. 

That being said, we use all of the resources that we can, to the 

best of our ability, to try to detect and apprehend—whether it be 

at the ports of entry at the border—or Border Patrol agents as 

well, with our multilayered approach, further into the country. We 

use our resources, such as our K9s. We are continuously trying to 

improve the training for our agents, so that we are better at interdicting. 

That being said, the unknown is a difficult thing to measure for 

us. We do know that our numbers thus far this year, for FY 2017 

YTD, everything has been trending down—except for 

methamphetamines, which are up slightly, at this point, year to 

date, compared to FY 2016. But, we will—— 

Senator PORTMAN. If I could just interrupt you for a second, Deputy, that concerns us, because we see an increase in overdose 

deaths. We are now seeing about 120 people dying a day in this 

country—five a day in my home State of Ohio, alone. Everybody on 

the front lines is saying the same thing, which is that it is getting 

worse—not better. And, this is the source of the biggest increase, 

which is heroin. 

The other one is carfentanil and fentanyl as well as U–47700 

(U4) and the synthetics, which are coming by mail, primarily. 

Ms. PROVOST. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. Which you have less control over, although 

you guys hear a lot about that, too. And, the Synthetics Trafficking 

and Overdose Prevention Act of 2016 (STOP Act of 2016), which 

some of us are proposing, will help there. But, you are saying that 

you are apprehending less of it. And yet, we are seeing more of it 

in our communities. 

Ms. PROVOST. Well, that is just through the beginning of FY 

2017. So, the last 2 months, our numbers are down slightly, but 

they are trending very closely, across the board, to where they were 

last year. 

When we talk about how much we interdict, that is a difficult 

number to determine, because it is difficult to say what we do not 

know. That being said, we use all of the resources that we have, 

to the best of our ability, to try to interdict. It is a focus for us. 

It has been, over my entire career within the Border Patrol. We 

have many more tools now, than we did in the past, to assist us. 

We have grown in our capacity, with K9 officers and such—utilizing other sources to help us—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Deputy, let me just interrupt you, again, because my time is ending here. You say that you are using every resource that you have at your disposal. And yet, my understanding 

is, you have not asked for help from Operation Phalanx, for instance, which is a Department of Defense (DOD) operation, and 
17 

which would help, in terms of monitoring, and would help also, in 

terms of just the transporting—because some of these drugs come 

in, as I understand it, illegally, by air, just across the border, on 

small strips. Why are you not accessing some of these DOD resources that are available to you? 

Mr. MORGAN. Sir, we actually are in dialogue to continue that operation. I know there is—— 

Senator PORTMAN. So, you are changing your view on that? And, 

you are going to ask for their help? 

Mr. MORGAN. From my perspective, as the Chief of the United 

States Border Patrol, I agree with you: We need the help. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you need additional resources, beyond Operation Phalanx, to be able to do your job? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. I think that is important for this Committee 

to hear, because, again, I do not know if it is 1.5 percent or 2 percent that you are actually able to stop, but it is a very small number. I think you would agree with that. And, you indicated that you 

are using all of the resources that you have. You have new detection and monitoring capabilities, but, obviously, it is not working— 

to be able to stop this flow of the poisons. And, again, some of it 

is stopping it—some of it is increasing the cost. Ultimately, I think 

the cure is going to come from the demand side. But, we have to 

be able to do a better job at the border. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, I agree. And, it really goes to that threatbased, intelligence-driven, and operationally-focused approach as 

well. So, we need to increase our counter-network strategies. We 

need to work through initiatives, like Operation Stonegarden 

(OPSG), with our domestic partners. We need to work with—continue to work with our international partners—Canada and Mexico 

as well. We need to really take the fight to the enemy, and stop 

it, before it even touches the border. Those are all things we are 

doing, but we need to get better at—— 

Senator PORTMAN. I am going to ask you, if you would, to submit 

in writing, to the Committee, what you need from the U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG), from our military—in terms of Operation Phalanx 

and other resources—from the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA), and from other Federal Agencies—and how we can be helpful to you, in order to really begin to make progress on increasing 

these apprehensions and stopping the flow of some of these poisons. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could I just mention, Mr. Chairman, in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), there is a requirement 

to use drones. Right now, drones are flying out of Fort Huachuca, 

Arizona, and you are not coordinating with them, which is crazy. 

So, there is a requirement, in the NDAA, that you coordinate with 

the military to use the drones to surveil the border. 

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, things are not improving, as far as 

manufactured Mexican heroin is concerned. It is an epidemic. And, 

just because it is slightly better—that is totally unsatisfactory. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Baldwin. 
18 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Morgan, I will narrow this, in a moment, to a question that 

I hope you will be able to answer. But, I just want to give voice 

to the fact that I have been hearing, as a Senator in the State of 

Wisconsin—and, certainly, from reading stories in the news—reports of a significant escalation of harassment, bullying, and incidents of hate directed toward immigrants, toward African Americans, toward Muslims, and toward other minorities in recent 

weeks. And, it has been very distressing to hear some of my constituents’ accounts. 

Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is 

tracking some of the hateful incidents in the weeks after our recent 

election, said that anti-immigrant incidents were the most common 

type of harassments that have been reported. 

In my home State, I have received communication from a wide 

number of individuals. I heard from a father in the community of 

Tomahawk, Wisconsin, who told me, ‘‘While in school, my son, who 

is adopted from Guatemala, was approached by a classmate and 

was told to pack his bags for Mexico.’’ 

A few weeks ago, there was a documented report of a piece of 

anonymous hate mail that had been sent to a family in Fitchburg, 

Wisconsin. The letter to the family, which includes 11 adopted children from the United States, from Ghana, and from China, read, 

in part, ‘‘Trump won. Go home. Race wars are on.’’ 

It is not only happening in Wisconsin, as I mentioned. It is 

across the country—and it is deeply concerning to me—and goes 

against the values that we hold as Americans. 

I have also heard from constituents in the immigrant community 

about their very real fears concerning potential anti-immigrant 

policies, under the incoming Administration. For example, I have 

heard from legal green card holders that they are afraid to travel 

in the next few months, because they fear that they may be turned 

away or be subject to additional scrutiny when they seek to return 

to the United States. 

And so, I want to ask you, in connection with helping to reassure 

my constituents, and other legal immigrants, that nothing will 

change in the U.S. Border Patrol’s process for determining immigration status—and if you might add—I would like to hear about 

the training that your officers receive on the treatment of individuals in the Border Patrol’s custody, including harassment and discrimination against immigrants and other minorities. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, ma’am. First of all, everything you just described goes against everything I personally believe as well, as an 

American. So, I agree with you 100 percent. 

As far as the United States Border Patrol, what we are doing 

and how we are doing it is not going to change. The current law 

and policy that we have been directed to operate under—that is 

what we will continue to operate. When that changes, then we will 

change. And, we will enforce the law and the policies that we are 

directed to. But, right now, we understand the law, and we understand the policies as they are written. The United States Border 

Patrol will comply with those policies going forward. There is not 
19 

going to be a change. Once there is immigration reform—and if 

there are new policies—we will adjust accordingly. 

As far as the training at the academy, it is absolutely a significant topic, at the academy. I think we, actually, have one of our 

best leaders leading the United States Border Patrol Academy in 

Chief Patrol Agent Dan Harris. Personally, I have had numerous 

conversations with him. In my former life, I was Assistant Director 

of the FBI’s Academy as well, where these things were talked 

about as well—implicit bias, etc. Those are critical things that we 

focus on and that we need to focus on—and we continue to focus 

on them. 

Senator BALDWIN. Can you provide any additional detail on the 

curriculum during the training, other than the broad comments 

you have just made? 

Mr. MORGAN. No, ma’am. I cannot provide like specific topic 

areas, but I can follow up and provide that 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. 

My understanding is that the U.S. Border Patrol is currently 50 

percent overcapacity at its holding facilities. And, I understand 

that you are in the process of building additional temporary facilities, which will continue to provide medical attention, clothing, and 

other resources to women and children, in particular. 

In addition to service on this Committee, as you know, I serve 

on the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And, with that in mind, can you speak to what 

resources are currently needed, with regard to dealing with overcapacity issues in your holding facilities? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, ma’am. Actually, Tornillo was one that we set 

up. It has a 500-bed capacity right now. It comes at a high cost. 

We are, actually, positioned to open up more, in other areas, where 

we do have an overflow. In some areas along the Southwest border, 

we are, actually, at more than over 100 percent capacity, in some 

of our areas. So, places—like in the temporary holding facilities, 

like Tornillo—it is necessary for us to deal with that overflow. 

It comes at a high cost, like you said. I mean, it is really from 

A to Z. And, it really is child-care professional stuff that we are 

doing—clothing them, feeding them, making sure that they get 

medical attention, making sure that they are able to sleep, making 

sure that they get appropriate meals during the day, making sure 

that they have snacks and that meals are warm, and all of that 

stuff that we should be providing a child and a mother or a father 

of that child. That is what we are doing. But, as the numbers continue and increase, our capacity becomes strained. And, we are 

having to go to extreme measures to make sure that we are doing 

the right thing. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I wanted to follow up on some of the questions that Senator 

Portman asked about the heroin and fentanyl interdiction at the 

Southern border. And, this is something that I have also focused 

on in the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), along with 
20 

the Chairman of that Committee, Chairman McCain, in terms of 

working with our leaders in the U.S. Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM) and the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), 

and enhancing their resources for interdiction there, because those 

networks, as I understand it, can be used to traffic anything. And 

so, it is a national security issue as well. 

So, can you tell me, what is it that would be the most helpful 

to you, in terms of really increasing our ability to interdict—especially as we think of the devastation that Senator Portman referenced, which we have seen in my State as well—when it comes 

to heroin and fentanyl? 

Mr. MORGAN. I think it has already, in part, been described by 

everybody here. And, you know it. First of all, we have to strengthen those partnerships. We have to strengthen that intelligence 

mechanism that really, through the counter-network operations— 

both domestically and with international partners—to really take 

the fight to them. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Mr. MORGAN. If they have made it to the border, we have kind 

of, in essence, already lost, right? So, we have really got to 

strengthen that intelligence apparatus. 

Senator AYOTTE. And, as I understand it, on the Senate Armed 

Services Committee there also is a rule, I think, for some of the 

role of our military, on the other—obviously their role—thinking 

about their partnerships. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, ma’am. And so, we also need to work with the 

intelligence community (IC) as well, and to make sure that the intelligence that we are gathering at the border, by the great men 

and women of the Border Patrol—the amount of information and 

intelligence they get at the border is overwhelming—in a good way. 

We need to make sure that the stuff that we know and the stuff 

that we get—that we are getting it to the right people, so that they 

can do what they need to do—that we are not able to do—in an 

overseas environment. It is absolutely right. We have to continue 

to strengthen that. We are doing it. We just need to get better at 

it. 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to ask about the Northern border. Senator Heitkamp and I have a bill, the Northern Border Security Review Act, that actually did pass the House last night. And, Chairman Johnson and Senator Peters are also on that bill, and I am 

appreciative of that. As a Northern border State, this, to me, is 

very important as well. And, I wanted to know if you were familiar 

with the Northern Border Security Review Act and what your view 

is, as to the potential issues at our Northern border. And, I know 

that those issues are issues that can impact our national security, 

so what is your assessment of where we are on the Northern border and what is your view of the Northern Border Security Review 

Act—and whether you think it would be helpful? 

Mr. MORGAN. So, first of all, I think the Act would be helpful. 

Anything that is going to have us further the dialogue and further 

focus on the Northern border is a good thing. I am trying to use 

the right adjective to talk about the Northern border—and we had 

the discussion yesterday. I think the right word I would use—I am 

‘‘concerned’’ about the Northern border and the threats that are 
21 

posed there. Obviously, we are not in a classified environment, so 

we have to be narrow in how we talk about that. But, again, I will 

go back to that threat-based, intelligence-driven, and operationallyfocused approach that we need to have. And, what we need to do 

is make sure that we are focused on threats—not just numbers. 

And, I will use an example really quickly. 

So, the interdiction effectiveness rate that we all know, I do not 

think that is a great measure. If we apprehended 100,000 gang 

members or 100,000 6-year-olds, the output of that measure will be 

the same. But, we are really not talking about the ‘‘so what’’ behind 

it. So, what I want to make sure—we can focus on numbers, because we have to deal with the numbers, but I want to make sure 

that, in all that we do—our allocation of resources, our requests for 

requirements and resources, and our measures and metrics—that, 

first and foremost, it is focused on the ‘‘so what’’ and it is focused 

on the threat—and not just on the activity and the numbers going 

forward. I think we need to continue to strengthen that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. Thank you both for what you do for 

the country. I appreciate it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank you 

both for your service to our country—the jobs you do. It is an awesome responsibility. I stand in humble gratitude to both of you for 

what you do on a daily basis. 

More than this, the job that you are doing is fundamental to the 

safety of my community and the State of New Jersey—as well as 

all of us. For some of the greatest threats we are facing as a Nation, you all are on the front lines protecting us. And, some of the 

most dogged issues that are undermining the safety and security 

of households, from drugs to terrorism, you all are the front lines. 

And, I am grateful for that. 

In addition to that, as a person who, under my leadership, when 

I was a mayor, I had over 1,000 sworn officers as well as other first 

responders—and many folks just do not know the kind of pressures 

and challenges front-line law enforcement face every single day— 

the incredible dangers and the unrelenting—sometimes—abuse 

that officers face. 

I want to just again echo the sentiments, I am sure, of all my 

colleagues, in just expressing the appreciation. When you talked 

about being the leading Agency with assaults to officers, that is 

very frustrating to me. And, I want to commit to you—and I am 

sure my colleagues agree—please reach out to me if there are 

things that we are not doing to support the mission that is central 

to your success of protecting the well-being of your officers, and giving them the resources they need to make sure they are doing what 

they need to do. 

I have a concern—under my leadership officers—and I did everything I could to drive down those analytics, including attacks 

against officers, making sure they had tools that could protect their 

safety—technologies to protect them. One thing I did not build out 

early, in my time as mayor, which came back as a shocker to me, 

because it violated my values—as I know it would yours—was I did 
22 

not build up a set of metrics to be able to measure how my officers 

were interacting with the public. And, the American Civil Liberties 

Union (ACLU), and others, were making allegations that I did not 

believe were true about racial profiling—disparate treatment. But, 

we were arguing over things that there was no transparent analytics to measure. So, you and I share the same values concerning 

the conduct of first responders. 

Now, the President’s 21st Century Task Force on Policing urges 

Federal law enforcement Agencies to collect, maintain, and analyze 

demographic data on all detentions—and added that, to embrace a 

culture of transparency, law enforcement Agencies should regularly 

post, on the Departments’ websites, information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and other law enforcement data 

aggregated by demographics. 

Once I saw my data and began to cooperate with the ACLU to 

make it public, I found that everything started getting better. The 

accountability started getting better and the like. You all do not 

collect data on stops. I was actually stunned to find that out, because I know that the integrity of your Agency—you would want 

to know, as a manager, who you are pulling over, racial demographics, and all of the things that the ACLU is compiling—also 

stunning data. The ACLU has uncovered over 6,000 pages of complaints, alleging abuse by Border Patrol agents, including racial 

profiling. Yet only one case has resulted in disciplinary action. 

I was in a similar situation with all of the evidence—very little 

disciplinary actions from me—until we started shining a light, 

using objective data. And so, I would like to know, again, why you 

are not collecting this data—really analyzing it and crunching it— 

and doing it in a transparent way that, first, could deflect a lot of 

the criticism often officers face, because some things are not true. 

But, second, it could help you, as managers, to better manage your 

Agency to the integrity that I know you both hold as professionals. 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, first of all, sir, thank you for your kind words 

about how tough it is to do this job. On behalf of the men 

and women of the United States Border Patrol, who are not in 

D.C.—so I am not in a dangerous position. They are on the front 

lines every day. So, on behalf of them, thank you, because I do 

think they have a dangerous job and they are on the front lines 

and they are protecting our families, so thank you very much. 

Second, to your statements, I agree with you—everything you 

just said. We should be doing that, for the exact reason that you 

said, I think also to shine a light very positively. I am going to turn 

it over to the Deputy Chief here, to talk about what we are collecting. I do know that we are—I actually think we are collecting 

most of that stuff. I think what we need to do is get better at analyzing that stuff and getting that stuff out to the public. I think 

that is what we need to do—get better at. 

With that, I am going to turn it over—— 

Senator BOOKER. Because this is the last time I will speak, can 

I get something from you about—you say, ‘‘I want to get better.’’ 

Are there deadlines and timelines that you have set for yourself to 

get better? And, then, the other things I would like to see from the 

Deputy Chief in the 1 minute and 50 seconds I have left—you are 

also, unfortunately, the lowest Federal Agency with law enforce-
23 

ment, in terms of representation of women. And, that is something 

that we found with other Federal Agencies is really important to 

address. And, obviously, we know what is happening in Arizona 

with the Federal ruling right now—another area of just figuring 

out analytics to measure the treatment of people once you have 

them detained. The conditions in that Federal case were stunning 

to me and I know do not reflect our common values and the ones 

I know you share. Thank you. 

Ms. PROVOST. If I may, just touching on the first point with the 

data collection, in my role in the Office of Professional Responsibility, following on the Chief’s role over there, we have been working diligently—or they are working diligently with both the Border 

Patrol and the CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO) to improve 

our transparency across CBP. As you know, that was one of the 

Commissioner’s priorities. He has said that numerous times. 

There is a lot of improvement on data collection. I will tell you 

we have further to go when it comes to that. The sheer size of our 

organization, with over 45,000 sworn officers—we are working on 

this together. It is something that we realize we need to continue 

to improve upon. We work closely with many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), in relation to any of their complaints. The Office of Professional Responsibility is expanding as well, to assist 

when it comes to investigations of any allegations against our employees. 

The Chief mentioned how high assaults have been. I can also tell 

you one statistic, though, is that our uses of force have decreased 

regularly over the last couple of years. So, we are showing improvement there. We are focusing on our work with the public in general, and we realize that there is need for improvement there. 

Just quickly, to touch on the representation of women, the Border Patrol does have a lower number of women. It has been around 

5 percent really for the 20 years that I have been in the Border 

Patrol. That being said, working with our Office of Human Resources Management, we are taking a lot of steps to try to improve 

and to seek out more women that are interested in this. I, myself, 

was a police officer before joining the Border Patrol. The Border 

Patrol is very different work from much other law enforcement 

work, and it has been an area that we have struggled to increase 

our number of women. But, we are working on that. I think we are 

making strides in that area, so that we have a more diverse workforce. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you both 

for being here, today. We appreciate your service to our Nation 

very much. 

I am encouraged by CBP’s engagement with DOD to increase efforts to facilitate and expedite the hiring of our veterans as they 

leave the service. And, while I certainly support your efforts, as a 

veteran with previous experience working at a job assistance center 

at Fort Benning in a Transition Assistance Program (TAP), I am 

very much aware of the numerous—there are more than I can 

count—and often overlapping Federal employment programs for 
24 

veterans. They reside in so many different Departments across the 

Federal Government. And, I have worked, therefore, with my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator John McCain, who is the 

sponsor of the Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015, to ensure that 

any efforts on this front actually achieve the goal of recruiting outgoing servicemembers for positions like yours. And, we really believe that this will help solve the fragmentation—or overlap—that 

we see in a number of those programs. 

Can you please provide the Committee with more details about 

how CBP is currently engaging with our DOD to help these retiring 

or transitioning servicemembers? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, ma’am. As a former—current—I guess I always consider myself a United States Marine. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. 

Mr. MORGAN. This is a great program. Our human resources, obviously, they would be able to give you more details, but I can tell 

you they actually won an award this year for their interaction with 

the military counterparts. And, we are seeing extreme positive benefits. They are increasing their recruitment events across the country at military installations—and abroad. 

A couple of other things they are looking at in detail—which I 

think is the right thing—a couple avenues of reciprocity, right? 

Physical fitness. You have somebody from the military. Do we really need to have them go through that again when they are already 

physically fit and they have already taken a physical fitness test 

within a certain time period? We are looking at reciprocity for a 

polygraph. If they have recently passed a polygraph, do we need to 

put them through another one? So, there are a lot of initiatives 

that our human resource division is looking at to increase that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could I just make a point? Right now, it takes 

18 months—right?—to receive the clearance, so that you can be 

employed by the Border Patrol. Right? 

Mr. MORGAN. Sir, it has actually improved dramatically now. 

They have reduced—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Why is it that a veteran cannot immediately be 

hired if that veteran has already gone through all of the screening? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, that is exactly what they are looking at. 

They are trying to look at all of those avenues—— 

Senator MCCAIN. All right. Let us do more than look at it, OK? 

It is outrageous. OK? Let us do it. 

Senator ERNST. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator MCCAIN. Sorry to interrupt my colleague. 

Senator ERNST. No, you are fine, Senator McCain. I think the 

point is very well taken that we have a huge number of qualified 

personnel that are leaving the service and they are well fit to go 

into Border Patrol. And, they are used to the extreme lifestyles 

that you engage in. So, it is a great fit—and with women as well, 

we have a great number of phenomenal women veterans that are 

exiting our services, and this would be a great place for them to 

further their careers. 

Senator CARPER. Would the Senator from Iowa yield for just one 

moment? 

Senator ERNST. Yes. 
25 

Senator CARPER. A point of clarification. Senator McCain is right, 

18 months is outrageous. You indicated it has been improved dramatically. To what extent? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. I am not sure of exact numbers, but I 

know that they have reduced that in half. I think we are looking 

at under a year right now. 

Senator CARPER. Come back to us in writing, if you would, 

please. Thank you. 

Mr. MORGAN. It has been improved. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could I just engage in a colloquy for a second? 

If you have a veteran, who is leaving the military and who has already had the clearances, why could you not hire that person immediately? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Why would it take a year? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. And so, I think my phrase ‘‘looking at’’ is 

probably not the right word. They are actively pursuing initiatives 

to make that happen. And, also, actually, the vast majority of folks 

that we are looking at do not necessarily have the clearances—and 

the backgrounds they went through are not quite as extensive as 

some of the backgrounds that we do. But, the point is taken. And, 

to say ‘‘looking at’’ is not the right way. They are actively pursuing 

every opportunity where they could expedite that and give that reciprocity—for every area that they can. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, what you can take away from this hearing is, you will have support for those initiatives—and the sooner 

the better. 

Senator CARPER. Bipartisan support. 

Senator ERNST. I appreciate—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the discussion, because you can see that this is a topic that we are all 

very passionate about. And, again, our servicemembers are a great 

fit for your organization. And so, we want to see active engagement. We want to see progress in this area. And, if there is a way 

that we can engage and do a better job at that, we need to. We 

need to. So, thank you. And, I would like to thank my Committee 

Members for engaging in that discussion as well. 

Chief Morgan, I would like to go back. You acknowledged, earlier 

in this hearing, that a number of the UACs are released into the 

interior of our country, which is concerning. I have grave concerns 

about how our government handles those UACs once they cross the 

border—and I will give you a very specific example. There was a 

UAC named Edwin Mejia who came across the border. He went on 

to kill a young woman, Sarah Root, who was from Iowa. And, we 

learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

had lost track of him once he had been released to his brother. 

Now, this gentleman has gone on to who knows where. We are 

uncertain where this person is. And, unfortunately, the family of 

Sarah Root has not been able to see justice. And, it is hard to say 

whether they will receive justice in their lifetimes. Sarah’s was, unfortunately, cut very short. 

So, I understand the difficulty of the problem that we have, when 

it comes to ‘‘pull factors,’’ and I would like to make sure that we 
26 

are addressing those ‘‘pull factors’’ that will pull others into our 

Nation. But, I also want to take a look at those ‘‘push factors,’’ 

too—and you have identified a number of reasons out there. Drug 

interdiction is one. We have people consuming drugs here in the 

country. They are getting drugs into our country. We do have many 

counter-drug training centers all across the United States. One is 

at Camp Dodge, Iowa, for the Midwest region. Can you speak a little bit to the involvement of our Iowa National Guard and National 

Guards all across the country—Air and Army—and their counterdrug programs? Is that beneficial to your organization? 

Mr. MORGAN. It kind of goes back to the Operation Phalanx. I 

think that anytime that we can leverage our National Guard and 

our military assets, it is a good thing. And so, where we are able 

to do that, it has absolutely had a positive impact. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. And, that is something that you believe that we should continue to invest in? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, ma’am. And, if you talk—I forget what sector 

I was in, and I was talking—actually, one of the CBP pilots was 

actually a National Guard pilot as well. And so, we had a really 

good dialogue. He actually let me fly the helicopter for a little bit. 

I am not sure I was supposed to say that. But, we had a really good 

dialogue. And, what we talked about was, he actually felt that National Guard members—he was not sure who got more out of it— 

the Border Patrol or actually the pilots who are participating in 

that, because that is about as realistic training-wise as you can get 

to support the Border Patrol operations. So, it truly is a win-win. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Well, I appreciate it. Thank you very 

much for your time here. We had a very lively discussion. But, certainly there are things that we need to do better as Congress. We 

need to know what those things are and how we can enable you. 

So, thank you very much for your time and attention this morning. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you to 

both of our witnesses for your service to our country and your 

work. It is a difficult job that you have, and I know both of you 

are fairly new to your positions, but you are both also very seasoned, so you have hit the ground running. And, I thank you for 

that, Chief Morgan, and Deputy Chief Provost as well. We spoke 

a little before the hearing, and I am particularly impressed, Deputy 

Chief Provost, by the fact that you have spent so much time in the 

field. I am sure that the perspective you bring from the field will 

be very much appreciated at headquarters, as well as appreciated 

by the men and women who are in the field each and every day. 

So, thank you both for what you do. 

Chief Morgan, I know that, as you have been diving into this job, 

you have been focused on making it a priority to visit patrol offices 

all across the country. As the Senator from Michigan, I hope that 

it is going to be a priority for you to get to Michigan soon as well, 

on the Northern border, which represents a number of unique challenges. And, certainly, in every region of the country, we can all 

talk about our unique challenges, but one in particular for us is the 
27 

Great Lakes environment in Michigan and the fact that we have 

seasons—and winter—and, in fact, as we know from previous hearings, talking about protecting the maritime environment—and we 

have heard from CBP as well as the U.S. Coast Guard—when you 

have a thick ice cover, you can then walk across large parts of that 

border. The Coast Guard ships—even if they have ice breakers— 

are not going to be able to have that kind of monitoring system, 

so there are some unique challenges for you. And, you will learn— 

I am sure you are aware of it already, but you will learn more 

about that when you go to Michigan. 

I am going to ask you a direct question. Are you planning on 

doing that soon? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator PETERS. Well, good. Good. It would be good to go in the 

winter when you see the ice, itself, to get a sense of some of those 

challenges. 

The other thing that I wanted to pick up on, too, just briefly— 

and to pick up on both Senator Baldwin and Senator Booker’s concerns—because, certainly, I hear those concerns in my community 

as well. As you know, Michigan is a very diverse State. We have 

a larger Latino population, but, particularly, a large Arab-American, Muslin-American community. There are some real concerns 

that I have heard as well from folks who are fearful about what 

the future may hold for them. It is a real concern that we need to 

deal with. 

But, I have also heard from my stakeholders in this debate, from 

Southeast Michigan, around Detroit, where we have very large concentrations of folks from all over the world. And, they have also 

been very appreciative, though, of the Border Patrol and the close 

communication that they have with the local sector chief there. 

These meetings, I understand, have gone a long way in building 

trust. There have been some very positive things that have come 

out of that. And so, they asked me to encourage you to continue 

that kind of open dialogue and perhaps to get some feedback as you 

are starting in this position. How do you think that kind of communication is continuing with sector chiefs—and are there other 

things that you would like to see that we can go further in? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, absolutely. In fact, back at headquarters, 

we are actually starting a new unit, Strategic Communications. It 

is really all things communications, both internal and external. 

There is a great phrase, right? ‘‘It is harder to hate up close.’’ We 

have to get out there. Our leadership has to get out there. I have 

gone around, again, to 11 sectors and many stations. And, the 

PACs that I have talked to that are out there and that are leading 

the way—the agents that are out there. It is not just the leadership. You go there, and it is the individual relationships that the 

agents have with the ranchers and with the community. They go 

so far in helping that perspective and really bringing everybody together. 

So, the more we talk, the more that we can be involved. It is a 

positive thing, and I have encouraged that from day one—and will 

continue to encourage that. 

Senator PETERS. Well, that is wonderful to hear. And, if I may, 

we could be involved when you come to Michigan. Let us know 
28 

when you are there. Perhaps, we could assist in connecting you 

with some groups of individuals who have concerns and would love 

to have the opportunity to meet you personally and to have a discussion about some of their experiences. If we could facilitate that, 

we certainly would appreciate that. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. And, I think those have been some of the 

most informed discussions I have had—sitting down and breaking 

bread with the ranchers and talking to the community, absolutely. 

So, we will absolutely do that. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Well, I appreciate that. 

I also want to pick up on—Senator Ayotte talked about the 

Northern Border Security Review Act, which I worked on with her, 

Senator Heitkamp, and Chairman Johnson to pass. It is now 

through both the House and the Senate. And, Chief Morgan, you 

mentioned some aspects of what we are concerned about in making 

sure the resources are being appropriately allocated, both to the 

Southern border and to the Northern border. You talked about the 

Northern border strategy and how we have to have a threat-based 

approach and look at that and not just the numbers. And so, I 

would like you to just speak to that a little bit more—dive in a little bit deeper. And, the fact that I know you have resource constraints—you have to be in both places. You have long borders. The 

Northern border is considerably longer than the border we have in 

the South. How is that being done now—and your idea that we 

need to be more focused on threat-based issues? How do you see 

that changing? And, is there anything we need to do here, at the 

Congressional level, to help you make those kinds of informed decisions that are going to ensure we have proper resources, both in 

the South and in the North? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. So, there are a couple of things going on 

right now. So, there is one initiative we have, called the Capability 

Gap Analysis Process (CGAP). Basically, what that is—it is a pretty decent process that we are going through that should tell us 

where our resources are needed—regardless of only numbers. We 

are really, again, looking at it in a holistic way. 

We also are doing the same with personnel and Personal Radiation Detectors (PRDs). It is, again, a system to look at personnel 

needs on a series of factors. 

As I am reviewing that, though, the challenges that I have with 

that are it is really—I find those systems to be a little bit too focused on the activity base—meaning numbers. And so, I am asking 

questions about those to make sure that we are pushing the threat 

in there, because somehow—again, I use the analogy of the 100,000 

6-year-olds and 100,000 drug dealers that we get. The way we 

measure that right now, the output is the same. We really need to 

adjust that. And, we really need to look at the ‘‘so what’’ factor of 

those numbers. And, part of that is the Northern border. So, if you 

look at that, the numbers are relatively low for apprehensions. We 

need to make sure that we are looking at it in a different way— 

we are reframing that. It is not just about numbers. 

That is going to be a cultural shift for the organization, but we 

need to make sure that we are doing that going forward. And, I 

think one thing that can help here is, when we start talking about 

personnel, I think what we did in the past a little bit—and what 
29 

I am concerned that we should not do at the same—we talk about 

personnel. We are only thinking about badge toters. When we start 

taking a look and having a discussion about the personnel, we also 

need to—and I had that in my opening comments—is the kind of 

personnel. So, I think we need some more intelligence analysts as 

well to help us frame out that threat-based and intelligence-driven 

approach as well—so our needs are not always just Border Patrol 

agents. I am not saying we do not need more Border Patrol agents, 

but we definitely need other demographics as well. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking 

Member for having this hearing. Thank you both for your service. 

I appreciate you being here, today. 

One of the problems that Customs and Border Protection has is 

that it was toward the bottom of the list for best places to work. 

You have been in 6 months as Chief. Have you initiated any kind 

of programs to help bring that up? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. So, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), which I think everybody is familiar with—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. MORGAN. It goes out there. So, what we did was, we took 

that—I think that just scratches the surface. That is a single, narrow data point that we can utilize. So, what we did was we came 

up with this human capital survey team. We actually brought 

Dulutha, a company from outside, in, went out to 13 sectors, talked 

to 900 people from mechanics to sector chiefs, and really did a deep 

dive. Then we brought back leaders and even did a deeper dive to 

really hear what the agents are saying and what their concerns 

are. And so, from that, we have developed several recommendations. And, actually, I think the email is on my desk, waiting for 

that email to go out to the workforce to really enumerate what 

those recommendations are, and then how we are going to put kind 

of action teams together to action that. 

We are also taking a look at—and part of that—I will give you 

an example. So, the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 

(BPAPRA)—the pay, right? That is hard. The more I learn about 

that, the more I just shake my head. And so, what we are trying 

to do is influence change where we can. 

I will give you one example. So, the K9—so I get in there—and 

the K9—I think the Border Patrol does it right. They take their 

dogs home. Right? They become bonded. They are together. The 

dog is better and the handler is better. We say, ‘‘Yes, take them 

home. That is a good thing.’’ And then, we do not pay them for the 

time that they spend taking care of their dogs at home. I do not 

think that is right. Right now, it actually takes a legislative change 

to get that. So, that is something we could need your help on to 

get changed. But, that is just one example of something within 

BPAPRA that we are taking a look at. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Well, we have worked on the pay issue before. We can work on it again, so it is not a problem. 
30 

As you look at the overall structure, do you believe that the top 

management compared to the folks on the ground—that you have 

the right ratios? 

Mr. MORGAN. I am hesitant to use the word ‘‘taking a look at,’’ 

but, again—4 months—I am taking a look at that. I have talked 

to the union about that as well. They have echoed their concerns 

about that ratio. So, I am collecting data on that. 

Senator TESTER. OK. And so, we talked a little bit about staffing 

on the Northern border. And, I think the process that you go 

through to hire folks can be pretty long and pretty cumbersome. Do 

you have any recommendations to expedite that process? 

Mr. MORGAN. I think that really probably is something that we 

really need to bring back to our human resource people to give you 

the details. I can tell you they have done an incredible job. They 

have cut that in half. They have developed—— 

Senator TESTER. They have cut the time in half already? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. One example is, they developed these hiring hubs, so instead of going to five different locations to do all of 

these, you go to one spot and you knock out like six steps in the 

process. So, my suggestion is, we need to do more of that—and continue that. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. MORGAN. We need to look at stuff, like the military, and look 

at where we can have reciprocity for polygraphs, physicals, and 

stuff like that. 

Senator TESTER. Perfect. 

Mr. MORGAN. And, another thing that I would say is, I think the 

best recruiter for a United States Border Patrol Agent is a United 

States Border Patrol Agent. 

Senator TESTER. I agree with that. 

Mr. MORGAN. So, I am dedicated to making sure—if you look in 

the past, the Border Patrol did that, and they did a darn good job 

of that. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN. So, I am dedicated to making sure that we are allocating more resources—Border Patrol agents—to hire Border Patrol 

agents. 

Senator TESTER. All right. So, you have Senator Heitkamp, myself, and a number of people on the Northern border here. In North 

Dakota and Montana—I do not know if it is true in other places— 

we have a hard time keeping folks. It is the best place in the world 

to live. It is just that people do not know that. And so, the question 

is: When you come to recruit, do you have a plan to recruit in some 

of those more frontier areas where you are not going to be able to 

go to the opera or see a professional football game in that region 

but, by God, you are going to be able to go shoot a pretty good size 

antelope and go fishing on some pretty good streams? Do you have 

a recruitment plan for those areas? 

Mr. MORGAN. One will be, whenever this job ends, I think I may 

move up there after my tour. 

Senator TESTER. We will put you to work if you do. 

Mr. MORGAN. I agree with everything you said, sir. Yes, so we 

are working with the Office of Human Resources Management on 
31 

where we can get better focused recruitment events and where we 

should be going. 

Senator TESTER. Can I make a suggestion? You have a ton of 

small schools—and big schools by Montana and North Dakota 

standards—on that Northern border. A lot of people do not know 

about the career opportunities you have in Customs and Border 

Protection. And, quite frankly, if you were able to send and get a 

hold of those counselors and even make appearances, you are going 

to get people that not only live there, but want to live there, to do 

the job that you do. And, like you said, if you can have other people 

that wear the uniform go up and talk to these kids about the opportunities, I think you would be quite successful. In States like 

Montana, we serve in the military at a higher rate than just about 

any other State, in terms of percentage per capita. North Dakota 

is probably ahead of us. So, at any rate, it solves that problem. So, 

that is just a suggestion. 

Operation Stonegarden grants—we talked a little bit about this 

yesterday. You talked about how important they are. How deficient 

is the Operation Stonegarden grant budget right now, in your opinion? Is it 25 percent less than it should be? Is it about where it 

needs to be? Is it too high? 

Mr. MORGAN. I do not know. I have not done a deep enough dive. 

I can say, though, when I have gone out to every single sector, on 

the Southern and Northern borders, it is just resounding, what I 

hear from the chiefs and the sheriffs that are participating in that 

program. They are like, ‘‘More.’’ So, I need to do a deeper dive for 

me to be able to personally tell you that. But, what I am hearing 

from the sector chiefs and what I am hearing from the law enforcement chiefs and sheriffs that are involved in the program, it is a 

great program and they want more. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Another question along those same lines, 

because you have farmers and ranchers that live on that Northern 

border that know that property like the back—and, in fact, they do 

know it as good as the back of their hand. Do you have—does your 

agency have an outreach program to them, to make sure that they 

are on board? And, I can give you an example. Ten years ago, when 

I got this job, we went up to the Northern border, and there was 

not a very good relationship. That has changed over the last 10 

years. Is there outreach being done to those farmers and ranchers, 

to let them know that, first they are appreciated, and, second, they 

can be the eyes and ears to help you out? 

Mr. MORGAN. From my perspective, from what I have seen, I can 

absolutely say yes. I have gone in there, and I have seen the agents 

that are on the line and the relationships they have with those 

folks—with those landowners and ranchers. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Good. 

Mr. MORGAN. I mean, I have seen it, firsthand. Is there always 

room for improvement? Sure, absolutely. And, we are also doing 

citizens’ academy type of things as well. We are bringing people in. 

But, yes, sir, I think that is happening. 

Senator TESTER. Super. Well, just in closing, I would just say 

this: I think this Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee are very open to making sure you have the resources you 

need to keep this country safe along the Northern as well as the 
32 

Southern border. We just need to have the information. And, when 

it comes to recruitment and when it comes to whether we have the 

technological manpower resources, we have to have that information. And, it has to be good information. Otherwise, we will make 

bad decisions. So, I do not know what you are allowed to do, but 

do what you can do, so people know what the challenges are on 

both borders. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you both, again, for all of the ongoing 

service that you have had for a very long time and for what you 

are continuing to do. I have a whole series of questions on a multitude of different issues, and I will just try to get through as many 

as I can. 

Chief, you have been there a whopping 6 months now, and you 

have obviously made a lot of progress and dug in a lot. And, you 

are looking at a lot of things at this point, and we appreciate that 

very much. 

Before you came in—about 5 months before—in January of this 

year, the Inspector General (IG) put out a report on the Special Operations Group program. It is a program that was budgeted $8 million. It actually came in at $33 million. And, the Inspector General 

came back and said that there are no metrics that are attached to 

it—or oversight measures—for the Special Operations Group. Are 

you familiar with that report? Again, it predated your leadership 

there. Are you familiar with that report? If you are, can you comment on it? And, if you are not, can you follow up on it and what 

progress is being made there? 

Mr. MORGAN. I am not. And, I will follow up. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Fair enough on that. 

In your statement that you put in, you made a comment—it was 

kind of an offhand comment, quite frankly, but it was interesting. 

You mentioned voluntary return (VR), and then you put a comma, 

‘‘the least effective and efficient consequence.’’ It is just kind of an 

offhand comment about voluntary return. Can you give me additional detail about that? 

Mr. MORGAN. So, voluntary return—if you look back in time, I 

mean, basically, it was just that. We would apprehend somebody 

at the border, and we would just say, ‘‘OK, go back.’’ And, what 

that caused—we were agents back in the day. 

Ms. PROVOST. Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN. You can talk to it better than I can. Back in the 

day, what that meant was, an agent could actually end up apprehending the same person three or four times in the same shift, because there were no consequences. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. MORGAN. There was no deterrence. So, to do a VR today just 

does not make sense. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, what is the alternative there? And, is 

that something we need to fix in statute? 

Mr. MORGAN. So, I think, statutorily, I guess we could have a 

dialogue to just remove that as an option in its entirety. 
33 

Senator LANKFORD. It has been a concern, and there has been a 

lot of dialogue about just what you just said. If you say voluntary 

return, someone is picked up at the border, and they say voluntary 

return—they know the term. As you mentioned before, they are 

coached on what terms to use—whether that be fear or asylum— 

all of the different statements—or voluntary return. They are able 

to cross right back over the border again, come back, move a mile 

down the road, come back again, and get picked up again. How 

many times do you think that should be allowed? Because, you 

know you are dealing with a person that is aware there is a border 

there. They are aware that they have crossed the border illegally. 

And, should they be able to do that 20 times? Five times? Three 

times? 

Mr. MORGAN. So, from the United States Border Patrol perspective, not ever. Right? The first time you cross, there should be some 

type of consequence that leads to a deterrence. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. 

Do you have any other comment about that, Ms. Provost? 

Ms. PROVOST. No. I would just echo really what the Chief was 

saying in relation to that. And, we do now utilize much more expedited removal, which has been a huge benefit for us—having that 

ability, over the last decade. 

Senator LANKFORD. Terrific. You both mentioned at the beginning of this, in the opening testimonies, your concern about terrorism and terrorist activities or materials moving across the border—as well as drugs. We have talked quite a bit about the movement of drug smuggling as well as human smuggling. You mentioned some of the things about terrorism in your opening statements. Can you give us any additional detail about that? 

Mr. MORGAN. It is challenging in an unclassified setting, but I 

think, again, I will go back to that approach and why it is so important to take that threat-based, intelligence-driven approach. 

Again, we spend a lot of time talking about UACs and family units. 

Again, I will go back. I do not see that 6-year-old on the road at 

midnight as a national security threat. But, I will go to the Northern border, for example. It is open source intelligence. We know 

that there are individuals in Canada that are self-radicalized. 

Right? We know that. We know that there are connections to international terrorist organizations. That is open source intelligence. 

So, it is that type of threat that concerns me. 

And so, when we are dealing with our metrics and when we are 

dealing with our strategies—again, not only do we have to talk 

about the numbers—that is always going to be a component—but, 

again, we need to focus on that threat. And, what I can say is, 

there are threats out there that concern me. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So, let me dig a little bit deeper. You 

have been asked a couple of times about what you need. And, you 

have mentioned partnerships and cooperation. Can I take that 

down to the next level? What does partnership mean for you? Is 

that additional personnel to be able to form that partnership and 

relationship? Is that collocating in situations? Is that materials? 

What is needed when you talk about additional partnerships and 

cooperation? 

Mr. MORGAN. All of that. 
34 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. I know Senator Portman had mentioned 

to you just his request. Let me add to it as well. Can you submit 

back to us in writing, ‘‘For us to be able to do our job effectively, 

we think we need this? ’’ That gives us greater clarity. Because, 

even when we talk about technology needs, there has been a tremendous amount of experimentation with technology. There has 

been a lot of variety, for instance, in aviation—whether that has 

been unmanned or whether it is the multiple platforms for helicopter, aircraft, and fixed-wing, trying to figure out which one is 

the most effective. Do we need to maintain all of these? Is a certain 

one more effective than another one? All of those things come into 

it as we try to make decisions on this Committee about—not just 

that we need to help you with partnerships, but the mechanics of 

what that means. So, the more detail we can get, the better. 

And, let me just back up to technology and aircraft, because 

there has been a lot of debate—whether it is fixed-wing, whether 

it is rotor, or whether it is unmanned. What is the most effective, 

most efficient, and least costly to get the best bang for the buck— 

and then other technology pieces that are actually getting you a 

good return now? Because, if we go back 4 years ago, we were 

spending $1 billion on a program that did not work. What technology is working? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. I agree with everything you just said, and, 

I think—I do not need to say it—that it is so unique from sector 

to sector, so one size does not fit all. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. MORGAN. So, like you just talked about, I mean, there could 

be areas where rotor-wing aircraft is not effective—manned, but 

yet a small unmanned platform would be more effective in an area. 

So, it is a complicated process to determine. To be smart about it, 

to use the money wisely, and to figure out what assets we need 

where, that is part of that CGAP process that I was talking 

about—the capabilities initiative that we are doing. And, we are 

well under way with that, and I think it is going to be able to provide this Committee with exactly that information. 

But, I can tell you, we do need additional stuff. We need additional assets, the operational assets—the horses, the K9s, etc.— 

more technology, yes, and infrastructure, yes. On the bodies, it is 

a little tougher to say, right now, exactly what we need as well as 

how much and where—and we are working through that. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK, terrific. That report will be finalized 

when? 

Mr. MORGAN. I am not sure. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Give me a guess. A year? 10 years? 

Mr. MORGAN. FY 2017. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. That helps. Can I also ask you to take 

sustainment into consideration when you do that as well? Because, 

there is a lot of conversation about how this is what we need. The 

next question is: How many people does it take to maintain that? 

What is the long-term sustainment of that and to be able to keep 

that a part of the ongoing conversation? 

Again, I appreciate what you are doing. And, thank you for the 

extra 20 seconds, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Heitkamp. 
35 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you 

to both of you. Earlier this month, I visited the Portal POE. I have 

talked about Portal a lot in this Committee, because we are particularly challenged in those areas—whether it is the Grand Forks 

Sector or the Havre Sector—in terms of personnel. And, it is absolutely critical that we have an employment plan. And, I want to reiterate what Senator Tester already said. I think we can find some 

good folks right there. 

Senator Lankford and I held a hearing where we talked about 

employment regarding the recruitment of millennials. And, your 

personnel officer from DHS came with a new burst of energy. And 

so, we are looking forward to seeing her report and what she is 

doing—some really creative ideas. 

But, I do want to point out, again, concerns about the Northern 

border. The bill that will inevitably get signed into law by the 

President—hopefully, in the next couple of weeks—will put demands on you to inform the public as well as inform this Committee and Congress about what those threats are and what it 

takes, in terms of personnel, equipment, and technology, to basically meet those threats. And so, I just want to, once again, encourage you to not only meet the deadline in the bill, but, maybe, bring 

it in a little early, because, as you can see, there is a great deal 

of concern and a great deal of publicity now about what is happening on the Northern border. 

So, with that said, I want to talk about Canada. We had a great 

conversation, I think, yesterday, but, I think, for the record here, 

if you would reiterate the kinds of things that you are doing with 

your counterparts in Canada that can, in fact, expand personnel 

and provide more situational awareness. We have a huge advantage on the Northern border that we do not have on the Southern 

border, which is a trusted and long-term partner, in terms of keeping the border secure. So, if you could just give us a rundown on 

your work with the Canadian officials, that would be great. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, ma’am. So, there are a couple of different 

issues out there. The International Border Enforcement Team 

(IBET) that is there. It is a mix of Canadian law enforcement and 

U.S. forces, mainly Border Patrol. There are a few other entities 

that are in there. It is a great initiative. It is part of the quintessential task force environment—and you are right, they are 

trusted allies and it has served to be effective. We need to continue 

to expand on that. 

When it comes to national security intelligence information, that 

is probably an area that we need to continue to expand on. The 

communication flow can be a little bit cumbersome at times, in that 

it has to go up to more of a national level, and it does not always 

get down to the folks on the line as expeditiously as it should. But, 

we recognize that—both sides recognize that—and we are working 

towards that. 

We are looking for more opportunities where we can actually do 

integrated operations, right? More of that. It is not just about sharing information and intelligence. It is actually taking that, analyzing that, and then actioning that into really true counter-network operations—right?—across the border—and being able to do 
36 

more of that. We are doing some of that. I think we should and can 

do more of that going forward. Those are just a couple of the efforts 

we are doing. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I want to reiterate what you were talking 

about earlier, which is that there are tasks that are being performed by guys and gals wearing badges that really could be done 

by other professionals—especially as it relates to the UACs issue. 

And so, I just really encourage you, when you are looking at this 

report, to look very closely at those tasks that the guys in green 

should be performing and where we can transfer out. 

Now, I am going to be really specific on this, but it does concern 

me. One of the biggest concerns from the Border Patrol agents I 

talked to when I was at Portal is communications. Many times on 

the border, you will get bounced off of a Canadian tower, you will 

get bounced off of a radio tower in North Dakota, and they are out 

there with no cell coverage and no radio coverage. That is not a formula for success—especially when they are going to have to rely 

on the sheriff to give them backup if they encounter an event. 

And so, can you please look into communications on the Northern 

border, especially in remote locations? I think we owe it to those 

people, who put on a badge and walk out the door every day—their 

family not knowing whether they are going to come back. We owe 

it to them to give them the best equipment. 

I want to just turn a little bit to the Southern border, because 

I have spent a fair amount of time down there. And, Chief, you will 

probably laugh at this, but can you paint your cars a different color 

than white? You did? But, I am serious about this, because I think 

that, obviously—not that you should be clandestine, but, if you are 

a spotter on a hill in Mexico, and you are walking some drugs 

across the border, and you see a white truck coming on the border, 

it is pretty easy to radio down to the guys who are carrying the 

contraband and tell them to avoid this or avoid that. I mean, I do 

think there is some advantage to having a vehicle that is less likely 

to be spotted. And, we know this happens. They are up on the hill. 

Right? They are watching you every minute, especially if they are 

moving product of any kind of value. 

And so, your ability to move in a way and respond to it in a way, 

without early detection, can be enormously valuable. And so, it is 

just a thought. And, I am passing it on from the folks on the Southern border who look at this and say that this is a problem. 

And, I want to encourage you to continue—and I know you have, 

and I am grateful for that—your ongoing outreach to the ranchers, 

both on the Southern border and on the Northern border. ‘‘See 

something, say something.’’ We have to create relationships where 

people are all in this together. And, I think you were down—you 

visited with the ranchers on the Southern border. There are good 

reports coming back from that, Chief, so thank you. Keep up the 

dialogue and keep up the open communication. Those guys know 

a lot. They have been on that land. As Tester said, they know their 

land like the back of their hand. And so, thank you—both of you— 

for putting on that uniform every day, representing all of us and 

doing some of the toughest work that is done in America. I really 

appreciate it. 

Ms. PROVOST. Thank you. 
37 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

I really just have two further lines of questioning. One has to do 

with the incentives. We talked earlier about the fact that we have 

no expedited removal for kids and family units from Central America. An NTA, just creates that incentive. If you get in the country, 

you stay. But, I want to talk about other incentives as well. 

What about sanctuary cities? To what extent does that, again, 

incentivize people to come here? Because, they know that, once 

they are holing up there, they are not going to be deported. Do either of you want to speak to that? 

Mr. MORGAN. Sure. I think, probably, from the perspective of the 

United States Border Patrol, when we look at those factors, I probably do not really look beyond the fact of an NTA. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. More of a question for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), OK. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me talk about the ways that the smugglers—the human traffickers, really—defeat Border Patrol—for example, using minors and overloading the system. When we were 

down traveling with one of the sheriffs, the claim was that we do 

not prosecute unless it is at least 500 pounds of marijuana. Talk 

a little bit about some of those—what end up being incentives—or 

just impediments to, actually, enforcement. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. Thresholds are always an issue. Each jurisdiction sets their own threshold for a variety of reasons—that 

they have limitations—personnel and funding as well. You can see, 

from one jurisdiction to another, different thresholds for, basically, 

the same activity—the same amount. It can get frustrating. I think 

that can actually serve as a morale challenge for the rank-and-file 

that are out there risking their lives every single day—and then, 

something not prosecuted—what can appear to be an arbitrary 

threshold. That is a challenge. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What about the use of minors? What can 

possibly be done about that? Or, what do we try and do about it? 

Ms. PROVOST. Well, is that in relation to the amount of UACs 

you are talking about, sir, that are coming in? 

Chairman JOHNSON. No, I am actually talking about—— 

Ms. PROVOST. Or, are you talking about—— 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Minors used as drug runners. 

Ms. PROVOST [continuing]. Using them to smuggle? Yes, and that 

has been a tactic that they have used for as long as I have been 

in the Border Patrol, because they do know that, at least criminally, they are not going to receive a prosecution because they are 

minors. So, that is a tactic that the drug-trafficking organizations 

(DTOs) and alien-smuggling organizations (ASOs), have used for as 

long as I can remember—specifically, for that reason—because, if 

they are a minor, they are not going to receive a prosecution. That 

is a difficult one for us. It is a tactic that we pay attention to. I 

would not say that it has increased. It is a common practice across 

the board, when it comes to bringing groups in—local guides, as we 

call them. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It works, unfortunately. 

Chief, you talked about morale. Let us talk a little about some, 

of the morale issues I hear about—the policy, in terms of ‘‘got- 
38 

aways,’’ where agents on the ground level—they have to call in a 

supervisor if they see more than 20 ‘‘got-aways,’’ and then they are 

pulled off of the line. I do not know all of the ramifications, but it 

sounds like it creates a huge incentive not to report ‘‘got-aways’’ of 

more than 20 people. Can you speak to that? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. At this point, I have a challenge really 

with several of the measures and metrics we are using—not just 

the impact it has on the agents—the perception and even reality 

on that, but is it really capturing what it should be capturing? And 

so, we are—unfortunately, I am going to use the phrase again. I 

am taking a look at that from a holistic approach. But, yes, I have 

heard some of those same concerns. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Deputy Chief Provost, when I had the Chief 

in my office, we talked—as I have talked to the United States Secret Service (USSS), anybody—about working on a continuous shift 

basis—I come from the plastics industry. When you have a continuous shift—my way of thinking—you need four shifts. And, we do 

not have that in CBP. What is your basic viewpoint of how we staff 

in the areas of Border Patrol that are on a continuous shift basis? 

Because, right now, you use three. You use overtime. It is just not 

as effective. In the private sector, you do not do that. Why do we 

do that in government? 

Ms. PROVOST. So, for the most part, we use three shifts. There 

are, however, areas where we do have four shifts, depending upon 

the location and what works best. The individual sector and the 

chief takes into consideration how operations work best and the 

resourcing that they have. As we know, our men and women are 

also a resource that we utilize. The fact that we have really established that Border Patrol agents working a 10-hour day helps with 

the coverage for the shift changes—but there are areas where the 

remoteness of the border has an impact, and we run four shifts in 

some of those locations, so that our agents have—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you see a difference in morale where you 

actually operate the four shifts? Do you find that that works better 

for you? 

Ms. PROVOST. In my conversations with agents, I have seen both 

sides of the fence, I guess, on that. Some agents would prefer four 

shifts and some agents would prefer three. So, we try to look at it 

as an aspect of what makes sense for that specific area of operations. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I will ask that you work with me on 

that—take a look at it. I think it is something that is well worth 

looking into. 

In your joint testimony, I am concerned about this: Your losses 

are currently outpacing gains, creating a downward staffing trend. 

And, we talked about a number of reasons for that—something we 

really want to work with you on. In my final minute here, I just 

want to address fencing, because, again, fencing works. A better 

wall works. And, it also will help relieve the personnel issues, too. 

We did pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I do not think we 

have built the type of fencing that is actually working. I am not 

suggesting 1,700 miles, but I think we need better fencing in more 

areas. And, I just kind of want a quick comment on that. 
39 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir, I agree. I can give you a quick example 

off of the top of my head. When I went and visited the San Diego 

Sector—that is an area along the stretch where, for a few miles, 

we actually have a primary fence and a secondary pedestrian fence. 

Not only did that work to stem the flow elsewhere, but, by doing 

so, the chief told me, at that point, he was actually able to take 

100 agents and put them elsewhere, because it did not require that 

level of deployment there. 

I went to another sector, where they actually told me that, at one 

point, the free market across on the United States side had all but 

dried up—an area where they put fencing up and the flow had all 

but stopped. Now, it was a thriving shopping center once again. So, 

it works on multiple levels—not just on the flow and our ability to 

do our job, but it also has other aspects. 

So, do we need more fencing? Yes. Does it work? Yes. Do we need 

it everywhere? No. Is it the sole answer? No. It is part of an overall 

multilayered strategy. It is always kind of tongue in cheek—the 

fence is great, but if we do not have access roads to get to the 

fence, it is not as good. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The Deputy Chief mentioned that. 

Mr. MORGAN. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, I hope you will work with this Committee, as we move forward, to identify where we do need additional fencing, how it should be designed, and how you can have 

the roads in between the fencing, so that we can, literally, relieve 

the pressure, from the standpoint of staffing. 

I guess the Ranking Member—I will continue then. Again, I 

want to go back to incentives, because—oh, he is back. I will let 

you go. Time is short. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. I have a couple of questions for the record. I am going to ask each of you—not now—about 

leadership, what led you to follow this path, and how we can encourage more women to follow the path that you have set out on. 

I have just a yes or no question. I think one of the questions that 

was asked was about fencing or walls. Where it is appropriate, 

sure, we need that. We want to make sure that it is done thoughtfully and in ways that it can actually contribute. 

You may have mentioned, Chief Morgan—I think somebody mentioned San Diego—the use of the walls there. We were able to take 

100 Border Patrol officers, who otherwise would be doing that, and 

then deploy them in other ways. That is smart. But, what would 

also be smart is—all of these Border Patrol agents that are taking 

care of these kids, like day-care operators. That is not smart. And, 

one of the ways to reduce the need for doing that is for us to do 

our part to help make sure that all of those little kids and their 

bigger brothers and sisters actually have a future in Honduras, 

Guatemala, and El Salvador. That is a part of the solution as well. 

I think immigration reform is part of the solution, including the 

ability for workers in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to 

come up here, work for a while, go home unimpeded, and come 

back from time to time. I think that is part of it. 

I think technology is a part of it. We talked about the folks—the 

spotters on top of the hill. The idea of sending up unpiloted vehicles to be able to fly up there—identify these guys—if we want to 
40 

bring in like some kind of direct fire on those, you can use that 

kind of technology, whatever. Figure out what works and do more 

of that. 

Part of what we are asking you to do is to tell us what you need 

more of and less off—and I would just hope that, at the end of the 

day, it actually includes the other side of the equation. The lesson 

we learned from Mexico—we used to have tons of people coming up 

here from Mexico. Most of the folks who came here for years were 

from Mexico. They do not come anymore. They are more going back 

into Mexico. There is a reason for that, and the reason for that is, 

frankly, they have a future now. They have hope. They have a solid 

middle class. And, we have been, I think, helpful in helping to ensure that happens in ways that benefit them—and I think us as 

well. 

Does what I have said make any sense? If you say no, I will 

leave. Does any of that make sense? 

Mr. MORGAN. Everything you said made sense, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Deputy Chief Provost. 

Ms. PROVOST. Yes, I concur with you. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. I want to conclude, if I can, 

just by thanking you both for being here. Thank you for your leadership. I said to the Chairman that you are a breath of fresh air. 

We very much appreciate your leadership and the way you approach this. 

As the Chairman mentioned earlier on, this is, I think, probably, 

the last hearing where I will be the Ranking Member—just to say 

how much I have enjoyed working with him and all of our colleagues. I am not going to get off of the Committee. I will still be, 

I guess, the senior Democrat, but I will be the Ranking Member 

on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works 

(EPW). And, I look forward to being very active in supporting all 

of my colleagues on this Committee. But, I want to acknowledge 

the help of, certainly, our Minority staff, led by Gabrielle Batkin 

and led by John Kilvington. But, I also want to acknowledge the 

hard work of the Chairman and the folks that he has helped lead. 

I cannot mention them all, but I want to thank each of my 

staff—and our staff and his staff—for the way that they worked together—are still working together, even as we gather here, today— 

still working together to try to get things done before we adjourn. 

I particularly want to thank Chris Hixon. I want to thank Gabby 

D’Adamo and Patrick Bailey. I want to thank David Luckey, who 

has left. He left us, I think, just a week or two ago, and came and 

said goodbye. I also want to thank Brooke Ericson, David Brewer, 

and all of the other folks on the Chairman’s staff who have contributed in this Congress and for our country. 

Finally, I want to thank Laura Kilbride, the best third baseman 

I have seen on a Congressional softball team in all of the years I 

have been here. She has an arm like a rifle, and as long as she 

is on our team, we are in good shape. But, the Chief Clerk and her 

team, they keep our Committee running smoothly and efficiently. 

It has been a real joy, and I think we have done good work together. And, I look forward to doing a whole lot more. 

Thank you. 
41 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. It would be 

nice if everybody had nice simple names to pronounce, like Carper. 

[Laughter.] 

But, again, I do want to thank both of our witnesses for your 

many years of service to this Nation—it is truly appreciated—for 

your thoughtful testimonies, and your thoughtful answers to our 

questions. And, I truly look forward to working with you, certainly 

in the next Congress, and over the next few years. So, again, thank 

you. 

That being said, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days 

until December 15 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and 

questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 
44 

Statement of Ranking Member Tom Carper 

"Initial Observations of the New Leadership at the U.S. Border Patrol" 

November 30,2016 

As prepared for delivery: 

I want to begin this morning by thanking our witnesses for being here today and for their 

leadership of the Border Patrol. Chief Morgan, Deputy Chief Provost- thank you for your 

service. Your job is incredibly important, and also incredibly challenging. I've always been 

impressed with the men and women from the Border Patrol who I've met on my many trips to 

the border. I still am. Border security has always been an important issue for this Committee, and 

it has commanded particular attention during my time as Chairman and Ranking Member. We all 

want stronger borders, and we all want to keep terrorists out of this country. But we need to 

remain clear eyed about the real risks and the real solutions. 

Unfortunately, during this past campaign season, immigrants and refugees were too often 

unfairly attacked as a grave threat to our country. We heard a lot about walls and deportations, 

and not enough about addressing the underlying causes of the real immigration challenges that 

we face. As a result, many immigrants who have come to the United States from all comers of 

the globe are anxious that they will no longer be able to care for their families and contribute to 

our great country. This includes the 'Dreamers' who were brought here as children, but are now 

fearful of being ripped from jobs and schools and deported to countries they may not even 

remember. 

We do not strengthen our country by ignoring the contributions of immigrants or by turning our 

back on refugees. Helping vulnerable people is part of our moral fabric as a country. Scripture 

teaches us that we have a moral imperative to the 'least of these' in our society and to treat other 

people the way we want to be treated. Doing so also contributes directly to our economic 

strength. For generations, our open and diverse society has attracted immigrants of all 

backgrounds who have continually enriched our country and helped us grow and prosper. The 

deeply troubling attack this week at Ohio State University, where I was once a Navy ROTC 

midshipman, weighs heavily on the minds of many of us across this country. It reminds us that 

we must continue to be eternally vigilant. We must work hard to meet both our security 

challenges as a nation and our moral imperatives. Indeed, I believe we can and must do both. 

Before I highlight some of the tools that I believe can help better secure our borders, I think it's 

important to first recognize the significant strides we have already made along our southwestern 

border. For years, we worried about large scale undocumented migration from Mexico. Now, 

experts tell us that net migration from Mexico is less than zero. In other words, more Mexican 

nationals are migrating from the United States back to Mexico than are arriving here from 

Mexico. The men and women at Customs and Border Protection deserve much of the credit for 

this tum around, but perhaps the biggest factor for the change is the strengthening Mexican 

economy. That is an important thing to keep in mind as we talk about whether to reopen trade 

agreements in the region. 
45 

The surge we're seeing today along our southwestern border right now is a different challenge, 

and mostly a humanitarian one. Thousands of children and families from El Salvador, 

Guatemala, and Honduras - known as the Northern Triangle - are fleeing extreme violence and 

poverty in their home countries and seeking asylum in the United States. Haitian migrants, 

including many who had been living and working in Brazil until its recent economic decline, are 

another new concern. Most of these migrants are turning themselves in to agents- not trying to 

evade them- so it's unlikely that we'll fix these current challenges with a wall or new Border 

Patrol agents. Instead, we must address the root causes of this migration by helping the 

governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras improve the desperate conditions too 

many of their citizens face every day. I traveled to the Northern Triangle once again this past 

October, and saw real efforts being made by the governments there to address the extreme 

poverty, violence, and hopelessness that drive so many of their citizens to make the dangerous 

journey across Mexico to our border. Last year, Democrats and Republicans provided $750 

million to support these countries as they work to address these difficult conditions. I hope we 

can continue this bipartisan support. I believe it is cost effective and the right thing to do given 

that our addiction to drugs fuels much of the lawlessness and instability in the region. 

We also have to work with our international partners to crack down on smugglers and traffickers 

who exploit migrants. I have been impressed, for example, with the vetted units that I have seen 

during my trips to the Northern Triangle, where our agents and officers work side by side with 

foreign officers to target and break up criminal trafficking networks. Of course, as the cartels 

become more sophisticated, we must also continue to evolve and take action here at home. That 

is why I have supported commonsense and cost-effective solutions to strengthen our border 

security and will continue to do so. That includes investments in advanced surveillance 

technologies, such as aerostats and drones, which- if used effectively- can be powerful force 

multipliers for our agents. It also includes some additional resources such as horses and boats, 

which may not be as high-tech but can provide our agents with great visibility across the border. 

Another commonsense solution involves fully staffing our ports of entry and making smart 

investments in our aging port infrastructure. 

Finally, I would be remiss ifl did not discuss how comprehensive immigration reform can also 

be a critical force multiplier. As Republican and Democratic Administration officials have 

testified over the years, immigration reform would create legal charmels for migration and 

'shrink the haystack' of unauthorized travelers so that border agents can focus on the most 

serious security risks. Comprehensive reform would also strengthen us economically. According 

to the Congressional Budget Office, it would provide a 5.4 percent boost in GDP more than a 

trillion dollars- by 2033. We should all keep this in mind as we head into the next Congress. 

My thanks again to both of our witnesses for being here and for your leadership during this 

critical time. I look forward to your testimony. 
46 

TESTIMONY OF 

MARK A. MORGAN 

Chief 

U.S. Border Patrol 

and 

CARLA PROVOST 

Deputy Chief 

U.S. Border Patrol 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Department of Homeland Security 

BEFORE 

United States Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

ON 

"Initial Observations of New Leadership at the U.S. Border Patrol" 

November 30, 2016 

Washington, DC 
47 

Introduction 

Chainnan Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is 

a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss our initial observations of current U.S. Border 

Patrol (USBP) operations and challenges, and our vision for securing the U.S. border between 

our Nation's ports of entry (POEs). 

We are deeply honored to lead the dedicated men and women ofUSBP who work tirelessly to 

protect our Nation's borders. As America's unified border agency, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) protects the United States against terrorist threats and prevents the illegal entry 

of people and dangerous materials into the United States, while facilitating lawful travel and 

trade. USBP works with our CBP, interagency, state, local, tribal, territorial, and international 

partners to secure the more than 6,000 miles ofland border between the POEs that we share with 

Mexico and Canada and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the 

island of Puerto Rico. 

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Government has facilitated an unprecedented 

deployment of personnel, technology, and infrastructure to secure our Nation's borders. The 

resource base built over the past two decades has enabled USBP to develop and implement an 

enforcement strategy and posture tailored to meet the challenges of securing a 21st century border 

against a variety of different threats and adversaries. 

Today, USBP's enforcement strategy is threat-based and intelligence driven: identifYing highrisk areas and flows, targeting our response, and deploying resources and capabilities in the most 

effective and efficient manner to achieve multiple security objectives, including: 

• Prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States between the 

POEs through improved and focused intelligence-driven operations and enhanced 

operational integration, planning, and execution with law enforcement partners; 

• Disrupt and degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations through targeted enforcement 

efforts against the highest priority threats and expanding programs that reduce smuggling 

and crimes associated with smuggling; and 

• Manage risk through the introduction and expansion of advanced detection technology, 

and sophisticated tactics, techniques, and procedures. 

Our adversaries deploy sophisticated strategies and often essentially run highly developed 

business enterprises. We must respond accordingly by continuously improving and advancing 

USBP's layered enforcement strategy. Among the factors we must carefully consider are: the 

best deployment of frontline law enforcement personnel; investments in advanced detection and 

surveillance technology and tactical infrastructure; the enhancement of infonnation sharing and 

intelligence capabilities; the expansion of operational partnerships with federal, state, local, 

tribal, and international partners; investments in the sustainment of our current workforce; and 

developing a pipeline of highly motivated and highly qualified applicants for our frontline 

positions. 

Page I of 10 
48 

This approach will leverage our authorities to secure the homeland using a multi-layered and 

intelligence driven application ofUSBP resources that contributes to an improved understanding 

of the threat environments, enhances our ability to rapidly respond to threats, and ensures that the 

physical border is not our only line of defense, but rather one of many. 

Our testimony today will focus on our initial observations of the U.S. Border Patrol, specifically 

the following efforts: 

• Sustaining and building our frontline law enforcement workforce; 

• Reinforcing tactical infrastructure and technology; 

• Responding to Unaccompanied Alien Children; 

• Expanding intelligence and international capabilities to support integrated operations; and 

Enhancing effectiveness, performance, and metrics. 

Within these efforts, we discuss aspects that are working, where challenges exist, and the path 

forward to enhance our ability to detect and prevent threats from entering the United States. 

Sustaining and Building Our Frontline Law Enforcement Workforce 

The dedicated men and women ofUSBP are truly our greatest resource. This is not a statement 

made lightly. USBP agents regularly work in locations that are desolate, at times dangerous, and 

subject to extremes in temperature and terrain. They represent commitment and integrity for 

which our Nation should be both proud and grateful. Ensuring that we develop and retain a 

skilled and trained frontline workforce is critical to our border security mission. It requires 

continued and sustained investment, and thoughtful stewardship. Management of our workforce 

is also occurring against a backdrop of tremendous change and intense challenges. The USBP 

leadership is working closely with the CBP Office of Human Resources Management (HRM) to 

implement innovative hiring strategies, reduce attrition rates, and bolster the resilience of our 

workforce. 

CBP's hiring process for frontline personnel is intentionally rigorous because the missions we 

carry out ensure the safety and security of the American people. We require applicants who 

demonstrate the highest degree of integrity, are physically fit, and are deeply committed to our 

mission. Applicants must successfully complete an entrance exam, qualifications review, 

interview, medical exam, drug screening, physical fitness test, polygraph examination, 1 and a 

background investigation. The hiring process is challenging for most applicants and a large 

number simply do not meet CBP's rigorous employment requirements. Moreover, competition 

from the military and other federal, state, and local entities that have similar recruitment needs 

are making it more difficult to attract sufficient numbers of suitable applicants to the law 

enforcement profession, including USBP's frontline positions. External factors may also affect 

CBP's ability to reach staffing goals. For example, cyber intrusions and vulnerabilities in Fiscal 

Years (FY) 2014 and FY 2015 created disruptions that halted the hiring process for as long as 

1 The Anti-Border Corruption Act of2010, Pub. L. No. 111-376, 

Page 2 oflO 
49 

five weeks at times. CBP is aggressively addressing the spectrum of hiring challenges, but it is 

important to recognize that they exist and will continue to make hiring difficult. 

In addition to the challenges we experience in bringing on new hires to increase our frontline 

workforce, CBP must also backfill positions lost through attrition. The attrition rate for Border 

Patrol Agents (BPA) in FY 2015 and FY 2016 was 5.5 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively. 

This means that CBP was required to hire approximately 1,000 new BPAs just to maintain 

current staffing levels. Given the current rate ofBPA attrition, losses are currently outpacing 

gains, creating a downward staffing trend. A range of factors, including often less-than-desirable 

duty locations, have driven BP A attrition to the point where losses are significantly outpacing 

gains. 

We must increase our frontline hiring capabilities and capacity if we are to sustain and improve 

our border enforcement posture. CBP has taken numerous steps to address frontline staffing 

challenges, upon which we must expand and build. For example, CBP established a Frontline 

Hiring Program Management Office to implement specific actions that address frontline hiring 

challenges. This includes a National Frontline Recruitment Command, comprised of uniformed 

agents and officers as well as other CBP personnel to provide support and expertise to USBP and 

other CBP field recruitment offices. CBP has also developed and implemented an expedited 

hiring process by compressing multiple processes and several months of the hiring process into a 

one-week timeframe and takes place in a centralized location. This expedited "hiring hubs" 

process resulted in a time to hire reduction of more than 60 percent, without compromising the 

integrity of the hiring process in any way. CBP has also enhanced its engagement with the 

Department of Defense (DoD) to increase our efforts to facilitate and expedite the hiring of 

transitioning service members and veterans. We now conduct hiring operations on military bases 

and installations and we offer reciprocity for multiple steps during the hiring of veterans. 

Recruitment and hiring process improvements, such as opening multiple job opportunity 

announcements for vacancies, have proven to be effective in increasing the number of 

applications received for CBP frontline positions and reducing the time-to-hire. CBP was able to 

increase the number of Border Patrol Agent and CBP Officer applicants from approximately 

40,000 in FY 2014 to over ll5,000 in both FY 2015 and FY 2016. CBP is also focused on 

reducing attrition by exploring opportunities to utilize pay and compensation flexibilities such as 

special salary rates, relocation and retention incentives, tuition assistance, and student loan 

repayments to incentivize mission critical personnel to remain with CBP. Because mobility and 

assignment diversity are important to CBP's law enforcement personnel, CBP is also exploring 

new ways to utilize rotational assignments and reassignment opportunities. 

Our frontline agents are our most valuable resource, and we must continue to optimize our 

recruiting and hiring processes, and further develop initiatives to maintain the critical frontline 

law enforcement agents needed to accomplish CBP's border security mission effectively and 

efficiently. CBP recognizes that this is not just a human resources issue; rather it is an Agencywide challenge that requires an Agency-wide solution. Recruiting, hiring, and retention remain 

CBP's top mission support priorities, and we continue to explore new and innovative ways to be 

an employer of choice for both existing and prospective employees. 

Page 3 of 10 
50 

Reinforcing Tactical Infrastructure and Technology 

Thanks to Congress's support ofCBP's tactical infrastructure and technology investments 

between the POEs, USBP can detect and interdict illegal activity, monitor evolving threat 

patterns, and strategically deploy assets. Furthermore, the continued deployment of tailored 

border surveillance technology, tactical infrastructure, and other operational assets allows CBP 

more flexibility to shift more officers and agents from detection duties to interdiction of illegal 

activities on our borders. 

Tactical infrastructure is a critical element in USBP's threat-based approach to border security. 

Tactical infrastructure, including physical barriers, access roads, lighting, and other investments, 

can persistently impede illegal entry and can influence flow patterns, allowing USBP to use 

resources for enforcement purposes more effectively. In accordance with the Secure Fence Act 

o/2006 (P.L. 109-367), CBP has deployed several different types and layers of pedestrian and 

vehicle fencing in locations along the Southwest border based on a risk and vulnerabilities 

assessment to deter and prevent unlawful border entry. Tactical fencing provides a persistent 

method to impede illegal cross-border activity, which offers Border Patrol agents additional time 

to respond to and resolve threats. The physical stature of the fence can afford agents additional 

cover, while preserving their ability to see potential adversaries, making physical assaults against 

them more difficult to carry out. 

Other security infrastructure investments, such as all-weather roads ("Border Roads") and 

lighting, also play an important role in USBP security operations. Border Roads are generally 

oriented parallel to the border and provide USBP and other law enforcement partners with direct 

access to the border for enforcement and public safety efforts. Border lighting enhances USBP' s 

ability to sustain situational awareness during hours of darkness, maintain a visible presence, and 

remove the tactical advantage of the criminal element while enhancing officer safety. Lighting is 

also vital to protecting the tremendous investment in existing fencing, as it creates a well-lit zone 

for agents to monitor, and deters those attempting to breach the fence and make an illegal 

incursion into the United States. 

The activities of transnational criminal organizations and the difficult terrain and environment in 

which we work, pose a constant threat to agent safety. Technology, specifically surveillance 

technology and tactical infrastructure, helps to ensure our agents can perform their mission safely 

and effectively. When deployed in conjunction with tactical infrastructure and law enforcement 

personnel, USBP's fixed and mobile surveillance and detection technology assets are invaluable 

force multipliers, increasing situational awareness, creating a more secure border, and providing 

a greater margin of agent safety. 

From an effectiveness standpoint, fixed surveillance technology increases USBP's situational 

awareness and our ability to detect, identifY, classifY, and track illicit activity, by providing lineof-sight persistent surveillance to detect incursions in varying terrain. For example, the 

Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) systems are a series of fixed surveillance towers, employing a suite 

of camera and radar sensors that automatically detect and track subjects of interest and provide 

centralized operators with video and geospatiallocation of suspected items of interest for 

identification and appropriate action. Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS), also fixed 

technology assets employing only camera sensor suites, provide short-, medium-, and long-range 

Page4ofl0 
51 

persistent surveillance that transmit video to a control room and enable an operator to remotely 

detect, identifY, classifY, and track targets. 

USBP also utilizes Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS) and Imaging Unattended Ground Sensors 

(l-UGS), which contribute to improved situational awareness, agent safety, and rapid response. 

These sensors support our capability to detect and identifY subjects. When a ground sensor alerts 

to an intrusion or detection, an alann, or trigger event, communicates to a surveillance processor, 

a centralized operations center computer system, or any authorized CBP network computer. lUGS are a specific type ofUGS with an integrated camera and the ability to transmit images or 

video back to the operations center. 

USBP integrates an array of mobile and portable systems to address areas where rugged terrain 

and dense ground cover may allow adversaries to penetrate through blind spots or avoid the 

coverage areas of fixed systems. Working in conjunction with fixed surveillance assets, roads, 

and fencing, USBP' s mobile technology assets provide flexibility and agility to adapt to 

changing border conditions and threats along the Southwest and Northern border. 

For example, Mobile Surveillance Capability (MSC) systems provide long-range mobile 

surveillance with a suite of radar and camera sensors mounted on USBP vehicles. Also, CBP' s 

Tactical Aerostats (lighter than air dirigibles) andRe-locatable Towers programs-· originally 

acquired by DoD -- use a mix of aerostats, towers, and electro-optical/infra-red cameras, to 

provide USBP with increased situational awareness through an advanced surveillance capability 

over a wide area. As of September 30,2016, USBP agents have seized 65.499 tons of narcotics 

and apprehended over 53,000 illegal border crossers with the assistance of these aerostats and 

towers. 

CBP's comprehensive border security operations include the coordinated and integrated 

capabilities of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) to detect, interdict, and prevent acts of 

terrorism and the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband toward or 

across the borders of the United States. AMO engages assets and capabilities including fixed 

wing, rotary, and unmanned aircraft systems in the air domain, and patrol and interdiction 

vessels in the maritime environment; and provides critical aerial and maritime border 

surveillance, interdiction, and enhanced operational effectiveness to USBP ground personnel. 

Expansion of AMO's critical operations is needed to support the wide range of border security 

activities. At present, AMO capacity to meet all the air support requirements for the USBP is 

limited due to flight hours, aircraft maintenance, and support for other priority DHS missions. 

Technology is an essential component of contemporary border security operations. Through the 

deployment of these complementary and effective fixed and mobile systems, CBP gains more 

coverage and situational awareness of surveillance gaps, and increases its ability to adapt to 

changing conditions to effectively detect, identifY, classifY, track, and interdict potential threats 

along the borders. 

With the deployment of more agents, better infrastructure, and more powerful technology after 

the 9/11 attacks, the downward trend in apprehensions has been dramatic. Since FY 2000, 

apprehensions have dropped by more than two thirds on the California, Arizona, New Mexico 

Page 5 of 10 
52 

and Texas borders. In the Tucson Sector, apprehensions are down from more than 616,000 in FY 

2000 to just 63,397 in FY 2015. That's a drop of nearly 90 percent.2 

It is imperative that USBP continues to promote operational agility by leveraging technological 

advances and innovative practices. In coordination with the new Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Joint Requirements Integration and Management System, USBP uses the 

Requirements Management Process to conduct mission analysis, identifY capability gaps, courses 

of action, and initial capability requirements. From this analysis, USBP performs follow-on 

planning to identifY operational requirements over the short, mid, and long-term and to identifY 

potential solutions, depending on the nature, scope, severity, and geographic location of a given 

capability gap. 

USBP is also an active participant in the DHS Secure Borders Integrated Product Team (IPT), 

managed by the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), which identifies technology gaps 

and prioritizes the Department's research and development (R&D) efforts. This crosscomponent IPT provides continuous R&D project assessment, validation, and redirection to meet 

operational needs. A substantial portion of the DHS border security R&D portfolio consists of 

projects to enhance existing surveillance capabilities as well as to integrate data/information 

sources from new surveillance capabilities. Currently USBP is collaborating with S&T on tunnel 

detection and tunnel activity monitoring technology, low-flying aircraft detection and tracking 

systems, data collection/integration/data sharing capabilities, and fixed and mobile border 

surveillance tools. 

With all future technology and tactical infrastructure investments, we will continue to ensure that 

USBP acquisition personnel work closely with agents on the ground to develop operational 

requirements, conduct testing and evaluation, and obtain user feedback to ensure that the right 

technological solution addresses its corresponding capability gap. Terrain, threat, socioeconomic, and political considerations vary greatly across sectors and regions, making a "one 

size fits all" approach ineffective. 

Continuously evolving tactics of smuggling and trafficking networks and other criminals 

challenge the border environment where agents patrol. We will continue to deploy sophisticated 

surveillance and detection technology, as well as tactical infrastructure, to detect, intercept, and 

prevent illegal activity crossing or approaching our border. Utilizing these technology assets, we 

will also enhance our situational awareness of threat levels and criminal flows in the border 

environment by expanding our intelligence capabilities, information sharing, and operational 

integration with domestic and international law enforcement partners. 

2 See: https:/ /www.cbp.govisites/detlmlt/files/documentsfUSflP%20Stats%20FY20 15%20sector%20profile.pdf and 

"Further Reflection," Frontline Magazine, Volume 7, Issue 2, December I, 2015, 

https:l/www.cbp.gov/sites/default/tiles/assetsldocuments/2016-Jullrrotltline-vol7-issue2.pdf 

Page 6 oflO 
53 

Responding to Unaccompanied Alien Children 

USBP is first and foremost a law enforcement organization. USBP's enforcement mission is 

crucial to our Nation's security, and focuses on detecting, deterring, and apprehending 

individuals crossing the border illegally between designated POEs. 

Responding to the continued flow of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossing the 

Southwest border is also a priority. During FY 2014, the U.S. Government experienced an 

unprecedented increase- more than 70 percent- in the number ofUAC crossing the Southwest 

border, compared to previous years. The resulting situation challenged the existing facilities, 

resources, and capabilities of CBP and other federal agencies with responsibilities to process, 

transport, and care for UAC. 

In FY 2015, CBP apprehended 39,970 UACs crossing the border- a decrease of 42 percent 

from 68,541 encountered during 2014. However, in FY 2016, CBP apprehended 59,692 UACs, 

a 49 percent increase from FY 2015. Furthermore, in FY 2017, as ofNovember 16,2016, CBP 

has apprehended more than 10,549 UACs, compared to approximately 7,653 apprehended during 

the same period in FY 2016, demonstrating a 38 percent increase. Although overall UAC 

apprehensions since FY 2014 have declined, there has been a noticeable upward trend over the 

past year. 

We have been closely monitoring this trend and continue to work with our partners to ensure that 

resources and capabilities are in place to efficiently and safely accommodate the increased 

number of UAC- in accordance with the William Wilberforce Trqfficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. No. II 0-457) and other legal obligations- without disrupting 

CBP's vital border security mission. 

Since the sharp increase in 2014, we have made several changes, including training staff and 

expanding facility capacity, to improve our ability to process UAC efficiently, while enabling 

agents to perform critical border security duties. Furthermore, in response to the most recent 

increase, USBP has temporarily assigned 150 agents to the Rio Grande Valley Sector to assist 

with processing and detention ofUACs and family units. CBP also opened a temporary facility 

in Tornillo, Texas, near El Paso, and is establishing a temporary facility adjacent to the DonnaRio Bravo International Bridge to increase our holding capacity.3 

Expanding Intelligence and Integrated Operations 

In addition to sophisticated detection technology and rigorous enforcement operations, we must 

expand our international partnerships, intelligence, information sharing, and operational 

collaboration, which are key components in increasing security along the Northern and 

Southwest borders. Neither a single DHS Component nor even a single governmental entity can 

effectively police the land, maritime, and air borders of the United States. A whole-of3 "CBP Opens West Texas Facility to Process Surge of Illegal Border Crossers," November 19, 2016. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-relcase/cbp-opens-west-texas-facilitv-process-surgc-illegal·border-

~· 

Page 7 of!O 
54 

government approach that leverages interagency and international partnerships as a force 

multiplier has been and will continue to be the most effective way to keep our border secure. 

CBP is the Executive Agent for DHS Joint Task Force-West (JTF-W), and a participating 

Component in Joint Task Force-East and Joint Task Force-Investigations. As the Executive 

Agent, CBP supports JTF-W by, among other things, providing Border Patrol personnel, who 

comprise the majority of the CBP personnel assigned to JTF-W. These Joint Task Forces are 

executing the DHS Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Plan (SBAC), which put the 

assets and personnel of the Department to use in a combined and strategic way to collaboratively 

plan and coordinate multi-component DHS operations to protect the border more efficiently. 

Aimed at leveraging the range of unique Department roles, responsibilities, and capabilities, the 

Campaign enhances our operational capability to address comprehensive threat environments in 

a unified way to address the range of threats and challenges, including illegal migration, 

smuggling of illegal drugs, human and arms trafficking, the illicit financing of such operations, 

and threat of terrorist exploitation of border vulnerabilities. 

USBP, along with other DHS Components, also contributes to several initiatives to increase 

situational awareness and improve the combined intelligence capabilities of federal, state, local, 

tribal, and international partners. CBP hosts a monthly briefing/teleconference with state and 

local partners to monitor emerging trends and threats along the Northern and Southwest border 

and provide a cross component, multi-agency venue for discussing trends and threats. The 

briefing focuses on narcotics, weapons, currency interdictions, and alien apprehensions both at 

and between the POEs. These briefings/teleconferences currently include participants from: 

DHS JTF-W, ICE; USCG; Drug Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau oflnvestigation; 

U.S. Northern Command; Joint Interagency Task Force-South; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Attorneys' Offices; Naval Investigative Command; State Fusion 

Centers; and local law enforcement, as appropriate. 

Providing critical capabilities toward the whole-of-government approach, USBP works with our 

federal, state, local, tribal and international partners- particularly Canada and Mexico -to 

address transnational threats. Through the 21st Century Border Management Initiative, led by a 

binational Executive Steering Committee, the United States and Mexico further strengthen our 

collaborative relationship, building on the principles of co-management and co-responsibility for 

our shared border. The committee discusses topics relating to expanding and modernizing our 

border infrastructure, securing and facilitating the cross-border flows of people and cargo, 

strengthening public security, and jointly engaging the border communities. The United States 

also cooperates extensively with Canada, through the Beyond the Border Action Plan and 

Binational Executive Steering Committee, to assess and address shared threats jointly, within, at, 

and away from our borders. This international collaboration has become even more critical in 

light of the evolving security threats. 

USBP is also cognizant of the potential threat of foreign fighters, or other bad actors who may 

try to infiltrate known migrant patterns. While there is no credible evidence of infiltration, our 

agents remain vigilant and continue to work closely with our Federal partners, including ICE 

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation, to address any 

suspected or potential terrorist threats. 

Page 8 of!O 
55 

Enhancing Effectiveness, Performance and Metrics 

While there is still work requiring action, the Nation's long-term investment in border security 

between the POEs has produced significant and positive results. In FY 2016, total USBP 

apprehensions- an indicator of illegal migration- on the Southwest border numbered 408,870. 

This represents an increase over FY 2015, but was still lower than FY 2014 and FY 2013, and a 

fraction of apprehensions routinely observed from the 1980s through 2008. CBP also has a 

critical counter-narcotics role. In FY 2015, CBP seized or disrupted the movement of more than 

3.3 million pounds of narcotics and more than $129 million in unreported currency at and in 

between the POEs. These positive trends lend themselves to our Nation's whole-of-government 

approach to border security efforts, which emphasize the importance of joint planning and 

intelligence sharing. 

The U.S. Border Patrol uses a risk-based strategy to deploy resources and address emerging 

threats. Risk is assessed qualitatively and quantitatively and is informed by multiple indicators, 

including the Consequence Delivery System (CDS).4 

USBP uses the CDS on the Southwest border as a means to standardize decision making in the 

application of consequences and examines the efficiency and effectiveness of individual 

consequences on various types of individuals without claims for legal immigration. Recidivism5 

and the average number of apprehensions per recidivist are the strongest indicators of CDS 

effectiveness. Since CDS implementation in FY 2011, the annual reported recidivism rate has 

decreased from an average of27 percent to 12 percent in FY 2016, and average apprehensions 

per recidivist decreased from 2. 71 to 2.3 7 during the same period. Contributing factors to the 

reduction included reducing the percent of apprehensions resulting in a Voluntary Return, the 

least effective and efficient consequence, from 59 percent in FY 2010 to 4 percent in FY 2016; 

and applying more effective and efficient consequences to il,legal entrants with a higher 

probability of making subsequent illegal entries. 

Conclusion 

The border environment is dynamic and requires adaptation to respond to emerging threats and 

changing conditions. We appreciate the partnership and support USBP has received from this 

Committee, whose commitment to the security of the American people has enabled the continued 

deployment of resources and capabilities USBP needs to secure the border. 

USBP's commitment to risk-based, intelligence-driven operations enables us to focus resources 

on a wide array of diverse threats ranging from networks of terrorism and transnational crime to 

individuals attempting illegal entry; from the illicit movement of weapons and drugs to human 

smuggling. Furthermore, USBP's application of risk management principles has enabled sound, 

timely operational planning and focused tactical execution against these diverse threats. Going 

4 See Department of Homeland Security, FY 2014 ·2016 Annual Performance Report, 

https:l /www.performance.gov/sitesldefaultlfi lesiobjectiveppts/DHS-FY -20 14-FY -20 16· 

APR%20(Goal%202.1) O.pdf. 5 Repeated illegal entry by the same individual. 

Page 9of 10 
56 

forward, we will continue to evolve our integrated risk management approach to remain agile 

and adaptable in supporting operational priorities. 

We will continue to focus on frontline hiring, intelligence, and operational integration, in 

conjunction with technology and other strategic and layered enforcement operations, all of which 

enhance USBP's ability to detect and respond to threats in our Nation's border regions. 

Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

We look forward to your questions. 

Page 10 of!O 
55,000 

50,000 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

UAC APPREHENSIONS 

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN: HONDURAS, GUATEMALA, EL SALVADOR 

• 

• • • • • • 

• • 

• 

• -

r- • 

r • 

• 

DACA announced: 

June 2012 __. .. ~ • 

• 

• 

• • • 

~~ 

% ~~;::: 29.7 % 21.7 % 24.1 % 11.7 % 6.2 % 2.6% 4.0% 2.6*% 

U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

* Estimate as of June 251 2016. 
UAC AND FAMILY UNITS APPREHENSION

70,000 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

• • 

• • DACA announced: • 

June2012 • 

• 

.... 

• 

FY 2tm 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

* UAC figures only include unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. 

U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

70,

2015 2016 
59 

UACs Released to Sponsors by State FY2014-FY2016 

deFY 

FY2015 FY16 State t. 2013 (Oct. 2014- Sept. 2015)* (Oct. 2015- Sept. 2016) 

Texas 7,409 3,272 6,550 

New '{ork 5,955 2,630 4,985 --· 

California 5,831 3,629 7,381 

Florida 5,445 2,908 5,281 

Virginia 3,887 1,694 3,728_ 

Maryland 3,884 1,794 3.871 

Et~l 2,680 1,462 2,637 

2,064 844 1,493 

c;;;;;:g;;;- 2,047 1,041 1,735 

Louisiana 1,755 480 973 

1,372 738 1,541 

Tennessee 1,294 765 1,354 

Alabama 786 808 870 

660 333 604 

Ohio 635 483 693 -·-·--· 

South Carolina 588 294 562 

552 206 454 

Illinois 552 312 519 

Indiana 448 240 354 

Colorado 426 248 427 

Kentucky 413 274 503 

Oklahoma 377 225 301 

Nebraska 351 293 486 

Arizona = 295 167 330 

Iowa 235 201 352 

Missouri 222 170 261 

s~~::=lr 212 152 275 

193 132 227 

85 38 85 

New 35 14 25 

8 6 23 

North Dakota 4 2 10 ··--

Montana 1 2 0 

Total remaining states 2,814 1,983 3,257 

Final Total 53,515 27,840 >..<,147 
60 

Year Law Unauthorized Pop. 

1980s Prior to Immigration Reform and Control Act -2-3 million 

Estimated to app/y/(Jr amnes~y 0.5 -1 million 

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act -3,900,000 

Number of people who received amnesty 2. 7 million 

1990 Immigration Act of 1990 3,500,000 

1996 Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act 6,290,652 

2001 Patriot Act 9,620,483 

2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act 10,258,680 

2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 10,977,950 

2006 Secure Fence Act 11,714,296 

2007 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act 11,981,292 
61 

NTEU 

The National Treasury Employees Union 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY M. REARDON 

NATIONAL PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

ON OVERSIGHT OF THE U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL REFORM 

UNITEDSTATESSENATE 

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, distinguished members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Even though the subject of this hearing 

is "Initial Observations on the New Leadership at Border Patrol", as the President of the National 

Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), a union that represents over 25,000 Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Officers, Agriculture Specialists and trade enforcement and compliance 

specialists who are stationed at 328 land, sea and air ports of entry across the United States, I 

wanted to take this opportunity to address challenges resulting from the recent influx of asylum 

seekers at the Southwest border ports. 

I recently met with frontline CBP Officers at several Southwest border ports of entry 

(POEs). They brought up several issues of concern, including the surge of arrivals from Central 

America, Haiti and other countries that are presenting themselves to CBP Officers seeking 

asylum. 

Hundreds of individuals are showing up each week, if not each day, at Southwest border 

ports like San Ysidro, Calexico, Nogales, Douglas, San Luis and El Paso, claiming they have a 

"credible fear" of persecution if they return to their home country, and asking for asylum in the 

U.S. The asylum process calls for CBP to briefly detain individuals at the ports until Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement's Expedited Removal Office (ERO) takes custody of these individuals 

and families. 

ERO has insufficient bed space to accommodate the influx of asylum seekers at current 

rates. This means that they must be detained at the POE facilities for longer lengths oftime than 

intended. At Nogales, some asylum seekers have been housed at the port for as long as 7 days 

before ERO found beds for the detainees. These port facilities do not have the capacity or 

staffing to handle hundreds of asylum seekers on a steady, daily basis. 

To house all of the detainees and store food to feed them all, CBP is using space designed 

for administrative offices as well as what can only be described as cages. Candidly, it was 

heartbreaking to see women and children confined like this, but the ports have no other options 
62 

at this time. Single adult males also are packed into the traditional holding cells designed to 

detain smugglers or wanted criminals. 

I understand that detention facilities are expected to open shortly in Tornillo and Donna, 

Texas. But even with the opening of these new facilities, the continued stream of asylum seekers 

is not abating and CBP Officers will continue to be required to perform tasks that take them 

away from their primary mission. 

Despite appropriated funding for the hiring of 2,000 additional CBP Officers, CBP has 

realized a net gain of only 1,060 Officers as of June 2016, due to attrition and the amount oftime 

it takes to bring on new CBP Officers. CBP estimates that it would need an additional 2,1 07 

CBP Officers, over and above the 2,000 Officers funded in FY 2014, through FY 2017 to meet 

optimal staffing. Since 2015, CBP has diverted Officers from their assigned ports to San Ysidro 

and more recently to Nogales POEs for 90-day TDYs. 

Recommendations 

To address this dire situation, as well as other staffing shortages around the country, it is 

clearly in the nation's interest for Congress to authorize and fund an increase in the number of 

CBP Officers and other CBP employees. Over the years, NTEU has worked with Congress on a 

variety of proposals that would increase CBP's funding to support additional personnel, as well 

as to address other hiring challenges that create barriers to adding staff in a timely and efficient 

manner. For instance, we are hopeful that NTEU supported legislation that will allow recent 

military personnel to be hired as CBP Officers without undergoing a polygraph will be enacted 

soon. And we have urged CBP to be ready to immediately take advantage of this change. 

However, in addition to our longer-term goals of securing the proper staffing at CBP to 

address workloads, NTEU recommends that Congress call for a series of immediate steps that 

CBP should take to alleviate the immediate burdens being placed on CBP Officers: 

CBP Officers are not trained or qualified as medical professionals, and should not 

be tasked with such work. Additional medical support is critically needed. CBP 

should seek assistance from the Federal Occupational Health Service, or as was 

done during the Ebola crisis, request the assignment of Coast Guard medics to 

help with health screenings of detainees. 

CBP should consider re-hiring recently retired CBP Officers (so called reemployed annuitants) who could be brought on board quickly without the need for 

extensive new training or background checks. 

• An immediate review should be undertaken of CBP's current polygraph policy to 

understand why CBP is failing applicants at a much higher rate than individuals 

applying to work at other federal law enforcement agencies; and 

• Immediate polygraph re-testing opportunities should be afforded to those with a 

No Opinion or Inconclusive result, including those with a No Opinion Counter 

Measures finding. 
63 

On November 22, CBP sent out an updated TDY solicitation that directs 14 CBP Field 

Offices to provide 200 CBP Officers for TOYs to the San Diego and Tucson Field Office. For 

example, in this solicitation, CBP directs the New York Field Office to send 12 CBP Officers to 

the San Diego Field and 13 CBP Officers to the Tucson Field Office from January 9 through 

April 7, 2017. NTEU suggests Congress should ask that CBP supplement the TDY solicitation 

to include the following suggestions: 

• The size of the TDY pool should be immediately increased by including nonbargaining unit personnel such as qualified Headquarters staff, supervisors, and 

other employees on special teams such as Tactical Terrorism Response Team and 

the Strategic Response Team, and by including all Officers who have graduated 

from FLETC and who have received a sufficient amount of post-academy 

training; 

• CBP should schedule TOYs in such a way that the supplemental staffing through 

TD Y s remains constant, so there is not a gap between the departure of one round 

TOYs and the arrival of the next; 

• CBP should establish an advertised cash award for individuals who volunteer for 

a TDY and should offer available incentives such as student loan repayments, 

overtime cap waivers, and home leave; 

• A surplus of volunteers for a TDY from one Field Office should be allowed to 

make up for a shortage of volunteers in another Field Office; and 

• Approved leave should continue to be allowed during a TDY. 

Lastly, NTEU recommends that Congress pursue additional funding as part of the FY 

2017 Continuing Resolution to address the staffing and overtime funding shortages facing the 

POEs that are seeing large numbers of asylum seekers. The demand for staffing to process, 

detain and attend to the needs of the detainees at these ports is causing CBP to bum through its 

overtime budget at a much higher than anticipated rate, which could result in staffing shortages 

at major airports during the peak travel season this summer. 

Congress should also redirect the recently enacted increase in Customs User Fees from 

offsetting transportation spending to its original purpose of providing funding for CBP Officer 

staffing and overtime. 

The more than 25,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of their part in 

keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe from drugs and our economy 

safe from illegal trade, while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously through 

our air, sea and land ports, but those working at the Southwest border POEs need immediate 

relief. These men and women are deserving of more stafting and resources to perform their jobs 

better and more efficiently. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Committee on their behalf. 
64 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to USBP Chief Mark Morgan and USBP Deputy Chief Carla Provost 

From Senator Rob Portman 

"Initial Observations of the New Leadership at the U.S. Border Patrol" 

November 30, 2016 

I. How much heroin is CBP stopping at the border? The Washington Post article referenced 

below suggests that the border detection rate is around 1.5%. 

No one knows how many tons of drugs slip across that border. Authorities only know what they 

manage to stop. Researchers believe the border detection rate hovers around 1.5 percentfavorable odds for a smuggler. 

(http :I lwww. washingtonpost.com/ sf/national/20 15/09/24/pellets-planes-and-the-new-frontierD 

2. What resources does CBP need to effectively fulfill its mission statement? 

o To safeguard America's borders thereby protecting the public from dangerous people 

and materials while enhancing the Nation's global economic competitiveness by 

enabling legitimate trade and travel. 

3. In your response to questions you indicated that different regions required different resources. 

Please provide a list of the resources required by region to successfully fulfill your mission. 

4. The number of drug induced deaths in the United States has surpassed deaths by motor 

vehicles. Where could we focus resources within CBP to significantly reduce the flow of drugs 

across the border? What additional resources are necessary to achieve those results? 

Due to the change-over in Administration, responses were never received to these 

questions for the record. 
65 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Chief Mark Morgan and Deputy Chief Carla Provost 

From Senator Claire McCaskill 

"Initial Observations of the New Leadership at the U.S. Border Patrol" 

November 30, 2016 

I understand that the use of body cameras for Border Patrol officers is currently being 

considered, but an internal review has recommended against the idea. 

Q. When can we expect a final decision on whether to require body cameras for Border Patrol, 

even on a trial basis? 

The review cited, among other reasons for its recommendation, agents' rugged working 

conditions. Yet the Go Pro video camera website has videos with their cameras of people jumping out 

of helicopters, snowboarding down cliffs and biking down mountains, off jumps and across rooftops. 

Q. Can you explain the specific issues with the Border Patrol's working conditions make body 

cams difficult? 

The other issues cited in the internal review are also questionable. CBP would have to think through 

and have policies on all of the concerns raised including storage and retention issues, access to 

footage, when to tum the cams on, and others mentioned in the report -but none of these issues are 

unique to the border patrol, and we are starting to see body cams implemented by other law 

enforcement agencies around the country. 

Q. Will you commit to at least a pilot program? 

I am very concerned about whistleblower retaliation at DHS. 

Q. In the past 5 years, how many whistleblower retaliation claims by Border Patrol officers have 

been substantiated by an IG, the OSC, Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or a court of 

law, and what disciplinary action has been taken against the person who was found to have 

committed or approved the prohibited personnel practice? 

Q. Do you know how many whistleblower retaliation claims were settled by the OSC or MSPB 

with no official finding of fault and whether superior officers are disciplined in those cases? 

Q. For any settlement or other agreement on a whistleblower retaliation claim, does the Border 

Patrol require the whistleblower to sign a non-disclosure agreement related to the settlement? 

Based on CBP' s own data, since President Obama came to office, total apprehensions at the border 

exceeded 500,000 just once- his first year in office. Although that is still a lot of people trying to 

cross into this country, fewer people unlawfully crossed the border during every single year of this 

administration than any prior administration since at least Reagan. In fact, during the George W. Bush 

years, apprehensions averaged over I million per year, more than double the Obama Administration's 

average. In other words, we likely had twice the flow of undocumented immigrants entering the 

country during the Bush years than during the Obama presidency. 

Q. Given these numbers, is it fair to say that, even if we are not where we need to be, the border 

under the Obama administration is more secure than it has been since at least 1980? 
66 

On the removal side, the story is similar for this administration. There have been over 400,000 

removals in each of the last three years for which we could find data- 2012 through 2014 and 

removals have never fallen below 381,962 during this administration. By comparison, the George W 

Bush administration averaged just 251,567, and never once even reached the low water mark of the 

Obama administration. Even after implementing DACA and establishing enforcement priorities, the 

administration still deported more undocumented immigrants each year than every prior administration 

since 1980. 

So under this administration, we are removing more undocumented immigrants and fewer and fewer 

are getting across. Yet despite these successes, you hear the constant drumbeat that this president has 

been responsible for a porous border. 

Q. Does all the talk of how "porous" our borders are affect morale among agents? 

Congress has passed a number laws that require construction of at least 700 miles of fencing. My 

understanding is that that number was chosen because that would cover most of the border where a 

fence is even feasible, once you exclude the Rio Grande River, the mountains and desert in Arizona 

and New Mexico where it is logistically difficult to build, and private property concerns along the 

border. 

Q. Given these constraints, the 700 miles of fencing that we currently have in place covers 

approximately what percentage of the southern border that we can feasibly construct fencing 

on? 

Q. In weighing the costs and benefits of additional fencing, if you had prioritize building 

additional fencing where we currently have none or improving the type of fencing we have in 

certain locations to make it harder to cut through or to simply pick up and move in the case of 

the Normandy-style barriers, how would you prioritize those? 

Q. Is there a plan in place to continue replacing existing fencing with better, more secure 

materials, and, if so, can you briefly describe the plan? 

The president of the National Border Patrol Council said recently that 100% border security is 

completely feasible. When pressed by the host of the radio show he was on that even East Berlin did 

not achieve 100% security, he insisted that it could be done. 

Q. Do you agree with his assessment that catching every single border crosser is feasible? 

Q. If so, what would such a plan look like and how much additional funding would be required? 

If not, how would you define a "secure southern border" and what would you need to reach that 

definition of security? 

A number of ICE agents were party to a lawsuit trying to stop DACA implementation. I sit on the 

Senate Armed Services Committee, and I cannot ever recall a situation where a member of the armed 

forces sued the Commander in Chief to change policy. 

Q. Can you recall any such actions having been taken by officers or enlisted members of the 

Armed Forces? 

Q. If certain officers have a problem with policies being directed towards them, what avenues do 

they have to complain or push back? 
67 

I understand that a lot of the border crossers are now presenting themselves to Border Patrol. 

Q. Why are they showing up at ports of entry now and running towards Border Patrol instead of 

away from them as they had in the past? 

Q. Would you characterize the current surge as a refugee or asylum issue? 

Q. How is this affecting your manpower resources? 

Q. Do you think we need to consider changes to our force structure given the changing 

composition of the people trying to cross our borders? 

Due to the change-over in Administration, responses were never received to these 

questions for the record. 
68 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Chief Mark Morgan 

From Sen. Tammy Baldwin 

"Initial Observations of the New Leadership at the U.S. Border Patrol" 

November 30, 2016 

1. Please provide specifics on the training Border Patrol agents receive regarding harassment, 

discrimination and implicit bias, including curriculum and topic areas. 

a. Is training regularly updated and if so, how often do Border Patrol agents receive 

refresher training after their initial academy training? 

b. The Department of Justice released its profiling Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement 

in December 2014. I understand that DHS has prepared its own follow-up policy, with 

specific attention to CBP and TSA. What is the status of this policy's anticipated 

release date? Will it be accompanied by training and data collection plans? 

2. Border Patrol agents encounter individuals who speak a variety of languages, including 

Spanish. 

a. Please outline what language training a Border Patrol agent receives, including refresher 

training, if applicable. 

b. What financial incentives exist, if any, for Border Patrol agents who become and remain 

proficient in other languages? Are these incentives the same for the Office of Field 

Operations (OFO)? 

c. If there are differences between BP and OFO, please explain whether you agree with 

this policy. 

3. I appreciate the work performed by dedicated external law-enforcement professionals on the 

CBP Integrity Advisory Panel, co-chaired by former NYPD Commissioner Bratton and former 

DEA Administrator Tandy. Last June, the Panel made specific recommendations on CBP's 

use-of-force policy, including that CBP should consider changing its policy on shooting at 

vehicles. Specifically, the Panel stated that CBP should "[p ]rohibit or restrict discharging 

firearms at a moving vehicle unless deadly force, other than the vehicle itself, is being 

used/threatened against the officer/agent or another person present unless it is not possible for 

the threatened officer to avoid being struck by the vehicle." The Panel explained that "[w]hen 

firing at a moving vehicle, there is little likelihood of incapacitating the driver or disabling the 

vehicle. Even if the driver is incapacitated, an out of control vehicle may present an even 

greater hazard to the officers/agents." 

a. Do you agree with this recommendation? 

b. If so, will CBP revise its policy to implement this recommendation? 

4. The DHS Office of Inspector General expressed concern that DHS was violating international 

law by referring individuals who express fear of persecution for criminal prosecution under 

Operation Streamline or equivalents. Specifically, the IG stated that "Border Patrol does not 

have guidance on using Streamline for aliens who express fear of persecution or return to their 
69 

home countries, and its use of Streamline with such aliens is inconsistent and may violate U.S. 

treaty obligations." 

a. Do you agree that referring individuals who express fear of persecution for criminal 

prosecution is inconsistent with international law? 

b. If so, what steps has CBP taken to end the practice of referring asylum seekers for 

criminal prosecution? 

Due to the change-over in Administration, responses were never received to these 

questions for the record. 
70 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Chief Mark Morgan and Deputy Chief Carla Provost 

From Senator Cory A. Booker 

"Initial Observations ofthe New Leadership at the U.S. Border Patrol" 

December 15, 2016 

Questions For Chief Mark Morgan 

I. In 2015, the ACLU chapter in Arizona issued a report entitled "Record of Abuse: Lawlessness and 

Impunity in Border Patrol's Interior Enforcement Operations." Government records obtained by the 

ACLU highlighted troubling allegations of civil rights abuses by Border Patrol agents during their 

interior enforcement operations and a systemic lack of oversight. The report included allegations of 

agents threatening motorists with assault rifles, electroshock weapons, and knives; destroying and 

confiscating personal property' and interfering with efforts to video record Border Patrol activities. In 

addition, the report referenced dozens of false alerts by Border Patrol canines resulting in searches and 

detentions of innocent travelers. Equally troubling, the report show a lack of investigation, or even 

discipline of agents, for such civil rights abuses. Please detail what actions, if any, Border Patrol has 

taken to investigate the allegations in this report and describe what oversight mechanisms are in place to 

ensure that Border Patrol agents who violate the civil rights of innocent Americans are disciplined. 

2. According to the ACLU's "Record of Abuse" report, the Border Patrol may have underreported the 

number of civil rights complaints against Border Patrol agents. Even though the ACLU data was 

incomplete and taken from just two of the Border Patrol's 20 sectors, they significantly outnumber the 

civil rights complaints the Department of Homeland Security disclosed to Congress during that same 

period. For example, between Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013, DHS oversight agencies reported just three 

complaints involving Fourth Amendment violations nationwide. Yet, government records produced to 

the ACLU reveal that at least 81 such complaints originated in Tucson and Yuma Sectors alone during 

the same period. 

a. How does your agency account for this disparity in data reported to Congress versus data 

reported to the ACLU? 

b. Please describe in detail the numbers of civil rights allegations against Border Patrol agents 

between Fiscal Year 2012 until the present date, including a short description of the nature of 

the allegations; the resolution, if any, of the allegation; and describe what disciplinary action, if 

any, was taken against the agent(s). 

c. Between Fiscal Year 20 II and now, how many Border Patrol agents have been disciplined for 

civil rights abuses? Please describe in detail a short summary of the nature of the allegations 

that resulted in discipline and describe the nature of disciplinary action that was taken. 

3. According to the aforementioned ACLU's report, Border Patrol fails to record any stops that do not lead 

to an arrest, even when the stop results in a lengthy detention, search, and/or property damage. The 

ACLU report also asserts that Border Patrol does not document false alerts by service canines, which 

frequently results in prolonged searches and seizures of travelers. As a result, it is impossible for Border 

Patrol to track or respond to recurring incidents involving "problem agents" or routinely inaccurate 

service canines. 

a. Is it true that Border Patrol does not collect data on stops that do not lead to arrest and, if so, 

why is such data on stops not collected? 
71 

b. Is it true that Border Patrol does not document false alerts by service canines and, if so, why is 

such data on canine false alerts not collected? 

c. What metrics are in place for Border Patrol to track data on stops that do not lead to arrest or 

false alerts by service canines? 

4, During the hearing, l asserted my surprise that Border Patrol does not collect data on stops, racial 

profiling, and described how the president's 21" Century Task Force on Policing urged law enforcement 

to collect data on detentions. In response, you testified that you believed that Border Patrol was, in fact, 

"collecting most of that stuff!' 

a, Please describe in detail all of the data Border Patrol collects on its interactions with civilians 

and allegations of civil rights abuses. 

b, Given your testimony that Border Patrol is "collecting most" data on detentions, please describe 

in detail what exactly your agency collects on demographic and other data on stops and 

secondary inspections, including those that do not result in an arrest or complaint? 

c, Does Border Patrol plan to expand the data collected on civilian law enforcement encounters 

and please provide a timeline for implementing this data collection effort? 

d. You testified that what Border Patrol "need[s) to do is getter [at) analyzing that stuff," meaning 

Border Patrol needs to improve how it analyzes data on stops, searches, racial profiling, and 

detentions. Please describe in detail how Border Patrol processes and evaluates allegations of 

civil rights abuses once they are received and describe what metrics are in place to ensure that 

such data is analyzed properly, 

e. Last June, the Justice Department announced a new Department-wide implicit bias training for 

its personneL The Justice Department will train all of its law enforcement agents and 

prosecutors to recognize and address implicit bias as part of its regular curricula. Does the 

Border Patrol plan to implement implicit bias training? Why or why not? And please describe 

a timeline for when such training will be implemented. 

5, Open government and transparency is critical to oversight In December 2014, the president's 21" 

Century Task Force on Policing recommended that law enforcement agencies "regularly post on the 

department's website information about stops, summons, arrests, reported crime, and other law 

enforcement data aggregated by demographics!' Has Border Patrol implemented the task force's 

recommendation and, if not, how long will it take Border Patrol to do so. 

6. Last December, a federal court in Arizona found that Border Patrol violated the constitutional rights of 

people detained in holding facilities in Arizona. The court ordered Border Patrol to provide all detained 

individuals held over 12 hours with a mat to sleep on and must provide some means or materials so that 

people held longer than 12 hours can wash and maintain personal hygiene. In light of this ruling, what 

has Border Patrol done to improve conditions in its short-term detention facilities and when will the 

court's ruling fully be implemented by the agency? 
72 

Questions For Deputy Chief Carla Provost 

7. During the hearing, you testified that on data collection the Office of Professional Responsibility has 

been "working diligently" with Border Patrol to improve transparency across the agency. What specific 

actions has Border Patrol taken to improve transparency in its collection of data and when will such 

efforts to promote open government be completed? 

8. On the issue of workplace diversity, you testified that women comprise about 5 percent of Border Patrol 

agents, but you believed the agency is "making strides in that area, so that [you] have a more diverse 

workforce." What specific changes has Border Patrol made to recruit, hire, and retain women in Border 

Patrol? And what steps is Border Patrol taking to increase the number of agents from other 

underrepresented groups? 

9. Last September, the Albuquerque Journal published an article entitled "Women break barriers as Border 

Patrol agents." According to the article, Border Patrol has the lowest ratio of women in federal law 

enforcement, including just "six women among 300 agents assigned to the Border Patrol's Deming 

station." Does Deming station have the lowest representation of women of all Border Patrol stations? If 

not, what station has even lower ratios of women? 

10. The Albuquerque Journal found that, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Border Patrol's 

parent agency, between October 2014 and September 2015 6,200 women applied for vacancies posted 

by the agency. But just 54 women were hired. Why were so few women hired for positions as Border 

Patrol agents, if the agency is taking strides to improve the diversity of its workforce? 

11. The Albuquerque Journal noted that Border Patrol requires recruits to scale a seven-foot high wall as 

part of its physical requirements. According to one female recruit quoted in the article, the wall 

requirement shows the "arbitrariness of some of the physical requirements" and "has been shown to be 

discriminatory." Do you agree with that statement and what actions are Border Patrol taking to eliminate 

requirements that may bias women and other underrepresented groups? 

12. Please describe in detail what language training a Border Patrol agent receives, including supplemental 

training once the agent is hired. 

For Both Chief Morgan and Deputy Chief Provost 

13. In November 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske announced 

that new body-worn camera testing would be integrated into law enforcement operations, including 

checkpoints and outbound operations at ports of entry. Before implementing the body-worn camera 

program Commissioner Kerlikowske mentioned that the agency would have to develop sound policies 

to address privacy and other concerns, including video data storage and training. Since the November 

2015 announcement, what progress has been made in implementing body-worn cameras and when can 

the American public expect the deployment of body-worn and dashboard cameras? 

14. Last March, the Police Executive Research Forum published a report entitled "Critical Issues in Policing 

Series: Guiding Principles on Use of Force." One of the policy proposals in the report was for law 

enforcement to document use-of-force incidents, as well as review data and enforcement practices to 

ensure that they are fair and non-discriminatory. That proposal included the recommendation that 

"agencies should capture and review reports on the pointing of a firearm or an Electronic Control 

Weapon at an individual as a threat of force." Does Border Patrol require its agents to report on uses of 

force that include the pointing of a firearm, but not the discharging of the firearm? Why or why not? 

15. On December 7, 2016, The Guardian published an article entitled, "US Border Patrol uses desert as 

'weapon' to kill thousands of migrants, report says." The article detailed the finding of a report by No 
73 

Æ 

More Deaths, a ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, which concluded that 

thousands of migrants have gone missing since the 1990s, including 1,200 last year. According to the 

article, the report noted that Border Patrol has engineered the death and disappearances of tens of 

thousands of undocumented immigrants by using the desert wilderness as a weapon. Agents chase 

border crossers across hostile terrain, which results in many migrants being injured, dead, or lost. What 

actions has Border Patrol taken, like additional search-and-rescue personnel or water stations, to prevent 

migrant deaths along the Southwest border? 

16. In May 2014, the Department of Justice announced a presumption that statements made by people in 

federal custody, following arrest but prior to their first court appearance, would be electronically 

recorded. The benefits of this policy are obvious; it creates a record to ensure that detained individuals 

are afforded their constitutional rights, while allowing law enforcement agents a clear record of 

statements and confessions. Does Border Patrol require the recording of detained individuals' 

statements, why or why not? If not, when will Border Patrol implement such a policy? 

17. An October 30,2015, article in The Atlantic City/ab, entitled "Curbing the Unchecked Power of the 

U.S. Border Patrol," described how in interviews Border Patrol officials seemed unsure about what legal 

requirements, like probable cause, governed agents searching cards for possible immigration and 

general criminal violations. In fact, the article describes how one agent "finally stated that probable 

cause was not necessary to conduct an immigration-related search." But that statement is false because 

probable cause, consent, or a warrant is needed for a vehicle search if it the search does not occur at a 

port of entry. What steps is Border Patrol taking to train its officers on the legal requirements to conduct 

search and seizures? 

18. Recent reports show that Border Patrol agents have taunted migrants with threats of deportation post the 

election of Donald Trump to be president. In a November 18,2016, article in the Washington Post, 

entitled "Fearing Trump's Wall, Central Americans rush to cross the U.S. Border," people caught 

attempting to enter the country illegally along the southwest border were told by Border Patrol agents 

that they "would all be deported because Trump won." What guidance does Border Patrol give to agents 

to ensure that harassment of migrants does not occur? 

Due to the change-over in Administration, responses were never received to these 

questions for the record.